5318 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 2 and 99 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0434; FRL–10246.1– 

01–OAR] 

RIN 2060–AW02 

Waste Emissions Charge for 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a regulation 

to implement the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) as specified in the 

Methane Emissions Reduction Program 

of the Inflation Reduction Act. This 

program requires the EPA to impose and 

collect an annual charge on methane 

emissions that exceed specified waste 

emissions thresholds from an owner or 

operator of an applicable facility that 

reports more than 25,000 metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse 

gases emitted per year pursuant to the 

petroleum and natural gas systems 

source category requirements of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The 

proposal would implement calculation 

procedures, flexibilities, and 

exemptions related to the waste 

emissions charge and proposes to 

establish confidentiality determinations 

for data elements included in waste 

emissions charge filings. 

DATES: 

Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 11, 2024. 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA), comments on the information 

collection provisions are best assured of 

consideration if the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before February 26, 2024. 

Public hearing. The EPA will conduct 

a virtual public hearing on February 12, 

2024. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for information on registering for a 

public hearing. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments. You may submit 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0434, by any of 

the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. https://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method). Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air and 

Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Hand Delivery or Courier (by 

scheduled appointment only): EPA 

Docket Center, WJC West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket 

Center’s hours of operations are 8:30 

a.m.–4:30 p.m., Monday–Friday (except 

Federal holidays). 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the Docket ID No. for this 

proposed rulemaking. Comments 

received may be posted without change 

to https://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. For detailed instructions on 

sending comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading 

of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

The virtual hearing will be held using 

an online meeting platform, and the 

EPA has provided information on its 

website (https://www.epa.gov/inflationreduction-act/methane-emissionsreduction-program-merp) regarding how 

to register and access the hearing. Refer 

to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section for additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this proposed action, 

contact Mr. Shaun Ragnauth, Climate 

Change Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (MC–6207A), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9142; 

email address: merp@epa.gov. 

World wide web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this proposed rule will be 

posted on the EPA’s Inflation Reduction 

Act Methane Emissions Reduction 

Program website at https://

www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/ 

methane-emissions-reduction-program. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Written comments. Submit your 

comments, identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2023–0434, at https://

www.regulations.gov (our preferred 

method), or the other methods 

identified in the ADDRESSES section. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from the docket. The 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit to 

the EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov any information 

you consider to be confidential business 

information (CBI), proprietary business 

information (PBI), or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e., on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). 

Commenters who would like the EPA to 

further consider in this rulemaking 

comments relevant to this rulemaking 

that they previously provided on any 

other rulemaking or request for 

information (e.g., the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: Revisions and 

Confidentiality Determinations for 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0234, the Methane Emissions Reduction 

Program Request for Information, 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022– 

0875, and the Standards of Performance 

for New, Reconstructed, and Modified 

Sources and Emissions Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector Climate Review, Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2021–0317) must 

submit those comments to the EPA 

during this proposal’s comment period. 

Please visit https://www.epa.gov/ 

dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for 

additional submission methods; the full 

EPA public comment policy; 

information about CBI, PBI, or 

multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective 

comments. 

Participation in virtual public 

hearing. The EPA will begin preregistering speakers for the hearing no 

later than one business day after 

publication in the Federal Register. To 

register to speak at the virtual hearing, 

please use the online registration form 

available at https://www.epa.gov/ 

inflation-reduction-act/methaneemissions-reduction-program or contact 

us by email at merp@epa.gov. The last 

day to pre-register to speak at the 

hearing will be February 7, 2024. On 

February 9, 2024, the EPA will post a 

general agenda that will list preregistered speakers in approximate 

order at https://www.epa.gov/inflationreduction-act/methane-emissionsreduction-program. 

The EPA will make reasonable efforts 

to follow the schedule as closely as 

practicable on the day of the hearing; 

however, please plan for the hearings to 

run either ahead of schedule or behind 

schedule. 

Each commenter will have 4 minutes 

to provide oral testimony. The EPA 

encourages commenters to provide the 

EPA with a copy of their oral testimony 

electronically (via email) by emailing it 

to merp@epa.gov. The EPA also 

recommends submitting the text of your 

oral testimony as written comments to 

the rulemaking docket. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5319 

The EPA may ask clarifying questions 

during the oral presentations but will 

not respond to the presentations at that 

time. Written statements and supporting 

information submitted during the 

comment period will be considered 

with the same weight as oral testimony 

and supporting information presented at 

the public hearing. 

Please note that any updates made to 

any aspect of the hearing will be posted 

online at https://www.epa.gov/inflationreduction-act/methane-emissionsreduction-program. While the EPA 

expects the hearing to go forward as set 

forth above, please monitor our website 

or contact us by email at merp@epa.gov 

to determine if there are any updates. 

The EPA does not intend to publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing updates. 

If you require the services of an 

interpreter or special accommodation 

such as audio description, please preregister for the hearing with the public 

hearing team and describe your needs 

by February 2, 2024. The EPA may not 

be able to arrange accommodations 

without advanced notice. 

Regulated entities. This is a proposed 

regulation. If finalized, the regulation 

would affect certain owners or operators 

of facilities in certain segments of the 

petroleum and natural gas systems 

industry that report more than 25,000 

metric tons (mt) of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e) pursuant to the 

requirements codified at 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart W (Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Systems) (hereafter referred to as ‘‘part 

98, subpart W’’). Per the requirements of 

CAA section 136(d), the industry 

segments to which the waste emissions 

charge may apply are offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production, 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production, onshore natural gas 

processing, onshore gas transmission 

compression, underground natural gas 

storage, liquefied natural gas storage, 

liquefied natural gas import and export 

equipment, onshore petroleum and 

natural gas gathering and boosting, and 

onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline. Regulated categories and 

entities include, but are not limited to, 

those listed in Table 1 of this preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category 

North American Industry 

Classification System 

(NAICS) 

Examples of affected facilities 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems ................................. 486210 

221210 

211120 

211130 

Pipeline transportation of natural gas. 

Natural gas distribution facilities. 

Crude petroleum extraction. 

Natural gas extraction. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

proposed action. This table lists the 

types of facilities that the EPA is now 

aware could potentially be affected by 

this action. Other types of facilities than 

those listed in the table could also be 

subject to reporting requirements. To 

determine whether you would be 

affected by this proposed action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 99, subpart A (General Provisions). 

If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Acronyms and abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

AMLD Advanced Mobile Leak Detection 

API American Petroleum Institute 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Tool 

EF emission factor 

EG emission guidelines 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ET Eastern time 

FAQ frequently asked question 

FR Federal Register 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GOR gas-to-oil ratio 

GRI Gas Research Institute 

GWP Global Warming Potential 

IRA Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 

ICR Information Collection Request 

ISBN International Standard Book Number 

ISO International Standards Organization 

LDC local distribution company 

LNG liquified natural gas 

mmBtu million British thermal units 

MMscf million standard cubic feet 

mt metric tons 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NGLs natural gas liquids 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

NSPS new source performance standards 

OEM original equipment manufacturer 

OGI optical gas imaging 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PBI proprietary business information 

ppm parts per million 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RY reporting year 

scfh standard cubic feet per hour 

TSD technical support document 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

VOC volatile organic compound 

WEC waste emissions charge 

WWW World Wide Web 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. How is this Preamble Organized? 

B. Executive Summary 

C. Background and Related Actions 

D. Legal Authority 

II. Requirements To Implement the Waste 

Emissions Charge 

A. Proposed Definitions To Support WEC 

Implementation 

B. Waste Emissions Thresholds 

C. Common Ownership or Control for Netting 

of Emissions 

D. Exemptions to the Waste Emissions 

Charge 

III. General Requirements of the Proposed 

Rule 

A. WEC Reporting Requirements 

B. Remittance and Assessment of WEC 

C. Authorizing the Designated Representative 

D. General Recordkeeping Requirements 

E. General Provisions, Including Auditing 

and Compliance and Enforcement 

IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations 

for Certain Data Reporting Elements 

A. Overview and Background 

B. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations 

C. Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 2 

D. Proposed Changes to Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Elements 

Reported Under Subpart W 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5320 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

1 42 U.S.C. 7436(c) (‘‘The Administrator shall 

impose and collect a charge on methane emissions 

that exceed an applicable waste emissions 

threshold under subsection (f) from an owner or 

operator of an applicable facility that reports more 

than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted per year 

pursuant to subpart W of part 98 of title 40, Code 

of Federal Regulations, regardless of the reporting 

threshold under that subpart.’’). 

2 42 U.S.C. 7436(d). 

3 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(1–3). 

4 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(4) (‘‘In calculating the total 

emissions charge obligation for facilities under 

common ownership or control, the Administrator 

shall allow for the netting of emissions by reducing 

the total obligation to account for facility emissions 

levels that are below the applicable thresholds 

within and across all applicable segments identified 

in subsection (d).’’). 

5 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(5). (‘‘Charges shall not be 

imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) on emissions 

that exceed the waste emissions threshold specified 

in such paragraph if such emissions are caused by 

unreasonable delay, as determined by the 

Administrator, in environmental permitting of 

gathering or transmission infrastructure necessary 

for offtake of increased volume as a result of 

methane emissions mitigation implementation.’’) 

E. Request for Comments on Proposed 

Category Assignments, Confidentiality 

Determinations, or Reporting 

Determinations 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and 

Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To 

Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations and Executive Order 14096: 

Revitalizing our Nation’s Commitment to 

Environmental Justice for All 

K. Determination under CAA Section 307(d) 

I. Background 

A. How is this preamble organized? 

The first section (section I.) of this 

preamble contains background 

information regarding the proposed 

rule. This section also discusses the 

EPA’s legal authority under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) to promulgate 

implementing regulations for the waste 

emissions charge, proposed to be 

codified at 40 CFR part 99 (hereafter 

referred to as ‘‘part 99’’). Section I. of 

the preamble also discusses the EPA’s 

legal authority to make confidentiality 

determinations for new data elements 

included in waste emissions charge 

filings (WEC filings) required by the 

proposed rule. Section II. of this 

preamble contains detailed information 

on the proposed provisions necessary to 

implement CAA section 136(c) through 

(g), including exemptions. Section III. of 

this preamble describes the general 

requirements for the proposed rule. 

Section IV. of this preamble discusses 

the proposed confidentiality 

determinations for new data reporting 

elements for the proposed part 99 and 

also discusses confidentiality 

determinations for two data elements 

reported under part 98, subpart W. 

Section V. of this preamble discusses 

the impacts of the proposed part 99. 

Section VI. of this preamble describes 

the statutory and Executive order 

requirements applicable to this 

proposed action. 

B. Executive Summary 

In August 2022, Congress passed, and 

President Biden signed, the Inflation 

Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) into law. 

Section 60113 of the IRA amended the 

CAA by adding section 136, ‘‘Methane 

Emissions and Waste Reduction 

Incentive Program for Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems.’’ CAA section 

136(c) directs the Administrator of the 

EPA to impose and collect a ‘‘Waste 

Emissions Charge’’ on methane 

emissions that exceed statutorily 

specified waste emissions thresholds 

from owners or operators of applicable 

facilities. The waste emissions threshold 

is a facility-specific amount of metric 

tons of methane emissions calculated 

using the segment-specific methane 

intensity thresholds defined in CAA 

section 136(f)(1) through (3) and a 

facility’s natural gas throughput (or oil 

throughput in certain circumstances). 

Facilities that have methane emissions 

below the threshold would not be 

required to pay the charge; facilities that 

have emissions above the threshold 

would be required to pay the charge. 

The waste emissions charge, or WEC, is 

specified in CAA section 136 to begin 

for emissions occurring in 2024 at $900 

per metric ton of methane exceeding the 

threshold, increasing to $1,200 per 

metric ton of methane in 2025, and to 

$1,500 per metric ton of methane in 

2026 and years after. The WEC only 

applies to the subset of a facility’s 

emissions that are above the waste 

emissions threshold. 

The WEC program applies to facilities 

that report more than 25,000 mt CO2e of 

greenhouse gases emitted per year 

pursuant to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule’s requirements for the 

petroleum and natural gas systems 

source category (codified as 40 CFR part 

98, subpart W).1 An applicable facility, 

as defined in CAA section 136(d), is a 

facility within the following industry 

segments (as the following industry 

segments are defined in part 98, subpart 

W): onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production, offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production, onshore 

petroleum and natural gas gathering and 

boosting, onshore natural gas 

processing, onshore gas transmission 

compression, onshore natural gas 

transmission pipeline, underground 

natural gas storage, liquefied natural gas 

import and export equipment, and 

liquefied natural gas storage.2 Congress 

structured the WEC so that it focuses on 

high-emitting oil and gas facilities (i.e., 

those with emissions greater than 

25,000 mt CO2e of greenhouse gases 

emitted per year and that have a 

methane emissions intensity in excess 

of the statutory threshold). 

CAA section 136 defines three 

important elements of the WEC 

program: (1) waste emissions 

thresholds; (2) netting of emissions 

across different facilities; and (3) 

exemptions for certain emissions and 

facilities. Facilities may owe a WEC 

obligation if their subpart W reported 

emissions exceed facility-specific waste 

emissions thresholds specified in CAA 

section 136(f).3 Facility efficiency in 

terms of methane emissions per unit of 

production or throughput would have a 

large impact on the amount of the WEC 

owed, with more efficient facilities 

expected to have emissions falling 

below the specified thresholds. 

Some facilities may have emissions 

that are below the waste emissions 

thresholds, and some facilities may have 

emissions above the thresholds. CAA 

section 136(f)(4) allows facilities under 

common ownership or control to net 

emissions across those facilities, which 

could result in a reduced total charge, 

or avoidance of the charge.4

In addition, there are three 

exemptions that may lower a facility’s 

WEC or exempt the facility entirely from 

the charge. The first exemption, found 

in CAA section 136(f)(5), exempts from 

the charge emissions occurring at 

facilities in the onshore or offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments that are caused by 

eligible delays in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

infrastructure.5 The second exemption, 

found in CAA section 136(f)(6), exempts 

from the charge, if certain conditions are 

met, those facilities that are subject to 

and in compliance with final methane 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5321 

6 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(6) (‘‘Charges shall not be 

imposed pursuant to subsection (c) on an applicable 

facility that is subject to and in compliance with 

methane emissions requirements pursuant to 

subsections (b) and (d) of section 7411 of this title 

upon a determination by the Administrator that— 

(i) methane emissions standards and plans pursuant 

to subsections (b) and (d) of section 7411 of this 

title have been approved and are in effect in all 

States with respect to the applicable facilities; and 

(ii) compliance with the requirements described in 

clause (i) will result in equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions as would be achieved by the 

proposed rule of the Administrator entitled 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, 

and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector 

Climate Review’’ (86 FR 63110 (November 15, 

2021)), if such rule had been finalized and 

implemented.’’). 

7 Id. 

8 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(7). (’’ Charges shall not be 

imposed with respect to the emissions rate from any 

well that has been permanently shut-in and plugged 

in the previous year in accordance with all 

applicable closure requirements, as determined by 

the Administrator.’’) 

9NOAA, https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/ 

trends/ch4/ch4_annmean_gl.txt. 

10Blunden, J. and T. Boyer, Eds., 2022: ‘‘State of 

the Climate in 2021.’’ Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 103 

(8), Si–S465, https://doi.org/10.1175/ 

2022BAMSStateoftheClimate.1, 103 (8), Si–S465, 

https://doi.org/10.1175/ 

2022BAMSStateoftheClimate.1. 

11 IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, 

A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Pe ́an, S. Berger, N. Caud, 

Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. 

Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, 

T. Waterfield, O. Yelekc ̧i, R. Yu, and B. Zhou 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3– 

32, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.001. 

12 Id. 

13 (1) EPA. 2021. Technical Documentation on the 

Framework for Evaluating Damages and Impacts 

(FrEDI). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA 430–R–21–004. 

(2) Hartin C., E.E. McDuffie, K. Novia, M. 

Sarofim, B. Parthum, J. Martinich, S. Barr, J. 

Neumann, J. Willwerth, & A. Fawcett. Advancing 

the estimation of future climate impacts within the 

United States. EGUsphere doi: 10.5194/egusphere– 

2023–114, 2023. 

emissions requirements promulgated 

pursuant to CAA sections 111(b) and 

(d).6 This exemption becomes available 

only if a determination is made by the 

Administrator that such final 

requirements are approved and in effect 

in all states with respect to the 

applicable facilities, and that the 

emissions reductions resulting from 

those final requirements will achieve 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions as would have resulted from 

the EPA’s proposed methane emissions 

requirements from 2021.7 The third 

exemption, found in CAA section 

136(f)(7), exempts from the charge 

reporting-year emissions from wells that 

are permanently shut in and plugged.8

In this action, the EPA proposes specific 

requirements for eligibility for each of 

these exemptions. 

The EPA proposes to require that the 

WEC would be quantified and paid 

through a WEC filing submitted no later 

than March 31 of each calendar year for 

methane emissions that occurred in the 

previous calendar year (subpart W 

reporting year). The WEC filing would 

include information relevant to 

calculating the WEC, such as 

identification of facilities included in 

netting, eligibility for exemptions from 

WEC, and supporting information 

necessary for the EPA to verify 

information submitted regarding 

exemptions. 

The proposed provisions of part 99 

under this rulemaking are described in 

further detail in sections II. and III. of 

this preamble. 

C. Background and Related Actions 

Congress designed the WEC to work 

in tandem with several related EPA 

programs. The WEC provides an 

incentive for the early adoption of 

methane emission reduction practices 

and technologies such as those that 

required under the Standards of 

Performance for New, Reconstructed, 

and Modified Sources and Emissions 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector Climate Review 

(NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc), which 

Congress expected to be promulgated 

pursuant to CAA section 111. The 

sooner facilities adopt the 

methodologies and technologies 

required in those rules, the lower their 

assessed WEC; at full implementation of 

those rules, the EPA expects many of 

the WEC-affected facilities will be below 

the WEC emissions thresholds. To 

further support the overall goal of 

reducing methane emissions, CAA 

section 136(a) and (b) also provides 

$1.55 billion to, among other things, 

help finance the early adoption of 

emissions reduction methodologies and 

technologies and to support monitoring 

of methane emissions. More detailed 

background information on the impacts 

of methane on public health and welfare 

and the related regulatory activities is 

provided in section I.C.1. of this 

preamble. 

1. How does methane affect public 

health and welfare? 

Elevated concentrations of greenhouse 

gases (GHGs) including methane have 

been warming the planet, leading to 

changes in the Earth’s climate that are 

occurring at a pace and in a way that 

threatens human health, society, and the 

natural environment. While the EPA is 

not statutorily required to make any 

particular scientific or factual findings 

regarding the impact of GHG emissions 

on public health and welfare in support 

of the proposed WEC, the EPA is 

providing in this section a brief 

scientific background on methane and 

climate change to offer additional 

context for this rulemaking and to help 

the public understand the 

environmental impacts of GHGs such as 

methane. 

As a GHG, methane in the atmosphere 

absorbs terrestrial infrared radiation, 

which in turn contributes to increased 

global warming and continuing climate 

change, including increases in air and 

ocean temperatures, changes in 

precipitation patterns, retreating snow 

and ice, increasingly severe weather 

events, such as hurricanes of greater 

intensity, and sea level rise, among 

other impacts. Methane also contributes 

to climate change through chemical 

reactions in the atmosphere that 

produce tropospheric ozone and 

stratospheric water vapor. In 2022, 

atmospheric concentrations of methane 

increased by nearly 17 parts per billion 

(ppb) over 2021 levels to reach 1,912 

ppb.9 This was the largest increase since 

the start of the NOAA atmospheric 

record in 1984, with current 

concentrations now more than two and 

a half times larger than the preindustrial 

level.10 Methane is responsible for about 

one third of all warming resulting from 

human emissions of well-mixed 

GHGs,11 and due to its high radiative 

efficiency compared to carbon dioxide, 

methane mitigation is one of the best 

opportunities for reducing near-term 

warming. 

Major scientific assessments continue 

to be released that further advance our 

understanding of the climate system and 

the impacts that methane and other 

GHGs have on public health and welfare 

both for current and future generations. 

According to the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth 

Assessment Report, ‘‘it is unequivocal 

that human influence has warmed the 

atmosphere, ocean and land. 

Widespread and rapid changes in the 

atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and 

biosphere have occurred.’’ 12 Recent 

EPA modeling efforts 13 have also 

shown that impacts from these changes 

are projected to vary regionally within 

the U.S. For example, large damages are 

projected from sea level rise in the 

Southeast, wildfire smoke in the 

Western U.S., and impacts to 

agricultural crops and rail and road 

infrastructure in the Northern Plains. 

Scientific assessments, EPA analyses, 

and updated observations and 

projections document the rapid rate of 

current and future climate change and 

the potential range impacts both 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5322 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

14 (1) USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and 

Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National 

Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., 

C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. 

Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 

USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018. Available 

at https://nca2018.globalchange.gov. 

(2) IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers. In: 

Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, 

A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Pe ́an, S. Berger, N. Caud, 

Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. 

Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, 

T. Waterfield, O. Yelekc ̧i, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)]. 

Cambridge University Press. 

15 In this action, the EPA also finalized several 

related actions stemming from the joint resolution 

of Congress, adopted on June 30, 2021, under the 

CRA, disapproving the 2020 Policy Rule, and also 

finalized a protocol under the general provisions for 

use of Optical Gas Imaging. 

globally and in the United States,14

presenting clear support regarding the 

current and future dangers of climate 

change and the importance of GHG 

emissions mitigation. 

2. Related Actions 

As mandated by CAA section 136(c) 

and (d), the applicability of the WEC is 

based upon the quantity of metric tons 

of CO2e emitted per year pursuant to the 

requirements of subpart W. Further, 

CAA section 136(e) requires that the 

WEC amount be calculated based upon 

methane emissions reported pursuant to 

subpart W. As a result, this proposed 

action builds upon previous subpart W 

rulemakings. 

On August 1, 2023, the EPA proposed 

revisions to subpart W consistent with 

the authority and directives set forth in 

CAA section 136(h) as well as the EPA’s 

authority under CAA section 114 (88 FR 

50282) (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘2023 Subpart W Proposal’’). In that 

rulemaking, the EPA proposed revisions 

to require reporting of additional 

emissions or emissions sources to 

address potential gaps in the total 

methane emissions reported by facilities 

to subpart W. For example, these 

proposed revisions would add a new 

emissions source, referred to as ‘‘other 

large release events,’’ to capture large 

emission events that are not accurately 

accounted for using existing methods in 

subpart W. The EPA also proposed 

revisions to add or revise existing 

calculation methodologies to improve 

the accuracy of reported emissions, 

incorporate additional empirical data, 

and allow owners and operators of 

applicable facilities to submit empirical 

emissions data that could appropriately 

demonstrate the extent to which a 

charge is owed in implementation of 

CAA section 136, as directed by CAA 

section 136(h). The EPA also proposed 

revisions to existing reporting 

requirements to collect data that would 

improve verification of reported data, 

ensure accurate reporting of emissions, 

and improve the transparency of 

reported data. For clarity of discussion 

within this preamble, unless otherwise 

stated, references to provisions of 

subpart W (i.e., 40 CFR 98.230 through 

98.238) reflect the language as proposed 

in the 2023 Subpart W Proposal. The 

EPA’s intention in this proposed 

rulemaking is that the final WEC rule 

would update the proposed crossreferences to subpart W to be consistent 

with the final Subpart W rule resulting 

from the 2023 Subpart W Proposal. 

Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program, the EPA also recently issued a 

supplemental proposal to a 2022 

proposed rule (88 FR 32852, May 22, 

2023), which included proposed 

updates to the General Provisions of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to 

reflect revised global warming 

potentials (GWPs), proposed reporting 

of GHG data from additional sectors 

(i.e., non-subpart W sectors), and 

proposed revisions to source categories 

other than subpart W that would 

improve implementation of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. The 

proposed revision to the GWP of 

methane (from 25 to 28) is expected to 

lead to a small increase in the number 

of facilities that exceed the subpart W 

25,000 mt CO2e threshold and thus 

become subject to the proposed part 99 

requirements. This supplemental 

proposed rule is not expected to 

otherwise impact subpart W reporting 

requirements as they pertain to the 

applicability or implementation of the 

proposed part 99 requirements. 

In addition, on November 15, 2021 

(86 FR 63110), the EPA proposed under 

CAA section 111(b) standards of 

performance regulating emissions of 

methane and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) for certain new, 

reconstructed, and modified sources in 

the oil and natural gas source category 

(proposed as 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

OOOOb) (hereafter referred to as ‘‘NSPS 

OOOOb’’), as well as emissions 

guidelines regulating emissions of 

methane under CAA section 111(d) for 

certain existing oil and natural gas 

sources (proposed as 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOOOc) (hereafter referred to as 

‘‘EG OOOOc’’). The November 15, 2021 

proposal (covering both NSPS OOOOb 

and EG OOOOc)—and which Congress 

explicitly referred to in section 136— 

will be referred to hereafter as the 

‘‘NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal.’’ The NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal sought to 

strengthen standards of performance 

previously in effect under section 111(b) 

of the CAA for new, modified and 

reconstructed oil and natural gas 

sources, and to establish emissions 

guidelines under section 111(d) of the 

CAA for states to follow in developing 

plans to limit methane emissions from 

existing oil and natural gas sources. 

On December 6, 2022, the EPA issued 

a supplemental proposal to update, 

strengthen and expand upon the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal (87 

FR 74702). The December 6, 2022 

supplemental proposal will be referred 

to hereafter as ‘‘NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2022 Supplemental Proposal.’’ 

This supplemental proposal modified 

certain standards proposed in the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal and 

added proposed requirements for 

sources not previously covered. Among 

other things, the supplemental proposal 

sought to: ensure that all well sites are 

routinely monitored for leaks, with 

requirements based on the type and 

amount of equipment on site; encourage 

the deployment of innovative and 

advanced monitoring technologies by 

establishing performance requirements 

that can be met by a broader array of 

technologies; prevent leaks from 

abandoned and unplugged wells by 

requiring documentation that well sites 

are properly shut-in and plugged before 

monitoring is allowed to end; leverage 

qualified expert monitoring to identify 

‘‘super-emitters’’ for prompt mitigation; 

and strengthen requirements for flares. 

On December 2, 2023, in an action 

titled, ‘‘Standards of Performance for 

New, Reconstructed, and Modified 

Sources and Emissions Guidelines for 

Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas 

Sector Climate Review,’’ the EPA 

finalized these two rules to reduce air 

emissions from the Crude Oil and 

Natural Gas source category under 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act. First, 

the EPA finalized NSPS OOOOb 

regulating GHG (in the form of a 

limitation on emissions of methane) and 

VOCs emissions for the Crude Oil and 

Natural Gas source category pursuant to 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) (hereafter, 

‘‘NSPS OOOOb’’). Second, the EPA 

finalized presumptive standards in EG 

OOOOc to limit GHG emissions (in the 

form of methane limitations) from 

designated facilities in the Crude Oil 

and Natural Gas source category, as well 

as requirements under the CAA section 

111(d) for states to follow in developing, 

submitting, and implementing state 

plans to establish performance 

standards (hereafter, ‘‘EG OOOOc’’).15

The NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal and Final NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc are relevant to this WEC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5323 

16 Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2022–0875. 17See 42 U.S.C. 7436(d). 

proposal in two ways: first, WEC 

applicable facilities containing CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) facilities that are 

in compliance with the applicable 

standards are likely to have emissions 

below the thresholds specified in 

section II.B. of this preamble due to 

mitigation resulting from meeting the 

methane emissions requirements of 

NSPS OOOOb or EG OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans, 

and therefore would not be expected to 

incur charges under the WEC program; 

and second, compliance with applicable 

standards (if certain criteria are met) 

may exempt facilities from the WEC 

under the regulatory compliance 

exemption outlined at CAA section 

136(f)(6) (discussed in section II.D.2. of 

this preamble). As a part of the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2022 Supplemental 

Proposal, the EPA requested comment 

on the criteria and approaches that the 

Administrator should consider in 

making the CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii) 

equivalency determination, which is 

discussed at section II.D.2. of this 

preamble. 

The EPA also opened a non-regulatory 

docket on November 4, 2022 and issued 

a Request for Information (RFI) seeking 

public input to inform program design 

related to CAA section 136.16 As part of 

this request, the EPA sought input on 

issues that should be considered related 

to implementation of the WEC. The 

comment period closed on January 18, 

2023. 

The 2023 Subpart W Proposal, the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal, the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

2022 Supplemental Proposal, and the 

November 2022 request for information 

are relevant to this proposal. While the 

EPA has reviewed or will review 

relevant comments submitted as part of 

the rulemaking actions and request for 

information, the EPA is not obligated to 

respond to those comments in this 

action since the comment solicitations 

did not accompany a proposal regarding 

the WEC. Commenters who would like 

the EPA to formally consider in this 

rulemaking any relevant comments 

previously submitted must resubmit 

those comments to the EPA during this 

proposal’s comment period. 

In addition to the WEC requirement, 

and the related revisions to subpart W 

to facilitate accuracy of reporting and 

charge calculation, as noted in section 

I.C. of this preamble, CAA sections 

136(a) and (b) provide $1.55 billion for 

the Methane Emissions Reduction 

Program, including for incentives for 

methane mitigation and monitoring. The 

EPA is partnering with the U.S. 

Department of Energy and National 

Energy Technology Laboratory to 

provide financial assistance for 

monitoring and reducing methane 

emissions from the oil and gas sector, as 

well as technical assistance to help 

implement solutions for monitoring and 

reducing methane emissions. As 

designed by Congress, these incentives 

were intended to complement the 

regulatory programs and to help 

facilitate the transition to a more 

efficient petroleum and natural gas 

industry. 

D. Legal Authority 

The EPA is proposing this rule under 

its newly established authority provided 

in CAA section 136. As noted in section 

I.B. of this preamble, the IRA added 

CAA section 136, ‘‘Methane Emissions 

and Waste Reduction Incentive Program 

for Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Systems,’’ which requires that the EPA 

impose and collect an annual specified 

charge on methane emissions that 

exceed an applicable waste emissions 

threshold from an owner or operator of 

an applicable facility that reports more 

than 25,000 mt CO2e of greenhouse 

gases emitted per year pursuant to 

subpart W of the GHGRP. Under CAA 

section 136, an ‘‘applicable facility’’ is 

a facility within nine of the ten industry 

segments subject to subpart W, as 

currently defined in 40 CFR 98.230 

(excluding natural gas distribution). 

The EPA is also proposing elements of 

this rule under its existing CAA 

authority provided in CAA section 114, 

as well as CAA section 301. CAA 

section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 

Administrator to require emissions 

sources, persons subject to the CAA, or 

persons whom the Administrator 

believes may have necessary 

information to monitor and report 

emissions and provide other 

information the Administrator requests 

for the purposes of carrying out any 

provision of the CAA (except for a 

provision of title II with respect to 

manufacturers of new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines). Thus, CAA 

section 114(a)(1) additionally provides 

the EPA broad authority to require the 

information that would be required by 

this proposed rule because the 

information is relevant for carrying out 

CAA section 136. Additionally, CAA 

section 301(a)(1) provides that the EPA 

is authorized to prescribe such 

regulations ‘‘as are necessary to carry 

out [its] functions under [the CAA].’’ 

The Administrator has determined 

that this action is subject to the 

provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. 

Section 307(d) contains a set of 

procedures relating to the issuance and 

review of certain CAA rules. 

In addition, pursuant to sections 114, 

301, and 307 of the CAA, the EPA is 

publishing proposed confidentiality 

determinations for the new data 

elements required by this proposed 

regulation. 

II. Requirements To Implement the 

Waste Emissions Charge 

This section summarizes the EPA’s 

proposed approach to calculating WEC, 

including how WEC would be 

calculated at the facility level, how 

netting of emissions from facilities 

under common ownership or control 

would be applied, the EPA’s 

interpretation of common ownership or 

control, and how the exemptions 

established in CAA section 136(f) would 

be implemented. 

A. Proposed Definitions To Support 

WEC Implementation 

In accordance with CAA section 

136(d), applicable facilities under part 

99 are those facilities within certain 

industry segments as defined under part 

98, subpart W. Thus, we are proposing 

several definitions within the general 

provisions of 40 CFR 99.2. First, as the 

statute specifies, we are proposing a 

definition of ‘‘applicable facility’’ to 

mean a facility within one or more of 

the following industry segments: 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production, offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production, onshore 

petroleum and natural gas gathering and 

boosting, onshore natural gas 

processing, onshore natural gas 

transmission compression, onshore 

natural gas transmission pipeline, 

underground natural gas storage, LNG 

import and export equipment, or LNG 

storage, as those industry segments are 

defined in 40 CFR 98.230 of subpart 

W.17 A single reporting facility under 

part 98, subpart W, typically consists of 

operations within a single industry 

segment. However, for certain industry 

segments a single reporting facility may 

represent operations in two or more 

industry segments. Industry segments 

that potentially may exist within the 

same reporting facility are onshore 

natural gas processing, onshore natural 

gas transmission compression, 

underground natural gas storage, LNG 

import and export equipment, and LNG 

storage. To accommodate for such 

facilities, we are proposing within the 

definition of ‘‘applicable facility’’ that 

such operations would be considered a 

single applicable facility under part 99. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5324 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

We are also proposing a definition of 

‘‘WEC applicable facility’’ in 40 CFR 

99.2, which would mean an applicable 

facility for which the owner or operator 

of the subpart W reporting facility 

reported GHG emissions under subpart 

W of more than 25,000 mt CO2e—the 

amount set in the statute. In cases where 

a subpart W facility reports under two 

or more of the industry segments listed 

in the previous paragraph, the EPA 

proposes that the 25,000 mt CO2e 

threshold would be evaluated based on 

the total facility GHG emissions 

reported to subpart W across all of the 

industry segments (i.e., the facility’s 

total subpart W GHGs). As discussed in 

section II.B.1. of this preamble, the 

waste emissions threshold is the 

facility-specific threshold, based upon 

an industry segment-specific methane 

intensity threshold, above which the 

EPA must impose and collect the WEC. 

For the purposes of determining the 

waste emissions threshold for a WEC 

applicable facility that operates within 

multiple industry segments, the EPA 

proposes that each industry segment 

would be assessed separately (i.e., using 

industry segment-specific throughput 

and methane intensity threshold) and 

then summed together to determine the 

waste emissions threshold for the 

facility. The EPA proposes that this 

approach would be used in all cases 

where a WEC applicable facility 

contains equipment in multiple subpart 

W industry segments. 

The EPA requests comment on an 

alternative definition of WEC applicable 

facility as it applies to subpart W 

facilities that report under two or more 

industry segments. This alternative 

approach would assess these facilities 

against the 25,000 mt CO2e applicability 

threshold using the CO2e reported under 

subpart W for each individual segment 

at the facility rather than the total 

facility subpart W CO2e reported across 

all segments. CAA section 136(d) 

defines an applicable facility as one 

‘‘within’’ the nine industry segments 

subject to the WEC and does not specify 

that an applicable facility is in one and 

only one industry segment. The EPA 

understands this to mean that an 

applicable facility constitutes an entire 

subpart W facility, including those that 

report under more than one segment. 

Thus, based on the statutory text, the 

EPA proposes to assess WEC 

applicability based on the entire subpart 

W facility’s emissions. Based on historic 

subpart W data, no more than two dozen 

facilities report data for multiple 

segments, and when total subpart W 

CO2e is summed across all segments at 

these facilities, almost all of these 

facilities remain below the 25,000 mt 

CO2e threshold. Historic data also show 

that the industry segments (onshore 

natural gas processing, onshore natural 

gas transmission compression, and 

underground natural gas storage) 

located at these facilities generally have 

methane emissions below the waste 

emissions thresholds. The proposed 

approach of using total subpart W 

facility CO2e for determining WEC 

applicability therefore would not result 

in a significant number of facilities 

being regulated under WEC compared to 

an approach that assessed applicability 

using subpart W CO2e for each 

individual industry segment at a 

facility. Based on historic data, the EPA 

does not expect the very small number 

of facilities with operations in multiple 

subpart W segments that could be 

subject to the WEC under the proposed 

approach to experience a substantially 

different financial impact under the 

alternative approach. 

We are also proposing a definition for 

‘‘WEC applicable emissions’’ in 40 CFR 

99.2, which would mean the annual 

methane emissions, as calculated using 

equations specified in part 99, from a 

WEC applicable facility that are either 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold for the facility after 

consideration of any applicable 

exemptions. The proposed calculation 

methodology for WEC applicable 

emissions is addressed in section II.B.2. 

of this preamble. We are also proposing 

a definition for ‘‘facility applicable 

emissions’’ in 40 CFR 99.2 which would 

mean the annual methane emissions, as 

calculated using equations specified in 

part 99, from a WEC applicable facility 

that are either equal to, below, or 

exceeding the waste emissions 

threshold for the facility prior to 

consideration of any applicable 

exemptions. 

The proposed provisions of this part 

would apply to WEC obligated parties 

and WEC applicable facilities. In 

addition to the proposed definition for 

WEC applicable facility discussed 

earlier in this section, we are proposing 

a definition for the term WEC obligated 

party in 40 CFR 99.2. The term WEC 

obligated party refers to the owners or 

operators of one or more WEC 

applicable facilities. For WEC 

applicable facilities that have more than 

one owner or operator, we are proposing 

that the WEC obligated party is an 

owner or operator selected by a binding 

agreement among the owners and 

operators of the WEC applicable facility. 

The EPA anticipates that such an 

agreement would be similar to those 

used in carrying out 40 CFR 98.4(b) 

under the GHGRP. 

For the purposes of submitting the 

WEC filing, we are proposing that the 

WEC obligated party’s WEC applicable 

facilities are the WEC applicable 

facilities for which it is the owner or 

operator (including through binding 

agreement as noted above), as of 

December 31 of each reporting year. 

Under the proposed approach, the WEC 

obligated party would be responsible for 

any WEC obligation from facilities for 

which it was the facility owner or 

operator as of December 31 of the 

reporting year. The EPA recognizes that 

facilities may be acquired or divested at 

any time in the year, and that under the 

proposed approach the year-end owner 

or operator would be responsible for 

data and any corresponding WEC 

obligation for the entire reporting year. 

The EPA believes that this approach is 

both reasonable and necessary for 

implementation of the WEC program. 

First, subpart W data reporting uses the 

same approach; the facility owner or 

operator as of December 31 is 

responsible for emissions for the entire 

year. Because the subpart W data is 

inextricably linked to the WEC filing, it 

would be inappropriate to have different 

facility owners or operators under each 

regulation. Specifically, different 

owners or operators for the same facility 

under subpart W and the WEC program 

could lead to challenges for WEC filings 

and associated data verification, and 

increase industry burden by requiring 

significant coordination between 

different companies. Second, subpart W 

data are reported on an annual basis, 

and there is no means by which 

methane emissions could be accurately 

allocated across multiple owners or 

operators in a single year. For example, 

emissions could not be pro-rated based 

on time of ownership over the reporting 

year because emissions do not occur 

uniformly over time, and emissions 

from certain sources cannot be linked to 

specific times. Similarly, there is not a 

direct relationship between methane 

emissions and oil and natural gas 

production, so temporal data on 

hydrocarbon production could not be 

used to accurately allocate emissions. 

The EPA therefore believes it would be 

neither practical nor accurate for the 

reporting responsibility and potential 

WEC obligation for a single facility to be 

split among multiple WEC obligated 

parties. 

The EPA also recognizes that a 

facility’s owner or operator, and thus its 

WEC obligated party, may change 

between December 31 and March 31. In 

such situations, under the proposed 

approach the WEC obligated party 

associated with a facility as of December 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5325 

31 would remain responsible for 

accounting for that facility in its WEC 

filing and be responsible for any WEC 

obligation associated with that facility. 

The EPA invites comments on these 

proposed definitions and whether 

additional definitions would help with 

the implementation of the WEC. The 

EPA requests comment on the proposed 

definition of WEC obligated party being 

responsible for all facilities for which it 

was the facility owner or operator as of 

December 31, regardless of when in the 

reporting year it became a facility’s 

owner or operator. The EPA requests 

comment on alternative definitions of 

WEC obligated party, including those 

that would allocate facility subpart W 

data to multiple WEC obligated parties 

and a definition that would place the 

WEC obligation and reporting 

requirements on the WEC obligated 

party that was a facility’s owner or 

operator at the time of the WEC filing 

(i.e., as of March 31 of the year 

following the reporting year rather than 

December 31 of the reporting year). For 

alternative definitions that would 

allocate subpart W data, the EPA 

requests comment on potential 

methodologies that would accurately 

split the annual subpart W data across 

multiple WEC obligated parties. 

B. Waste Emissions Thresholds 

The CAA establishes a waste 

emissions threshold that is defined in 

terms of industry segment-specific 

methane intensity thresholds applicable 

to certain facilities that report GHG 

emissions under subpart W of the 

GHGRP. The industry segment-specific 

methane intensity thresholds specified 

in CAA 136(f) and listed in Table 2 of 

this preamble are based on a rate of 

methane emissions per amount of 

natural gas or oil sent to sale from or 

through a facility. The industry 

segment-specific methane intensity 

thresholds are generally defined in 

terms of a percentage of throughput 

(e.g., 0.002 percent of natural gas sent to 

sale). However, since the WEC is based 

on metric tons of methane (e.g., $900/ 

metric ton) that exceed the threshold, 

for the purposes of calculating the 

number of metric tons that are subject 

to the WEC, we are proposing to 

calculate the facility waste emissions 

thresholds in metric tons of methane. 

For the onshore and offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments, CAA section 136(f) 

differentiates based on whether the 

facility is sending natural gas to sale or 

only sending oil to sale, and if the 

facility does not send natural gas to sale, 

the threshold is based on methane 

emissions per amount of oil sent to sale. 

For facilities that are not in the onshore 

or offshore production industry 

segments, the industry segment-specific 

methane intensity thresholds are based 

on the amount of natural gas sent to sale 

from or through the facility. The 

industry segment-specific methane 

intensity thresholds are applied to the 

natural gas or petroleum throughput 

attributable to that industry segment to 

calculate facility-specific waste 

emissions thresholds. See Table 2 for an 

overview of how the waste emissions 

thresholds are calculated. Facility waste 

emissions thresholds are compared to 

reported methane emissions; facilities 

with methane emissions that exceed the 

waste emissions threshold may be 

subject to the WEC. For WEC applicable 

facilities under common ownership or 

control of a single WEC obligated party, 

the WEC applicable emissions for each 

facility are summed to calculate the net 

emissions for that WEC obligated party. 

Subpart W requires reporting of 

natural gas throughput by thousand 

standard cubic feet, oil by barrels, and 

methane by metric ton. As a practical 

matter, since the WEC is based on a 

dollar per metric ton of methane, the 

waste emissions thresholds must 

generally be converted into metric tons 

of methane for comparison against 

reported methane, generally by 

multiplying the thresholds by the 

density of methane. 

TABLE 2—INDUSTRY SEGMENT THROUGHPUT METRICS AND METHANE INTENSITIES

Industry segment Throughput metric a Industry segment-specific methane intensity 

Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production.

Offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production.

The quantity of natural gas produced from producing wells that is sent 

to sale in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet; or the 

quantity of crude oil produced from producing wells that is sent to 

sale in the calendar year, in barrels, if facility sends no natural gas to 

sale.

0.20 percent of natural gas sent to sale from facility; 

or 10 metric tons of methane per million barrels of 

oil sent to sale from facility, if facility sends no natural gas to sale. 

Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

gathering and boosting.

The quantity of natural gas transported through the facility to a downstream endpoint such as a natural gas processing facility, a natural 

gas transmission pipeline, a natural gas distribution pipeline, a storage facility, or another gathering and boosting facility in the calendar 

year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

0.05 percent of natural gas sent to sale from or 

through facility. 

Onshore natural gas processing ..... The quantity of residue gas leaving that has been processed by the facility and any gas that passes through the facility to sale without 

being processed by the facility in the calendar year, in thousand 

standard cubic feet.

Onshore natural gas transmission 

compression.

The quantity of natural gas transported through the compressor station 

in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

0.11 percent of natural gas sent to sale from or 

through facility. 

Onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline.

The quantity of natural gas transported through the facility and transferred to third parties such as LDCs or other transmission pipelines 

in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

Underground natural gas storage .... The quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage and sent to sale in 

the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

LNG import and export equipment .. For LNG import equipment, the quantity of LNG imported that is sent to 

sale in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet; for LNG 

export equipment, the quantity of LNG exported that is sent to sale 

in the calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

0.05 percent of natural gas sent to sale from or 

through facility. 

LNG storage .................................... The quantity of LNG withdrawn from storage and sent to sale in the 

calendar year, in thousand standard cubic feet.

aThroughput metrics in this table are based on the proposed subpart W reporting elements in the 2023 Subpart W Proposal (88 FR 50282). 

1. Facility Waste Emissions Thresholds 

CAA section 136(f)(1) through (3) 

establishes facility-specific waste 

emissions thresholds above which the 

EPA must impose and collect the WEC. 

The CAA defines waste emissions 

threshold requirements, and establishes 

the method for calculation of the charge, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5326 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

18Equation B–1 reflects the statutory text at 

136(f)(1)(A), which states: ‘‘With respect to 

imposing and collecting the charge under 

subsection (c) for an applicable facility [in the 

onshore petroleum and natural gas production and 

offshore petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments], the Administrator shall impose 

and collect the charge on the reported metric tons 

of methane emissions from such facility that exceed 

(A) 0.20 percent of the natural gas sent to sale from 

such facility . . .’’ 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(1)(A). 

19Equation B–2 reflects the statutory text at 

136(f)(1)(B), which states: ‘‘With respect to 

imposing and collecting the charge under 

subsection (c) for an applicable facility [in the 

onshore petroleum and natural gas production and 

offshore petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments], the Administrator shall impose 

and collect the charge on the reported metric tons 

of methane emissions from such facility that exceed 

. . . (B) 10 metric tons of methane per million 

barrels of oil sent to sale from such facility, if such 

facility sent no natural gas to sale.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7436(f)(1)(B). 

20Equation B–3 reflects the statutory text at 

136(f)(2), which states: ‘‘With respect to imposing 

and collecting the charge under subsection (c) for 

an applicable facility in [the onshore petroleum and 

natural gas gathering and boosting, onshore natural 

gas processing, LNG import and export equipment, 

and LNG storage industry segments], the 

Administrator shall impose and collect the charge 

on the reported metric tons of methane emissions 

that exceed 0.05 percent of the natural gas sent to 

sale from or through such facility.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

7436(f)(2). 

21Equation B–4 reflects the statutory text at 

136(f)(3), which states: ‘‘With respect to imposing 

and collecting the charge under subsection (c) for 

an applicable facility in [the onshore natural gas 

transmission compression, onshore natural gas 

transmission pipeline, and underground natural gas 

storage industry segments], the Administrator shall 

impose and collect the charge on the reported 

metric tons of methane emissions that exceed 0.11 

percent of the natural gas sent to sale from or 

through such facility.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(3). 

for nine segments of the oil and gas 

industry. 

CAA section 136(f)(1) requires the 

EPA to impose and collect the WEC on 

facilities in the onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production and offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments with methane 

emissions, in metric tons, that exceed 

either 0.20 percent of the natural gas 

sent to sale from the facility or, if no 

natural gas is sent to sale, 10 metric tons 

of methane per million barrels of oil 

sent to sale from the facility. To 

determine the waste emissions 

threshold from a WEC applicable 

facility in the onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production and the offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments, the EPA is proposing 

two equations based on whether the 

facility sends natural gas to sale, which 

reflect the statutory text at 136(f)(1)(A) 

and (B). For onshore and offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

WEC applicable facilities that send 

natural gas to sale, we are proposing to 

use equation B–1 of 40 CFR 99.20(a). 

This equation multiplies the annual 

quantity of natural gas sent to sale from 

a WEC applicable facility by 0.002 (i.e., 

0.20 percent) and the density of 

methane (0.0192 metric tons per 

thousand standard cubic feet).18 For 

onshore and offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production facilities that 

have no natural gas sent to sale, we are 

proposing to use equation B–2 of 40 

CFR 99.20(b). Similar to proposed 

equation B–2, the annual quantity of oil 

sent to sale from a WEC applicable 

facility would be multiplied by 10 

metric tons of methane per million 

barrels of oil.19

For WEC applicable facilities in the 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

gathering and boosting, onshore natural 

gas processing, LNG import and export 

equipment, and LNG storage industry 

segments, CAA section 136(f)(2) 

requires the EPA to impose and collect 

WEC on facilities with reported 

methane emissions, in metric tons, that 

exceed 0.05 percent of the natural gas 

sent to sale from or through such 

facility. To determine the waste 

emissions threshold from a WEC 

applicable facility in these industry 

segments, we are proposing to use 

equation B–3 under 40 CFR 99.20(c). 

This equation would multiply the 

annual quantity of natural gas sent to 

sale from or through a WEC applicable 

facility by 0.0005 (i.e., 0.05 percent) and 

the density of methane (0.0192 metric 

tons per thousand standard cubic feet) 

to determine the facility-level waste 

emissions threshold.20 The EPA notes 

that certain facilities in the gathering 

and boosting and natural gas processing 

industry segments may have zero 

throughput values using the proposed 

approach, because these facilities either 

receive no natural gas, or process or 

dispose of natural gas received, in a 

manner that results in sending zero 

quantities of natural gas to sale. 

Treatment of these facilities is discussed 

in section II.B.6. of this preamble. 

CAA section 136(f)(3) requires the 

EPA to impose and collect WEC on WEC 

applicable facilities in the onshore 

natural gas transmission compression, 

onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline, and underground natural gas 

storage industry segments with methane 

emissions, in metric tons, that exceed 

0.11 percent of the natural gas sent to 

sale from or through such facility. We 

are proposing that equation B–4 under 

40 CFR 99.20(d) be used to calculate the 

waste emissions threshold from a WEC 

applicable facility in these industry 

segments. Using proposed equation B–4 

the EPA would multiply the annual 

quantity of natural gas sent to sale from 

or through a WEC applicable facility by 

0.0011 (i.e., 0.11 percent) and the 

density of methane (0.0192 metric tons 

per thousand standard cubic feet) to 

determine the facility-level waste 

emissions threshold.21

The annual quantity of natural gas 

sent to sale from or through a facility 

reported under subpart W is reported in 

units of thousand standard cubic feet of 

natural gas per year, while facility 

methane emissions are reported in 

metric tons. The EPA is proposing to 

interpret the industry segment-specific 

methane intensity thresholds (i.e., 0.20 

percent, 0.05 percent, and 0.11 percent) 

indicated in CAA section 136(f)(1) 

through (3) to be in units of thousand 

standard cubic feet of methane of 

emissions per thousand standard cubic 

feet of natural gas. This requires 

reconciliation of methane emissions 

reported on mass basis and throughput 

reported on a volumetric basis. Because 

the waste emission charge is assessed 

using dollars per metric ton, the amount 

by which a facility is below or 

exceeding the waste emissions 

threshold must ultimately be converted 

to metric tons. The EPA’s proposed 

approach in equations B–1, B–3, and B– 

4 calculates facility waste emissions 

thresholds in metric tons by calculating 

the volume of gas at the given industry 

segment-specific methane intensity and 

then calculating what the mass of that 

volume would be if it were methane by 

multiplying by the density of methane 

(0.0192 metric tons per thousand 

standard cubic feet at standard 

temperature and pressure of 60 °F and 

14.7 psia). This allows the waste 

emissions threshold to be directly 

compared to reported metric tons of 

methane. The proposed approach is 

mathematically equivalent to, but 

simpler than, an approach that would 

convert reported methane emissions to 

volume, subtract a volumetric waste 

emissions threshold from that reported 

volume, and then convert the resulting 

value back to metric tons methane. The 

EPA notes that the proposed approach 

does not require information on the 

constituents or density of natural gas 

throughput. 

As described in this section of the 

preamble, we are proposing to calculate 

waste emissions thresholds at the 

facility level, using the industry 

segment-specific methane intensity 

threshold given in CAA sections 

136(f)(1) through (3), and the industry 

segment throughput reported under part 

98, subpart W. The vast majority of 

facilities report as a single subpart W 

facility to a single subpart W industry 

segment. However, as discussed in 

section II.A. of this preamble, there are 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5327 

a small number of reporters that report 

as a single subpart W facility to multiple 

subpart W industry segments. 

Specifically, for facilities that report to 

multiple industry segments under a 

single subpart W facility, we are 

proposing in 40 CFR 99.20(e) that the 

facility-level waste emissions threshold 

is determined as the sum of the waste 

emissions thresholds for each industry 

segment that the facility operates 

within. 

The EPA proposes to interpret 

‘‘natural gas sent to sale’’ to mean the 

amount of natural gas sent to sale from 

a facility in the onshore or offshore 

petroleum and natural gas industry 

segments, as reported under subpart W. 

The EPA proposes to interpret ‘‘natural 

gas sent to sale from or through’’ to 

mean the natural gas throughput volume 

for a facility not in the onshore or 

offshore petroleum and natural gas 

industry segments that aligns with the 

movement of gas through a facility (e.g., 

gas transported rather than gas 

received), as reported under subpart W. 

For facilities in the onshore and offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segments that do not send 

natural gas to sale, the EPA proposes to 

interpret ‘‘barrels of oil sent to sale’’ to 

mean the quantity of crude oil sent to 

sale, as reported under subpart W. The 

EPA is aware of other approaches for 

calculating ‘‘methane intensity’’ 

currently in use. These include 

methodologies that allocate total 

methane emissions between the 

petroleum and natural gas value chains 

and/or use methane rather than natural 

gas as the throughput value. CAA 

section 136(f)(1) through (3) refers to 

reported facility emissions and does not 

discuss allocation of emissions between 

petroleum and natural gas. With the 

exception of production facilities that 

only produce oil, the statutory text 

clearly lists natural gas as the 

throughput value. Further, the proposed 

approach can be implemented with data 

currently reported under subpart W, 

while alternative methane intensity 

methodologies would require reporting 

of additional data and increase the 

burden on the oil and gas industry. For 

example, an approach that calculates 

intensity as methane emissions divided 

by the methane in natural gas 

throughput would require facilities to 

collect and report additional 

information of the methane content of 

natural gas. An approach that calculates 

methane intensity as the mass of 

methane emissions divided by the mass 

of natural gas would require facilities to 

collect and report detailed information 

on all of the constituents of natural gas 

throughput. Finally, an approach that 

allocates methane emissions between 

the petroleum and natural gas value 

chains based on energy content would 

require facilities to collect and report 

detailed data on the constituents and 

energy content of all hydrocarbon 

throughput. The EPA therefore believes 

that the proposed approaches not only 

follow a plain reading of CAA section 

136(f) but are also the best and most 

reasonable approaches. 

The EPA invites comments on our 

proposed approach for calculating the 

waste emissions thresholds, particularly 

our proposed methodology and the 

underlying assumptions used to 

calculate the waste emissions threshold 

in metric tons of methane. 

2. Facility Methane Emissions 

To determine the total methane 

emissions from a WEC applicable 

facility, the EPA proposes to use 

facility-level methane data as reported 

under subpart W. On August 1, 2023, 

the EPA proposed revisions to subpart 

W consistent with the authority and 

directives set forth in CAA section 

136(h) as well as the EPA’s authority 

under CAA section 114 (88 FR 50282). 

Facility methane emissions (and any 

emissions associated with exemptions 

from the WEC) would be calculated 

using methods and data required by 

subpart W for the emissions year 

covered by the annual WEC filing. For 

example, for the first year of the WEC 

(2024 emissions), WEC calculations 

would be based on the Subpart W 

requirements effective in 2024, and 

emissions year 2025 emissions and 

beyond would be based on Subpart W 

requirements effective in 2025 or any 

future revisions. The proposed 

approaches for calculating waste 

emissions thresholds and facility 

methane emissions align with the text of 

CAA section 136(f). CAA section 

136(f)(1) through (3) states that the WEC 

is to be calculated based ‘‘on the 

reported metric tons of methane 

emissions from such facility that 

exceed’’ specified percentages of the 

‘‘natural gas sent to sale from such 

facility’’ or ‘‘natural gas sent to sale from 

or through such facility’’ (or for onshore 

and offshore petroleum facilities that do 

not send gas to sale, ‘‘ten metric tons of 

methane per million barrels of oil sent 

to sale from such facility’’). The EPA 

proposes to interpret ‘‘reported metric 

tons of methane emissions’’ to mean all 

reported methane emissions from a 

facility, as reported under subpart W. 

This value is an input to equation B–6. 

3. Facility WEC Calculation 

To calculate the amount by which a 

WEC applicable facility is below or 

exceeding the waste emissions 

threshold, the EPA proposes to use 

equation B–6 of 40 CFR 99.21, in which 

the facility waste emissions threshold, 

as determined in 40 CFR 99.20, is 

subtracted from facility total methane 

emissions. This calculation results in a 

value of metric tons of methane, the 

total facility applicable emissions, that 

is negative for facilities below the waste 

emissions threshold and positive for 

facilities exceeding the waste emissions 

threshold. The remainder of proposed 

40 CFR 99.21 describes how to 

determine the WEC applicable 

emissions below or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold considering any 

exemptions that may apply for WEC 

applicable facilities with total facility 

applicable emissions greater than 0 mt 

CH4 (see section II.D. of this preamble 

for more information on the 

exemptions). As discussed in section 

II.C.2.b. of this preamble, the EPA 

proposes that WEC applicable facilities 

receiving the regulatory compliance 

exemption would be exempted from the 

WEC, and therefore would have zero 

WEC applicable emissions. For facilities 

in the onshore petroleum and natural 

gas production and offshore petroleum 

and natural gas production industry 

segments with total facility applicable 

emissions greater than 0 mt CH4, any 

methane emissions associated with 

applicable exemptions would be 

subtracted to calculate WEC applicable 

emissions. For all other facilities, 

facility applicable emissions would 

equal WEC applicable emissions (unless 

the facility was receiving the regulatory 

compliance exemption). 

The EPA invites comments on the 

proposed approach for calculating WEC 

applicable emissions. 

4. Netting 

The metric tons of methane emissions 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold, or WEC applicable 

emissions, for each WEC applicable 

facility would be determined as 

specified in 40 CFR 99.21. CAA section 

136(f)(4) allows for the netting of 

emissions at facilities below the waste 

emissions thresholds with emissions at 

facilities exceeding the waste emissions 

thresholds for facilities under common 

ownership or control within and across 

all applicable industry segments 

identified in 136(d). The EPA proposes 

to implement netting using equation B– 

8 at 40 CFR 99.22. Equation B–8 would 

sum the WEC applicable emissions from 

all WEC applicable facilities under the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5328 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

common ownership of control of a WEC 

obligated party to calculate net WEC 

emissions for that WEC obligated party. 

The EPA’s proposed interpretation of 

common ownership and control and 

definition of WEC obligated party are 

discussed in section II.C. of this 

preamble. 

5. Waste Emissions Charge Calculation 

CAA section 136(e) establishes annual 

$/metric ton charges for all methane 

emissions from WEC applicable 

facilities exceeding the waste emissions 

thresholds. The EPA proposes that a 

WEC obligated party’s total annual 

WEC, or WEC obligation, would be 

calculated by multiplying its net WEC 

emissions, as determined by proposed 

Equation B–8, by the annual $/metric 

ton charge. WEC obligated parties with 

net WEC emissions less than or equal to 

zero would not have a WEC obligation. 

WEC obligated parties with net WEC 

emissions greater than zero would have 

a WEC obligation and be required to pay 

a waste emissions charge. WEC 

obligation calculations would be made 

for calendar years 2024, 2025, 2026, and 

each year thereafter as per proposed 40 

CFR 99.23. 

6. Gathering and Boosting and 

Processing Facilities With Zero 

Reported Throughput 

The EPA is aware of a small number 

of gathering and boosting and natural 

gas processing facilities that emit 

methane and report under subpart W, 

but do not send gas to sale. As a result, 

these facilities would report zero natural 

gas volumes for the throughput metrics 

used in the proposed waste emissions 

threshold calculations. For the gathering 

and boosting industry segment, these 

may be facilities that receive natural gas 

but then reinject it underground or 

otherwise do not transport any natural 

gas. For the processing industry 

segment, these may be fractionation 

plants that only receive and process 

natural gas liquids (NGLs) and do not 

handle natural gas. Under the proposed 

approach, all reported methane 

emissions from facilities with no 

reported throughput would be 

considered to be exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold. The EPA notes that 

the proposed approach is based on a 

plain reading of the statutory text; 

because these facilities would have a 

calculated waste emissions threshold of 

zero, all reported methane would by 

default be exceeding the threshold. The 

EPA requests comment on the treatment 

of gathering and boosting and natural 

gas processing facilities that do not 

report any volumes for the proposed 

WEC throughput metrics. The EPA 

requests comment on the proposed 

approach that would consider all 

reported methane from these facilities to 

be above the waste emissions threshold. 

The EPA also requests comment on an 

alternative approach that would 

consider all reported methane emissions 

from these facilities to be below the 

waste emissions threshold. 

C. Common Ownership or Control for 

Netting of Emissions 

1. EPA Interpretation and Proposal To 

Implement ‘‘Common Ownership or 

Control’’ for the Purposes of Part 99 

CAA section 136(f)(4) allows WEC 

applicable facilities under ‘‘common 

ownership or control’’ to net ‘‘emissions 

by reducing the total obligation to 

account for facility emissions levels that 

are below the applicable thresholds 

within and across all applicable 

segments’’ listed in section 136(d) and 

as defined in subpart W. The EPA 

interprets this to mean that for all 

eligible WEC applicable facilities under 

common ownership or control, the 

amount of metric tons of methane below 

the waste emissions thresholds (i.e., the 

difference between emissions equal to 

the waste emissions threshold and 

reported emissions) at facilities below 

the waste emissions threshold may be 

used to net against the amount of metric 

tons of methane emissions that exceed 

the waste emissions thresholds at 

facilities above the waste emissions 

threshold. For the purposes of 

establishing common ownership or 

control under CAA section 136(f)(4), the 

EPA proposes to define ‘‘WEC obligated 

party’’ in 40 CFR 99.2. The EPA 

proposes that each subpart W facility 

would be associated with a single WEC 

obligated party (though each WEC 

obligated party may be associated with 

multiple subpart W facilities), which 

would be reported under the proposed 

requirements at 40 CFR 99.7. As 

discussed in section II.B.4. of this 

preamble and proposed in 40 CFR 

99.22, all WEC applicable facilities 

associated with a common WEC 

obligated party would be able to net 

emissions for the purposes of 

calculating the WEC obligated party’s 

net emissions and total WEC obligation. 

The EPA proposes that the WEC 

obligated party be the subpart W facility 

‘‘owner or operator’’ as reported under 

40 CFR 98.4(i)(3). The EPA proposes 

definitions for facility ‘‘owner’’ and 

‘‘operator’’ that are applicable to the 

offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production, onshore natural gas 

processing, onshore natural gas 

transmission compression, underground 

natural gas storage, LNG import and 

export equipment, and LNG storage 

industry segments at 40 CFR 99.2. The 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production, onshore petroleum and 

natural gas gathering and boosting, and 

onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline industry segments each have 

separate definitions for facility ‘‘owner 

or operator’’ proposed at 40 CFR 99.2. 

These proposed definitions are identical 

to the corresponding definitions in 40 

CFR part 98; the EPA proposes that the 

owner or operator associated with a 

subpart W facility as reported under 40 

CFR 98.4(i)(3) (regarding the list of 

owners or operators of the facility for 

the certification of representation of the 

designated representative) would also 

be the WEC obligated party for that 

facility. The EPA believes that the 

proposed approach for using facility 

owner or operator for the purpose of 

defining common ownership or control 

aligns with a plain reading of the 

statutory text. CAA section 136(c) states 

that a charge on methane emissions that 

exceed the waste emissions threshold 

shall be imposed and collected ‘‘from an 

owner or operator of an applicable 

facility.’’ Further, in the context of 

required revisions to the subpart W 

methodologies used to calculate 

methane emissions, CAA section 136(h) 

states that those revisions must be made 

to ‘‘allow owners and operators of 

applicable facilities to submit empirical 

emissions data, in a manner to be 

prescribed by the Administrator, to 

demonstrate the extent to which a 

charge under subsection (c) is owed.’’ 

Thus, CAA section 136(c) requires the 

charge to be imposed and collected on 

a facility owner or operator, and CAA 

section 136(h) presumes that owners 

and operators are responsible for 

submitting empirical data. Furthermore, 

since the list of owners or operators for 

each facility is directly reported under 

40 CFR 98.4(i)(3), an established 

program at the time that Congress 

drafted CAA section 136, the EPA 

proposes that under the best reading of 

the statutory text, the facility owner or 

operator would be used as the entity for 

establishing common ownership or 

control of subpart W facilities within 

and across all applicable subpart W 

industry segments. 

Although the EPA believes that the 

owner or operator approach is the most 

appropriate for netting under WEC, we 

seek comment on an alternative 

approach that would use the parent 

company of a facility’s owner or 

operator for the WEC obligated party 

and determining common ownership or 

control of facilities. For each subpart W 

facility, the facility owner or operator 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5329 

and parent company are reported under 

40 CFR 98.4(i)(3) and 40 CFR 

98.3(c)(11), respectively. The parent 

company represents the highest-level 

company based in the United States 

with an ownership interest in the 

facility. For parent company reporting, 

the percent ownership in the facility is 

also reported under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(11). 

Because a parent company has an 

ownership interest in a subpart W 

facility, multiple facilities may be said 

to be owned by the same parent 

company and might also be considered 

as being under common ownership or 

control of that parent company. So, one 

difference between using the owner or 

operator rather than a parent company 

for establishing common ownership or 

control is the number of facilities that 

may be brought under common 

ownership or control in each approach. 

For most facilities, the reported owner 

or operator is a subsidiary of the 

reported parent company. A single 

parent company may have multiple 

different owners or operators (i.e., 

subsidiaries) associated with facilities 

within and across subpart W industry 

segments. For example, an onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facility and onshore natural gas 

processing facility owned by the same 

parent company may each have a 

different owner or operator. The number 

of ‘‘common’’ facilities is usually higher 

when the parent company is used, and 

lower when the owner or operator is 

used. The parent company approach 

would therefore provide a broader 

interpretation of common ownership or 

control relative to use of owner or 

operator. However, it is important to 

note that at the time CAA section 136 

was enacted in 2022, the term ‘‘common 

ownership or common control’’ was a 

term used in the subpart W regulations. 

Under the subpart W regulations, the 

EPA has used the term ‘‘common 

ownership or control’’ to refer to the 

owner or operator, not to the parent 

company. Congress was likely aware of 

this definition when it enacted section 

136. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

use facility owner or operator for the 

purpose of establishing common 

ownership or control based on a plain 

reading of CAA section 136(c), and 

believes that this is the better reading of 

the text in context with subpart W. 

However, the EPA requests comment on 

both the proposed approach using 

facility owner or operator and on an 

alternative approach using facility 

parent company for determining 

common ownership or control of WEC 

applicable facilities. 

In some cases, a WEC applicable 

facility may have multiple owners or 

operators reported under 40 CFR 

98.4(i)(3). In these situations, the EPA 

proposes that the facility owners or 

operators would designate one of the 

owners or operators as the WEC 

obligated party for that facility, as 

proposed in 40 CFR 99.4. Under the 

proposed approach, the process for 

selection of the WEC obligated party at 

facilities with multiple owners or 

operators would be similar to the 

approach for selecting a designated 

representative under 40 CFR part 98. 

This process would require selection of 

a single WEC obligated party for the 

facility by an agreement binding on each 

of the owners or operators associated 

with the facility. The proposed 

approach for facilities with multiple 

owners allocates all facility-level 

methane emissions below or exceeding 

the waste emissions thresholds to a 

single WEC obligated party. We request 

comment on the proposed approach of 

allocating all methane emissions below 

or exceeding the waste emissions 

thresholds from a facility with multiple 

owners or operators to a single WEC 

obligated party. We request comment on 

other approaches that could be used to 

allocate emissions to owners or 

operators at facilities with multiple 

owners or operators. We request 

comment on the proposed approach of 

requiring the group of facility owners or 

operators to determine which owner or 

operator is the WEC obligated party, and 

alternative approaches for designating 

the WEC obligated party, at facilities 

with multiple owners or operators. 

The EPA also evaluated an approach 

that would allocate facility methane 

emissions below or exceeding the waste 

emissions thresholds at facilities with 

multiple owners to parent companies 

based on their reported percent 

ownership in the facility. Some subpart 

W facilities with multiple owners have 

parent companies with very small (i.e., 

less than one percent) equity shares. 

The minority owners may include 

individuals and small oil and gas 

companies with no operational control 

over the facility. Allocating methane 

emissions below or exceeding the waste 

emissions thresholds based on facility 

ownership would expose a larger 

number of individuals and small 

companies to potential WEC obligations. 

We note that allocating methane 

emissions from facilities with multiple 

owners to each owner based on facility 

ownership would only be possible using 

a parent company approach and not 

using the proposed owner or operator 

approach because GHGRP reporting 

does not currently include data on 

owner or operator facility equity share 

or include direct linkages between 

owners or operators and parent 

companies that could be used to assign 

facility ownership percentages to 

owners or operators. There may also be 

situations in which the facility owner or 

operator is a third-party operator with 

no ownership in the facility either 

directly or through their parent 

company. 

We request comment on an alternate 

approach that would allocate methane 

emissions to parent companies using 

percent ownership in the facility as well 

as other possible allocation 

methodologies for facilities with 

multiple parent companies. We request 

comment relevant to understanding 

other appropriate approaches for 

allocating emissions from a facility with 

multiple parent companies or owners or 

operators to a single WEC obligated 

party or multiple WEC obligated parties. 

For example, how are costs allocated at 

such facilities, and are they usually 

shared by parent companies (e.g., based 

on percent ownership in the facility), 

entirely borne by the facility operator, or 

does cost sharing vary based on facilityspecific contractual agreements? 

2. Facilities Eligible for the Netting of 

Emissions 

The EPA’s proposed implementation 

of CAA section 136(f)(4) would define 

which types of applicable subpart W 

facilities are eligible to net emissions. 

We propose to establish netting 

eligibility criteria based on a facility’s 

total reported subpart W GHG 

emissions, status in relation to the 

regulatory compliance exemption, and 

overall regulated status under the 

GHGRP. In our proposed approach to 

netting, we chose interpretations which 

were the most consistent with a plain 

reading of the CAA, as well as the most 

transparent and straightforward to 

implement. As described in more detail 

in the following sections, our approach 

assumes that if a facility’s emissions are 

not subject to the WEC, either because 

the facility is not a WEC applicable 

facility, or because a WEC applicable 

facility receives the regulatory 

compliance exemption, that facility’s 

emissions do not factor into the netting 

of emissions for a WEC obligated party. 

In other words, only WEC applicable 

facilities may net, and only WEC 

applicable emissions may be netted. As 

will be explained further in section 

II.C.2.a. of this preamble, we believe this 

interpretation is consistent with CAA 

section 136(f)(4) ‘‘the Administrator 

shall allow for the netting of emissions 

by reducing the total obligation to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5330 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

22 42 U.S.C. at 7436(f)(1). 

23Specifically: (3) onshore natural gas processing; 

(6) liquefied natural gas storage; (7) liquefied 

natural gas import and export equipment; and (8) 

onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and 

boosting. 

24 Id. at section 7436(f)(2). 

25Specifically, (4) onshore natural gas 

transmission compression; (5) underground natural 

gas storage; and (9) onshore natural gas 

transmission. 

26 Id. at section 7436(f)(3). 

account for facility emissions levels that 

are below the applicable thresholds 

within and across all applicable 

segments identified in subsection (d),’’ 

since the reference to ‘‘applicable 

thresholds’’ and ‘‘applicable segments,’’ 

which reflect other subsections under 

CAA section 136, implies that only WEC 

applicable emissions should be 

considered in the netting calculation. 

We note that for applicable facilities 

with unreasonable delay or plugged 

well exemptions, under the proposal, 

emissions associated with these 

exemptions would be removed from any 

emissions exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold prior to netting 

calculations. 

a. Facilities Required To Report To 

GHGRP and That Have Subpart W 

Emissions Greater Than 25,000 Metric 

Tons of CO2e 

In accordance with CAA section 

136(c) and the proposed definition of 

‘‘WEC applicable facility’’ in 40 CFR 

99.2, we are proposing that subpart W 

facilities that have subpart W emissions 

greater than 25,000 mt CO2e are eligible 

for netting, with the exception of those 

that are receiving the regulatory 

compliance exemption (as discussed in 

section II.D.2. of this preamble). 

Facilities that report less than 25,000 mt 

CO2e under subpart W are not subject to 

the WEC, and the EPA proposes that 

such facilities would not be eligible for 

netting. These types of facilities are 

discussed in greater detail in section 

II.C.2.c. of this preamble. The EPA’s 

proposed approach follows what the 

agency considers to be the best reading 

of the plain text of, and the relationship 

between CAA sections 136(d), 136(c), 

and 136(f) (which includes subsections 

136(f)(4) and 136(f)(1)-(3)). The 

following sections will provide an 

overview of the relevant statutory text, 

and the corresponding basis for the 

EPA’s belief that only WEC applicable 

facilities may net, and only WEC 

obligated emissions may be netted, 

under CAA section 136(f)(4). 

CAA section 136(d) introduces the 

nine industry segments within which all 

subpart W facilities must fall in order to 

be evaluated for WEC applicability. 

Importantly, facilities within these 

segments are ‘‘applicable facilities’’, per 

CAA section 136(d), but they are not 

necessarily ‘‘WEC applicable facilities’’, 

subject to possible WEC obligation, 

unless they report over 25,000 mt CO2e 

per year under subpart W. CAA section 

136(c) clarifies this point. Specifically, 

CAA section 136(c) requires the 

Administrator to impose and collect a 

charge on the owner or operator ‘‘of an 

applicable facility that reports more 

than 25,000 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases 

emitted per year pursuant to subpart 

W’’. Thus, building upon the CAA 

section 136(d) definition, CAA section 

136(c) establishes that only facilities 

which both fall within one or more of 

the nine CAA section 136(d) industry 

segments and report more than 25,000 

mt CO2e under subpart W are subject to 

the WEC program. For clarity, in this 

rulemaking the EPA refers to these 

facilities as ‘‘WEC applicable facilities’’. 

CAA section 136(f), which is entitled 

‘‘Waste Emissions Threshold’’, includes 

a series of subsections under this 

heading. Subsections 136(f)(1)–(3) 

illustrate the meaning of ‘‘waste 

emissions threshold’’ in this context, 

and explain that these are actually a 

series of thresholds which determine 

when and how to impose a charge on 

methane emissions from WEC 

applicable facilities, depending on 

which industry segment or segments 

they fall under. Specifically, the nine 

CAA section 136(d) industry segments 

are categorized into four groups, and a 

waste emissions threshold is applied to 

each of the four. CAA section 136(f)(1) 

covers offshore and onshore petroleum 

and natural gas production (industry 

segments (1) and (2) under CAA section 

136(d)), and further divides this 

category depending on whether or not 

natural gas is sent to sale: ‘‘With respect 

to imposing and collecting the charge 

under subsection (c) for an applicable 

facility in an industry segment listed in 

paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d), 

the Administrator shall impose and 

collect the charge on the reported metric 

tons of methane emissions from such 

facility that exceed (A) 0.20 percent of 

the natural gas sent to sale from such 

facility; or (B) 10 metric tons of methane 

per million barrels of oil sent to sale 

from such facility, if such facility sent 

no natural gas to sale.’’ 22

CAA sections 136(f)(2) and (3) follow 

the same model: section 136(f)(2) 

establishes thresholds for 

nonproduction petroleum and natural 

gas systems (industry segments (3), (6), 

(7), and (8) under section 136(d)),23 and 

imposes a charge on ‘‘the reported 

metric tons of methane emissions that 

exceed 0.05 percent of the natural gas 

sent to sale from or through such 

facility;’’ 24 and section 136(f)(3) 

establishes thresholds for natural gas 

transmission (industry segments (4), (5), 

and (9)) 25 and imposes a charge on ‘‘the 

reported metric tons of methane 

emissions that exceed 0.11 percent of 

the natural gas sent to sale from or 

through such facility.’’ 26 But each 

industry-specific threshold is 

introduced in the same way: ‘‘With 

respect to imposing and collecting the 

charge under subsection (c) for an 

applicable facility in an industry 

segment listed in paragraph (x) of 

subsection (d), [charges shall be 

imposed as follows]’’. Following this 

plain text, it is clear that the CAA 

section 136(f) waste emission thresholds 

apply only to WEC applicable facilities– 

that is, facilities within one or more of 

the nine WEC industry segments listed 

in CAA section 136(d) which emit more 

than 25,000 mt per year CO2e under 

subpart W, and thus may be subject to 

charge under CAA section 136(c). 

Finally, in the netting provision itself, 

CAA section 136(f)(4), states that ‘‘in 

calculating the total emissions charge 

obligation for facilities under common 

ownership or control, the Administrator 

shall allow for the netting of emissions 

by reducing the total obligation to 

account for facility emissions levels that 

are below the applicable thresholds 

within and across all applicable 

segments identified in subsection (d)’’. 

As noted above, the EPA is proposing 

that this netting provision applies to 

WEC applicable facilities and WEC 

applicable emissions only, for three 

compelling reasons. 

First, the EPA believes that per the 

best reading of the statute, the term 

‘‘applicable thresholds’’ refers to the 

waste emission thresholds outlined in 

CAA section 136(f)(1)–(3). This is 

important because, as noted above, the 

waste emissions thresholds apply only 

to WEC applicable facilities—they 

determine whether, and how, a charge 

shall be imposed on methane emissions 

from a facility which has already been 

triggered into the WEC program by 

virtue of its 25,000 mt per year CO2e in 

subpart W. The thresholds do not apply 

to facilities which emit fewer than 

25,000 mt per year of CO2e under 

subpart W, because under CAA section 

136(c), no charge may be imposed or 

collected on such facilities. Facilities 

which emit less than 25,000 mt per year 

of CO2e under subpart W may emit any 

amount of methane, but these methane 

emissions are not WEC applicable 

emissions: they cannot be evaluated 

according to the waste emissions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5331 

thresholds, and they cannot be 

considered to fall either above or below 

these thresholds. Thus, in ‘‘account[ing] 

for facility emissions levels that are 

below the applicable thresholds’’, the 

EPA understands that it must account 

for WEC applicable emissions from 

WEC applicable facilities which fall 

below the waste emissions thresholds, 

and produce a negative value under 

Equation B–6 (see above at section 

II.B.3.). 

As previously stated, EPA’s 

conclusion that the term ‘‘applicable 

thresholds’’ in CAA section 136(f)(4) 

refers to the waste emissions thresholds 

outlined in CAA section 136(f)(1)–(3) is 

supported by both the text and structure 

of the statute. First, the structure of the 

statute strongly supports the 

presumption that CAA section 136(f)(4) 

refers to netting based on a facility’s 

relationship to the waste emissions 

thresholds because CAA section 

136(f)(4) appears as part of CAA section 

136(f), under the ‘‘waste emissions 

threshold’’ heading, and immediately 

following CAA section 136(f)(1)–(3)’s 

establishment of the specific waste 

emissions thresholds for each industry 

segment. It follows that CAA section 

136(f)(4)’s reference to ‘‘applicable 

thresholds’’ refers to these industry 

segment-specific requirements, and 

accordingly ‘‘applicable segments’’ 

refers to the industry segments 

identified in CAA section 136(f)(1)–(3). 

A close reading of the text also 

strongly supports our presumption 

regarding the waste emissions 

thresholds, because CAA section 

136(f)(4) refers to facility emissions 

levels that are ‘‘below the applicable 

thresholds,’’ plural. The use of the 

plural, and the use of the term 

‘‘applicable,’’ both indicate that 

Congress was referring here to the 

multiple waste emissions thresholds 

introduced in CAA sections 136(f)(1) 

through (3), which specifically and 

separately apply to WEC applicable 

facilities within various subsets of 

industry segments, defined in CAA 

section 136(d). Again, these separate 

thresholds only apply to WEC 

applicable facilities, which emit over 

25,000 tons per year of CO2e per year. 

In addition to the ‘‘applicable 

thresholds’’ question, the EPA believes 

that Congress’s use of the term 

‘‘applicable segments’’ in stating that 

EPA may ‘‘redu[ce] the total obligation 

to account for facility emissions levels 

that are below the applicable thresholds 

within and across all applicable 

segments identified in subsection (d),’’ 

is significant here. While CAA section 

136(d) introduces the nine relevant 

‘‘industry segments’’ within which all 

WEC applicable facilities must fall, CAA 

section 136(f)(4) classes these segments 

into four groups, and is the only 

provision to use the term ‘‘applicable 

segments’’. As noted above, CAA 

section 136(f) establishes a set of 

requirements determining when and 

how to impose a charge on those 

facilities triggered into the program, 

depending on their industry segment 

and the amount of methane they emit. 

It follows that CAA section 136(f)(4)’s 

reference to ‘‘applicable thresholds’’ 

refers to these four group-specific 

thresholds, and ‘‘applicable segments’’ 

refers to the nine segments within the 

four segment groups. In other words, 

each group of segments constitutes the 

‘‘applicable’’ segments to their 

corresponding applicable threshold. 

This is important, again because the 

four groups laid out under CAA section 

136(f) include only WEC applicable 

facilities. 

Finally, Congress’s statement that 

netting shall be employed ‘‘in 

calculating the total emissions charge 

obligation for facilities under common 

ownership or control’’, further indicates 

that only WEC applicable facilities may 

be netted. Logic indicates that only WEC 

applicable facilities, with WEC 

applicable emissions, would be relevant 

to a determination of total emissions 

charge obligation. As regards the WEC 

program, WEC obligated parties are 

concerned with methane emissions for 

the WEC applicable facilities for which 

they are responsible—not various other 

subpart W facilities for which a WEC 

charge can never be imposed. 

Accordingly, the EPA believes that 

under the best reading of this provision 

WEC obligated parties may net WEC 

applicable methane emissions between 

facilities in different segments, as long 

as all facilities are WEC applicable 

facilities. 

b. Facilities With Subpart W Emissions 

Greater Than 25,000 Metric Tons of 

CO2e That Are Receiving the Regulatory 

Compliance Exemption 

The EPA proposes that during such 

time that a facility receives the 

regulatory compliance exemption, that 

facility would have zero WEC 

applicable emissions and thus would 

not be able to participate in the netting 

of methane emissions across facilities 

under common ownership or control of 

a WEC obligated party. The EPA’s 

proposed approach is based on a plain 

reading of the statutory text, and follows 

the same reasoning outlined in section 

II.C.2.a. of this preamble, which 

explains that under the best reading of 

the text, only WEC applicable facilities 

may net.. This section will further 

expand upon EPA reasoning that only 

WEC applicable emissions may be 

netted, and clarify this point for 

purposes of the regulatory compliance 

exemption. 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) states that 

‘‘[c]harges shall not be imposed 

pursuant to subsection (c) on an 

applicable facility that is subject to and 

in compliance with methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to subsections 

(b) and (d) of section 111’’ if specific 

criteria are met (these criteria are 

discussed in section II.D.2. of this 

preamble). The EPA’s interpretation of 

the regulatory compliance exemption is 

that, for a WEC applicable facility 

meeting the exemption criteria, the 

entire facility is exempted, and therefore 

the facility does not generate WECapplicable emissions. In order to net, 

facilities must be WEC applicable 

facilities (they must emit over 25,000 

CO2e per year under subpart W) and 

they must also generate WEC applicable 

emissions (methane emissions below or 

above the WEC emissions thresholds 

that are subject to charge.) Again, this 

follows from the text. Section 136(f)(4) 

applies ‘‘in calculating the total 

emissions charge obligation’’ only. 

Emissions which are subject to an 

exemption are by definition not subject 

to charge. WEC applicable emissions are 

only those emissions subject to charge 

under section 136(c). Because, under the 

proposed approach WEC applicable 

facilities with the regulatory compliance 

exemption would have zero WEC 

applicable emissions, these facilities 

would by default not be able to 

participate in netting (i.e., they would 

have no emissions to net). The proposed 

approach of facilities with the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

having zero WEC applicable emissions 

allows for the practical implementation 

of the exemption within the broader 

framework of the proposed WEC 

calculations. Assigning exempted 

facilities zero WEC applicable emissions 

ensures that charges shall not be 

imposed on these facilities without 

interfering with netting calculations or 

removing facility-specific reporting 

elements necessary for WEC 

implementation. Such facilities would 

continue to be included in WEC filings 

reported under part 99 as long as they 

remain WEC applicable facilities. 

Further, if such facilities fall out of 

compliance such that the regulatory 

compliance exemption no longer 

applies and they again generate WEC 

applicable emissions, such facilities 

would again be included in netting. 

The EPA notes that under the 

proposed approach, facilities with 

emissions below the waste emissions 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5332 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

threshold would not receive the 

regulatory compliance exemption (see 

discussion in section II.D.2.f. of this 

preamble), and thus these facilities 

would always have WEC applicable 

emissions and would be able to 

participate in netting across facilities 

under common ownership or control. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed approach in which WEC 

applicable facilities receiving the 

regulatory compliance exemption would 

have zero WEC applicable emissions. 

The EPA requests comment on other 

options for WEC applicable facilities 

receiving the regulatory compliance 

exemption and their treatment in the 

context of netting. 

c. Exclusion of Facilities Reporting 

25,000 or Fewer Metric Tons of CO2e to 

Subpart W of Part 98 

Per CAA section 136(c), the WEC 

shall only be imposed on owners or 

operators of applicable facilities that 

report more than 25,000 mt CO2e under 

subpart W. A large number of facilities 

that report under the GHGRP have 

subpart W emissions below 25,000 mt 

CO2e. A part 98 subpart W facility is 

generally allowed to cease reporting or 

‘‘offramp’’ due to meeting either the 

15,000 mt CO2e level or the 25,000 mt 

CO2e level for the number of years 

specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i) based on the 

CO2e reported, as calculated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(i) 

(i.e., the annual emissions report value 

as specified in that provision). Some 

facilities have dropped below 25,000 mt 

CO2e in total reported emissions to part 

98 and are continuing to report while on 

the reporting offramp. Other facilities 

report emissions under multiple 

subparts (e.g., subpart W and subpart C) 

and have total emissions equal to or 

greater than 25,000 mt CO2e across both 

subparts, but subpart W emissions 

below 25,000 mt CO2e. The latter 

category includes processing plants, 

transmission compressor stations, 

underground storage facilities, LNG 

storage facilities, and LNG import and 

export facilities that report their 

combustion emissions under subpart C. 

Many of these facilities have total 

GHGRP emissions exceeding 25,000 mt 

CO2e, but subpart W emissions that 

alone fall below this threshold. 

We are proposing that subpart W 

facilities with subpart W emissions 

equal to or below 25,000 mt CO2e are 

not WEC applicable facilities and are 

therefore excluded from netting. This 

proposed approach aligns with a plain 

reading of the requirement in CAA 

section 136(c) that only applicable 

facilities with subpart W emissions 

exceeding 25,000 mt CO2e are subject to 

the WEC—facilities below this threshold 

are not subject to the WEC and therefore 

do not generate WEC applicable 

emissions and are not able to net 

emissions. 

d. Exclusion of Facilities Not Required 

To Report to the GHGRP 

Per CAA section 136(c) and (d), CAA 

section 136(f)(4), and the proposed 

definition of ‘‘WEC Applicable Facility’’ 

in 40 CFR 99.2, which reflects the 

statutory text at CAA section 136(d), we 

are proposing that facilities that are not 

required to report to the GHGRP, and 

thus are not WEC applicable facilities, 

would not be eligible for netting. Again 

following the reasoning outlined in 

section II.C.2.a. of this preamble, the 

EPA’s proposed approach is based on a 

plain reading of CAA section 136(f)(4), 

which states that netting is allowed 

within and across the nine subpart W 

industry segments identified in CAA 

section 136(d); section 136(d), which 

states that ‘‘applicable facility(ies)’’ are 

facilities within industry segments ‘‘as 

defined in subpart W’’; and section 

136(c), which states that the WEC is 

only applicable to subpart W facilities 

that report more than 25,000 CO2e per 

year. Following the plain text, only 

facilities subject to subpart W may be 

evaluated as possible WEC applicable 

facilities, and only WEC applicable 

facilities (subpart W facilities emitting 

over 25,000 CO2e) can have WEC 

applicable emissions that may be 

subject to charge. As explained in 

section II.C.2.a. of this preamble, only 

WEC applicable facilities may net, and 

only WEC applicable emissions may be 

netted. Further, CAA section 136(c) 

states that the WEC is only applicable to 

certain facilities that report under 

subpart W of the GHGRP. 

D. Exemptions to the Waste Emissions 

Charge 

1. Exemption for Emissions From 

Eligible Delays in Environmental 

Permitting Under CAA Section 136(f)(5) 

CAA section 136(f)(5) establishes an 

exemption for emissions resulting from 

delay in environmental permitting by 

stating, ‘‘Charges shall not be imposed 

pursuant to paragraph (1) on emissions 

that exceed the waste emissions 

threshold specified in such paragraph if 

such emissions are caused by 

unreasonable delay, as determined by 

the Administrator, in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

infrastructure necessary for offtake of 

increased volume as a result of methane 

emissions mitigation implementation.’’ 

This provision would exempt from 

the charge certain emissions occurring 

at facilities in the onshore and offshore 

production segments. Paragraph (1) 

referenced in the exemption refers to 

CAA section 136(f)(1), which establishes 

the waste emissions threshold for 

applicable facilities in the production 

sector, as discussed in section II.B. of 

this preamble. The exemption is limited 

to emissions occurring as a result of 

certain delays in permitting of gathering 

or transmission infrastructure necessary 

for offtake of increased volume as a 

result of methane emissions mitigation 

implementation. Infrastructure 

necessary for offtake would include 

gathering and transmission pipelines 

and compressor stations. Increased 

volume as a result of methane emissions 

mitigation implementation would 

include increased natural gas amounts 

available for transport that would have 

otherwise been emitted. 

a. Emissions Eligible for the Permitting 

Delay Exemption 

Given the complexity of defining and 

determining ‘‘unreasonable delay’’ 

related to environmental permitting, the 

EPA is proposing a simplified approach 

of establishing a set of four criteria for 

applying the unreasonable delay 

exemption established by CAA section 

136(f)(5). These criteria would only 

apply in the context of determining 

eligible emission exemptions for the 

implementation of CAA 136(f)(5) and 

this proposed rulemaking; they are not 

intended to speak to the reasonableness 

of a permitting delay in any other 

context. The EPA understands that the 

issue of what constitutes an 

unreasonable delay is multi-faceted and 

may be quite different under different 

factual circumstances. At the same time, 

the EPA believes it is important in the 

context of this program to propose a 

definition that is both consistent with 

the statutory charge and administrable 

within the capabilities of the EPA. With 

those caveats in mind, the EPA proposes 

the following four criteria for 

implementing this exemption: (1) the 

facility must have emissions that exceed 

the waste emissions threshold; (2) 

neither the entity seeking the 

exemption, nor the entity responsible 

for seeking the permit, may have 

contributed to the delay; (3) the 

exempted emissions must be those (and 

only those) resulting from the flaring of 

gas that would have been mitigated 

without the permit delay, and the 

flaring that occurs must be in 

compliance with all applicable local, 

state, and Federal regulations regarding 

flaring emissions; and (4) a set period of 

months must have passed from the time 

a submitted permit application was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5333 

27 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(5) (emphasis added). 28 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(5) 

determined to be complete by the 

applicable permitting authority. 

The EPA believes this approach meets 

the Congressional intent of this 

exemption while creating a program that 

can be implemented annually allowing 

for collection of WEC in a timely 

manner. The proposed approach is 

intended to reduce burden on the 

companies and government compared 

with an approach that would not specify 

a timeframe or other criteria but would 

rely on decisions made on a case-bycase basis to determine whether the 

timing and other circumstances of an 

individual permitting action constitutes 

an unreasonable delay. We note, 

however, that these criteria outlined 

above, including the timeframe, are 

proposed for the purpose of defining the 

emissions eligible for an exemption for 

the purposes of the implementation of 

CAA 136(f)(5) and this proposed 

rulemaking only and are not applicable 

for defining an unreasonable delay 

outside of this context. The criteria 

introduced in this section do not apply 

to the determination of unreasonable 

delay for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or 

any other law involved in permitting 

processes or any other agency actions. 

In particular, the timeline criterion 

should not be considered applicable or 

informative to the determination of 

unreasonable delay in any context other 

than determining emission exemptions 

for the implementation of CAA 136(f)(5) 

and this proposed rulemaking. 

The first criterion, that the facility 

must have emissions that exceed the 

waste emissions threshold, is based on 

CAA 136(f)(5), which states that 

‘‘charges shall not be imposed pursuant 

to paragraph (1) on emissions that 

exceed the waste emissions threshold 

specified in such paragraph if such 

emissions are caused by unreasonable 

delay.’’ A straightforward reading of this 

language limits the exemption to 

emissions exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold. In addition, since 

charges would not be imposed on 

emissions below the threshold, an 

exemption is unnecessary in cases 

where facility emissions are below the 

threshold. The EPA proposes that 

emissions from facilities that are below 

the waste emissions threshold would 

not be exempted. The EPA proposes that 

for facilities that exceed the waste 

emissions threshold, emissions eligible 

for the permitting delay exemption 

would be subtracted from the facility 

emissions that exceed the waste 

emissions threshold. The exempted 

emissions would not be used to reduce 

emissions totals below the threshold 

(i.e., the lowest possible WEC applicable 

emissions for a facility with the 

exemption would be zero). 

The second criterion relates to 

responsiveness on the part of the 

production sector WEC applicable 

facility reporting emissions caused by a 

delay in gathering or transmission 

infrastructure and the gathering or 

transmission infrastructure permit 

applicant: neither the entity potentially 

eligible for the exemption (i.e., a WEC 

applicable facility in the onshore or 

offshore production sector) nor the 

entity seeking the environmental permit 

(e.g., an entity seeking a permit for 

gathering or transmission infrastructure) 

has contributed to the delay in 

permitting. 

The EPA is proposing that 

contributions to the delay by either the 

production entity potentially eligible for 

the exemption or the entity seeking the 

environmental permit would be 

determined based upon the timeliness 

of response to requests for additional 

information or modification of the 

permit application. Delays in response 

exceeding the response time requested 

by the permitting agency, or requested 

by the relevant production or gathering 

or transmission infrastructure entity 

seeking the permit, or responses that 

exceed 30 days from the request if no 

specific response time is requested, 

would be considered to contribute to the 

delay in processing the permit 

application. Note that this proposed 

determination of what would constitute 

a delay eligible for the exemption in 

environmental permitting would be 

specific solely to implementation of 

CAA section 136(f)(5) and this proposed 

rulemaking for part 99, and would not 

necessarily be applicable to any other 

section of the CAA, or any permitting 

program administered by the EPA or by 

a state or local permitting authority. 

The third criterion is that the 

exempted emissions must be those 

resulting from the flaring of gas that 

would have been mitigated without the 

permit delay—and that exempted 

emissions must be in compliance with 

all applicable local, state, and Federal 

regulations regarding flaring emissions. 

The EPA believes that this approach 

reasonably follows from the text of 

section 136(f)(5), which exempts 

emissions caused by unreasonable delay 

in the permitting of ‘‘gathering or 

transmission infrastructure necessary 

for offtake of increased volume as a 

result of methane emissions mitigation 

implementation.’’ 27 Following this 

statutory directive, the EPA is proposing 

that exempted emissions are flaring 

emissions which (1) would otherwise be 

captured in accordance with applicable 

regulations but (2) are not captured due 

to a delay in the permitting necessary 

for offtake. It is anticipated that 

operations seeking the exemption could 

include oil production sites planning to 

send gas to sale, rather than flaring the 

emissions, or facilities that produce 

natural gas, condensate or natural gas 

liquids and that expand operations and 

are flaring gas because a pipeline is not 

yet available. Only flaring emissions 

caused by the unreasonable delay in 

permitting, and occurring in compliance 

with all applicable regulations, would 

be exempt. Other emissions occurring at 

the wellsite would not be exempt 

because they are not associated with the 

delay or because they do not occur in 

compliance with applicable regulations. 

For example, fugitive emissions from 

leaks would occur with or without the 

delayed infrastructure, and venting 

emissions is widely restricted due to 

Federal, state, or local regulations on 

venting. 

Flaring emissions that occur as a 

result of flaring that is not in 

compliance with applicable regulations 

are ineligible for the exemption. This 

approach accords with the text of 

section 136(f)(5), which states that the 

exemption is for emissions occurring as 

a result of unreasonable delay in 

permitting required for the build out of 

infrastructure ‘‘necessary for offtake of 

increased volume as a result of methane 

emissions mitigation.’’ 28 Regulations 

limiting flaring and venting will result 

in an increased volume of gas that must 

be captured and transmitted, compared 

with a circumstance without methane 

emissions mitigation implementation, in 

which gas is flared or vented on site. 

Thus, the EPA understands that this 

provision is designed to exempt flaring 

done in compliance with regulations, 

where sources are prepared to capture 

gas but cannot yet do so due to lack of 

offtake infrastructure. However, a delay 

in permitting does not allow exemption 

from other applicable local, state, and 

Federal regulations regarding flaring. 

Thus, the flaring emissions exempt 

under 136(f)(5) cannot exceed flaring 

emissions allowable under other 

applicable local, state, and Federal 

regulations. 

The fourth criterion is that an eligible 

‘‘unreasonable delay’’ would be a delay 

that exceeds a set period of months 

specified in the final rule. The EPA’s 

current assessment is that this time 

period would likely fall somewhere 

between 30 and 42 months from the 

date that a submitted permit application 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5334 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

29Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council, ‘‘2020 Recommended Performance 

Schedules.’’ Federal Infrastructure Permitting 

Dashboard. April 6, 2020. https://

www.permits.performance.gov/fpisc-content/ 

recommended-performance-schedules. Accessed 

August 28, 2023. 

30Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council, ‘‘FAST–41 Fact Sheet.’’ Federal 

Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard. September 13, 

2022. https://www.permits.performance.gov/ 

documentation/fast-41-fact-sheet. Accessed August 

28, 2023. 

was determined to be complete by the 

relevant permitting authority. This time 

period is not tied to the timing of the 

WEC; a facility that meets all four 

criteria would be eligible for the 

exemption in the first year of the WEC 

if the time period requirement has been 

met. The relevant permitting authority 

could be the United States Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), 

or other federal, state or local agencies 

that issue environmental permits. The 

environmental permitting process can 

require multiple steps including, but not 

limited to: the entity preparing and 

submitting a permit application; the 

entity responding to comments with 

supporting information; the regulatory 

agency preparing a draft permit; public 

comment; and preparation and issuance 

of the final permit. Target dates for 

permit actions can vary by regulatory 

agency and depend, for example, on 

whether the relevant permit is for a new 

or existing source, or whether the action 

is a major or minor modification. The 

EPA is proposing to set a timeframe for 

unreasonable delay that is not specific 

to particular permitting actions or 

agency timelines. 

The EPA is proposing to set a timeline 

somewhere in the range of 30 to 42 

months, with the default to be specified 

in the final rule after consideration of 

comments received. This preliminary 

range is based on the EPA’s current 

understanding of timelines for oil and 

gas permitting across Federal agencies. 

In particular, the preliminary range is 

informed by the EPA’s review of data 

made available through the Federal 

Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council (FPISC) through Title 41 of the 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

Act (FAST–41). The ‘‘Recommended 

Performance Schedules for 2020’’ 

released by FPISC contains data for the 

Federal review and permitting of 18 

pipeline projects under the FAST–41 

program.29 For these projects, the mean 

time from receipt by FERC of a complete 

application to the issuance of a 

certificate of public convenience and 

necessity for interstate natural gas 

pipelines was 23 months, with three of 

the 18 projects (17 percent) exceeding 

30 months. Criteria for inclusion in the 

FAST–41 program include projects that 

are considered likely to require 

investment exceeding $200,000,000 and 

that do not qualify for abbreviated 

review under applicable law; or projects 

of a size and complexity that the FPISC 

determines are likely to benefit from 

inclusion.30 On this basis, the EPA 

believes the FAST–41 dataset may be a 

conservative population (i.e., require 

more complex environmental review 

and permitting) when compared to the 

total of all gathering or transmission 

infrastructure projects. 

The proposed range of 30 to 42 

months also takes into account the 2023 

Fiscal Responsibility Act, which set a 

limit under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1 year for completion of 

an Environmental Assessment and 2 

years for completion of an 

Environmental Impact Statement unless 

extended by the lead agency in 

consultation with the applicant or 

project sponsor. However, the amount of 

time necessary to complete an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement will 

vary depending on the specific agency 

action at issue, and this proposed 

timeline is not intended to reflect a 

determination of the reasonable length 

of a time necessary to complete such 

analysis in any specific instance. For 

projects requiring approval or 

permitting from a federal agency, 

completion of an Environmental 

Assessment or Environmental Impact 

Statement must occur prior to the 

agency taking a final agency action. 

Additional steps in the process that 

must be completed following 

completion of review under NEPA may 

add several months to the overall 

timeframe (e.g., convening of FERC to 

approve or deny a certificate of public 

convenience and necessity). 

We note that all four criteria must 

have been met for the EPA to determine 

that for the purpose of this exemption, 

emissions were caused by an 

unreasonable delay. No single factor, 

including timing, would be 

determinative as to whether a delay 

unreasonable in the context of this 

exemption. We are not assessing 

whether a delay of any particular period 

of months alone (i.e., in the absence of 

the other three criteria) should be 

considered unreasonable in the context 

of this exemption, and we are not 

assessing the reasonableness of a 

particular timeframe or collection of 

conditions outside of the context of this 

exemption specific to CAA section 136. 

An assessment of reasonableness in any 

other context depends on the 

circumstances specific to that context, 

which can vary considerably and there 

is no straightforward way to determine 

whether a delay is reasonable or 

unreasonable that applies to all 

contexts. We note that using the 

approach of requiring four criteria to be 

met may not fully capture case-by-case 

circumstances and therefore may not 

always produce the same determination 

as a more holistic evaluation would. We 

have proposed this approach of using 

four criteria, including one specifying a 

set timeframe, for the purposes of this 

exemption only to simplify this process, 

and for clarity and administrability; we 

understand that longer permitting 

timeframes are often not unreasonable 

in other contexts. 

As an alternative to specifying that an 

‘‘unreasonable delay’’ requires a set 

period of months to have elapsed since 

a permit application is deemed 

complete (in addition to the other three 

criteria), the EPA considered adopting a 

case-by-case process for determining 

whether an unreasonable delay in 

permitting has occurred. Under such an 

approach, the exemption for 

unreasonable delay could only be 

utilized by a facility that has obtained 

a facility-specific finding of 

unreasonable delay from the EPA. The 

EPA would evaluate documentation 

provided by a WEC obligated party to 

determine if there was an unreasonable 

delay. A WEC obligated party would not 

exclude emissions it claimed are 

associated with the unreasonable delay 

exemption until such time as it obtained 

an unreasonable delay finding from the 

EPA. In other words, emissions 

associated with a claim of unreasonable 

delay for which there is not an 

unreasonable delay determination by 

the EPA could not be subtracted from 

the emissions totals in the initial WEC 

filing. If the EPA subsequently were to 

make such a finding, the EPA would 

authorize a refund in accordance with 

its determination. Documentation could 

include information such as that 

currently proposed to be reported, such 

as information on mitigation activities, 

permitting timing, and regulations 

relevant to flaring, and information 

currently proposed as recordkeeping 

requirements, such as detailed records 

on responsiveness, in addition to other 

documentation specific to the relevant 

gathering or transmission infrastructure 

environmental permit, such as on the 

expected timing for the specific 

environmental permit(s) sought and the 

type of information that would be 

needed to support the claim that the 

permit(s) is delayed beyond what could 

be considered a reasonable timeframe. A 

case-by-case approach for reviewing and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5335 

approving the unreasonable delay 

exemption would help ensure the 

validity of individual claims, and 

ensure that all applicable waste 

emissions for each facility are subject to 

charge, as directed by Congress. 

However, the EPA decided not to 

propose such an approach due to the 

time and resource burden that would be 

required to administer such a process, 

for both covered entities and for the 

EPA. We expect that many types of 

permitting situations can arise, with 

many permutations. If industry were 

required to demonstrate unreasonable 

delay on a case-by-case basis, the EPA 

anticipates this review process would 

result in uncertainty for industry and 

could lead to a significant backlog, thus 

making the annual calculation of the 

WEC unduly burdensome. Therefore, in 

the interest of simplicity and making the 

exemption available in an efficient 

manner and without significant 

additional burden, the EPA proposes to 

rely on this threshold of a set period of 

months, in addition to the three other 

criteria, which can be more easily 

applied without detailed investigation. 

The EPA notes that in its verification 

process under the proposed approach it 

would review the submitted 

documentation to confirm that 

requirements are met for each facility 

reporting an unreasonable delay, and 

facilities determined to have not met the 

requirements would be required to 

submit any additional owed WEC 

obligation and relevant penalties. 

Section II.D.1.c. below details the 

reporting requirements for this 

exemption which provide information 

necessary for verification of the 

exemption eligibility and exempted 

emission quantities. 

We seek comment on these four 

criteria, each required to be met to 

determine emissions eligible for the 

unreasonable delay exemption. We seek 

comment on the use of responsiveness 

to requests regarding permitting by the 

permit applicant or the production 

segment facility experiencing delayed 

mitigation as a criterion. We seek 

comment on the use of 30 days to assess 

responsiveness where a specific 

timeframe for response is not provided. 

We seek comment on the criterion that 

exempted emissions are those resulting 

from flaring of gas that would have been 

mitigated without the permit delay, and 

that only flaring emissions that are in 

compliance with applicable regulations 

are eligible. We seek comment on the 

appropriate timeframe to be used as part 

of the four-factor test proposed today— 

specifically, what would be the best 

period of time (even if it is below or 

above the 30–42-month range EPA is 

leaning towards now) to use as a trigger 

for assessing unreasonable delay for the 

purposes of CAA section 136(f). We seek 

comment on the proposed use of one 

timeframe for eligibility versus an 

approach that might use different time 

frames for different types of permits. We 

seek comment on whether specific types 

of delays should be eligible or ineligible, 

which could be included as additional 

criteria or used in place of all or some 

of the proposed criteria. For example, 

we seek comment on whether we 

should establish that delays due to 

litigation regarding pipeline 

development are ineligible. We also 

seek comment on an alternative casespecific approach in which each facility 

with exempt emissions from 

unreasonable delay would provide 

additional facility- and permit-specific 

information, and in which the 

exemption would not be granted unless 

approved by the EPA. Finally, we seek 

comment on whether EPA should 

include additional criteria when 

defining the unreasonable delay 

exemption. For example, we seek 

comment on whether, in addition to the 

four criteria, we should add a criterion 

that entities show the flaring is 

necessary (i.e., other options for 

beneficially use or reinject of gas were 

infeasible). 

b. Calculation of Emissions Resulting 

From an Unreasonable Delay 

Through the provisions proposed at 

40 CFR 99.32, the EPA is proposing that 

exempted emissions are flaring 

emissions caused by the delay. We are 

proposing that exempted flaring 

emissions are the methane emissions (or 

a subset of the methane emissions) from 

flaring reported under subpart W. 

To calculate the exempted emissions 

quantity, the entity must determine the 

time period associated with the 

emissions that occurred as a result of 

the delay within the filing year. The 

EPA is proposing that the delay begins 

when emissions would have been 

avoided through the operation of the 

gathering or transmission infrastructure, 

not when construction would begin, as 

in many cases the infrastructure would 

not be immediately in place and 

operational at the time of permitting 

approval. For example, a permit to 

construct might be needed before 

construction begins, and construction 

could take months or more before the 

infrastructure would be in place. 

Where the exempted emissions cover 

the entire reporting year, the exempted 

flaring emissions would be the total 

reported to part 98 for flare stacks, 

associated gas flaring, and the portion of 

offshore methane emissions attributable 

to flaring. Where exempted emissions 

occur in only a fraction of a reporting 

year, the facility is to use data on flaring 

emissions over that time frame if 

available, and if unavailable, the facility 

is to adjust part 98 flaring emissions 

using the fraction of the year that the 

exemption is available. Where flared 

emissions impacted by permitting delay 

only account for a portion of the total 

flared emissions, the facility is to adjust 

their part 98 reported flaring emissions 

using company records and/or 

engineering calculations. 

We seek comment on the provisions 

proposed, including the use of reported 

flaring emissions to determine 

exempted emissions, the use of part 98 

data, and the approaches for quantifying 

emissions for fractions of the reporting 

year. 

c. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for the Exemption for 

Emissions Resulting From a Permit 

Delay 

Through the provisions proposed at 

40 CFR 99.31, the EPA is proposing that 

the WEC obligated party receiving the 

exemption would provide information 

on each well pad or offshore platform 

impacted by the delay. This includes 

the type of permit, permitting authority, 

and the date that the permit application 

was complete. The WEC obligated party 

must report the planned timing of the 

commencement of the offtake of gas had 

the permit not been delayed. This 

includes a listing of the methane 

emissions mitigation activities that are 

impacted by the delay and the flaring 

emissions associated with natural gas 

that would have been directed to 

gathering or transmission infrastructure 

as a result of the methane emissions 

mitigation activities. This also includes 

information on all applicable local, 

state, and Federal regulations regarding 

flaring emissions and the facility’s 

compliance with each. The WEC 

obligated party must report the time 

period associated with the emissions 

that occurred as a result of the delay 

within the filing year. The WEC 

obligated party must also affirm that 

neither the production segment entity 

impacted by the delay nor the gathering 

or transmission infrastructure entity 

seeking the permit contributed to the 

unreasonable delay. 

The EPA requires this information for 

the verification of exemption eligibility 

and of exempted emission quantity. 

Reported information will be used to 

conduct verification as discussed in 

section III.A.4., and reported 

information, records and other 

information as applicable will be used 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5336 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

31Under the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR), eligible 

Tribes may seek approval to implement a plan 

under CAA section 111(d) in a manner similar to 

a state. See 40 CFR part 49, subpart A. Tribes may, 

but are not required to, seek approval for treatment 

in a manner similar to a state for purposes of 

developing a Tribal implementation plan (TIP) 

implementing the EG codified in 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart OOOOc. The TAR authorizes Tribes to 

develop and implement their own air quality 

programs, or portions thereof, under the CAA. 

However, it does not require Tribes to develop a 

CAA program. Tribes may implement programs that 

are most relevant to their air quality needs. If a 

Tribe does not seek and obtain the authority from 

the EPA to establish a TIP, the EPA has the 

authority to establish a Federal CAA section 111(d) 

plan for designated facilities that are located in 

areas of Indian country. A Federal plan would 

apply to all designated facilities located in the areas 

of Indian country covered by the Federal plan 

unless and until the EPA approves a TIP applicable 

to those facilities. In this proposal, all uses of the 

phrase ‘‘state and Federal plans’’ are intended to 

include any Tribal plans, to the extent that any 

Tribal plans are developed to implement EG 

OOOOc. 

to conduct any auditing that occurs 

under section III.E.1. 

The EPA seeks comment on the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the exemption for 

unreasonable delay in environmental 

permitting. We seek comment on 

whether additional information should 

be collected or retained to allow for 

verification of the quantity of emissions 

eligible for the exemption. 

2. Regulatory Compliance Exemption 

Under CAA Section 136(f)(6) 

CAA section 136(f)(6) establishes a 

regulatory compliance exemption for 

subpart W facilities that are ‘‘subject to 

and in compliance with methane 

emissions requirements pursuant to 

subsections (b) and (d) of section 111’’ 

upon an Administrator determination 

that the criteria at CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) have been met. In this 

action, the EPA is proposing: when the 

Administrator determinations will be 

made; the time at which the regulatory 

compliance exemption would become 

available to eligible facilities; the 

process for how the Administrator 

determinations will be made; how to 

interpret CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) to 

govern the interaction between WEC 

applicable facilities and CAA section 

111(b) affected facilities and CAA 

section 111(d) designated facilities 

(collectively referred to in this preamble 

as ‘‘CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facilities’’) for the purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption; how 

‘‘compliance’’ with the methane 

emissions requirements promulgated 

under CAA sections 111(b) and (d) will 

be defined for the purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption; 

reporting requirements for the 

regulatory compliance exemption; and 

the process for resumption of the WEC 

pursuant to CAA section 136(f)(6)(B) if 

the criteria for the regulatory 

compliance exemption are no longer 

met. 

The EPA believes the Congressional 

intent of this exemption was twofold: 

(1) to be implemented such that the 

WEC acts as a bridge to full 

implementation of the Final NSPS 

OOOOb and EG OOOOc by encouraging 

methane reductions in the near term 

while state plans are being developed, 

and thereafter exempting from the 

charge facilities that are in compliance 

with the requirements pursuant to the 

final NSPS OOOOb and EG–OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans,31

and (2) to encourage timely 

implementation of requirements in the 

final NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans in 

order to ensure that those requirements 

achieve meaningful emissions 

reductions. The EPA’s proposed 

approach for implementing the 

regulatory compliance exemption is 

based on a plain reading of the statutory 

text in CAA section 136(f)(6). The EPA 

strives to create a program that is 

straightforward to implement and 

enforce. 

The EPA interprets the intent of the 

WEC to be to incentivize reduction of 

methane emissions across the oil and 

gas industry. For industry segments not 

covered by NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc, 

the WEC incentivizes, but does not 

require, early and sustained emissions 

mitigation activity. For WEC applicable 

facilities in industry segments that are 

covered by NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc, 

the WEC incentivizes, but does not 

require, methane emissions reductions 

earlier than may otherwise be required 

pursuant to NSPS OOOOb and EG 

OOOOc-derived state and Federal plans. 

Once those requirements are in effect, 

the EPA believes the purpose of the 

regulatory compliance exemption is to 

provide relief from the WEC to owners 

or operators that are fully complying 

with those requirements, and to broadly 

encourage compliance. This structure 

ensures that there is an incentive (or 

requirement) for methane emission 

reductions from new and existing 

sources in place at all times, while also 

avoiding regulation of the same 

emissions under both the WEC and the 

NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans 

once the regulatory compliance 

exemption becomes available. 

The EPA expects that, as CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities implement and 

comply with the methane emissions 

requirements of NSPS OOOOb and EG 

OOOOc-implementing state and Federal 

plans, many of the WEC applicable 

facilities that contain those emissions 

sources subject to NSPS OOOOb and EG 

OOOOc-derived state and Federal plans 

would be expected to fall below the 

waste emissions thresholds, and thus 

not be subject to the WEC. However, the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

recognizes that certain WEC applicable 

facilities may remain above the waste 

emissions thresholds even after 

implementation of the requirements in 

the final NSPS OOOOb and approved 

state and Federal plans under EG 

OOOOc; the regulatory compliance 

exemption would shield such owners or 

operators that are in compliance with 

those requirements from additional 

regulation under the WEC. 

Congress provided that the regulatory 

compliance exemption would only 

come into effect after ‘‘(i) methane 

emissions standards and plans pursuant 

to subsections (b) and (d) of section 111 

have been approved and are in effect in 

all States with respect to the applicable 

facilities’’ and ‘‘(ii) compliance with the 

requirements described in clause (i) will 

result in equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions as would be achieved by [the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal], if such rule had been 

finalized and implemented.’’ The EPA’s 

understanding of these provisions is 

that Congress intended to provide an 

incentive for states to move promptly in 

adopting their plans, and to encourage 

those plans to achieve meaningful 

emissions reductions. These two drivers 

are manifested in the Administrator 

determinations that must be made 

before the regulatory compliance 

exemption becomes available: the first 

Administrator determination, per CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(A)(i), that the final 

NSPS OOOOb and all EG OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans 

are ‘‘approved and in effect’’; and the 

second Administrator determination, 

per section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii), that the 

emissions reductions achieved by these 

requirements are equal to or greater than 

the reductions that would have been 

achieved by the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, had that rule 

been finalized and implemented as 

proposed (the ‘‘equivalency 

determination’’). These requirements 

mean that if the final NSPS OOOOb or 

EG OOOOc-implementing state or 

Federal plans are delayed, or the 

requirements therein are collectively 

less stringent than those in the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal, the 

exemption would not be available and 

WEC applicable facilities that exceed 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5337 

32 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(6)(A). 

33Note that while the EPA believes that the 

statute instructs us to make a determination after 

the plans are collectively in place (rather than 

making multiple state-by-state determinations), that 

does not preclude the EPA from reviewing and 

Continued 

the waste emissions threshold would 

not be eligible for the regulatory 

compliance exemption from the WEC 

until the conditions are met. 

Here, we summarize the proposed 

approach for the regulatory compliance 

exemption. Elements of the proposal, 

other options considered, and requests 

for comment are discussed in more 

detail in the sections below. 

The EPA is proposing that the 

prerequisite Administrator 

determinations for the regulatory 

compliance exemption would be made 

after all state and Federal plans 

pursuant to CAA section 111(d) are 

approved and in effect. Separate from 

the timing of the Administrator 

determinations, the WEC program must 

establish when the regulatory 

compliance exemption becomes 

available at the facility level (i.e., when 

eligible facilities can be exempted from 

the WEC), by defining when WEC 

applicable facilities that are subject to 

methane emissions requirements 

pursuant to NSPS OOOOb and EG 

OOOOc-implementing state and federal 

plans are in compliance with those 

requirements. The EPA believes that the 

regulatory compliance exemption is 

intended to provide relief from the WEC 

when the requirements in the final 

NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOcimplementing state and Federal plans 

are in effect in all states. In this interest, 

the EPA is proposing that WEC 

applicable facilities would be eligible 

for the regulatory compliance 

exemption as soon as the Administrator 

determinations have been made, rather 

than when the applicable requirements 

in state and Federal plans are fully 

implemented. Thus, under the EPA’s 

proposed approach, the regulatory 

compliance exemption would become 

available to facilities as soon as the 

Administrator determinations are made 

under CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i) and 

(ii). 

The EPA is also proposing further 

elements of the process for the 

Administrator determinations under 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i) and (ii), 

including establishing the relative 

points of comparison for the 

equivalency determination, in order to 

ensure that those elements align with 

the statutory requirements. Because the 

Administrator determinations cannot be 

made until all plans are approved and 

in effect, and because the timing for 

both Administrator determinations is 

aligned, the EPA proposes that two the 

determinations be made together via a 

single future administrative action. 

The EPA is proposing that a WEC 

applicable facility’s eligibility for the 

regulatory compliance exemption would 

be based on the compliance status of all 

of the CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facilities contained within that WEC 

applicable facility. To be eligible for the 

exemption, the EPA proposes that all of 

the regulated emissions sources must be 

in full compliance with their respective 

methane emissions requirements under 

the NSPS and EG-implementing state 

and Federal plans. 

The EPA is also proposing reporting 

requirements for the regulatory 

compliance exemption. In order to 

reduce the burden on industry, the EPA 

proposes that only WEC applicable 

facilities that are eligible for the 

exemption would be required to report 

all associated data elements. Finally, the 

EPA is proposing how access to the 

regulatory compliance exemption would 

be removed for all WEC applicable 

facilities if the criteria associated with 

the Administrator determinations were 

no longer met. The EPA’s proposed 

approach for removing access to the 

exemption mirrors the conditions that 

must be met in order for it to become 

available. 

a. Timing for Regulatory Compliance 

Determinations 

Before the regulatory compliance 

exemption becomes available to 

facilities, CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) 

requires determinations to be made by 

the Administrator that (1) ‘‘methane 

emissions standards and plans pursuant 

to subsections (b) and (d) of section 111 

have been approved and are in effect in 

all States with respect to the applicable 

facilities’’ and (2) that ‘‘compliance with 

the requirements described in clause (i) 

will result in equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions as would be 

achieved by the [NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal], if such rule had 

been finalized and implemented.’’ The 

EPA believes that Congress intended 

these prerequisites to exemption 

availability to encourage timely 

implementation of the requirements in 

the final NSPS and state and Federal 

plans and to ensure that those 

requirements achieve meaningful 

emissions reductions. 

The first Administrator determination 

is related to the timing of final methane 

emissions standards under CAA section 

111(b) and state and Federal plans 

pursuant to an EG issued under CAA 

section 111(d). The EPA proposes to 

interpret the language in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) to mean that this 

temporal requirement is only met when 

both (1) emission standards for new 

sources under CAA section 111(b) are 

promulgated and in effect and (2) all 

state plans for existing sources pursuant 

to an EG issued under CAA section 

111(d) have been approved by the EPA 

and are in effect. As to the latter 

element, the EPA also proposes to 

interpret the reference to ‘‘plans 

pursuant to subsection. . . (d) of section 

111’’ to include the promulgation of a 

Federal plan where the EPA determines 

that one or more states have failed to 

submit an approvable state plan, as that 

is the only way a plan pursuant to CAA 

section 111(d) would take effect in those 

states. The EPA further proposes to 

interpret ‘‘all states’’ in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) to mean that every state 

with an applicable facility (i.e., all states 

with subpart W facilities containing 

CAA section 111(b) or (d) facilities) 

must have an approved plan (state or 

Federal) before the determination can be 

made. Accordingly, because the 

emissions standards for new sources 

under CAA section 111(b) will be 

finalized before the submittal of state 

plans for existing sources under CAA 

section 111(d), approval of the final 

state (or Federal) plan for states with 

designated facilities would determine 

the timing for when the determination 

could be made under the proposed 

approach. The EPA proposes that this 

determination would be made after all 

CAA section 111(d) plans (i.e., state or 

Federal plans) have been approved and 

are in effect. The EPA believes that the 

proposed approach and interpretation of 

‘‘all states’’ is aligned with a plain 

reading of the statutory text. In 

particular, the EPA notes the 

relationship between the use of the 

singular in section 136(f)(6)(A), 

directing the EPA to make ‘‘a 

determination’’, and the requirements 

outlined in 136(f)(6)(A)(ii) and (ii), 

providing that this determination is 

dependent on EPA finding that (1) 

standards and plans ‘‘have been 

approved and are in effect in all states’’ 

and that (2) compliance with the 

standards and plans ‘‘will result in 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions as would be achieved by the 

[2021] proposed rule. . .’’ 32 The text 

strongly indicates that the EPA must 

make one determination after all 

standards and plans are in place in all 

states in order to make the exemption 

available, and further that the 

determination cannot be made until 

standards and plans are in place in all 

states because the equivalency 

determination must be made on a 

nationwide scale.33


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5338 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

revising the determination if a standard or plan is 

later revised, to ensure that the conditions of 

section 136(f)(6)(A) are still met, consistent with the 

resumption of charge language in section 

136(f)(6)(B). 

The EPA considered an alternative 

approach for the determination that 

methane emissions standards and plans 

have been approved and are in effect in 

all states. This alternative would 

involve a determination for methane 

emissions standards after the 

promulgation of final emissions 

standards for CAA section 111(b) 

facilities and then determinations on a 

state-by-state basis as each state plan 

containing emissions standards for CAA 

section 111(d) facilities were submitted 

and approved by the EPA (or a Federal 

plan was promulgated where a state did 

not submit an approvable plan). The 

EPA believes that this state-by-state 

approach is inconsistent with a plain 

reading of CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i), 

which mandates that emissions 

standards and plans must be approved 

and in effect in all states with respect 

to the applicable facilities (i.e., all states 

with subpart W facilities containing 

CAA section 111(b) or (d) facilities). The 

EPA requests comment on the proposed 

approach and an alternative approach 

that would make determinations on a 

state-by-state basis as each state plan 

was approved. 

The second determination that must 

be made before the regulatory 

compliance exemption becomes 

available is whether the final ‘‘methane 

emissions standards and plans’’ provide 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions than would have been 

achieved by the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, had that 

proposal been finalized and 

implemented as proposed. Based on a 

plain reading of the statutory text, 

because plans pursuant to CAA section 

111(d) will not be finalized for several 

years, the EPA cannot propose an 

equivalency determination in this 

action. Instead, we propose that the 

equivalency determination will be made 

via an administrative action after all 

CAA section 111(d) plans (i.e., state or 

Federal plans) have been approved. This 

proposed timing would allow 

evaluation of the emissions reductions 

achieved by the final NSPS and by all 

final state and Federal plans. 

The EPA also assessed making the 

equivalency determination for CAA 

section 111(b) affected facilities before 

making it for CAA section 111(d) 

designated facilities. In this proposal, 

the EPA interprets CAA section 

136(f)(6)(ii) as requiring a comparison of 

the emissions reductions that will be 

achieved by the final NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc and the reductions that would 

have been achieved by the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal if 

finalized as proposed. Separate 

equivalency determinations for CAA 

section 111(b) facilities and CAA 

section 111(d) facilities would not 

provide for a comparison of the total 

emissions reductions achieved by both 

rules, and therefore the EPA believes 

that an approach with separate 

equivalency determinations would be 

inconsistent with a plain reading of the 

statutory text. Further, because both 

determinations must occur before the 

exemption becomes available, and 

because under the proposed approach 

the determination required by CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(i) would occur after all 

plans are approved and in effect, there 

would be no practical reason for making 

the equivalency determination for CAA 

section 111(b) facilities before making it 

for CAA section 111(d) facilities. 

Finally, the only purpose for making the 

equivalency determination for CAA 

section 111(b) facilities before CAA 

section 111(d) facilities would be in 

support of an approach that would make 

the regulatory compliance exemption 

available to CAA section 111(b) 

facilities before CAA section 111(d) 

facilities. As discussed below in section 

II.D.2.b of this preamble, such an 

approach would not align with other 

elements of this proposal, would not be 

aligned with the statutory text, and 

would not be technically feasible. The 

EPA requests comment on this 

alternative approach. 

b. Timing of Regulatory Compliance 

Exemption Availability 

Separate from the timing of the 

Administrator determinations, the WEC 

program must also establish when the 

regulatory compliance exemption will 

become available for facilities. Different 

states will have different start dates and 

in some cases, phased-in requirements, 

in state or federal plans under 111(d), 

resulting in some facilities being in 

compliance with the methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to CAA section 

111(b) and (d) before others. The EPA 

believes the inclusion of the regulatory 

compliance exemption at CAA section 

136(f)(6)allows for relief from the WEC 

when the requirements in the final 

NSPS and state and Federal plans are in 

effect. The EPA therefore proposes that 

the regulatory compliance exemption 

would become available to all 

applicable facilities meeting the criteria 

when the Administrator determinations 

required by CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i) 

and (ii) have both been made. Both 

determinations are required before the 

exemption becomes available, and the 

determination under CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) would indicate that the 

requirements promulgated under CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d) have been 

approved and are in effect. Because the 

availability of the exemption is linked to 

the CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) 

determinations, which the EPA is 

proposing could only be made after all 

states with an applicable facility have 

an approved state or Federal plan in 

effect, the EPA is proposing that the 

exemption would become available to 

all eligible WEC applicable facilities in 

all states at the same time. Moreover, 

because methane emissions standards 

for CAA section 111(b) facilities would 

be expected to come into effect earlier 

than those required for CAA section 

111(d) facilities in state or Federal 

plans, the timing for exemption 

availability would be largely driven by 

the approval and effective date for the 

final state or Federal plan (i.e., the last 

state with CAA section 111(d) facilities 

to have a plan approved and in effect). 

The EPA believes the proposed 

approach is consistent with the 

statutory text. CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) 

states that charges shall not be imposed 

on an applicable facility ‘‘that is subject 

to and in compliance with methane 

emissions requirements pursuant to 

subsections (b) and (d) of section 111.’’ 

In order to receive the exemption, all 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

contained within a WEC applicable 

facility would need to demonstrate 

compliance, as discussed in section 

II.D.2.f. of this preamble. 

This proposal makes the exemption 

available upon adoption of all plans 

pursuant to CAA section 111(d) and the 

issuance of the Administrator’s findings 

under CAA section 136(f)(6)(A). The 

EPA proposes that the exemption be 

available as soon as all state or federal 

plans are in effect, because facilities can 

be in compliance with the requirements 

in plan even if full implementation of 

those requirements is not required until 

a future date. Provided that facilities 

subject to the WEC are in compliance 

with OOOOb requirements and the 

requirements in EG OOOOcimplementing plans, the proposed 

approach also allows such facilities to 

benefit from the regulatory compliance 

exemption much earlier than the 

alternative, described below, of making 

the regulatory compliance exemption 

available only once applicable 

compliance deadlines have passed. 

The EPA notes that implementation of 

the requirements included in state or 

Federal plans may not be mandated 

immediately upon the date at which the 

plan goes into effect. In other words, the 

plans may include compliance 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5339 

schedules with compliance dates that 

occur at a future date after plan 

approval, and such requirements could 

be implemented over multiple 

compliance dates in a phased manner or 

include deadlines for various 

increments of progress. It is therefore 

possible for CAA section 111(d) 

facilities to be in compliance with the 

methane emissions requirements in a 

plan even if not all compliance dates 

included in the plan have come to pass. 

For example, if an approved state plan 

were to require a specific type of 

designated facilities to install emissions 

controls within a year of the effective 

date of the state plan, those facilities 

would be considered in compliance 

with those requirements for that first 

year. By providing the exemption as 

soon as the Administrator’s 

determinations are made after state or 

Federal plans are approved and in effect 

rather than when the requirements in 

those plans must be implemented, the 

proposed approach would provide relief 

from the WEC once CAA section 111(d) 

facilities are effectively subject to 

federally enforceable methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to CAA section 

111. The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed approach of making the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

available to all WEC applicable facilities 

at the time when the two determinations 

required by CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) 

have been made. 

The EPA considered alternative 

approaches in developing this proposal 

for implementing the regulatory 

compliance exemption but found they 

would not be consistent with the 

statutory text, would be more 

challenging to implement, would 

unfairly advantage specific facilities and 

companies, or would not be technically 

feasible. 

First, the EPA considered an approach 

that would make the exemption 

available to WEC applicable facilities 

meeting the criteria at a state-by-state 

level as the plan pursuant to CAA 

section 111(d) for each state was 

approved and became effective. For 

WEC applicable facilities that span 

multiple states, the exemption would be 

available when plans for all states in 

which the facility is located were 

approved and in effect. This alternative 

approach would likely make the 

exemption available earlier for certain 

WEC applicable facilities compared to 

the proposed approach, which would 

not make the exemption available until 

plans are approved and in effect in all 

states. The EPA believes that making the 

regulatory compliance available at a 

state-by-state level is inconsistent with 

the statutory text. As discussed in 

section II.D.2.a. of this preamble, the 

EPA’s interpretation of CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) in this proposal is that 

neither of the determinations that are 

prerequisites to the regulatory 

compliance exemption’s availability 

could be made until plans for CAA 

section 111(d) facilities have been 

approved and are in effect for all states. 

Based on this interpretation, it would 

not be possible for the exemption to 

become available on a state-by-state 

basis as state plans were approved and 

became effective because the 

prerequisite determinations could not 

occur until all state plans were 

approved and in effect. The EPA also 

believes the proposed approach will 

simplify implementation and 

administration of the regulatory 

compliance exemption compared to an 

approach in which the exemption 

would become available to states at 

different times. Further, a state-by-state 

application of the exemption could 

unfairly advantage and disadvantage 

WEC applicability facilities or 

companies based on their geographic 

location. WEC obligations for operations 

in states that take longer to develop state 

plans could be higher than those in 

states that are able to develop and have 

plans approved earlier, and thus have 

access to the exemption. Conversely, the 

proposed approach of making the 

exemption available to all states at the 

same time would be equitable and 

provide the industry with better 

regulatory certainty. The EPA requests 

comment on making the regulatory 

compliance exemption available on a 

state-by-state basis based on the 

finalization of plans for individual 

states. 

Second, the EPA considered an 

approach that would make the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

available to WEC applicable facilities 

meeting the criteria when the methane 

requirements for all CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities have been fully 

implemented. Under this alternative 

approach, WEC applicable facilities 

would only become eligible for the 

regularly compliance exemption once 

the compliance dates for the NSPS and 

the state and Federal plans have passed. 

Because the compliance deadlines 

under the final EG OOOOc may occur 

at some point after the timeline for state 

plan approval and issuance of a Federal 

plan, this alternative approach would 

make the regulatory compliance 

exemption available later than under the 

proposed approach. This would require 

the EPA to interpret the phrase ‘‘subject 

to and in compliance with methane 

emissions requirements’’ in CAA 

section 136(f)(A) to mean that the 

exemption from the charge is available 

only after all of the requirements for 

CAA section 111(d) facilities have been 

fully implemented. In other words, the 

EPA would read ‘‘in compliance with 

methane emissions requirements’’ to 

mean that all compliance dates in the 

NSPS and the state and Federal plans 

have passed. That might serve to give 

independent effect to both elements of 

the statutory phrase ‘‘subject to and in 

compliance with’’, but the EPA believes 

that this alternative approach is not as 

well aligned with the statutory 

directive. This is because compliance 

with the standards may occur at 

different points in time, both across the 

NSPS and the state and Federal plans, 

and even within standards that have 

phased compliance requirements. This 

interpretation may have the result of 

delaying availability of the regulatory 

compliance exemption for many years, 

even as facilities are otherwise 

complying with all applicable methane 

emissions requirements, thus extending 

the period for which many oil and gas 

operations would be subject to 

concurrent regulation under WEC and 

CAA section 111. Rather, the EPA 

proposes to conclude that CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities can be 

considered to be in compliance with all 

applicable methane emissions 

requirements, even prior to the final 

compliance deadlines, for purposes of 

the regulatory compliance exemption. 

While the EPA is not proposing that the 

exemption would become available 

when the requirements of all state and 

Federal plans are fully implemented 

rather than when all state and Federal 

plans have been approved and are in 

effect, the agency requests comment on 

whether such an approach would be 

legally and practically justified. 

Third, the EPA considered an 

approach that would make the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

available to WEC applicable facilities 

meeting the criteria at a state-by-state 

level as the final compliance deadline in 

a state or Federal plan for CAA section 

111(d) facilities was reached. Under this 

alternative approach, WEC applicable 

facilities in a given state would have 

access to the exemption upon the final 

compliance date for CAA section 111(d) 

facilities in that state. Because state and 

Federal plans may establish different 

compliance timelines for CAA section 

111(d) facilities, this approach could 

make the exemption available to states 

at different times. For WEC applicable 

facilities that span multiple states, the 

exemption would be available when the 

final compliance date passed in all 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5340 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

states in which the facility is located. As 

with the alternative approach that 

would make the exemption available 

after the final compliance deadline for 

CAA section 111(d) facilities had passed 

in all states, the EPA does not believe 

an approach that provides the 

exemption at a state-by-state level based 

on compliance dates is as consistent 

with the statutory text and purpose of 

the exemption for the reasons discussed 

in the prior paragraph. The EPA 

requests comment on an approach that 

would make the exemption available at 

a state-by-state level based on each 

state’s final compliance deadline for 

CAA section 111(d) facilities. 

The EPA also assessed an approach 

that would make the regulatory 

compliance exemption available to CAA 

section 111(b) facilities before CAA 

section 111(d) facilities. Because 

compliance with emission standards for 

CAA section 111(b) affected facilities 

generally apply upon the effective date 

of the final NSPS and would be required 

before emission standards for CAA 

section 111(d) designated facilities are 

fully implemented (once state or Federal 

plans are finalized and in effect), there 

would likely be several years between 

compliance with methane emissions 

requirements for CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities. The EPA rejected this 

approach for this proposal, however, 

based on a plain reading of the statutory 

text. First, as discussed in section 

II.D.2.e. of this preamble, the exemption 

is applied to an entire WEC applicable 

facility, not the CAA section 111(b) and 

(d) facilities within that WEC applicable 

facility, and therefore individual CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) facilities within a 

WEC applicable facility cannot be 

exempted. Second, CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) states that waste emission 

charges shall not be imposed ‘‘on an 

applicable facility that is subject to and 

in compliance with methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to subsections 

(b) and (d) of section 111.’’ The EPA 

believes that a plain reading of this text 

indicates that compliance with 

regulations pursuant to both CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) must be achieved 

before the exemption becomes available, 

and that the statute therefore does not, 

by its terms, permit application of the 

exemption to CAA section 111(b) 

facilities before it becomes available to 

CAA section 111(d) facilities. As 

discussed in section II.D.2.a. of this 

preamble, the EPA proposes to make the 

determinations required by CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) after all state or 

Federal plans have been approved and 

are in effect. Because the determinations 

that are required for the exemption to 

become available would not be made 

separately for CAA section 111(b) 

facilities and CAA section 111(d) 

facilities, the exemption would not be 

available to CAA section 111(b) 

facilities before CAA section 111(d) 

facilities under the proposed approach. 

Further, even assuming that this 

statutory text allowed for some 

ambiguity, there are practical 

limitations to implementing the 

regulatory exemption in a phased 

manner for CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facilities. The WEC calculations are 

based on methane emissions and natural 

gas or oil throughput data for subpart W 

facilities that may contain both CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) facilities. Because 

reporting under subpart W does not 

distinguish between CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities, there is currently no 

practical means of implementing a 

phased implementation of the 

regulatory compliance exemption. 

Revising the subpart W reporting 

requirements to make such distinctions 

would significantly increase the 

reporting complexity and burden for the 

oil and gas industry and would not be 

possible for certain emissions sources 

due to different definitions of individual 

emissions source types in subpart W 

and at CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facilities. Further, while it may be 

feasible to distinguish emissions from 

new and existing sources for certain 

emission source categories, there is no 

means to distinguish natural gas 

throughput from CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities at subpart W facilities 

that contain both CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities. 

c. Emissions Year in Which Exemption 

Takes Effect 

While the data collected under 

subpart W for the purposes of WEC 

calculation are reported on a calendaryear basis (i.e., a reporting year is a 

calendar year), the date at which all of 

the criteria for the regulatory 

compliance exemption will be met is 

not yet known and could fall at any 

point in the course of a reporting year. 

The EPA is proposing that the 

regulatory exemption will take effect in 

the reporting year in which the required 

conditions are met. For example, if all 

exemption requirements are met in June 

2027, all eligible facilities meeting the 

proposed compliance requirements 

discussed in section II.D.2.f. of this 

preamble would be exempt from the 

WEC for the entire 2027 reporting year. 

The proposed approach is aligned with 

the EPA’s interpretation that the 

regulatory compliance exemption is 

intended to prevent WEC applicable 

facilities from being subject to the WEC 

when their constituent CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities are in 

compliance with their applicable 

standards. The EPA requests comment 

on the proposed approach, as well as an 

approach in which the regulatory 

compliance exemption became effective 

for eligible facilities in the next calendar 

year after which all required conditions 

are met (e.g., if requirements are met in 

October 2027, the exemption would 

come into effect for the 2028 reporting 

year). The EPA also requests comment 

on an approach that would apply the 

regulatory exemption for a portion of 

the reporting year based on when all 

exemption requirements were met, and 

how reported emissions and throughput 

data could be quantified, such as 

through prorating. 

d. Approach for Regulatory Compliance 

Determinations 

In this action, the EPA is proposing 

certain elements related to the approach 

for the CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) 

Administrator determinations that must 

occur before the regulatory compliance 

exemption becomes available. The EPA 

is proposing that both determinations 

would be made simultaneously via a 

future administrative action. For the 

equivalency determination, the EPA is 

proposing the geographic scale at which 

the equivalency determination would be 

conducted and the specific elements 

that would be compared. The EPA 

proposes to address all other elements 

(e.g., cumulative versus year-by-year) of 

the equivalency determination in a 

future administrative action when the 

analysis is conducted. 

The EPA proposes that when the 

criteria for both determinations are met, 

the determinations would be made 

through a single administrative action. 

As discussed in section II.D.2.a. of this 

preamble, under the proposed approach 

neither determination could be made 

until all state and Federal plans 

pursuant to CAA section 111(d) have 

been approved and are in effect. 

Because the timing for both 

determinations would be aligned, the 

EPA believes that making both 

determinations via a single 

administrative action will facilitate 

timely access to the regulatory 

compliance exemption after the CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(A)(i) and (ii) 

requirements have been met. The EPA 

requests comment on the proposed 

approach for making both 

determinations via a single future 

administrative action, as well as on 

alternative approaches for making the 

determinations. 

Section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii) of the CAA 

requires an Administrator determination 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5341 

that compliance with the requirements 

in the final CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

rules ‘‘will result in equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions as would 

be achieved by the [NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal], if such rule had 

been finalized and implemented.’’ The 

EPA is proposing to conduct the 

analysis for the purposes of this 

equivalency determination at a national 

level, comparing the national-level 

emissions reductions that would have 

been achieved under the NSPS OOOOb/ 

EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal (if finalized 

as proposed) against those that will be 

achieved upon implementation of the 

final NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc. 

The EPA believes that a national 

evaluation is the most appropriate 

geographic scale for the purposes of the 

equivalency determination. The primary 

concern for the emissions reductions 

achieved by the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc in the context of the WEC 

regulatory compliance exemption are 

methane emissions. Because the climate 

impacts of these emissions are 

dependent on their aggregate quantity 

rather than where they occur, a 

national-level evaluation will provide 

an appropriate comparison of the 

overall impact of the reductions that 

would have been achieved under the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal and those that will be achieved 

upon implementation of the final NSPS 

OOOOb and state and Federal plans 

implementing OOOOc. The EPA also 

considers a national evaluation to be 

consistent with the statutory text in 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii), which 

requires the Administrator’s 

determination to be based on 

‘‘compliance with the requirements 

described in clause (i),’’ where clause (i) 

describes the collective ‘‘methane 

emissions standards and plans’’ 

required by CAA sections 111(b) and 

(d). 

The EPA assessed alternative 

approaches that would conduct the 

equivalency determination at the stateby-state level (i.e., each state would 

need to demonstrate equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions) and at 

both the national and state-by-state 

levels. However, the EPA is not 

proposing an approach that would 

conduct the equivalency at the state-bystate level because the EPA believes that 

this approach is less consistent with the 

statutory text and purpose. 

Determinations for individual states 

would not indicate if the emissions 

reductions that will be achieved by the 

final NSPS and state and Federal plans 

are equivalent or greater than the 

reductions that would have been 

achieved by the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, had that rule 

been finalized and implemented. In 

other words, if the EPA were to make 

determinations for individual states and 

make the exemption available on a stateby-state basis, that could result in not 

achieving emission reductions 

equivalent to the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, thus 

undermining Congress’ intent in 

drafting this provision to incentivize a 

minimum level of methane emission 

reductions via the CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) regulations. The EPA requests 

comment on the proposed approach of 

conducting the equivalency 

determination at the national scale. The 

EPA requests comment on conducting 

the equivalency determination at other 

geographic scales, such as a state-bystate level, as well as an approach that 

would require an equivalency 

determination at both the national and 

state-by-state levels. 

The EPA also considered an 

alternative approach that would 

conduct the equivalency analysis at a 

source-by-source level (at either a 

national or state-by-state scale). Under 

this alternative approach, the EPA 

would compare the reductions achieved 

by individual sources under the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal, had 

that rule be finalized and implemented, 

and the final NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc. 

As described above, the climate impacts 

of methane emissions are based on their 

aggregate quantity, and it is that 

quantity, therefore, that is necessary for 

conducting the equivalency 

determination. Within the specific 

context of the equivalency 

determination, it does not matter if the 

emissions reductions achieved by an 

individual source under the final NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc achieves fewer 

reductions than it would have under the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal, as long as the total emissions 

reductions achieved by implementation 

of the final NSPS OOOOb and EG 

OOOOc-derived state or federal plans 

across all sources are equivalent or 

greater than those that would have been 

achieved across all sources by the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal. The 

EPA therefore believes that it is not 

reasonable to conduct the equivalency 

analysis on a source-by-source level and 

such an approach is not required by the 

statutory text. However, the EPA 

requests comment on using a source-bysource approach for the equivalency 

determination and requests comment on 

how such an analysis could be 

conducted. 

Because the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal was not itself a 

final rule at the time Congress enacted 

this Waste Emissions Charge program, 

no new source emissions standards or 

emission guidelines had been finalized 

for CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

based on the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

2021 Proposal, no requirements had 

been finalized for what constitutes an 

approvable state plan, and no states had 

submitted state plans pursuant to such 

hypothetical finalized requirements. As 

such, the EPA proposes to use the 

standards proposed in NSPS OOOOb 

and the presumptive standards 

proposed in EG OOOOc as the basis for 

evaluating emissions reductions that 

would have been achieved had the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal been finalized and 

implemented. In other words, the EPA 

understands the inclusion of the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal as 

the baseline for the equivalency 

demonstration to mean that Congress 

intended for the EPA to assume, for 

purposes of this analysis, that the 

proposed standards were finalized as 

drafted in the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

2021 Proposal and implemented 

nationwide. Further, because Congress 

directs the EPA to compare the 

emissions that would have been 

achieved if the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal were finalized 

and implemented against actual CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) standards once 

these are finalized and in effect, the EPA 

believes that Congress must have meant 

the EPA to assume that the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal was 

finalized and implemented as proposed, 

which is the only way to use it as a 

point of comparison. Accordingly, for 

CAA section 111(b) facilities under the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal, the EPA proposes to assess the 

reductions that would have been 

achieved had the proposed NSPS 

OOOOb been finalized and 

implemented. For CAA section 111(d) 

facilities under the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, the EPA 

proposes to assess the reductions that 

would have been achieved had the 

proposed emissions guidelines been 

adopted and implemented by all states 

as proposed. 

The EPA believes the proposed points 

of comparison between the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal and 

the final NSPS OOOOb and final 

requirements in state and Federal plans 

derived from EG OOOOc for the 

equivalency is aligned with a plain 

reading of CAA section 136(f)(6)(A), and 

with Congressional intent. The EPA 

requests comment on the proposed 

approach. The EPA recognizes that if 

the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5342 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

34 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(A)(ii) (requiring a 

determination by the Administrator that 

‘‘compliance with the requirements described in 

clause (i) will result in equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions as would be achieved by [the 

2021 proposal]’’.) 35 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(6)(A)(ii) (emphasis added). 

Proposal had been finalized as 

proposed, the requirements for CAA 

section 111(d) facilities, and the 

emissions reductions associated with 

those requirements, would have been 

based on approved state or Federal 

plans. In those plans, it is possible that 

some states may have set different 

standards of performance than the 

presumptive standards proposed in EG 

OOOOc based on a provision of CAA 

section 111(d)(1) permitting states to 

‘‘take into consideration, among other 

factors, the remaining useful life of a 

source.’’ (The EPA refers to this 

provision as the ‘‘remaining useful life 

and other factors’’ provision, or 

RULOF.) The EPA regulations at 40 CFR 

part 60 subpart Ba permit states to 

consider several factors to, with an 

adequate demonstration, establish 

standards less stringent than the degree 

of emission limitation otherwise 

required by an EG. In such 

circumstances, the emissions reductions 

achieved by those state plans would 

have been less than if the state plans 

had adopted and implemented the 

presumptive standards in the final 

emissions guidelines, had they been 

finalized. However, because state plans 

were never developed pursuant to the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal, there is no means of 

reasonably estimating the requirements 

that may have been included in those 

state plans and what emissions 

reductions they would have achieved. 

The text also counsels against making 

RULOF assumptions in this case. 

Because Congress directs the EPA to 

compare the emissions that would have 

been achieved if the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal were ‘‘finalized 

and implemented’’ against actual CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) standards once 

these are ‘‘approved and in effect,’’ the 

EPA believes that Congress meant the 

Agency to assume that the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal was 

finalized and implemented as proposed, 

because that will allow for comparison 

with emissions reductions achieved 

under the final CAA section 111(d) 

plans, which may differ from the 

proposal in a variety of ways, including 

as a result of RULOF analysis. It is also 

reasonable to infer that Congress wanted 

to guarantee the level of reductions (i.e., 

‘‘equivalent or greater’’ 34 than expected 

by the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal) that would ultimately be 

achieved by the final NSPS OOOOb and 

EG OOOOc-derived state and Federal 

plans by only allowing for the 

exemption if it is determined that the 

Final NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc would 

achieve at least the level of reductions 

that were expected from the proposed 

rule in place at the time CAA section 

136 was written and passed. Thus, the 

EPA believes the intent of CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) is to use the proposed 

approach of assessing the reductions 

that would have been achieved had the 

proposed emissions guidelines in the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal been adopted and 

implemented by all states as proposed. 

The EPA requests comment on other 

approaches that could be used to 

estimate the emissions reductions from 

CAA section 111(d) facilities had the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal been finalized and 

implemented. 

The EPA also recognizes that in the 

proposed approach for the equivalency 

determination, analysis of the 

reductions from CAA section 111(d) 

facilities under the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal would be based 

on universal adoption of the 

presumptive standards in the proposed 

emissions guidelines, while analysis of 

the reductions achieved by state and 

Federal plans developed pursuant to the 

final EG OOOOc would account for any 

states’ use of the RULOF provision to set 

less stringent standards. The EPA 

believes the proposed approach of 

assessing the reductions achieved by 

final state and Federal plans is aligned 

with the statutory text and 

Congressional intent. CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(ii) states that the point of 

comparison for the emissions reductions 

that would have been achieved by the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal are those resulting from 

‘‘compliance with the requirements 

described in clause (i).’’ CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) in turn refers to the 

‘‘methane emissions standards and 

plans pursuant to subsections (b) and 

(d) of section 111.’’ The EPA’s proposed 

approach to use the reductions that will 

be achieved by approved state and 

Federal plans in the equivalency 

determination is based on the use of 

‘‘plans’’ in CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(i). 

Further, CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii) 

establishes that EPA may not make the 

equivalency determination unless and 

until it can establish that ‘‘compliance 

with the requirements described in 

clause (i) will result in equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions as would 

be achieved by the [NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal].’’ 35 As similarly 

noted above, it is reasonable to infer 

from this language that Congress 

intended to guarantee that a minimum 

level of emissions reduction would be 

achieved by implementation of the CAA 

section 111 standards before the 

exemption became available—and 

because application of the RULOF 

provision may result in less stringent 

standards, Congress could not guarantee 

this minimum level would be achieved 

unless the equivalency determination 

considered the reductions actually 

achieved by the final NSPS and the 

standards actually set in state plans, 

including any standards set pursuant to 

the RULOF provision. 

The EPA considered an approach 

which would compare the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal, as 

proposed, with the final NSPS OOOOb/ 

EG OOOOc as finalized but before 

implementation and consideration of 

RULOF, but ultimately rejected this 

approach. Although this approach 

would be relatively simple to apply, not 

taking into account the actual standards 

adopted in the state plans cannot lead 

to a sound conclusion about whether 

the emission reduction target that the 

statute sets will actually be met in 

practice. In other words, this approach 

could not guarantee that the ‘‘result’’ of 

implementation of the plans will be 

equivalent reductions, as the statute 

requires the EPA to determine. Further, 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A)(ii) states that 

‘‘compliance’’ with the standards 

should result in equivalent emissions 

reductions, but in practice, sources are 

not required to comply with the EG; 

instead, sources must comply with 

standards later established in state or 

federal plans. For these reasons, the 

EPA believes that comparing the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal with 

the final NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc as 

finalized, but before implementation, is 

not as well aligned with the statutory 

text and intent of Congress. The EPA 

requests comment on its proposed 

approach and other approaches that 

could be used to estimate the emissions 

reductions that will be achieved by 

plans pursuant to CAA section 111(d), 

including comparing the NSPS OOOOb/ 

EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal with the final 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc before 

implementation and consideration of 

RULOF. 

The EPA reviewed comments on this 

topic submitted in response to the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2022 Supplemental 

Proposal. Those comments informed the 

EPA’s proposed approach and 

alternative approaches. While those 

comments were considered in the 

development of this proposal, because 

they were submitted in response to a 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5343 

36 ‘‘Affected facility’’ is defined for purposes of an 

NSPS at 40 CFR 60.2 to mean ‘‘with reference to 

a stationary source, any apparatus to which a 

standard is applicable.’’ 

37 ‘‘Designated facility’’ is defined for purposes of 

an EG at 40 CFR 60.21a to mean ‘‘any existing 

facility. . . which emits a designated pollutant and 

which would be subject to a standard of 

performance for that pollutant if the existing facility 

were an affected facility.’’ 

separate rulemaking, any duplicative or 

additional comments on this topic must 

resubmitted in response to this proposal 

in order to be considered in the 

development of the final WEC rule. 

e. Application of the Regulatory 

Compliance Exemption to Subpart W 

Facilities 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) states: 

‘‘[c]harges shall not be imposed 

pursuant to subsection (c) on an 

applicable facility that is subject to and 

in compliance with methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to subsections 

(b) and (d) of section 111’’ upon an 

Administrator determination that ‘‘(i) 

methane emissions standards and plans 

pursuant to subsections (b) and (d) of 

section 111 have been approved and are 

in effect in all States with respect to the 

applicable facilities; and (ii) compliance 

with the requirements described in 

clause (i) will result in equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions as would 

be achieved by the’’ NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal. 

The EPA notes that an applicable 

facility in CAA section 136(d) is an 

entire site or collection of sites, each of 

which contains individual emissions 

sources. In contrast, the terms ‘‘affected 

facility’’ 36 and ‘‘designated facility’’ 37

are used by the EPA in the NSPS and 

EG regulations, respectively, to refer to 

an individual emissions source or a 

group of emissions sources at a site (e.g., 

a storage tank battery or a collection of 

pneumatic controllers) to which a 

standard applies. A single subpart W 

facility may contain hundreds or 

thousands of CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facilities. The EPA proposes to interpret 

and implement the regulatory 

compliance exemption such that an 

applicable subpart W facility that 

contains any CAA section 111(b) or (d) 

facilities would be eligible for the 

exemption once all other criteria are met 

(i.e., the Administrator determinations 

and proposed compliance elements in 

40 CFR 99.40). Table 3 shows the 

subpart W industry segments applicable 

to the WEC that may contain CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) facilities. WEC 

applicable facilities in the offshore 

production, LNG storage, LNG import 

and export, and transmission pipeline 

industry segments do not contain CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) facilities under the 

Crude Oil & Natural Gas source category 

(or any other source category in 40 CFR 

part 60) and would not be eligible for 

the regulatory compliance exemption. 

The EPA proposes that if any future 

NSPS/EG rules are finalized such that 

additional industry segments contain 

CAA section 111(b) or (d) facilities, the 

WEC applicable facilities in those 

segments would be eligible for the 

regulatory compliance exemption. 

TABLE 3—SUBPART W INDUSTRY SEGMENT AND CAA SECTION 111(b) AND (d) FACILITY OVERLAP

Subpart W industry segment subject to WEC 

May contain CAA 

Section 111(b) and/or 

(d) facilities? 

Onshore petroleum and natural gas production ..................................................................................................................... Yes. 

Offshore petroleum and natural gas production ..................................................................................................................... No. 

Onshore petroleum and natural gas gathering and boosting ................................................................................................. Yes. 

Onshore natural gas processing ............................................................................................................................................. Yes. 

Onshore natural gas transmission compression ..................................................................................................................... Yes. 

Onshore natural gas transmission pipeline ............................................................................................................................. No. 

Underground natural gas storage ........................................................................................................................................... Yes. 

LNG import and export equipment .......................................................................................................................................... No. 

LNG storage ............................................................................................................................................................................ No. 

The EPA assessed other potential 

interpretations of the regulatory 

compliance exemption while 

developing the proposed approach. In 

particular, the EPA assessed an 

approach that would instead only 

exempt the emissions from individual 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) sources, 

rather than the emissions of the entire 

subpart W facility. For example, if 

certain pneumatic devices are regulated 

under NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

pursuant to CAA sections 111(b) and 

(d), all reported pneumatic device 

methane emissions from a subpart W 

facility would be subtracted from that 

facility’s reported emissions. Under this 

approach, only emission sources at 

subpart W facilities that are not also 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

(e.g., methane slip from engines) would 

be considered when determining if a 

facility was above or below the waste 

emissions threshold. While this 

approach would exempt emissions 

associated with individual CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities that are in 

compliance with the standards, as 

anticipated by the language in CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(A), the EPA does not 

believe that this approach would be 

consistent with the other text in that 

provision that is clear that the 

exemption applies to the ‘‘applicable 

facility,’’ which CAA section 136(d) 

defines as an entire subpart W facility. 

Further, we do not believe that it would 

be practical to implement the regulatory 

compliance exemption in this manner 

because the individual emissions source 

types in subpart W do not always align 

with the individual CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities. Exempting methane 

emissions from individual subpart W 

source types that have a similar name as 

a CAA section 111(b) or (d) facility may 

exclude a broader or narrower scope of 

equipment or components and 

associated emissions than those subject 

to the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc. 

Methane emissions from CAA section 

111(b) or (d) facilities therefore cannot 

be directly subtracted from reported 

subpart W data. 

We request comment on the proposed 

approach for applying the regulatory 

compliance exemption to subpart W 

facilities and the proposed 

interpretation of the relevant statutory 

text. We also request comment on 

extending the regulatory compliance 

exemption to facilities in industry 

segments not currently covered by NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc requirements, in 

the event that such regulations pursuant 

to CAA 111(b) and (d) are finalized in 

the future. We recognize that the 

proposed approach to exempt entire 

subpart W facilities results in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5344 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

exemption of methane emissions from 

sources that are not subject to NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc. While we believe 

the proposed approach is the most 

consistent with the language in CAA 

section 136(f)(6), we request comment 

on alternative interpretations. 

f. Determining Eligibility With Respect 

to CAA Section 136(f)(6)(A) 

It is expected that for many WEC 

applicable facilities, implementing 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc requirements 

would reduce methane emissions to 

levels below the waste emissions 

thresholds. The EPA interprets the 

regulatory compliance exemption as 

intending to provide relief from the 

WEC for WEC applicable facilities that 

remain above the waste emissions 

threshold even when their constituent 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

(i.e., emissions sources) are in full 

compliance with their applicable 

methane emissions requirements. This 

structure provides a further incentive 

for compliance with applicable 

requirements. 

The EPA proposes that the regulatory 

compliance exemption would only be 

available to WEC applicable facilities 

that exceed the waste emissions 

threshold. CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) 

states that ‘‘charges shall not be 

imposed pursuant to subsection (c) on 

an applicable facility’’ that meets the 

requirements of the regulatory 

compliance exemption. Subsection (c) 

in turn states that a charge shall be 

collected ‘‘on methane emissions that 

exceed an applicable waste emissions 

threshold.’’ Based on a plain reading of 

the statutory text, the EPA proposes that 

the exemption would not apply to WEC 

applicable facilities below the waste 

emissions threshold. Further, providing 

the exemption to WEC applicable 

facilities below the waste emissions 

threshold would serve no purpose as 

these facilities would not have positive 

WEC applicable emissions and therefore 

would not benefit from the exemption. 

Excluding facilities below the waste 

emissions threshold from the exemption 

would also reduce the reporting burden 

for those facilities, which would not be 

required to report information related to 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) compliance 

status. 

As discussed in this section, CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(A) does not specify the 

definition of compliance for the 

purposes of the exemption, and many 

different types of compliance deviations 

or violations can occur. The EPA is 

therefore proposing what actions 

constitute compliance with a methane 

emissions requirement, pursuant to 

CAA section 136(f)(A), for the purposes 

of implementing the regulatory 

compliance exemption. The EPA’s 

proposed approach is intended to 

provide a clear threshold for 

establishing compliance status and 

eligibility for the exemption while 

minimizing the burden on industry and 

facilitating ease of implementation. The 

EPA is also proposing related reporting 

requirements for WEC applicable 

facilities that are necessary to 

implement the regulatory compliance 

exemption (see section II.D.2.g. of this 

preamble). 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) states that 

the WEC shall not be imposed ‘‘on an 

applicable facility that is subject to and 

in compliance with methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to subsections 

(b) and (d) of section 111.’’ For the 

purpose of determining WEC facility 

eligibility for the regulatory compliance 

exemption, the EPA proposes that the 

compliance status of CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities contained within a 

WEC applicable facility would be 

assessed based on compliance with the 

applicable methane emissions 

requirements for the Oil & Natural Gas 

Source Category (40 CFR part 60, 

subparts OOOOa, OOOOb, and 

OOOOc). 

Further, the EPA proposes that should 

additional NSPS/EG regulations for the 

oil and natural gas industry source 

category be finalized in the future, 

compliance with the methane emissions 

requirements in those regulations would 

be assessed for determining eligibility 

for the regulatory compliance 

exemption. As discussed in section 

II.D.2.h. of this preamble, the regulatory 

compliance exemption could become 

unavailable if future NSPS/EG revisions 

result in a situation such that those 

revisions, upon implementation, result 

in fewer emissions reductions than 

achieved by the NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc 2021 Proposal, had that 

proposal been finalized and 

implemented. Similarly, the exemption 

could be reinstated upon adoption and 

implementation of NSPS/EG revisions 

that restore emissions reduction 

equivalency with, or improvement 

upon, the NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

2021 proposal. In such cases where a 

future NSPS/EG rule only applies to 

equipment in a segment of the oil and 

natural gas industry not covered by an 

existing NSPS/EG rule, the EPA 

proposes that any WEC applicable 

facilities with existing access to the 

regulatory compliance exemption would 

maintain that access. In other words, the 

‘‘all states’’ requirement in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A)(i) would be assessed 

separately for the additional equipment 

covered by the new NSPS/EG, and any 

existing access to the exemption would 

not be lost while the determination is 

being made that CAA section 111(d) 

plans pursuant to the new EG rule were 

approved and in effect. 

The EPA requests comment on its 

proposed approach for how NSPS 

OOOOa, NSPS OOOOb, and EG OOOOc 

should be considered for the purposes 

of the regulatory compliance exemption. 

The EPA also requests comment on its 

proposed approach in light of any 

potential future NSPS/EG rules for the 

oil and natural gas industry source 

category, or any other additional source 

category that might cover emissions 

sources at a WEC affected facility, and 

the role of any such future methane 

emissions requirements in determining 

eligibility for the regulatory compliance 

exemption. 

The EPA proposes that any WEC 

applicable facility that contains CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) facilities would 

receive the regulatory compliance 

exemption if each of the CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities that constitute 

the WEC applicable facility has no 

deviations or violations of the methane 

emissions requirements promulgated 

pursuant to the applicable NSPS or EGimplementing state and Federal plans. 

The EPA is proposing that this 

compliance requirement would apply 

for each CAA section 111(b) or (d) 

facility for each reporting year for the 

WEC applicable facility. For example, if 

all CAA section 111(b) or (d) facilities 

contained in a WEC applicable facility 

were in compliance with the applicable 

methane emissions requirements during 

a particular reporting year, the 

regulatory exemption would apply for 

that reporting year. If any CAA section 

111(b) or (d) facilities contained in a 

WEC applicable facility in the 

respective reporting year were not in 

compliance with emissions 

requirements, the regulatory exemption 

would not apply for that reporting year. 

The EPA proposes that if a WEC 

applicable facility were to lose access to 

the regulatory compliance exemption in 

a reporting year due to a deviation or 

violation in that reporting year, it would 

be able to receive the exemption in any 

subsequent reporting year if there were 

no deviations or violations in that 

applicable reporting year. 

The EPA is proposing that a WEC 

applicable facility would not be eligible 

for the regulatory compliance 

exemption if any CAA section 111(b) or 

(d) facility that is contained within the 

WEC applicable facility has one or more 

deviations or one or more violations of 

any methane emissions requirement 

under the applicable NSPS or state or 

Federal plan issued pursuant to the EG. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5345 

38 42 U.S.C. 7436(f)(6)(A). 

The EPA recognizes that there are many 

potential elements to compliance with 

the methane requirements promulgated 

under CAA sections 111(b) and (d), such 

as compliance with a quantitative 

emissions limit and compliance with 

work practice standards, as well as 

multiple monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements. The EPA 

proposes to find that a deviation or 

violation from any of the methane 

requirements promulgated under CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d) constitutes noncompliance for purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption. The 

EPA believes that this approach is most 

consistent with the plain language of 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A), which states 

that charges shall not be imposed on a 

facility that is ‘‘subject to and in 

compliance with methane emissions 

requirements pursuant to subsections 

(b) and (d) of section 111.’’ 38 First, 

Congress made clear that it is not 

enough for a particular facility to be 

subject to methane regulations; each 

facility must also comply with those 

regulations. And in establishing what it 

means to comply, Congress did not 

employ any mitigating language. It is 

not enough to be ‘‘substantively’’ in 

compliance, for example, or ‘‘in 

compliance with all major 

requirements’’. Facilities must be ‘‘in 

compliance with requirements’’ 

pursuant to 111(b) and (d). 

The EPA evaluated several alternative 

criteria for the regulatory compliance 

exemption eligibility. Another 

interpretation could be to apply a 

threshold, such as specific quantitative 

threshold requirements, for the 

regulatory compliance exemption. For 

example, the EPA might specify that a 

WEC applicable facility would still be 

deemed to be in compliance for 

purposes of the regulatory compliance 

exemption where the number of 

deviations or violations, or a quantity of 

excess emissions, fall below a specified 

threshold, as applied for all the CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

contained in a WEC applicable facility. 

However, for the reasons discussed in 

the following paragraph, the EPA is not 

proposing this alternative. 

Deviations from or violations of any 

compliance requirements can vary 

significantly in severity and impact, as 

well as frequency. For example, a WEC 

applicable facility could contain many 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

with numerous deviations that, even 

collectively, result in a small amount of 

excess emissions. Another WEC 

applicable facility could contain a single 

CAA section 111(b) or (d) facility with 

a single deviation or violation that 

resulted in methane emissions 

significantly exceeding those that would 

have resulted had the CAA section 

111(b) or (d) facility been in compliance 

with its methane emissions 

requirements. Violations of the emission 

standards are not the only violations 

that may be significant. Violations of 

monitoring requirements can be very 

serious, given that failure to do 

monitoring, or doing it incorrectly, can 

result in significant emissions not being 

discovered or corrected. Reporting 

violations can also be very serious, if 

they result in government being 

unaware of significant problems and 

thus unable to address them. For these 

and many other reasons, there is often 

no easy way to determine the 

seriousness of particular violations 

without fact specific and resource 

intensive investigation. Given that 

deviations from and violations of 

requirements for emission standards 

under CAA section 111(b) and of state 

or Federal plan requirements under 

CAA section 111(d) can vary in type, 

severity, and frequency, and given that 

CAA section 136(f)(A) does not further 

specify what constitutes compliance for 

the purpose of the regulatory 

compliance exemption, the EPA is not 

proposing a specific quantitative 

threshold requirement for the regulatory 

compliance exemption (e.g., number of 

violations or quantity of excess 

emissions). 

Because under the statute the 

availability of the regulatory compliance 

exemption requires two threshold 

findings, including that all plans are 

approved and in effect, the exemption 

would not be available until several 

years after finalization of the WEC rule. 

See the discussion in section II.D.2.b of 

this preamble regarding the proposed 

approach for timing of the regulatory 

compliance exemption availability. 

With the exception of several sources 

(e.g., combustion emissions for certain 

industry segments), most methane 

emission sources in covered industry 

segments required to report emissions 

under subpart W would also be subject 

to the CAA section 111(b) or (d) 

methane requirements promulgated in 

the final NSPS OOOOb and the plans 

issued and approved under EG OOOOc. 

The EPA expects that, as oil and gas 

operations implement the requirements 

of final NSPS OOOOb and the plans 

issued and approved pursuant to EG 

OOOOc (and undertake other methane 

mitigation voluntarily or due to other 

Federal or state regulations), total 

reported subpart W facility methane 

emissions would decline. 

For many WEC applicable facilities, if 

the CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities 

contained within a WEC applicable 

facility are in compliance with methane 

requirements promulgated under CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d), the WEC 

applicable facility would likely be 

below the waste emissions threshold. 

The Agency therefore expects that even 

if CAA section 111(b) or (d) facilities 

within these WEC applicable facility 

have compliance deviations, these WEC 

applicable facilities will likely remain 

below the waste emissions thresholds. 

In the alternative, the EPA expects that 

cases of significant or widespread 

compliance deviations or violations 

with the requirements promulgated 

under CAA section 111(b) or (d) could 

result in emission levels for a WEC 

applicable facility that could exceed the 

waste emissions thresholds. Because 

many WEC applicable facilities are 

expected to be below the waste 

emissions threshold when the 

regulatory compliance exemption 

becomes available, the EPA expects that 

deviations or violations will not have a 

significant impact for these facilities— 

they would not be eligible for the 

exemption not only because they are out 

of compliance, but also because they are 

below the waste emissions threshold, 

and there is no charge to exempt in that 

case. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed provisions for determining 

‘‘compliance’’ for the purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption and 

the alternative approaches the agency 

considered. The EPA requests comment 

on specific criteria (e.g., types of 

deviations or violations, quantitative 

thresholds) that could be applied to 

determine compliance with methane 

emissions requirements promulgated 

under CAA sections 111(b) and (d) for 

the purpose of assessing WEC 

applicable facility eligibility for the 

regulatory compliance exemption. The 

EPA requests comment on whether the 

criteria should consider whether the 

deviation or violation resulted in excess 

emissions, as demonstrated by 

monitoring and other data. The EPA 

also requests comment on excluding 

WEC applicable facilities below the 

waste emissions threshold from the 

regulatory compliance exemption. 

g. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for the Regulatory 

Compliance Exemption 

We are proposing a reporting 

requirement at 40 CFR 99.7(b)(2)(iv) that 

would require that once the 

Administrator has made a determination 

that the requirements in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) have been met, information 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5346 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

related to the regulatory compliance 

exemption must be included in the WEC 

filing submitted by the WEC obligated 

party for each WEC applicable facility 

exceeding the waste emissions 

threshold that contains any CAA section 

111(b) and (d) affected facilities. CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(A) mandates that the 

EPA shall not impose a charge upon 

WEC applicable facilities that qualify for 

the regulatory compliance exemption. 

The proposed approach for 

implementing the regulatory 

compliance exemption would make 

facilities that are below the waste 

emissions threshold ineligible for the 

exemption. The EPA therefore proposes 

that WEC obligated parties would not be 

required to report information related to 

the compliance status of CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities contained 

within WEC applicable facilities for 

WEC applicable facilities that are below 

the waste emissions threshold. 

The reporting requirements for 

facilities with the regulatory compliance 

exemption are proposed at 40 CFR 

99.42. We are proposing that the filing 

would include a representation of the 

NSPS and state and Federal plan 

compliance status for each CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facility located within a 

WEC applicable facility during the 

reporting year. This representation of 

compliance status would indicate 

whether the facility was in full 

compliance for the entirety of the 

reporting year (i.e., for each CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) facility, there 

were no violations or deviations), or 

whether there were one or more 

deviations or violations during the 

reporting year. For facilities that meet 

all eligibility requirements for the 

exemption, we are proposing to require 

reporting of the ICIS–AIR ID (or if 

unavailable, the facility registry service 

(FRS) ID and EPA Registry ID from 

CEDRI) reporting identifiers for each 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facility 

located at the WEC applicable facility. 

These identifiers are information 

necessary for the EPA to assess the 

accuracy of the representation of 

compliance status through linkages to 

reports and emissions and compliance 

data for each CAA section 111(b) and (d) 

facility located at the WEC applicable 

facility. 

As supporting documentation for the 

representation of compliance status of 

WEC applicable facilities that are 

eligible for the exemption but were not 

in full compliance for the entirety of the 

reporting year, we are proposing to 

require the submittal of one report 

associated with the CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities located within the 

WEC applicable facility that documents 

a deviation or violation during the 

reporting year. As supporting 

documentation for the representation of 

compliance status of WEC applicable 

facilities that are eligible for the 

exemption and that were in full 

compliance for the entirety of the 

reporting year, we are proposing to 

require the submittal of report(s) 

associated with the CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities located within the 

WEC applicable facility. The EPA 

recognizes that the compliance 

certification period for CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facilities may not align 

with the reporting year for which the 

filing is being completed and that at the 

time of the WEC filing due on March 31 

of each year, report(s) covering the 

complete preceding reporting year for 

WEC filing may not be available. To 

accommodate for these cases where a 

report is not available for the complete 

reporting year of WEC filing, the EPA is 

proposing that the WEC obligated party 

would provide the report, if available, 

that covers a portion of the year, 

identify the period of time covered by 

the report, and for the remainder of the 

year provide a representation of 

compliance status for each CAA section 

111(b) and (d) facility at the WEC 

applicable facility that is not included 

in the submitted report. It also is 

possible that the complete calendar year 

of WEC filing is covered by two annual 

reports, each covering a portion of the 

calendar year. In this case, the WEC 

applicable facility should submit both 

annual reports. The EPA further 

recognizes that a WEC applicable 

facility may contain CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facilities that first became 

subject to requirements under CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d) during the 

reporting year associated with the filing 

and for which the first year of 

compliance is not completed. For these 

CAA section 111(b) and (d) facilities, we 

are proposing to require that the filing 

identify the type of facility, that date 

that it became subject, and a 

representation of the compliance status 

for the portion of the year in which it 

was subject to requirements under CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d). In cases where 

the initial filing does not include a 

report covering the entire reporting year, 

we are proposing to require that the 

WEC obligated party provide a revised 

filing once such a report becomes 

available. The EPA is proposing that 

this revised filing under the WEC rule 

would be required to be made on or 

before the date that the compliance 

report covering the remainder of the 

year would be due under the applicable 

requirements of CAA section 111(b) or 

(d). The deadlines for filing revisions to 

WEC filings as discussed in section 

III.A.4. do not apply for the submittal of 

compliance reports. 

The EPA requires this information for 

the verification of exemption eligibility. 

Reported information will be used to 

conduct verification as discussed in 

section III.A.4., and reported 

information, records and other 

information as applicable will be used 

to conduct any auditing that occurs 

under section III.E.1. 

The EPA is aware that this proposed 

reporting program may result in cases 

where a WEC obligated party makes a 

good-faith representation that each CAA 

section 111(b) and (d) facility at the 

WEC applicable facility is in 

compliance but later independently 

discovers the existence of one or more 

deviations or violations. In this 

proposed rulemaking, such independent 

discoveries would be considered to be 

substantive errors within the WEC 

filing. Proposed 40 CFR 99.7(e)(1) 

would require submittal of a revised 

WEC filing within 45 days of the 

discovery that a previously submitted 

WEC filing contains a substantive error. 

Provided that timely submittal of a 

revised filing is made, if a revised 

regulatory compliance exemption filing 

results in the imposition of WEC 

obligation from a WEC applicable 

facility that previously qualified for 

exemption, we are proposing that the 

WEC obligated party would not be 

subject to interest penalties normally 

assessed for payments made after March 

31, as discussed in section III.B.1. of this 

preamble. 

However, later discoveries of 

deviations or violations by the EPA or 

another regulatory authority, or 

discoveries as a result of investigation 

by the EPA or another regulatory 

authority (including information 

requests), are not treated the same way 

as errors. Where a WEC obligated party 

represents that each CAA section 111(b) 

and (d) facility at the WEC applicable 

facility is in compliance, but the EPA or 

another regulatory authority 

subsequently discovers the existence of 

one or more deviations or violations, or 

the CAA section 111(b) and (d) facility 

identifies the deviation or violation as a 

result of an EPA investigation 

(including information requests), the 

WEC obligated party may be subject to 

enforcement and required to pay any 

outstanding WEC fees and interest 

penalties. False statements may be 

subject to criminal enforcement. 

The EPA seeks comment on the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the regulatory 

compliance exemption. We seek 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5347 

39On August 30, 2023, the EPA, U.S. Department 

of Energy, and National Energy Technology 

Laboratory announced the availability of up to $350 

million in formula grant funding to eligible states 

to help monitor and reduce methane emissions 

from marginal conventional wells, including to help 

owners and operators voluntarily and permanently 

reduce methane emissions from marginal 

conventional wells. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)— 

Mitigating Emissions from Marginal Conventional 

Wells, Funding Opportunity Number DE–FOA– 

003109, available at: https://www.grants.gov/web/ 

grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=350045. 

comment on whether additional 

information should be collected or 

retained to allow for verification of 

eligibility for the exemption. 

h. Resumption of WEC Under CAA 

Section 136(f)(6)(B) 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(B) states that if, 

at any point after the Administrator has 

made the determination required by 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A), the conditions 

for such determination are no longer 

met, the regulatory compliance 

exemption ceases to apply. Because the 

EPA proposes to determine that the 

regulatory compliance exemption is 

only available if all states are subject to 

standards and plans pursuant to CAA 

sections 111(b) and (d) that are, 

collectively, equivalent to the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 Proposal, the 

EPA proposes that all WEC applicable 

facilities would lose access to the 

exemption if either of the conditions in 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) ceased to 

apply. For example, if a state plan were 

legally challenged and vacated after the 

initial determination, plans would no 

longer be approved and in effect in all 

states, and the regulatory compliance 

exemption would no longer be 

available. Similarly, if after the initial 

equivalency determination methane 

emissions requirements promulgated 

under CAA section 111(b) or (d) were 

modified such that they no longer 

resulted in equivalent or greater 

aggregate emissions reductions than the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 2021 

Proposal, the exemption would no 

longer be available. Note that in 

addition to future revisions to EG, 

revisions to the requirements in 

individual state plans pursuant to CAA 

section 111(d) could also result in a 

situation in which implementation of 

the final NSPS and state or federal plans 

does not achieve equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions compared to the 

2021 NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc 

Proposal. (The conditions under which 

an individual WEC applicable facility 

would receive or become ineligible for 

the regulatory compliance exemption 

while the conditions in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) are still met are discussed 

in section II.D.2.f. of this preamble.) The 

EPA proposes that any determination 

that the criteria in CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) are no longer met after the 

initial determination would be made 

through a future administrative action. 

The EPA proposes that access to the 

exemption would be lost for the full 

calendar year in which the required 

criteria were no longer met. The EPA 

proposes that if access to the regulatory 

compliance exemption were lost after it 

was initially made available because 

one of the two required conditions in 

CAA section 136(f)(6)(A) were no longer 

met, it could become available again 

following a subsequent determination 

that both conditions were once again 

achieved. Under such circumstances, 

the exemption would become available 

again for the reporting year in which the 

conditions were met. The EPA proposes 

that if the conditions ceased to apply 

and were then met again in the same 

reporting year, the exemption would be 

available for the entire reporting year. 

The EPA requests comment on 

alternative approaches that would 

revoke the regulatory compliance 

exemption for a portion of the year in 

which the requirements were no longer 

met and how data under such an 

approach could be pro-rated for the 

purposes of determining WEC. The EPA 

requests comment on the proposed 

implementation of CAA section 

136(f)(6)(B). While the EPA believes the 

proposed implementation of CAA 

section 136(f)(6)(B) is consistent with a 

plain reading of the statutory text and 

consistent with the proposed timing of 

the regulatory compliance 

determinations under CAA section 

136(f)(6)(A) (i.e., methane emissions 

standards and plans pursuant to 

subsections (b) and (d) of section 111 

have been approved and are in effect in 

all States), the agency requests comment 

on an approach in which access to the 

exemption would be lost at a state-bystate level. In this alternative approach, 

if circumstances occurred such that a 

state plan was no longer approved and 

in effect, only the WEC applicable 

facilities located in that state would lose 

access to the exemption; for WEC 

applicable facilities that span multiple 

states, access would be lost if the state 

plan for any of the states in which the 

WEC applicable facility is located were 

no longer approved and in effect. 

3. Plugged Well Exemption Under CAA 

Section 136(f)(7) 

Plugged wells have lower methane 

emissions than active wells and 

unplugged inactive wells; therefore, 

plugging wells will reduce total facility 

emissions potentially subject to WEC. 

Congress created an incentive for 

plugging and permanently shutting 

wells by including an exemption from 

the WEC in CAA section 136(f)(7): 

‘‘[c]harges shall not be imposed with 

respect to the emissions rate from any 

well that has been permanently shut-in 

and plugged in the previous year in 

accordance with all applicable closure 

requirements, as determined by the 

Administrator.’’. Separately, in CAA 

section 136(a)(3)(D) and 136(b), 

Congress provided funding that can 

assist owners and operators who elect to 

voluntarily and permanently shut in 

and plug wells on non-Federal land.39

In this rule, we are proposing that this 

exemption would be applicable to wells 

in the onshore and offshore petroleum 

and natural gas production industry 

segments. We interpret this exemption 

to apply to the production industry 

segments only and not to wells in other 

segments, such as storage wells. 

Production wells are distinctly different 

in purpose and emissions profile than 

underground storage wells, which are 

generally replaced with new storage 

wells then they are plugged and 

abandoned. We seek comment on 

including wells in the underground 

natural gas storage industry segment 

under this exemption. We are proposing 

that in the WEC filing, exempted 

emissions would be those from wells 

permanently shut-in and plugged in the 

previous year (i.e., if a well is 

permanently shut-in and plugged in 

2026, the exempted emissions would be 

deducted from the 2026 emissions totals 

that are filed under WEC in 2027). 

a. Determining if the Exemption for 

Permanently Shut-In and Plugged Wells 

Applies to a WEC Applicable Facility 

The EPA is proposing two criteria for 

determining if the exemption for 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells 

applies to a WEC applicable facility. 

Consistent with the other exemptions, 

the first criterion is that the facility must 

have emissions that exceed the waste 

emissions threshold. CAA 136(c)(7) 

notes that ‘‘charges shall not be 

imposed’’ on emissions from 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells. 

Charges would not be imposed on 

emissions below the threshold and 

therefore an exemption is unnecessary 

in cases where facility emissions are 

below the threshold. The EPA proposes 

that emissions from facilities that are 

below the waste emissions threshold 

would not be exempted. The EPA 

proposes that for facilities that exceed 

the waste emissions threshold, 

emissions eligible for the plugged well 

exemption could be subtracted up to the 

point where facility emissions equal the 

waste emissions threshold (i.e., the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5348 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

lowest possible WEC applicable 

emissions for a facility with the plugged 

well exemption would be zero). 

Second, wells must meet the 

following definition of permanently 

shut-in and plugged in accordance with 

all applicable closure requirements. The 

EPA proposes that for the purposes of 

this exemption, a permanently shut-in 

and plugged well is one that has been 

permanently sealed to prevent any 

potential future leakage of oil, gas, or 

formation water into shallow sources of 

potable water, onto the surface, or into 

the atmosphere. For the purposes of this 

exemption, the EPA is proposing that a 

well would be considered to be 

permanently shut-in and plugged, in 

accordance with all applicable closure 

requirements, if the owner or operator 

has met all applicable Federal, state, 

and local requirements for closure in the 

jurisdiction where the well is located. 

For the purposes of this exemption, we 

are proposing that a well would be 

considered permanently shut-in and 

plugged on the date a metal plate or cap 

has been welded or cemented onto the 

casing end. 

Section II.D.3.c. below details the 

reporting requirements for this 

exemption which provide information 

necessary for verification of the 

exemption eligibility and exempted 

emission quantities. 

In addition to requirements specifying 

how to plug a well, relevant Federal, 

state, and local requirements often also 

specify requirements such as for 

notifications, reporting, and site 

remediation. For purposes of 40 CFR 

part 99, we propose that the applicable 

closure requirements would include 

only the requirements specific to well 

plugging. We are not proposing to 

include requirements for notifications, 

reporting, and site remediation as part 

of the exemption eligibility criteria for 

following ‘‘all applicable closure 

requirements’’ because the closure of 

the well is the key activity impacting 

methane emissions, which is the focus 

of the WEC, and these other aspects of 

closure are less relevant to methane 

emissions levels. We also note that had 

we proposed to include these additional 

requirements in our interpretation of 

‘‘all applicable closure requirements,’’ 

the reporting requirements would 

increase for permanently shut-in and 

plugged wells and this may lead to 

recalculations of WEC years after the 

exemption was initially applied. We 

request comment on whether ‘‘all 

applicable closure requirements’’ 

should instead be interpreted to include 

notifications, reporting, site remediation 

and other post-closure activities at 

plugged well. 

b. Calculations of Exempted Emissions 

From Permanently Shut-In and Plugged 

Wells 

The EPA proposes that the methane 

emissions eligible for the exemption are 

those that occur at the well level 

including those from wellhead 

equipment leaks, liquids unloading, and 

workovers with and without hydraulic 

fracturing in the reporting year in which 

the well was plugged. We are proposing 

to only consider these emissions sources 

in the calculation of exempted 

emissions for the permanently shut-in 

and plugged well as we expect use of 

production-related equipment or 

equipment associated with treating 

production streams generally (e.g., 

AGRU, dehydrator, separator) to be at a 

minimum. We are proposing to limit the 

emissions quantity to the source types 

we expect to represent the most 

significant emissions share expected at 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells. 

We note that methane emissions in the 

reporting year from other equipment 

onsite (e.g., separator, compressor, flare) 

may result from multiple wells and not 

just the wells that are plugged in the 

reporting year. We request comment on 

an interpretation that would exempt all 

methane emissions associated with the 

production from the permanently shutin and plugged well—not limited to the 

wellhead equipment leaks, liquids 

unloading, and workovers as is included 

in this proposal—during the calendar 

year of closure, including the 

methodology by which methane 

emissions from non-wellhead specific 

sources in subpart W could be attributed 

to the permanently shut-in and plugged 

well. 

For the purposes of quantifying the 

methane emissions from equipment 

leaks, liquids unloading, workovers 

with hydraulic fracturing, and 

workovers without hydraulic fracturing 

associated with each permanently shutin and plugged well, we are proposing 

to use the methane emissions and 

throughput data collected or reported to 

subpart W of part 98. As discussed 

previously in this preamble, proposed 

amendments in the 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal impact the data available to 

best estimate the exempted emissions 

from the permanently shut-in and 

plugged well. Therefore, as described in 

more detail in this section, for 

applicable emission sources and 

industry segments, different approaches 

are proposed for certain time periods. 

The current subpart W rule requires 

that onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production facilities report methane 

emissions from liquids unloading and 

workovers to be reported by sub-basin 

for each WEC applicable facility as well 

as methane emissions from equipment 

leaks at the facility-level. Subpart W of 

part 98 also currently requires offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities and onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production facilities to 

report facility-level throughput of gas 

and oil handled or sent to sale, 

respectively. Proposed revisions 

included in the 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal would require onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities to report additional elements 

that facilitate quantification of methane 

emissions from individual shut-in and 

plugged wells. Specifically, beginning 

in reporting year 2024, the 2023 Subpart 

W Proposal would require onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities to report well-level throughput 

volumes for gas and oil sent to sale from 

wells that are permanently shut-in and 

plugged. Additionally, beginning in 

reporting year 2025, the 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal would increase the granularity 

of methane emissions reporting for 

liquids unloading and workovers to the 

well-level and methane emissions 

reporting for equipment leaks to the 

well pad level. Due to the differences in 

available reporting data for 2024 and 

future years, the proposed approach for 

quantifying methane emissions in part 

99 for individual wells located at 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production facilities that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged in 

2024 would be different than the 

proposed approach for quantifying 

methane emissions from wells located at 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production facilities that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged in 

2025 and future years. 

For reporting year 2024, the EPA 

proposes through 40 CFR 99.52 that 

WEC applicable facilities in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas industry 

segment would quantify methane 

emissions from permanently shut-in and 

plugged wells by allocating the subpart 

W of part 98 reported facility-level 

equipment leak, liquids unloading, and 

workover methane emissions using 

subpart W of part 98 reported 

production volumes of gas and oil sent 

to sale. We are proposing that WEC 

applicable facilities in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas industry 

segment would sum the total subpart W 

of part 98 reported methane emissions 

from equipment leaks, liquids 

unloading, and workovers, and multiply 

the sum of the methane emissions by 

the ratio of subpart W of part 98 

reported production at the permanently 

shut-in and plugged well to the subpart 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5349 

W of part 98 reported facility-level total 

production. 

For facilities with only gas production 

with exempt plugged well emissions, 

we are proposing that the reported gas 

produced from the plugged wells be 

divided by the total gas production at 

the facility to develop the ratio. For 

facilities with only oil production with 

exempt plugged well emissions, we are 

proposing that the reported oil 

produced from the plugged wells be 

divided by the total oil production at 

the facility to develop the ratio. For 

facilities with both gas and oil 

production with exempt plugged well 

emissions, we are proposing that gas 

production that is reported to subpart W 

of part 98 by the WEC applicable facility 

in the onshore petroleum and natural 

gas industry segment would be 

converted to barrels of oil equivalent 

using a default value of 6,000 scf/barrel, 

such that throughput volumes will be 

on the same basis for facilities that 

report production of gas and oil. We are 

seeking comment on whether the EPA 

should provide an option for WEC 

applicable facilities to use a facilityspecific value for barrels of oil 

equivalent, including whether facilities 

routinely determine this value and 

whether significant variability is 

expected in this value. 

For 2025 and future years, we are 

proposing that WEC applicable facilities 

in the onshore petroleum and natural 

gas industry segment would estimate 

well-level emissions in accordance with 

part 98 methods for the permanently 

shut-in and plugged well. As described 

previously, for 2025 and future years, 

subpart W of part 98 would require 

reporting of methane emissions from 

liquids unloading and workovers to be 

at the well-level for facilities in the 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

industry segment, therefore we are 

proposing that facilities in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas industry 

segment would utilize the methane 

emissions as -reported to subpart W part 

98 in their part 99 exemption 

calculation for these emissions sources. 

Also, as described previously, for 2025 

and future years, subpart W of part 98 

would require reporting of methane 

emissions from equipment leaks at the 

well pad for facilities in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas industry 

segment. In order to obtain a well-level 

estimate for the part 99 exemption 

calculation, we are proposing to require 

facilities in the onshore petroleum and 

natural gas industry segment to utilize 

the subpart W of part 98 input data and 

emission estimation methods for 

wellhead equipment leaks to calculate 

the methane emissions at the well level 

for the permanently shut-in and plugged 

well. For example, if the equipment leak 

methane emissions at the well pad that 

includes the permanently shut-in and 

plugged well were estimated using the 

leaker method in 40 CFR 98.233(q), the 

WEC applicable facility would use the 

count of leakers by component type 

(e.g., valve, connector) recorded for the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well, 

the operating time of the well during the 

year, and the appropriate emissions 

factors from subpart W of part 98 to 

estimate the methane emissions from 

the permanently shut-in and plugged 

well. Similarly, if the equipment leak 

methane emissions at the well pad that 

includes the permanently shut-in and 

plugged well were estimated using the 

population count method in 40 CFR 

98.233(q), the WEC applicable facility 

would use the operating time of the well 

during the year and the appropriate 

emissions factors from subpart W of part 

98 to estimate the emissions from the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well. 

For offshore petroleum and natural 

gas production facilities, the current 

subpart W of part 98 reporting 

requirements are based on the facility’s 

submission to the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), which 

includes methane emissions for 

component-level equipment leaks. The 

methane emissions required to be 

reported by offshore facilities would be 

unchanged by the 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal as it pertains to this exemption 

in that these facilities will continue to 

report the data from their BOEM report. 

Subpart W of part 98 also currently 

requires offshore petroleum and natural 

gas production facilities to report 

facility-level throughput of gas and oil 

handled in the reporting year. Proposed 

revisions included in the 2023 Subpart 

W Proposal for offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production facilities would 

add requirements for the reporting of 

well-level throughput volumes for gas 

and oil sent to sale from wells that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged 

beginning in reporting year 2024. The 

2023 Subpart W Proposal would also 

revise the terms in the current reporting 

elements for facility-level throughputs 

to refer to gas sent to sale, rather than 

handled, for consistency with the CAA 

language and with the onshore 

production industry segment. As noted 

in the preamble for the 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal, these verbiage changes for 

facility-level throughput are not 

expected to impact the quantity of 

production volumes reported and were 

made for consistency and clarity. For 

the purposes of estimating the exempted 

emissions for permanently shut-in and 

plugged wells at offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production facilities, we are 

proposing that facilities allocate the 

component level equipment leaks (i.e., 

those from valves, connectors) reported 

to subpart W of part 98 by the ratio of 

production from the well that has been 

permanently shut-in and plugged to the 

total facility-level production. 

Analogous to the approach for onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities for reporting year 2024, we are 

proposing that gas sent to sale be 

converted to BOE using a default value 

of 6,000 scf/bbl BOE. 

For all reporting years and applicable 

industry segments, if the WEC 

applicable facility has more than one 

permanently shut-in and plugged well, 

we are proposing that the part 99 

emissions calculations would be 

performed for each well and summed to 

determine the net annual quantity of 

methane emissions at the WEC 

applicable facility eligible for the 

exemption. 

c. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for the Exemption for 

Permanently Shut-In and Plugged Wells 

Through the provisions proposed at 

40 CFR 99.51, the EPA is proposing that 

the WEC obligated party receiving the 

exemption would provide for each well 

at a WEC applicable facility, the well ID 

number as reported to subpart W of part 

98; the date the well was permanently 

shut-in and plugged; the statutory 

citation for each state, local, and Federal 

regulation stipulating requirements that 

were applicable to the closure of the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well; 

the emission attributable to the well, 

and for each WEC applicable facility, 

the total emissions attributable to all 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells 

at the facility; and a certification 

statement by the designated 

representative for the WEC obligated 

party that all identified wells were 

closed in accordance with state, local, 

and Federal requirements. We are 

proposing that the information included 

in the report would be subject to the 

general recordkeeping requirements for 

part 99, meaning these records must be 

retained for 5 years following the WEC 

filing year of the exemption such that 

they can be made available to the EPA 

for inspection and review. 

The EPA requires this information for 

the verification of exemption eligibility 

and of exempted emission quantity. 

Reported information will be used to 

conduct verification as discussed in 

section III.A.4., and reported 

information, records and other 

information as applicable will be used 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5350 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

40 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3): A substantive error is an 

error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions 

reported or otherwise prevents the reported data 

from being validated or verified. 

to conduct any auditing that occurs 

under section III.E.1. 

The EPA seeks comment on the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for the exemption for 

emissions from wells that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged. We 

seek comment on whether additional 

information should be collected or 

retained to allow for verification of the 

quantity of emissions eligible for the 

exemption. 

III. General Requirements of the 

Proposed Rule 

A. WEC Reporting Requirements 

1. Required Reporters 

The WEC obligated party would be 

required to submit a WEC filing 

annually by March 31 that would 

include data collected from each WEC 

applicable facility of which it (the WEC 

obligated party) is comprised as of 

December 31 of each reporting year. The 

WEC filing would provide the data 

necessary for the EPA to assess and 

verify the WEC obligation including 

certain part 98 emissions information 

and netting, as applicable, as well as 

supporting documentation for any WEC 

applicable facility exemptions. 

2. Reporting Deadlines 

As required under the CAA sections 

136(c) and (e), the assessment of the first 

WEC will be based on data collected 

under subpart W of the GHGRP 

beginning on January 1, 2024. We are 

proposing in 40 CFR 99.5 that the first 

WEC filing would be due March 31, 

2025, and would be required to be 

submitted annually by March 31 

thereafter, as applicable. We have 

proposed the March 31 reporting 

deadline under this action for the 

purpose of quantifying WEC such that 

the information reported for part 99 can 

be done in coordination with and on the 

same schedule as (i.e., by March 31 of 

the calendar year following the 

reporting year) the information reported 

under subpart W. 

The EPA is proposing that final 

revisions to the first WEC filing, with 

the exception of resubmissions to 

provide CAA section 111(b) or (d) 

compliance reports or revisions to 

previously reportd compliance reports 

for the purposes of the regulaltory 

compliance exemption, would be due 

by November 1, 2025, and would be 

required to be submitted annually by 

November 1 thereafter, as applicable 

(see section III.A.4. of this preamble for 

discussion and request for comment on 

this deadline). 

3. Submission of the WEC Filing 

The EPA proposes that each WEC 

filing must be submitted electronically 

in accordance with the requirements of 

40 CFR 99.6 and in a format specified 

by the Administrator. 

As noted previously in this section of 

the preamble, the EPA proposes that 

each WEC obligated party will submit a 

WEC filing annually. The WEC filing 

content we are proposing is expected to 

provide the data necessary to complete 

the WEC calculations as described 

previously in the preamble. We are 

proposing WEC filing reporting 

requirements to cover general company 

information including physical address, 

email, telephone number, list of 

associated WEC applicable facilities and 

their identifying information (e.g., part 

98, subpart W e-GGRT ID), as well as the 

net WEC emissions calculated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 99.22 and the 

WEC obligation as calculated pursuant 

to 40 CFR 99.23. We are also proposing 

that each WEC obligated party’s WEC 

filing include certain information at the 

WEC applicable facility level. 

Specifically, we are proposing that for 

each WEC applicable facility that 

comprises the WEC obligated party, the 

reporting requirements would cover 

facility-level information including the 

facility’s eGGRT ID, the facility’s 

industry segment(s), the facility’s waste 

emissions threshold calculated in 

accordance with 40 CFR 99.20, and the 

facility’s WEC applicable emissions 

calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 

99.21. 

The EPA seeks comment on these 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements (e.g., date of WEC filing 

and payment for the first year). We seek 

comment on whether additional 

information should be reported to EPA 

or retained by the WEC obligated party 

or WEC applicable facility to allow for 

verification of the WEC filing. 

The EPA is also proposing reporting 

requirements for each WEC obligated 

party related to the three WEC 

exemptions, which are discussed in 

sections II.D.1. through 3. of this 

preamble. Under the proposed 

approach, the exemptions are only 

available to WEC applicable facilities 

that exceed the waste emissions 

threshold. The EPA therefore proposes 

that these reporting requirements would 

only apply to WEC applicable facilities 

that exceed the waste emissions 

threshold and are otherwise eligible for 

the exemption(s). The EPA seeks 

comment on the reporting requirements 

for each exemption, as noted in sections 

II.D.1. through 3. of this preamble. 

4. Verification and WEC Filing 

Revisions 

We anticipate that the foundation of 

the WEC obligated party’s WEC filing 

would be the methane emissions and 

throughput reported by the WEC 

applicable facilities in their subpart W 

reports. As specified in § 98.3(f) and (h) 

of this chapter, part 98 currently 

includes a verification process and 

resubmission process for resolving 

substantive error(s) 40 in reporting. 

These errors are either found through 

self-discovery by the WEC obligated 

party or are found by the EPA during 

the verification process. In part 98, 

errors must be resolved within 45-days 

from discovery or notification of the 

error by the EPA. The EPA may grant a 

30-day extension request if the request 

is timely, such that a total of 75 days 

may be provided for complete issue 

resolution. Additional extensions may 

be approved by the Administrator in 

specified limited circumstances. 

Resolution is either made by report 

revision and resubmission or by 

providing an adequate demonstration 

that the previously submitted report 

does not contain the identified 

substantive error or that the identified 

error is not a substantive error. Upon 

satisfying these requirements, the EPA 

designates the part 98 report as verified. 

If the requirements in § 98.3 of this 

chapter are not satisfied, the EPA 

considers the part 98 report unverified. 

We are proposing that the verification 

status of the WEC applicable facility 

with respect to the reporting in subpart 

W part 98 would be considered by the 

EPA when determining the verification 

status of the part 99 filing because the 

subpart W data would be the 

cornerstone of the WEC. In effect, a 

WEC filing may not achieve verified 

status until all errors associated subpart 

W reports that impact total WEC are 

corrected. For example, if the subpart W 

part 98 report of one WEC applicable 

facility contains errors related to 

reported emissions or throughput that 

affect total WEC, the EPA could by 

extension consider the WEC filing of the 

WEC obligated party that includes that 

WEC applicable facility to be unverified. 

However, there may also be situations in 

which an unverified subpart W part 98 

report does not impact the ability to 

accurately calculate a WEC obligated 

party’s WEC obligation. In these 

circumstances, the proposed approach 

would allow the EPA to verify a WEC 

obligated party’s part 99 report even if 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5351 

the part 98 report of a WEC applicable 

facility associated with the WEC 

obligated party remained unverified. 

Separately, there are elements of the 

part 99 filing that would not be tied to 

the subpart W report, such as the 

calculation of the WEC including 

netting and any exemption information. 

We are proposing to implement a 

similar verification procedure under 

part 99 to that which exists under part 

98. In implementing the verification of 

information submitted under part 99, 

the EPA envisions a two-step process. 

First, we propose to conduct an initial 

centralized review of the data that 

would help assure the completeness and 

accuracy of data. Second, the EPA 

intends to notify WEC obligated parties 

of potential errors, discrepancies, or 

make inquiries as needed concerning 

the WEC filing. Specifically for this 

rulemaking, we anticipate that there 

could be errors or clarifications with 

respect to the supporting documentation 

and quantification of emissions 

associated with exemptions from the 

WEC, which may require EPA review to 

evaluate and confirm their validity and 

accuracy. The part 99 verification 

review would identify issues resulting 

from the calculation of WEC based on 

verified subpart W GHGRP reports and 

verified WEC filings to the extent 

possible. A thorough discussion of the 

separate process for unverified reports 

and approach for reassessment of WEC 

obligation due to resubmissions is 

discussed in section III.B. of this 

preamble. 

We are proposing provisions that 

would require a WEC obligated party to 

resubmit their WEC filing within 45- 

days of either being contacted in writing 

by the EPA notifying them of the 

presence of a substantive error in their 

WEC filing or by self-discovering that a 

previously submitted WEC filing 

contains one or more substantive errors 

(except as described later in this 

section), or within 75 days if granted a 

30-day extension per 40 CFR 99.7(e)(4). 

For the purposes of part 99, we are 

proposing to consider a substantive 

error to be an error that impacts the 

Administrator’s ability to accurately 

calculate the WEC obligated party’s 

obligation, which may include, but 

would not be not limited to, the list of 

WEC applicable facilities associated 

with a WEC obligated party and 

corresponding data reported in each 

listed WEC applicable facility part 98 

report(s), emissions associated with 

exemptions, and supporting information 

for each exemption to demonstrate its 

validity. We are proposing that the 

revised WEC filing must correct all 

substantive errors or provide 

information demonstrating that the 

previously submitted report does not 

contain the identified substantive error 

or that the identified error is not a 

substantive error. 

We are also proposing that if a WEC 

applicable facility revises and resubmits 

their part 98 report, which results in 

impacts on the WEC calculations, the 

WEC obligated party would also be 

required to submit a revised WEC filing 

that includes the number of corrections 

and information detailing the 

correction(s) made. In the event that a 

subpart W report revision results in a 

change in the applicability of part 99 to 

the facility, under the proposed 

provisions the WEC obligated party 

would either submit a WEC filing 

adding or removing any facilities, as 

appropriate. As described in the 

paragraph below, with the exception of 

resubmissions to provide CAA section 

111(b) or (d) compliance reports or 

revisions to previously reported 

compliance reports for the purposes of 

the regulatory compliance exemption, 

the EPA is proposing that part 99 

resubmissions would only be allowed 

up to November 1 of the year following 

the reporting year. Any part 98 

resubmissions after this date that impact 

WEC calculations would not be required 

to be resubmitted in a revised WEC 

filing; facilities could continue to 

resubmit data under subpart W at any 

time. Resubmissions related to CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) compliance reports 

for the purposes of the regulatory 

compliance exemption must be made as 

discussed in section II.D.2.g. of this 

preamble. Under subpart W, facilities 

may resubmit data for historic reporting 

years via e-GGRT for the most recent 

five reporting years (e.g., submit updates 

to 2019 data in 2022). Data resubmission 

for historic reporting years in the 

context of the WEC program is 

extremely complicated due to the 

potential changes in facility ownership 

over time and the implications this has 

on netting of emissions from facilities 

under common ownership or control. 

For example, a company or a facility 

owned by a company in one year may 

be owned in whole or in part by one or 

multiple different companies the next 

year. With such changes occurring 

annually to multiple facilities across 

multiple owners and operators with 

more than one facility under common 

ownership or control, there is no 

practical means of incorporating 

resubmitted data for historic reporting 

years in the WEC program. This would 

require the EPA to engage in a 

potentially constant series of WEC 

recalculations and associated invoicing 

or refunds. The EPA therefore proposes 

a deadline of November 1 for each year, 

after which time no WEC filings could 

be resubmitted. For example, 

resubmissions of data initially reported 

by March 31, 2025, used to assess WEC 

for the 2024 reporting year, would be 

required to be submitted by November 

1, 2025. This proposed approach would 

not allow resubmissions for historic 

reporting years for WEC filings, even if 

their corresponding subpart W data was 

resubmitted for historic reporting years 

for purposes of subpart W. Subpart W 

facilities would continue to be subject to 

part 98 existing requirements for 

resubmitting data for previous reporting 

years, but any data resubmitted under 

part 98 after November 1 of the calendar 

year following the respective reporting 

year would not be considered for the 

purposes of WEC under part 99. This 

deadline would apply to all WEC 

applicable facilities, including those 

with data verified by EPA. The EPA’s 

proposed approaches for WEC filing 

requirements and data verification are 

intended to incentivize complete and 

accurate WEC filings under part 99, and 

thus corresponding reporting of 

complete and accurate data under part 

98, by March 31 of each year. As a 

result, the EPA expects that there will 

be little need to resubmit data after this 

initial reporting deadline, and the seven 

months between March 31 and the 

proposed final deadline of November 1 

would give facility owners or operators 

sufficient time to make any 

resubmissions. The EPA proposes that it 

would retain the right to reevaluate 

WEC obligations in WEC filings after 

November 1 (e.g., as part of an EPA 

audit of facility data). Similarly, the 

November 1 deadline would not apply 

to adjustments to WEC obligations 

resulting from the process to resolve 

unverified data, proposed at 40 CFR 

99.8, should that resolution occur after 

November 1. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed approach of setting a deadline 

for WEC resubmissions under part 99 

and in doing so not allowing data 

resubmissions for the WEC filing for 

previous historic reporting years. The 

EPA requests comment on the 

November 1 deadline and options for 

alternative deadlines. The EPA also 

requests comment on alternative 

approaches that would allow data 

resubmissions for historic reporting 

years under the WEC program, as well 

as comment on how such changes 

would be incorporated into netting for 

historic reporting years. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5352 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

41This rate of interest is known as the Current 

Value of Funds Rate, or CVFR, and is published 

prior to November 30th of each year by Treasury. 

The CVFR is based on the weekly average of the 

Effective Federal Funds Rate, less 25 basis points, 

for the 12-month period ending September 30th of 

each year, rounded to the nearest whole percent. 

This rate may be revised on a quarterly basis if the 

annual average, on a moving basis, changes by 2 

percentage points or more. 

42We propose that WEC obligated parties would 

be subject to the financial sanctions proposed in 40 

CFR 99.10 for any delinquent payments of the 

revised WEC invoice(s), as discussed in section 

III.B. of this preamble. 

B. Remittance and Assessment of WEC 

We are proposing that each WEC 

obligation payment must be submitted 

electronically in accordance with the 

proposed requirements of 40 CFR 99.6 

and in a format specified by the 

Administrator as part of the submission 

of the WEC filing (i.e., by March 31 each 

year covering the preceding reporting 

year). 

For the purposes of ensuring timely 

payment of the WEC, the EPA is 

proposing financial sanctions under 40 

CFR 99.10 of subpart A, pursuant to the 

authority included in the Federal claims 

provision at 31 U.S.C. 3717. These 

penalties would apply to delinquent 

WEC payments. Under 31 U.S.C. 3717, 

there are interest, penalties, and costs 

that may be imposed on outstanding or 

delinquent debts arising under a claim 

owed by a person to the U.S. 

Government. Specifically, under 31 

U.S.C. 3717(a)(1), agencies shall charge 

a minimum annual rate of intereston an 

outstanding debt on a United States 

Government claim owned by a person.41

Under the EPA’s implementing Policy 

Number 2540–9–P2, accounts are 

considered delinquent when the EPA 

does not receive payment by the due 

date specified on a bill or invoice (i.e., 

for the WEC obligation at the time of 

submission of the WEC filing). The EPA 

is proposing to cite this Federal claims 

interest charge authority as the first tier 

of WEC payment sanctions. 

Second, under 31 U.S.C. 3717(e)(1), 

agencies must collect an additional 

penalty charge of not more than six 

percent per year for failure to pay any 

part of a debt more than 90 days past 

due, as well as additional charge to 

cover the cost of processing delinquent 

claims. Under Policy Number 2540–9– 

P2, the EPA Finance Centers are 

responsible for issuing demand notices 

and conducting collection efforts for the 

Agency. The EPA Finance Centers 

would assess interest, handling, and 

penalty charges in 30-day increments 

for late payments and would assess the 

6 percent penalty with the 3rd demand 

letter or notice. 

The EPA therefore proposes to 

include this additional 6 percent nonpayment penalty charge for WEC debts 

that are more than 90 days past due. 

This would be the second tier of 

sanction authority under this proposal’s 

set of payment sanctions and would be 

implemented if the first tier of interest 

charges is not effective in causing a 

delinquent WEC obligated party to make 

their payments current. The EPA seeks 

comment on its proposed approach for 

applying interest to late WEC fee 

payments. 

Additionally, for WEC obligated 

parties that fail to submit their annual 

WEC filing by the deadline discussed in 

section III.A.2. of this preamble, the 

EPA is proposing a daily penalty no 

greater than the rate associated with 42 

U.S.C. 7413(d)(1) specified in Table 1 of 

40 CFR 19.4, as amended. The EPA 

Finance Centers would assess interest, 

handling, and penalty charges in 30-day 

increments. We are proposing that the 

assessment of this penalty would begin 

on the date that the WEC filing was 

considered past due (i.e., April 1st) and 

continue until such time that the WEC 

filing is submitted and certified by the 

WEC obligated party. The EPA requests 

comment on its proposed approach of 

establishing a daily penalty for 

unsubmitted WEC filings. 

1. Process for Reassessing WEC for WEC 

Filings Resubmitted After the Initial 

Waste Emission Charge Has Been 

Assessed 

As discussed in section III.A.4. of this 

preamble, WEC obligated parties may 

need to resubmit their WEC filings and 

WEC applicable facilities may need to 

resubmit their GHGRP reports. These 

resubmittals have the potential to result 

in recalculation of the WEC obligation 

for the WEC obligated party. As 

discussed in section III.A.4. of this 

preamble, the EPA proposes that data 

resubmissions for the previous reporting 

year would be required to be submitted 

by November 1 in order to be 

considered for WEC recalculations, with 

the exeption of resubmissions related to 

CAA section 111(b) or (d) compliance 

reports for the purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption. If the 

recalculated WEC obligation is less than 

the original WEC obligation owed by the 

WEC obligated party, we propose that 

the EPA would authorize a refund to the 

WEC obligated party equal to the 

difference in WEC obligation. If the 

recalculated WEC obligation is greater 

than the original WEC obligation owed 

by the WEC obligated party, the EPA 

would charge the WEC obligated party 

for the remaining balance of the WEC, 

including any assessed fees or 

penalties.42 To encourage careful 

attention to detail and reduce the need 

for WEC filing revisions, we are 

proposing to charge a daily interest rate 

for any revised WEC filing that results 

in additional WEC being owed. As 

proposed in 40 CFR 99.8, this daily 

interest rate would be assessed from 

April 1st (i.e., the day after the 

submission deadline) until such time 

that a resubmitted WEC filing and 

payment, that is subsequently verified 

by the EPA, is certified by the 

designated representative. We propose a 

daily interest rate equal to the Current 

Value of Funds Rate, consistent with 31 

U.S.C. 3717(a). The EPA proposes that 

payment for any additional WEC, 

including assessed interest, would made 

with the resubmitted WEC filing. 

The EPA seeks comment on the 

proposed approach for resubmitted 

WEC filings, including the application 

of daily interest rate for revised WEC 

filings that result in additional WEC 

being owed. 

2. Process for Assessing WEC for 

Unverified Part 99 Filings 

As discussed in section III.A.4. of this 

preamble, the EPA’s verification review 

process ideally ends with the resolution 

of identified potential errors through 

either correction and resubmission of 

facilities’ reports or justification 

provided through correspondence with 

reporters that no substantive error 

exists. When WEC applicable facilities 

or WEC obligated parties do not provide 

appropriate information to resolve the 

errors in their part 98 or part 99 data 

after 45 days (with the possibility of a 

30-day extension) of either being 

contacted in writing by the EPA 

notifying them of the presence of a 

substantive error or by self-discovering 

that a previously submitted part 98 

report or WEC filing contains one or 

more substantive errors, the EPA 

considers their WEC filing to be 

unverified. 

If a WEC filing is unverified but the 

EPA is able to correct the error(s) based 

on reported data, we propose that the 

EPA will recalculate the WEC using 

available information and provide an 

invoice or refund to the WEC Obligated 

Party within 60 days of determining a 

WEC filing to be unverified. If the WEC 

Obligated Party resubmits a WEC filing 

within that timeframe, the EPA would 

either accept the resubmission, or take 

the resubmission into account when 

calculating the WEC. In cases where the 

EPA is unable to calculate the WEC with 

available information, the WEC 

Obligated Party may be required to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5353 

undergo a third-party audit. The thirdparty auditor must review records kept 

by the WEC Obligated Party, quantify 

the WEC with available information and 

in accordance with the requirements of 

this part, and submit the updated WEC 

calculations and supporting data to the 

EPA. The EPA would then take that 

information into consideration and 

calculate the WEC and provide an 

invoice to the WEC Obligated Party. 

Third-party audits may be required to be 

arranged by and conducted at the 

expense of the WEC obligated party. 

A WEC obligated party would be 

required to pay an invoice received from 

the EPA for any updated WEC 

obligation by the specified due date, or 

within 30 days of the date of the invoice 

or bill if a due date is not provided. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed approach for assessing WEC 

for unverified part 99 reports, including 

the EPA recalculating WEC when data 

are available, and the option of 

requiring third-party auditing of WEC 

obligated party records when the EPA is 

not able to recalculate WEC with the 

available information. The EPA requests 

comment on an alternative approach 

that would establish default values (e.g., 

industry segment-specific methane 

intensities) that would be conservative 

in nature and used to calculate WEC 

applicable emissions from unverified 

reports until such time that the report 

becomes verified. The calculated 

methane emissions from the unverified 

report(s) would then be included when 

determining the WEC obligated party’s 

WEC obligation. In this approach, the 

EPA envisions that similar financial 

sanctions as those discussed in section 

III.B.2. of this preamble would be 

applied until a verified report is 

submitted and certified by the WEC 

applicable facility. We also seek 

comment on additional gap-filling 

approaches for unverified GHGRP 

reports. In addition, the EPA seeks 

comment on an approach for unverified 

reports that would apply daily penalties 

on unverified reports, up to the rate 

associated with U.S. Code citation 42 

U.S.C. 7413(d)(1) specified in Table 1 of 

40 CFR 19.4, as amended. Under such 

an approach, the EPA seeks comment on 

the duration of the penalty (e.g., 3 years 

or until the report is verified, whichever 

is sooner). 

C. Authorizing the Designated 

Representative 

We are proposing provisions for each 

affected WEC obligated party to identify 

a designated representative. We are 

proposing that each WEC obligated 

party would each have one designated 

representative who is an individual 

selected by an agreement binding on the 

WEC obligated party. This designated 

representative would act as a legal 

representative between the WEC 

obligated party and the Agency. We are 

proposing that the designated 

representative must submit a complete 

certificate of representation at least 60 

days prior to the submission of the first 

WEC filing made by the WEC obligated 

party. Additionally, each WEC filing 

would contain a signed certification by 

a designated representative of the WEC 

obligated party. On behalf of the owner 

or operator, the designated 

representative would certify under 

penalty of law that the WEC filing has 

been prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 99 and that 

the information contained in the WEC 

filing is true and accurate, based on a 

reasonable inquiry of individuals 

responsible for obtaining the 

information. 

We are also proposing that the 

designated representative could appoint 

an alternate to act on their behalf, but 

the designated representative would 

maintain legal responsibility for the 

submission of complete, true, and 

accurate emissions data and 

supplemental data. A designated 

representative or alternate designated 

representative may delegate one or more 

‘‘agents.’’ The agent (e.g., a part 98 

subpart W designated representative 

who can provide facility-specific 

information) can enter data for a part 99 

WEC filing, but is not allowed to 

submit, certify, or sign a WEC filing. 

We are proposing that within 90 days 

after any change in the WEC obligated 

party, the designated representative or 

any alternate designated representative 

must submit a certificate of 

representation that is complete under 

this section to reflect the change. 

D. General Recordkeeping Requirements 

We are proposing that WEC 

applicable facilities and WEC obligated 

parties must retain all required records 

for at least 5 years from the date of 

submission of the WEC report for the 

reporting year in which the record was 

generated. We are proposing that the 

records shall be kept in an electronic or 

hard-copy format (as appropriate) and 

recorded in a form that is suitable for 

expeditious inspection and auditing. 

Under the proposed provisions, upon 

request by the Administrator, the 

records required under this section must 

be made available to the EPA. We are 

proposing that records may be retained 

off site if the records are readily 

available for expeditious inspection and 

review. For records that are 

electronically generated or maintained, 

we are proposing that the equipment or 

software necessary to read the records 

shall be made available, or, if requested 

by the EPA, electronic records shall be 

converted to paper documents. The 

records that the EPA is proposing that 

must be retained would include 

information required to be retained 

under part 98, specifically subparts A 

and W, any other information needed to 

complete the WEC filing, and all 

information required to be submitted as 

part of the WEC filing, including any 

supporting documentation. 

E. General Provisions, Including 

Auditing and Compliance and 

Enforcement 

1. Auditing Provisions 

We are proposing that the EPA may 

conduct on-site audits of facilities, as 

indicated in 40 CFR 99.7(c). Under the 

proposed general recordkeeping 

provision at 40 CFR 99.7(d), the records 

generated under this part would be 

available to the EPA during an on-site 

audit as the records must be recorded in 

a form that is suitable for expeditious 

inspection and review, and must be 

made available to the EPA upon request. 

The on-site audits may be conducted by 

private auditors contracted by the EPA 

or by Federal, State or local personnel, 

as appropriate, and may be required to 

be arranged by and conducted at the 

expense of the WEC obligated party. 

2. Compliance and Enforcement 

We are proposing that any violation of 

any requirement of this part shall be a 

violation of the Clean Air Act, including 

section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414) and section 

136 (42 U.S.C. 7436). A violation would 

include but is not limited to failure to 

submit, or resubmit as required, a WEC 

filing, failure to collect data needed to 

calculate the WEC charge (including any 

data relevant to determining the 

applicability of any exemptions), failure 

to retain records needed to verify the 

amount of WEC charge, providing false 

information in a WEC filing, and failure 

to remit WEC payment. As proposed at 

40 CFR 99.4(b), it is a violation to fail 

to authorize a designated representative 

for a WEC obligated party. In the case 

of a facility with more than one owner 

or operator, failure to select a WEC 

obligated part would constitute a 

violation on the part of each owner or 

operator, as proposed at 40 CFR 99.4. 

Each day of a violation would constitute 

a separate violation. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5354 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

IV. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Certain Data 

Reporting Elements 

A. Overview and Background 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

require WEC obligated parties to report 

the general information described in 

section III.A.3. of this preamble and the 

information specific to any applicable 

exemptions as described in sections 

II.D.1. through 3. of this preamble. This 

information is necessary for the EPA to 

verify the contents of the WEC filing, 

including confirming that all of the 

required WEC applicable facilities were 

included, each WEC applicable facility 

is eligible for any exemptions that were 

applied, and the WEC applicable 

emissions and the amount of the WEC 

obligation were calculated correctly. As 

explained in the remainder of this 

section, the EPA is proposing that 

nearly all of the data reported would be 

either emission data or otherwise 

ineligible for confidential treatment. 

The information that may be eligible for 

confidential treatment would be 

information included in supporting 

documentation required for eligible 

exemptions or additional information 

provided in software comments fields. 

Section 114(c) of the CAA requires 

that ‘‘[a]ny records, reports, or 

information obtained under [CAA 

section 114(a)] shall be available to the 

public, except that upon a showing 

satisfactory to the Administrator by any 

person that records, reports, or 

information, or particular part thereof, 

(other than emission data) . . . if made 

public, would divulge methods or 

processes entitled to protection as trade 

secrets . . . , the Administrator shall 

consider such record, report, or 

information or particular portion thereof 

confidential. . . .’’ Thus, the CAA 

begins with a presumption that 

information submitted to the EPA may 

be disclosed to the public. It then 

provides a narrow exception to that 

presumption for information that ‘‘if 

made public, would divulge methods or 

processes entitled to protection as trade 

secrets. . . .’’ Section 114(c) of the CAA 

narrows this exception further by 

excluding ‘‘emission data’’ from the 

category of information eligible for 

confidential treatment. The EPA has 

interpreted CAA section 114(c) to afford 

confidential treatment to both trade 

secrets and confidential business 

information that are not emission data 

(40 FR 21987, 21990 (May 20, 1975)). 

While the CAA does not define 

‘‘emission data,’’ the EPA has done so 

by regulation at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). 

Emission data means, with reference to 

any source of emissions of any 

substance into the air— 

(A) Information necessary to 

determine the identity, amount, 

frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics (to the extent related to 

air quality) of any emission which has 

been emitted by the source (or of any 

pollutant resulting from any emission 

by the source), or any combination of 

the foregoing; 

(B) Information necessary to 

determine the identity, amount, 

frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics (to the extent related to 

air quality) of the emissions which, 

under an applicable standard or 

limitation, the source was authorized to 

emit (including, to the extent necessary 

for such purposes, a description of the 

manner or rate of operation of the 

source); and 

(C) A general description of the 

location and/or nature of the source to 

the extent necessary to identify the 

source and to distinguish it from other 

sources (including, to the extent 

necessary for such purposes, a 

description of the device, installation, or 

operation constituting the source). 

Further, in a 1991 EPA notice of 

policy (56 FR 7042, February 21, 1991), 

the EPA stated that certain data fields 

constitute ‘‘emission data’’ and therefore 

cannot be withheld as confidential. The 

1991 document indicated that while 

confidentiality determinations are 

typically made on a case-by-case basis, 

some kinds of data will always 

constitute emission data within the 

meaning of CAA section 114(c). The 

document listed several data fields that 

EPA considered to be emission data 

including facility identification data 

(e.g., facility name; address; ownership; 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC); 

emission point, device or operation 

description information) and emission 

parameters (e.g., compounds emitted; 

origin of emissions; emission rate, 

concentration, release parameters, boiler 

or process design capacity, emission 

estimation method). The document 

clarified that the list of types of 

information in the document was not 

exhaustive and that other data might 

also constitute emission data. 

For data that are not ‘‘emission data,’’ 

the confidentiality determination 

criteria at 40 CFR 2.208(a) through (d) 

are as follows: 

Determinations issued under §§ 2.204 

through 2.207 shall hold that business 

information is entitled to confidential 

treatment for the benefit of a particular 

business if: 

(a) The business has asserted a 

business confidentiality claim which 

has not expired by its terms, nor been 

waived nor withdrawn; 

(b) The business has satisfactorily 

shown that it has taken reasonable 

measures to protect the confidentiality 

of the information, and that it intends to 

continue to take such measures; 

(c) The information is not, and has not 

been, reasonably obtainable without the 

business’s consent by other persons 

(other than governmental bodies) by use 

of legitimate means (other than 

discovery based on a showing of special 

need in a judicial or quasi-judicial 

proceeding); and 

(d) No statute specifically requires 

disclosure of the information. 

In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus 

Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019) 

(hereafter referred to as Argus Leader), 

the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 

opinion addressing the meaning of the 

word ‘‘confidential’’ in Exemption 4 of 

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(4)(2012 and Supp. V. 

2017) stating that ‘‘confidential’’ must 

be given its ‘‘ordinary’’ meaning, which 

is information that is ‘‘private’’ or 

‘‘secret.’’ As a result, starting with the 

date of the Argus Leader ruling, the EPA 

no longer assesses data elements using 

the rationale of whether disclosure will 

cause a likelihood of substantial 

competitive harm when making 

confidentiality determinations. Instead, 

the EPA assesses whether the 

information is customarily and actually 

treated as private by the reporter and 

whether the EPA has given an assurance 

at the time the information was 

submitted that the information will be 

kept confidential or not confidential. 

B. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations 

Pursuant to CAA section 114(c), the 

EPA is proposing to make categorical 

emission data and confidentiality 

determinations in advance through this 

notice and comment rulemaking for the 

categories of information in these 

proposed reports under part 99. We 

describe the proposed emission data 

categories and confidentiality 

determinations for the reported 

information, as well as the basis for 

such proposed determinations, in this 

section. This approach is similar to the 

approach we have taken for the GHGRP 

under 40 CFR part 98 (see 75 FR 39094, 

July 7, 2010, and 75 FR 30782, May 26, 

2011, for more information). 

The determinations the EPA is 

proposing in this rulemaking, if 

finalized, would serve as notification of 

the Agency’s decisions concerning: (1) 

the categories of information the Agency 

will not treat as confidential because it 

is emission data; (2) the information that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5355 

is not emission data but is not entitled 

to confidential treatment; and (3) the 

information that the submitter may 

claim as confidential but will remain 

subject to the existing 40 CFR part 2 

process. In responding to requests for 

information not determined in this 

proposal to be emission data or 

otherwise not entitled to confidential 

treatment, we propose to apply the 

default case-by-case process found in 40 

CFR part 2. 

The emission data and confidentiality 

determinations proposed in this 

rulemaking are intended to provide 

consistency in the treatment of the 

information collected by the EPA as part 

of the proposed WEC filings. The EPA 

anticipates that making these 

determinations in advance through this 

rulemaking will provide predictability 

and transparency for both information 

requesters and submitters. 

The categories of information that we 

are proposing to determine to be 

emission data in this action are: 

(1) Methane emissions; 

(2) Calculation methodology; and 

(3) Facility and unit identifier 

information. 

The EPA is proposing to group types 

of information (data elements) that the 

Agency is proposing to require WEC 

obligated parties to submit under part 

99 that would be considered emission 

data into these three categories based on 

their shared characteristics. For the sake 

of organization, for any information that 

logically could be grouped into more 

than one category, we have chosen to 

label information as being in just one 

category where we think it fits best. This 

approach will reduce redundancy 

within the categories that could lead to 

confusion and ensure consistency in the 

treatment of similar information in the 

future. We are requesting comment on 

the following: (1) our proposed 

categories of emission data; and (2) our 

placement of each data element under 

the category proposed. 

For reporting elements that the EPA 

does not designate as ‘‘emission data,’’ 

the EPA is proposing to assess each 

individual reporting element according 

to the Argus Leader criteria (i.e., 

whether the information is customarily 

and actually treated as private by the 

submitter) and 40 CFR 2.208(a) through 

(d). Therefore, we are not proposing to 

establish categories and categorical 

confidentiality determinations for 

information that is not ‘‘emission data.’’ 

However, we are proposing descriptions 

of the type of information that would 

not be eligible for confidential treatment 

in 40 CFR 99.13(b), including certain 

information demonstrating compliance 

with standards and information that is 

publicly available. We are also 

proposing in 40 CFR 99.13(c) through 

(e) to specify certain data elements and 

types of information that would be 

subject to the process for confidentiality 

determinations in 40 CFR part 2. The 

proposed provisions in 40 CFR 99.13(b) 

would establish the proposed 

confidentiality determinations of the 

proposed data elements in part 99 and 

would also provide clarity and ensure 

consistent treatment of new or 

substantively revised data elements if 

the content of the WEC filing is 

amended in a future rulemaking. 

Sections IV.B.2. and 3. of this preamble 

describe these proposed provisions, and 

our assessment of each individual 

reporting element that we are proposing 

is not ‘‘emission data.’’ We are 

requesting comment on the proposed 

Agency determinations that information 

described in those sections of the 

preamble are not entitled to confidential 

treatment. 

1. Emission Data 

We are proposing to establish in 40 

CFR 99.13(a) that certain categories of 

information the EPA would collect in 

the proposed WEC filings are 

information that meets the regulatory 

definition of emission data under 40 

CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). The following 

sections describe the categories of 

information we are proposing to 

determine to be emission data, based on 

application of the definition at 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(i) to the shared 

characteristics of the information in 

each category and our rationale for each 

proposed determination. 

a. Information Necessary To Determine 

the Identity, Amount, Frequency, 

Concentration, or Other Characteristics 

of Emissions Emitted by the Source 

Under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A), 

emission data includes ‘‘[i]nformation 

necessary to determine the identity, 

amount, frequency, concentration, or 

other characteristics (to the extent 

related to air quality) of any emission 

which has been emitted by the source 

(or of any pollutant resulting from any 

emission by the source), or any 

combination of the foregoing[.]’’ We are 

proposing that the following categories 

of information are emission data under 

40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A): 

(1) Methane emissions; and 

(2) Calculation methodology. 

Methane emissions. Data elements 

included in the Methane emissions data 

category are the net WEC emissions, 

facility waste emissions thresholds, 

industry segment waste emissions 

thresholds for each applicable industry 

segment within the facility (if more than 

one industry segment applies), and WEC 

applicable emissions, as well as the 

quantities of methane emissions that the 

WEC obligated party calculates should 

be exempted due to unreasonable delay 

and wells that were permanently shutin and abandoned. The EPA proposes to 

determine that the emissions at each 

reporting level constitute ‘‘emission 

data.’’ These data elements are 

information regarding the identity, 

amount, and frequency of any emission 

emitted by the WEC applicable facility, 

and, therefore, they are ‘‘emission data.’’ 

As discussed in section IV.A. of this 

preamble, in the 1991 EPA notice of 

policy (56 FR 7042, February 21, 1991), 

the EPA identified, without attempting 

to be comprehensive, data elements that 

the EPA considered to constitute 

emission data. The 1991 document lists 

the ‘‘Emission type (e.g., the nature of 

emissions, such as CO2, particulate or a 

specific toxic compound, and origin of 

emissions such as process vents, storage 

tanks or equipment leaks)’’ and 

‘‘Emission rate (e.g., the amount 

released to the atmosphere over time 

such as kg/yr or lbs/yr)’’ as data that are 

not entitled to confidential treatment 

and are, therefore, releasable to the 

public. Our proposed determination for 

this data category is consistent with the 

1991 document. It is also consistent 

with the determination for a similar 

category in the GHGRP under 40 CFR 

part 98. 

Calculation methodology. The data 

element included in this category is the 

method used to determine the quantity 

of methane emissions that the WEC 

obligated party calculates should be 

exempt due to an unreasonable 

permitting delay and the method used 

to determine the equipment leaks 

emissions attributable to a plugged well. 

Most of the necessary calculations in 

part 99 do not include multiple 

equations or approaches that could be 

selected by a WEC obligated party, and 

in those cases, the calculation 

methodology used is readily apparent 

for any WEC obligated party. 

Calculations for the exemptions for 

unreasonable delay and plugged wells 

do include multiple equations that 

facilities may use under different 

circumstances. 

The EPA proposes to determine that 

the data elements in the Calculation 

methodology category are ‘‘emission 

data’’ under 2.301(a)(2) because they are 

‘‘information necessary to determine 

. . . the amount’’ of emissions emitted 

by the source. The method used to 

calculate emissions is emission data 

under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2) because it is 

information necessary for the WEC 

obligated party to calculate the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5356 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

emissions and for the EPA and the 

public to verify that an appropriate 

method was used. As discussed in 

section IV.A. of this preamble, the 1991 

EPA notice of policy provided a list of 

information that the EPA considered to 

constitute ‘‘emission data’’ under 40 

CFR 2.301(a)(1)(2)(i). That list includes 

the ‘‘emission estimation method (e.g., 

the method by which an emission 

estimate has been calculated such as 

material balance, source test, use of AP– 

42 emission factors, etc.),’’ which is the 

same type of data element as those that 

the EPA is proposing to include in this 

data category. Our proposed 

determination for this data category is 

consistent with the 1991 document. It is 

also consistent with the determination 

for a similar category in the GHGRP 

under 40 CFR part 98. 

b. Information That Is Emission Data 

Because It Provides a General 

Description of the Location and/or 

Nature of the Source to the Extent 

Necessary To Identify the Source and To 

Distinguish It From Other Sources 

Under 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C), 

emission data includes ‘‘a ‘‘[g]eneral 

description of the location and/or nature 

of the source to the extent necessary to 

identify the source and to distinguish it 

from other sources (including, to the 

extent necessary for such purposes, a 

description of the device, installation, or 

operation constituting the source).’’ We 

are proposing that the data elements in 

the Facility and unit identifier 

information category of information are 

emission data under 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(i)(C). 

The proposed part 99 regulations 

would require WEC obligated parties to 

report in the WEC filing information 

needed to identify each facility as well 

as specific emission units (affected 

facilities) and/or well-pads associated 

with an exemption. Facility-identifying 

information must be reported for all 

facilities as specified in 40 CFR part 99, 

subpart A. Affected facility-specific 

identifying information is required for 

the regulatory compliance exemption. 

Well-pad-specific identifying 

information is reported if required by an 

applicable exemption for onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities. 

Data elements in this category would 

include the following data elements 

required under 40 CFR part 99, subpart 

A to be included in each annual WEC 

filing: WEC obligated party company 

name and address, the name and contact 

information for the designated 

representative of WEC obligated party, 

and a signed and dated certification 

statement of the accuracy and 

completeness of the report, which is 

provided by the designated 

representative of the owner or operator. 

The proposed part 99 regulations would 

also require that the filing include 

specific information about each facility 

covered by the annual WEC filing, 

including the e-GGRT ID number and 

the industry segment. For each 

exemption, the facility and unit 

identifier information category would 

include (as applicable) the facility 

identifier, the well-pad and/or well 

identifier reported under subpart W (if 

applicable), other facility or affected 

facility identifiers used to identify the 

facility/sources in other EPA systems 

(specifically, the ICIS–AIR ID or Facility 

Registry Service (FRS) ID and the EPA 

Registry ID from the Compliance and 

Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI)), emission source-specific 

methane mitigation activities impacted 

by an unreasonable permitting delay, 

and exemption-specific certification 

statements. 

As discussed in section IV.A. of this 

preamble, emission data must be 

available to the public and is not 

entitled to confidential treatment under 

CAA section 114(c). ‘‘Emission data’’ is 

defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(C) to 

include ‘‘[a] general description of the 

location and/or nature of the source to 

the extent necessary to identify the 

source and to distinguish it from other 

sources . . . .’’ Consistent with this 

definition of emission data, the EPA 

considers facility and emission unit 

identifiers to be source information or 

‘‘information necessary to determine the 

identity . . . of any emission which has 

been emitted by the source,’’ and 

therefore emission data under 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(i). Further, 40 CFR 

2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) specifies that emission 

data includes, among other things, 

‘‘information necessary to determine the 

identity, amount, frequency, 

concentration, or other characteristics 

(to the extent related to air quality) of 

any emission which has been emitted by 

the source. . . .’’ The EPA considers 

the term ‘‘identity . . . of any emission’’ 

as not simply referring only to the 

names of the pollutants being emitted, 

but to also include other identifying 

information, such as from what and 

where (e.g., the identity of the emission 

unit) the pollutants are being emitted. 

The 1991 EPA notice of policy 

(discussed in section IV.A. of this 

preamble) provided a list of data fields 

that the EPA considered to be emission 

data. For example, in the 1991 

document, the EPA considered that 

plant name, address, city, State, zip 

code, emission point or device 

description, SIC code, and Source 

Classification Code (SCC) are emission 

data. Therefore, the public has been on 

notice that the EPA considers many of 

the data elements in this data category 

to be emission data and thus not 

entitled to confidential treatment. The 

1991 document also makes clear that the 

list of data is not comprehensive and 

that other data might also constitute 

emission data. This proposed part 99 

determination that these data elements 

are emission data is consistent with the 

1991 policy statement, and also 

consistent with the Facility and unit 

identifier information category in the 

GHGRP under 40 CFR part 98. 

2. Reported Information That Is Never 

Entitled to Confidential Treatment 

As noted in section IV.B. of this 

preamble, we are proposing to assess the 

confidentiality of each individual part 

99 reporting element that is not 

otherwise designated as emission data 

in this rulemaking according to the 

Argus Leader criteria (i.e., whether the 

information is customarily and actually 

treated as private by the submitter) and 

40 CFR 2.208(a) through (d). However, 

in this action we are proposing 

descriptions of the type of information 

that would not be eligible for 

confidential treatment in 40 CFR 

99.13(b), in part to establish the 

proposed confidentiality determinations 

of the proposed data elements in part 99 

but also to provide clarity and 

consistency in the event that the content 

of the WEC filings are amended in a 

future rulemaking. The WEC obligation 

is calculated by multiplying the net 

WEC emissions by a set dollar amount, 

depending on the reporting year. As 

explained in section IV.B.1.a. of this 

preamble, the EPA is proposing to 

determine that the net WEC emissions 

are emission data. Therefore, we are 

proposing that the WEC obligation, 

which is calculated as the net WEC 

emissions multiplied by a dollar per ton 

rate that is prescribed in CAA section 

136, would not be eligible for 

confidential treatment. 

We are also proposing that certain 

information considered to be 

compliance information in part 99, 

regardless of whether it is or is not 

designated as emission data, is still not 

otherwise eligible for confidential 

treatment. Compliance information 

collected under part 99 includes 

information necessary to demonstrate 

compliance with the eligibility 

requirements for the exemptions for 

unreasonable permitting delay, 

regulatory compliance, and wells that 

have been permanently shut-in and 

plugged. Examples of the information 

collected include: for the unreasonable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5357 

delay exemption, the date of the permit 

request, the estimated date to commence 

operation if the application had been 

approved within a set period of months, 

the first date that offtake to the gathering 

or transmission infrastructure from the 

implementation of methane emissions 

mitigation occurred once the 

application was approved, the 

beginning and ending date for which the 

eligible delay limited the offtake of 

natural gas associated with methane 

emissions mitigation activities, 

information on all applicable local, 

state, and Federal regulations regarding 

flaring emissions and the facility’s 

compliance status for each, and other 

compliance information related to 

gathering or transmission infrastructure; 

for the regulatory compliance 

exemption, copies of reports and other 

evidence of compliance with NSPS 

OOOOb or a state, Tribal, or Federal 

plan under 40 CFR part 62; and for the 

plugged well exemption, the date a well 

was permanently shut-in and plugged 

and the statutory citation for the 

requirements that were followed for that 

process. Operating and construction 

permits are available to the public 

through the State issuing the permits (as 

the delegated authority of the EPA), 

generally either through an online 

information system or website, or upon 

request to the state agency issuing the 

permits. These permits are expected to 

contain information about the type and 

size of process equipment operated at a 

facility, control devices or other 

measures undertaken to reduce 

emissions from each process, and the 

emission standards to which the facility 

is subject (including Federal standards 

as well as state or local standards). 

Reports submitted by owners and 

operators of facilities subject to NSPS 

OOOOb or a state, Tribal, or Federal 

plan under 40 CFR part 62 are available 

through the EPA’s online repository 

‘‘WebFIRE.’’ See https://www.epa.gov/ 

electronic-reporting-air-emissions/ 

webfire. Finally, well-specific 

information, including age, production 

rate, and operating status, is publicly 

available through state oil and gas 

commissions and/or state databases as 

well as sources such as Enverus. 

Because this information is already 

publicly available, it would not be 

eligible for confidential treatment. 

The EPA is also proposing in 40 CFR 

99.13(b)(3) that any other information 

that has been published and made 

publicly available, including the 

publicly available reports submitted 

under the GHGRP and information on 

websites, would not be eligible for 

confidential treatment. Information that 

is publicly available does not meet the 

criteria for information entitled to 

confidential treatment specified in 40 

CFR 2.208(c). This proposed paragraph 

40 CFR 99.13(b)(3) would specify an 

additional type of information that 

would not be eligible for confidential 

treatment when evaluating the 

confidentiality of supporting 

documentation submitted as described 

in proposed 40 CFR 99.13(c) or (d) (see 

section IV.B.3. for additional 

information on supporting 

documentation). 

3. Information for Which the EPA Is Not 

Proposing a Confidentiality 

Determination 

This section describes information for 

which the EPA is not proposing a 

confidentiality determination. The EPA 

would initially treat this information as 

confidential upon receipt, if the 

submitter claimed it as such, until a 

case-by-case determination is made by 

the Agency under the 40 CFR part 2 

process. 

We do not expect emission data to be 

submitted in supporting documentation, 

but we are proposing that information in 

supporting documentation as described 

in proposed 40 CFR 99.13(c) (i.e., 

information not listed in proposed 40 

CFR 98.13(a) or (b) as not eligible for 

confidential treatment) would be treated 

as confidential until a case-by-case 

determination is made under the 40 CFR 

part 2 process. The EPA is also 

proposing that information provided in 

software comments fields as described 

in proposed 40 CFR 99.13(d) would not 

be eligible for confidential treatment if 

it is listed in proposed 40 CFR 98.13(a) 

or (b) as not eligible for confidential 

treatment. Otherwise, the EPA would 

treat the information as confidential 

until a case-by-case determination is 

made under the 40 CFR part 2 process, 

as specified in proposed 40 CFR 

99.13(c). The EPA recognizes that 

supporting documentation and reporter 

comments may include information that 

is sensitive or proprietary, such as 

detailed process designs or site plans. 

Because the exact nature of this 

documentation cannot be predicted 

with certainty, the EPA proposes to 

make case-by-case confidentiality 

determinations under CAA section 

114(c) for any supporting 

documentation or comments claimed 

confidential by applicants either upon 

receipt of such information or upon a 

request for such information after 

receipt. 

C. Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR 

Part 2 

As previously discussed, pursuant to 

CAA section 114(c), the EPA must make 

available to the public data submitted 

under part 99, except for data (other 

than emission data) that are considered 

confidential under CAA section 114(c). 

Accordingly, the EPA may release part 

99 data without further notice after 

submission to the EPA in accordance 

with the EPA’s determinations of their 

confidentiality status in the final rule. 

Specifically, the EPA may release part 

99 data that are determined in the final 

rule to be emission data or not 

otherwise entitled to confidential 

treatment under CAA section 114(c) 

(i.e., ‘‘non-CBI’’). For data elements that 

we determine to be entitled to 

confidential treatment under CAA 

section 114(c), the EPA would release or 

publish such data only if the 

information can be aggregated in a 

manner that would protect the 

confidentiality of these data at the 

facility level. Existing regulations in 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B set forth 

procedural steps that the EPA must 

follow before releasing any information, 

either on the Agency’s own initiative or 

in response to requests made pursuant 

to FOIA. In particular, the EPA is 

generally required to make case-by-case 

confidentiality determinations and to 

notify individual reporters before 

disclosing information that businesses 

have submitted with a confidentiality 

claim. As discussed in section IV.B of 

this preamble, in light of the 

voluminous data the EPA receives 

under subpart W of part 98 and the 

multiple procedural steps required 

under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, the EPA 

would not be able to make part 99 data 

(determined to be emission data or nonCBI) publicly available in a timely 

fashion if it were required to make 

separate confidentiality determinations 

based on each submitter’s individual 

claim of confidentiality. 

To facilitate timely release of GHG 

data collected under part 99 that are 

emission data or non-CBI, the EPA 

proposes to amend 40 CFR 2.301, 

Special rules governing certain 

information obtained under the Clean 

Air Act. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 2.301(d) to 

specify that the special rules for data 

submitted under part 98 would also 

apply to part 99. Under the proposed 

amendment, the EPA may release part 

99 data that are determined to be 

emission data or information 

determined to be not entitled to 

confidential treatment upon finalizing 

the confidentiality status of these data. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5358 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

43Prior to Argus Leader, the EPA considered 

whether the business had satisfactorily shown that 

disclosure of the information is likely to cause 

substantial harm to the business’s competitive 

position when evaluating claims of confidentiality. 

Consistent with the 40 CFR part 2 

procedures, the approach proposed in 

this rulemaking would provide the WEC 

obligated party an opportunity to justify 

and substantiate any confidentiality 

claim they may have for the data they 

are required to submit (except for 

emission data and other data not 

entitled to confidential treatment 

pursuant to CAA section 114(c)). In 

addition, WEC obligated parties have 

the benefit of seeing the EPA’s 

rationales and analyses prior to 

submitting any justification, information 

that they would not otherwise have 

under the current 40 CFR part 2 

procedures. As more fully explained in 

section IV.E of this preamble, the WEC 

obligated party must provide comment 

explaining why it disagrees with the 

rationale provided by the EPA for each 

particular data element it intends to 

claim confidential and must provide 

information to explain how the business 

customarily and actually treats the 

information as confidential. The EPA 

will consider comments received on this 

proposal before finalizing the 

confidentiality determinations. 

The EPA solicits comment on the 

proposed amendments to 40 CFR 

2.301(d), Special rules governing certain 

information obtained under the CAA for 

data submitted under part 99. 

D. Proposed Changes to Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Elements 

Reported Under Subpart W 

The industry segment waste 

emissions thresholds are calculated 

pursuant to 40 CFR 99.20. Except for 

facilities in the Offshore Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Production industry 

segment or the Onshore Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Production industry 

segment that have no natural gas sent to 

sale, each threshold is calculated by 

multiplying the specified natural gas 

throughput for that industry segment by 

two constant values, the density of 

methane and the industry segmentspecific methane intensity threshold (as 

summarized in Table 2 of this 

preamble). As noted in section IV.B.1.a. 

of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

that the facility waste emissions 

thresholds and industry segment waste 

emissions thresholds are emission data 

and would therefore be made publicly 

available. For two industry segments, 

Onshore Natural Gas Processing and 

Onshore Natural Gas Transmission 

Compression, throughput quantities 

similar to those specified in the industry 

segment waste emissions threshold 

calculations have historically not been 

made publicly available under subpart 

W. However, for WEC applicable 

facilities, once the industry segmentspecific waste emissions thresholds are 

made publicly available, the 

throughputs can be calculated based on 

available information. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing to 

address confidentiality determinations 

for two subpart W data elements as part 

of this rulemaking. For the Onshore 

Natural Gas Processing industry 

segment, a new data element was 

proposed as part of 2023 Subpart W 

Proposal, the quantity of residue gas 

leaving that has been processed by the 

facility and any gas that passes through 

the facility to sale without being 

processed by the facility in the calendar 

year, in thousand standard cubic feet, 

reported under proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(3)(ix). The EPA made a 

final determination in 79 FR 70352 

(November 25, 2014) that the quantity of 

natural gas received at the gas 

processing plant in the calendar year 

(reported under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(i)) 

and the quantity of processed (residue) 

gas leaving the gas processing plant 

(reported under 40 CFR 

98.236(aa)(3)(ii)), should be maintained 

as confidential. As explained in 79 FR 

70352 (November 25, 2014), the 

reporting of this information to the 

Energy Information Administration is 

less frequent than required under 

subpart W, and the EPA had not 

identified any reliable public sources of 

the quantity of residue gas produced. In 

the June 2023 memorandum Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations and 

Emission Data Designations for Data 

Elements in Proposed Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 

(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2023– 

0234–0167), the EPA stated that the 

proposed new data element under 40 

CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(ix) would collect 

similar information to 40 CFR 

98.236(aa)(3)(ii). As a result, the EPA 

proposed to determine that the 

information collected under 40 CFR 

98.236(aa)(3)(ix) would be eligible for 

confidential treatment. 

However, if the EPA finalizes the 

proposed determination that the 

industry segment-specific waste 

emissions thresholds are emission data, 

then those industry segment-specific 

waste emissions thresholds would be 

made publicly available as emission 

data. Therefore, the EPA is no longer 

proposing a confidentiality 

determination for this throughput 

quantity data element (i.e., the quantity 

of residue gas leaving that has been 

processed by the facility and any gas 

that passes through the facility to sale 

without being processed by the facility 

in the calendar year) under part 98. The 

confidentiality status of this data 

element would be evaluated on a caseby-case basis, in light of any publicly 

available information and in accordance 

with the existing regulations in 40 CFR 

part 2, subpart B, upon receipt of a 

public request for these data elements. 

For Onshore Natural Gas 

Transmission Compression, the EPA 

previously decided in 2014 not to make 

a confidentiality determination that 

would apply for all facilities for 40 CFR 

98.236(aa)(4)(i), the quantity of gas 

transported through a compressor 

station. In 79 FR 70352 (November 25, 

2014), the EPA explained that we 

proposed that this data element would 

not be eligible for confidential treatment 

because natural gas transmission sector 

is heavily regulated by FERC and state 

commissions, resulting in a lack of 

competition between companies. 

However, we received comments from 

this industry sector noting that FERC 

Order 636 had introduced greater 

competition to this sector and that some 

companies charge customers less than 

the FERC approved rates because of 

competitive market pressures. The 

commenters indicated that quantity of 

gas transported through the compressor 

station would provide information on 

the quantity of gas transported by a 

specific pipeline, which may potentially 

cause competitive harm to some 

pipeline companies operating in more 

competitive market areas. Since the 

determination would depend on the 

particular market conditions for each 

company, the EPA did not make a 

determination for the data element that 

would apply for all reporters.43

In this rulemaking, the EPA is not 

proposing to change that previous 

decision and is still not proposing a 

confidentiality determination for the 

quantity of natural gas transported 

through a compressor station. While the 

Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Argus 

Leader altered the review criteria for 

confidentiality determinations from the 

Agency’s 2014 decision, the basis 

provided by commenters to justify the 

confidential nature of the information is 

still relevant. For information pertaining 

to the quantity of gas transported 

through a compressor station collected 

under part 99, the EPA will conduct 

reviews of any claims made under the 

existing regulations in 40 CFR part 2, 

subpart B, upon receipt of a public 

request for this information. Any such 

reviews will consider the public 

availability of the same or similar 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5359 

information, including WEC filings, as 

part of the determination process. 

E. Request for Comments on Proposed 

Category Assignments, Confidentiality 

Determinations, or Reporting 

Determinations 

This rulemaking provides affected 

entities that would be subject to part 99, 

other stakeholders, and the general 

public an opportunity to provide 

comment on the proposed amendment 

to 40 CFR 2.301(d) and the proposed 

confidentiality determinations for part 

99 data, including our proposed 

categories of emission data and the 

proposed confidentiality determinations 

for each data element that is not 

considered emission data. By proposing 

emission data and confidentiality 

determinations prior to data reporting 

through this proposal and rulemaking 

process, we are providing potentially 

affected entities an opportunity to 

submit comments, particularly 

comments addressing any data elements 

not entitled to confidential treatment 

under this proposal, but which 

companies customarily and actually 

treat as private. This opportunity to 

submit comments is intended to provide 

reporters with the opportunity to 

substantiate their confidentiality claims 

that would ordinarily be afforded when 

the EPA considers claims for 

confidential treatment of information in 

case-by-case confidentiality 

determinations under 40 CFR part 2. In 

addition, the comment period provides 

an opportunity to respond to the EPA’s 

proposed determinations with more 

information for the Agency to consider 

prior to finalization. We will evaluate 

the comments on our proposed 

determinations, including claims of 

confidentiality and information 

substantiating such claims, before 

finalizing the confidentiality 

determinations. Please note that this 

will be reporters’ only opportunity to 

substantiate a confidentiality claim for 

data elements included in this proposed 

rule where information being reported is 

proposed to be not entitled to 

confidential treatment. Upon finalizing 

the confidentiality determinations and 

reporting determinations of the data 

elements identified in this proposed 

rule, the EPA plans to release or 

withhold these data without further 

notice in accordance with proposed 40 

CFR 2.301(d), which contains special 

provisions governing the treatment of 

part 99 data for which confidentiality 

determinations have been made through 

rulemaking pursuant to CAA sections 

114, 136, and 307(d). 

When submitting comments regarding 

the confidentiality determinations we 

are proposing in this action, please 

identify each individual proposed data 

element on which you are commenting 

and whether you consider the element 

to be confidential or do not consider to 

be ‘‘emission data’’ in your comments. 

If the data element has been designated 

as ‘‘emission data,’’ please explain why 

you do not believe the information 

meets the definition of ‘‘emission data’’ 

as defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i). If the 

data has not been designated as 

‘‘emission data’’ and is proposed to not 

be entitled to confidential treatment, 

please explain specifically how the data 

element is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private. Particularly 

describe the measures currently taken to 

keep the data confidential and how that 

information has been customarily 

treated by your company and/or 

business sector in the past. This 

explanation is based on the 

requirements for confidential treatment 

set forth in Argus Leader. 

Members of the public may also 

discuss how this data element may be 

different from or similar to data that are 

already publicly available, including 

data already collected and published 

annually by the GHGRP, as applicable. 

Please submit information identifying 

any publicly available sources of 

information containing the specific data 

elements in question. Data that are 

already available through other sources 

would likely be found not to qualify for 

confidential treatment. In your 

comments, please identify the manner 

and location in which each specific data 

element you identify is publicly 

available, including a citation. If the 

data are physically published, such as 

in a book, industry trade publication, or 

Federal agency publication, provide the 

title, volume number (if applicable), 

author(s), publisher, publication date, 

and International Standard Book 

Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For 

data published on a website, provide the 

address of the website, the date you last 

visited the website and identify the 

website publisher and content author. 

Please avoid conclusory and 

unsubstantiated statements, or general 

assertions regarding the confidential 

nature of the information. 

In addition to soliciting comment on 

our proposed confidentiality 

designations and proposed amendments 

to 40 CFR 2.301, we are also soliciting 

comment on the following specific 

issues relevant to the proposed 

confidentiality determinations: 

‘‘Emission Data’’ determination. As 

previously discussed, ‘‘emission data’’ 

cannot be kept confidential per CAA 

section 114. The EPA is seeking 

comment on the part 99 data elements 

proposed to be considered ‘‘emission 

data.’’ Please specify exactly what part 

99 data you think should be considered 

emission data, describe what part 99 

data you think should not be emission 

data and why (and whether such nonemission data should be considered 

confidential and why), and clearly 

explain how the suggested definition of 

‘‘emission data’’ would be consistent 

with the ‘‘necessary to determine’’ 

clause in 40 CFR 2.301, as well as with 

the purpose behind the statutory 

language. 

Individual determinations. The EPA 

is proposing confidentiality 

determinations by data element for the 

majority of the data elements in part 99. 

We are soliciting comment on whether 

there are data elements proposed to be 

included in 40 CFR 99.13(a) and (b) for 

which we should not finalize a 

confidentiality determination for the 

data element as not eligible for 

confidential treatment and instead make 

no determination for the data element, 

such that the confidentiality status of 

this data element would be evaluated on 

a case-by-case basis, in light of any 

publicly available information and in 

accordance with the existing CBI 

regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B, 

upon receipt of a public request for 

these data elements. If respondents 

believe that EPA should not make a 

determination for a specific data 

element, please describe specifics of 

when a case-by-case determination 

would be necessary. 

Changes to determinations for subpart 

W throughputs. We request comment on 

the approach for the subpart W data 

elements specified in section IV.D. of 

this preamble. In particular, we request 

comment on no longer proposing a 

confidentiality determination for the 

quantity of residue gas leaving that has 

been processed by the facility and any 

gas that passes through the facility to 

sale without being processed by the 

facility in the calendar year, in thousand 

standard cubic feet, reported under 

proposed 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(3)(ix). We 

also request comment on the proposal to 

continue not making a confidentiality 

determination for the quantity of natural 

gas transported through a compressor 

station under 40 CFR 98.236(aa)(4)(i), as 

well as the criteria that should be used 

to conduct a case-by-case evaluation of 

the confidentiality of the data. We also 

request comment on whether these two 

data elements are customarily and 

actually treated as confidential, and if 

so, what approaches the EPA could use 

to treat the information as confidential 

while still making all emission data 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5360 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

publicly available, as required by CAA 

section 114(c). 

V. Impacts of the Proposed 

Amendments 

In accordance with the requirements 

of Executive Order 12866, the EPA 

projected the emissions reductions, 

costs, benefits, and transfer payments 

that may result from this proposed 

action if finalized as proposed. These 

results are presented in detail in the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

Proposed Waste Emission Charge (RIA) 

accompanying this proposal developed 

in response to Executive Order 12866 

and available in the docket to this 

rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2023–0434. This section provides 

a brief summary of the RIA. 

The WEC does not directly require 

emissions reductions from applicable 

facilities or emissions sources. However, 

by imposing a charge on methane 

emissions that exceed waste emissions 

thresholds, oil and natural gas facilities 

subject to the WEC are expected to 

perform methane mitigation actions and 

make operational changes where the 

costs of those changes are less than the 

WEC payments that could be avoided by 

reducing methane emissions. In 

addition, because VOC and HAP 

emissions are emitted along with 

methane from oil and natural gas 

industry activities, reductions in 

methane emissions as a result of the 

WEC also result in co-reductions of VOC 

and HAP emissions. 

The RIA accompanying this proposal 

analyzes emissions changes and 

economic impacts of the WEC that arise 

through two pathways: 1) through the 

application of cost-effective methane 

mitigation technologies, and 2) through 

changes in oil and natural gas 

production and prices resulting from the 

WEC and associated mitigation 

responses. The analysis of methane 

mitigation is based on bottom-up 

engineering cost and mitigation 

potential information for a range of 

methane mitigation technologies. 

Application of methane mitigation 

technologies reduce WEC payments for 

WEC obligated parties by reducing 

methane emissions compared to a 

baseline without additional methane 

mitigation actions. The analysis 

assumes that methane mitigation is 

implemented where the engineering 

control costs are less than the avoided 

WEC payments for a particular 

mitigation technology. 

Additionally, oil and natural gas firms 

may change their production and 

operational decisions in response to the 

WEC. This potential impact is modeled 

using a partial equilibrium model of the 

crude oil and natural gas markets. The 

total cost of methane mitigation and 

WEC payments is added as an increase 

to production costs, resulting in changes 

in equilibrium production of oil and 

natural gas and associated emissions. 

Projected WEC payments are estimated 

after methane emissions reductions 

from both methane mitigation and 

economic impacts are accounted for. 

Using emissions reported to subpart 

W for RY2021 as an illustrative 

example, Table 1–1 of the RIA shows 

that the WEC would be imposed on less 

than 15 percent of national methane 

emissions from petroleum and natural 

gas systems. Total methane emissions 

reported to subpart W are significantly 

less than national methane emissions 

from the U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Inventory. WEC-applicable facilities are 

the subset of GHGRP facilities that 

report at least 25,000 mt CO2e to subpart 

W industry segments subject to the 

WEC. It is also important to note that 

the WEC would only apply to methane 

emissions that are above the emissions 

threshold, not for all emissions from 

WEC-applicable facilities. The WEC has 

exemptions related to regulatory 

compliance, emissions from plugged 

wells, and unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting, although 

these provisions do not impact the 

illustrative results in Table 1–1 of the 

RIA. Finally, emissions subject to WEC 

accounts for netting of emissions 

between facilities. Under the proposed 

WEC, facilities with emissions below 

their emissions threshold may reduce 

emissions subject to the WEC at other 

facilities with emissions above the 

emissions threshold where those 

facilities are under common ownership 

or control. 

The benefit-cost analysis contained in 

the RIA accompanying this rulemaking 

for the WEC considers the potential 

benefits and costs of the WEC arising 

from cost-effective mitigation actions 

under the WEC as well as the potential 

transfers from affected operators to the 

government in payments. Costs include 

engineering costs for methane 

mitigation actions and costs resulting 

from production changes in oil and gas 

energy markets under this rule. While 

the EPA expects a range of health and 

environmental benefits from reductions 

in methane, VOC, and HAP emissions 

under the WEC, the monetized benefits 

of the rule are limited to the estimated 

climate benefits from projected methane 

emissions reductions. These benefits are 

based on the social cost of greenhouse 

gases (SC–GHG). A screening-level 

analysis of ozone-related benefits from 

projected VOC reductions can be found 

in Appendix A of the RIA. However, 

these estimates are treated as illustrative 

and are not included in the quantified 

benefit-cost comparisons in the RIA. 

The EPA estimates that this action 

will result in cumulative emissions 

reductions of 960 thousand metric tons 

of methane over the 2024 to 2035 

period. These reductions represent 

about 33 percent of methane emissions 

that would be subject to the WEC before 

accounting for the adoption of costeffective emission reduction 

technologies. Virtually all the reduced 

emissions result from mitigation 

activities undertaken by industry to 

reduce WEC payments. Less than one 

percent of reductions are associated 

with decreased production activity in 

the oil and gas sector resulting from the 

proposed rule. In addition to methane 

emissions reductions, the WEC is 

estimated to result in reductions of 140 

thousand metric tons of VOC and five 

thousand metric tons of HAP. 

The WEC has important interactions 

and is designed to work hand-in-hand 

with the NSPS and EG for the Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector by accelerating the 

adoption of cost-effective methane 

mitigation technologies, including those 

that would eventually be required under 

the NSPS or EG. The annual projected 

emissions reductions, costs, and WEC 

obligations are significantly affected by 

these interactions. 

The EPA proposed updates to the Oil 

and Gas NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc in 

2021, published a supplemental 

proposal in 2022, and finalized in 

December 2023. In addition to 

requirements already in place, these 

rules include standards for many of the 

major sources of methane emissions in 

the oil and natural gas industry. To 

avoid double counting of benefits and 

costs, the baseline for this proposal 

includes reductions resulting from the 

NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc based on 

information from the 2023 Final RIA. 

Specifically, that analysis showed deep 

reductions in methane emissions 

beginning to take effect in 2028. As 

facilities implement emission controls 

required by the NSPS and EG, emissions 

subject to the WEC decline. 

The second interaction between the 

WEC and NSPS OOOOb/EG OOOOc is 

the regulatory compliance exemption 

provision of the WEC. Under this 

provision, when certain conditions are 

met with respect to the implementation 

of the Oil and Gas NSPS OOOOb/EG 

OOOOc, applicable facilities in 

compliance with their applicable 

methane emissions requirements are 

exempted from the WEC. The analysis 

in the RIA assumes that the regulatory 

compliance exemption takes effect in 

2027, such that in 2027 and later, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5361 

44U.S. EPA. The Benefits and Costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020. Washington, DC. 

Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2015-07/documents/fullreport_

rev_a.pdf. 

45Monetized climate effects are presented under 

a 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate, 

consistent with EPA’s updated estimates of the SC– 

GHG. The 2003 version of OMB’s Circular A–4 had 

generally recommended 3 percent and 7 percent as 

default discount rates for costs and benefits, though 

as part of the Interagency Working Group on the 

Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, OMB had also 

long recognized that climate effects should be 

discounted only at appropriate consumption-based 

discount rates. OMB finalized an update to Circular 

A–4 in 2023, in which it recommended the general 

application of a 2.0 percent discount rate to costs 

and benefits (subject to regular updates), as well as 

the consideration of the shadow price of capital 

when costs or benefits are likely to accrue to 

capital. Because the SC–GHG estimates reflect net 

climate change damages in terms of reduced 

consumption (or monetary consumption 

equivalents), the use of the discount rate estimated 

using the average return on capital (7 percent in 

OMB Circular A–4 (2003)) to discount damages 

estimated in terms of reduced consumption would 

inappropriately underestimate the impacts of 

climate change for the purposes of estimating the 

SC–GHG. See section 6.1 of the RIA for more 

discussion. 

facilities in the industry segments 

subject to requirements under the NSPS 

OOOOb/EG OOOOc do not owe WEC 

payments. 

Climate benefits associated with this 

proposed rule are the monetized value 

of GHG reductions using the SC–GHG, 

which calculates the avoided climate 

related damages from reducing GHG 

emissions. Methane is the principal 

component of natural gas. As discussed 

in section I.C.1. of this preamble, 

methane is also a potent GHG that, once 

emitted into the atmosphere, absorbs 

terrestrial infrared radiation, which in 

turn contributes to increased global 

warming and continuing climate 

change. 

This proposed rulemaking is 

projected to reduce VOC emissions, 

which are a precursor to ozone. Ozone 

is not generally emitted directly into the 

atmosphere but is created when its two 

primary precursors, VOC and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX), react in the atmosphere 

in the presence of sunlight. Emissions 

reductions under the WEC may decrease 

ozone formation, human exposure to 

ozone, and the incidence of ozonerelated health effects. VOC emissions 

are also a precursor to PM2.5, so VOC 

reductions may also decrease human 

exposure to PM2.5 and the incidence of 

PM2.5- related health effects. 

Available emissions data show that 

several different HAP are emitted from 

oil and natural gas operations. 

Emissions of eight HAP make up a large 

percentage of the total HAP emissions 

by mass from the oil and natural gas 

sector: toluene, hexane, benzene, 

xylenes (mixed), ethylene glycol, 

methanol, ethyl benzene, and 2,2,4- 

trimethylpentane.44 Reductions of HAP 

emissions under the WEC may reduce 

exposure to these and other HAP. 

In section 9.3 of the RIA, the EPA 

identifies existing potential 

environmental justice issues for the 

communities in counties that have 

emissions sources that are expected to 

owe the WEC charge before accounting 

for mitigation actions and thus may be 

positively affected by emissions changes 

under the proposal. Compared to the 

national average, these communities 

include a higher percentage of 

individuals who identify as racial and 

ethnic minorities, have lower average 

incomes, and have slightly elevated 

health risks associated with various air 

emissions. Reductions in VOC and HAP 

emissions as a result of the WEC are 

expected to benefit communities in 

these counties. Because the WEC does 

not directly require emissions 

reductions, the EPA has not projected 

specific locations where emissions 

reductions might occur. In addition, 

detailed proximity analysis is infeasible 

because the emissions affected by the 

WEC occur at hundreds of thousands of 

locations. 

The total cost of the proposed rule 

includes the engineering costs for 

methane mitigation actions 

implemented by the oil and natural gas 

industry in order to avoid or reduce 

WEC obligations. This includes the 

initial capital costs required to 

implement and install the specific 

mitigation technology. In addition, for 

mitigation technologies with expected 

lifetimes greater than one-year, annual 

recurring operations and maintenance 

costs, which include labor, energy and 

materials, are also incorporated. Finally, 

the total mitigation costs also include 

the avoided cost of natural gas losses. 

The social cost of energy market 

impacts is the loss in consumer and 

producer surplus value from changes in 

natural gas market production and 

prices. The economic impacts analysis 

uses a partial equilibrium model and 

estimates that the impact of the gas 

market is minimal, with the largest 

impact occurring in the first few years 

with a price increase of less than 0.1 

percent and a quantity reduction of less 

than 0.1 percent. 

Table 5 presents results of the benefitcost analysis for the proposed WEC. It 

presents the present value (PV) and 

equivalent annual value (EAV), 

estimated using discount rates of 2, 3, 

and 7 percent, of the changes in 

quantified benefits, costs, and net 

benefits relative to the baseline.45 These 

values reflect an analytical time horizon 

of 2024 to 2035, are discounted to 2023, 

and are presented in 2019 constant 

dollars. The table includes 

consideration of the non-monetized 

benefits associated with the emissions 

reductions projected under this 

proposal. 

TABLE 4—PROJECTED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED RULE

[2024–2035 Total] 

Pollutant 

Emissions 

reductions 

(2024–2035 

Total) 

Methane (thousand metric tons) a ....................................................................................................................................................... 960 

VOC (thousand metric tons) ................................................................................................................................................................ 140 

Hazardous Air Pollutant (thousand short tons) ................................................................................................................................... 5 

Methane (million metric tons CO2e) b .................................................................................................................................................. 27 

aTo convert from metric tons to short tons, multiply the short tons by 1.102. Alternatively, to convert from short tons to metric tons, multiply the 

short tons by 0.907. b Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Calculated using a global warming potential of 28. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5362 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5—BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, 2024 THROUGH 2035 

[Dollar estimates in millions of 2019 dollars] a

2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate 

Present value Equivalent 

annual value Present value Equivalent annual value Present value Equivalent annual value 

Climate Benefits b ..................................... $1,900 $180 $1,900 $180 $1,900 $180 

2 percent discount rate 3 percent discount rate 7 Percent discount rate 

Present value Equivalent 

annual value 

Present value Equivalent 

annual value 

Present value Equivalent 

annual value 

Total Social Costs .................................... $390 $37 $380 $38 $340 $43 

Cost of Methane Mitigation ...................... $360 $34 $350 $35 $320 $40 

Cost of Energy Market Impacts ............... $30 $3 $29 $3 $26 $3 

Net Benefits ............................................. $1,500 $140 $1,500 $140 $1,600 $140 

Non-Monetized Benefits ........................... Climate and ozone health benefits from reducing 960 thousand metric tons of methane from 2024 to 

2035. 

PM2.5 and ozone health benefits from reducing 140 thousand metric tons of VOC from 2024 to 

2035.c

HAP benefits from reducing 5 thousand metric tons of HAP from 2024 to 2035. 

Visibility benefits. 

Reduced vegetation effects. 

aValues rounded to two significant figures. Totals may not appear to add correctly due to rounding. 

b Climate benefits are based on reductions in methane emissions and are calculated using three different estimates of the social cost of methane (SC–CH4) (under 1.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 2.5 percent near-term Ramsey discount rates). For the presentational purposes of this table, 

we show the climate benefits associated with the SC–CH4 at the 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. Please see Table 6–5 of the RIA for 

the full range of monetized climate benefits estimates. cA screening-level analysis of ozone benefits from VOC reductions can be found in Appendix A of the RIA. 

WEC payments are transfers and do 

not affect total net benefits to society as 

a whole because payments by oil and 

natural gas operators are offset by 

receipts by the government. Therefore, 

from a net-benefit accounting 

perspective, transfers are considered 

separately from costs and benefits (and 

are therefore not included in Table 5). 

As explained further in section 2.7 of 

the RIA, the approach taken here is in 

line with OMB guidance and the 

approach taken for RIAs for other rules 

impacting payments to the government, 

such as the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)’s waste prevention rule. 

One of the reasons that transfers are 

not considered costs is because they 

represent payments to the U.S. Treasury 

that do not affect total resources 

available to society. Payments to the 

U.S. Treasury can then be used to fund 

other programs, and the pairing of 

revenue collection (e.g., the WEC 

payments) with commensurate 

expenditures (e.g., financial assistance 

programs) by the federal government 

can be designed to be revenue neutral. 

The Methane Emission Reduction 

Program created under CAA section 136 

includes both collection and 

expenditure components. In addition to 

establishing the WEC, another key 

purpose of CAA section 136 is to 

encourage the development of 

innovative technologies in the detection 

and mitigation of methane emissions. 

See 168 Cong. Rec. E869 (August 23, 

2022) (statement of Rep. Frank Pallone). 

CAA section 136(a) and (b) provides 

$1.55 billion to, among other things, 

help finance the early adoption of 

emissions reduction methodologies and 

technologies and to support monitoring 

of methane emissions. These incentives 

for methane mitigation and monitoring 

complement the WEC. 

The WEC has the effect of better 

aligning the economic incentives of oil 

and natural gas companies with the 

costs and benefits faced by society from 

oil and gas activities. In the baseline 

scenario the environmental damages 

resulting from methane emissions from 

the oil and gas sector are a negative 

externality spread across society as a 

whole. Under the WEC, this negative 

externality is internalized, oil and gas 

companies are required to make WEC 

payments in proportion to the climate 

damages of methane emissions subject 

to the WEC. Alternatively, firms can 

avoid making WEC payments by 

mitigating their emissions generating 

climate benefits associated with the 

amount of mitigation. 

Table 6 provides details of the 

calculation steps used to estimate 

projected WEC obligations and climate 

damages based on projected emission 

subject to WEC. In order to compare 

projected WEC payments to climate 

damages from emissions subject to the 

WEC, WEC payments are converted 

from nominal dollars to 2019 constant 

dollars using a chain-weighted GDP 

price index from the 2023 Annual 

Energy Outlook. Projected WEC 

payments after accounting for methane 

mitigation and energy market impacts 

are estimated to be about $750 million 

nominal dollars in 2024, and then drop 

significantly as the regulatory 

compliance exemption takes effect in 

2027. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5363 

TABLE 6—BENEFITS, COSTS, AND NET BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED RULE, 2024 THROUGH 2035 

[Dollar Estimates in Millions of 2019 Dollars] a

Year 

Methane 

emissions subject 

to WEC in policy 

scenario 

(thousand metric 

tons) 

Charge specified 

by Congress 

(nominal $ per 

metric ton) 

WEC payments in 

policy scenario 

(million nominal $) 

WEC payments in 

policy scenario 

(million 2019$) 

SC–CH4 Values at 

2% discount rate 

(2019$ per metric 

ton) 

Climate damages 

from emissions 

subject to WEC 

(million 2019$) a

2024 ...................................................... 830 $900 $750 $620 $1,900 $1,600 

2025 ...................................................... 650 1,200 770 630 2,000 1,300 

2026 ...................................................... 430 1,500 640 510 2,100 890 

2027 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 10 2,200 18 

2028 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 10 2,200 19 

2029 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 10 2,300 20 

2030 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 9 2,400 20 

2031 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 9 2,500 21 

2032 ...................................................... 9 1,500 13 9 2,500 21 

2033 ...................................................... 8 1,500 13 9 2,600 21 

2034 ...................................................... 8 1,500 13 8 2,700 21 

2035 ...................................................... 8 1,500 13 8 2,800 21 

Total 2024–2035 ............................ 2,000 .............................. 2,300 1,800 .............................. 4,000 

a Climate damages are based on remaining methane emissions subject to WEC after accounting for emissions reductions and are calculated using three different 

estimates of the social cost of methane (SC–CH4) (under 1.5 percent, 2.0 percent, and 2.5 percent near-term Ramsey discount rates). For the presentational purposes of this table, we show the climate benefits associated with the SC–CH4 at the 2 percent near-term Ramsey discount rate. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive orders can be 

found at https://www.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory 

Review 

This action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as defined under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866, as amended 

by Executive Order 14094. Accordingly, 

the EPA submitted this action to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for Executive Order 12866 

review. Documentation of any changes 

made in response to the Executive Order 

12866 review is available in the docket 

for this rulemaking, Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2023–0434. The EPA 

prepared an analysis of the potential 

impacts associated with this action. 

This analysis, Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of the Proposed Waste 

Emission Charge, is also available in the 

docket to this rulemaking and is briefly 

summarized in section V. of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2787.01. You can find 

a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2023–0434, and it is briefly summarized 

here. 

The EPA estimates that the proposed 

rule would result in an increase in 

burden. The burden associated with the 

proposed rule is due to reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements in the 

proposed rule. 

The respondent reporting burden for 

this collection of information is 

estimated to be an annual average of 

12,799 hours and $1,700,304 over the 3 

years covered by this information 

collection, which includes an annual 

average of $1,669,752 in labor costs, $0 

in operation and maintenance costs, and 

$30,552 in capital costs. The annual 

average incremental burden to the EPA 

for this period is anticipated at 31,200 

hours and $5,670,955 ($2023) over the 

3 years covered by this information 

collection, which includes an annual 

average of $2,004,288 in labor costs and 

$3,666,667 in non-labor costs. 

Respondents/affected entities: 

Owners and operators of petroleum and 

natural gas systems that must submit a 

WEC filing to the EPA to comply with 

proposed 40 CFR part 99. 

Respondent’s obligation to respond: 

The respondent’s obligation to respond 

is mandatory under the authority 

provided in CAA sections 114 and 136. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

536. 

Frequency of response: Annually. 

Total estimated burden: 12,799 hours 

(per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

Total estimated cost: $1.7 million (per 

year), includes $30,552 annualized 

capital or operation and maintenance 

costs. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs using the interface at 

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ 

PRAMain. Find this particular 

information collection by selecting 

‘‘Currently under Review—Open for 

Public Comments’’ or by using the 

search function. OMB must receive 

comments no later than February 26, 

2024. The EPA will respond to any ICRrelated comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the RFA. The small 

entities that would be subject to the 

proposed requirements of this action are 

small businesses in the petroleum and 

natural gas industry. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. The EPA has determined 

that some small entities are affected 

because their processes emit methane 

that must be reported under subpart W 

and thus may be subject to WEC. 

To evaluate whether this proposed 

rule would have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, the EPA conducted a small 

entity analysis that evaluated the costs 

of the proposed rule on small entities 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5364 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

identified in the reporting year (RY) 

2021 subpart W dataset. The EPA used 

reported facility-to-parent company and 

facility-to-owner or operator data to link 

facilities to WEC obligated parties. The 

EPA then reviewed the available RY 

2021 data for the WEC obligated parties 

of subpart W facilities to determine 

whether the reporters were part of a 

small entity and whether the annualized 

costs of the proposal would have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The number of 

small entities potentially affected by the 

proposed WEC regulation were 

estimated based on the information 

collected for 472 WEC obligated parties. 

Of these, 439 were identified as small 

entities. Although the screening analysis 

suggests that some small entities may 

have cost-to-revenue ratios that exceed 

3 percent (approximately 17 percent), 

the EPA’s evaluation of the impacts to 

small entities relied on several 

methodologies involving conservative 

assumptions. For example, the 

identification and classification of 

subpart W parent entities reporting 

under more than one NAICS code 

resulted in a designation of ‘‘small’’ 

based on whether the business 

information available met the SBA size 

classification threshold for a single 

NAICS code. In addition to the 

conservative assumptions, there were 

further mitigating factors not included 

in the screening analysis that would 

likely significantly reduce compliance 

costs, and, as a result, cost-to-revenueratios. For example, the compliance cost 

estimate used only the defined WEC 

cost and did not account for early 

adoption of mitigation measures that 

could lower an entity’s emissions below 

the threshold and therefore result in no 

WEC charge. Details of this analysis are 

presented in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of the Proposed Waste 

Emissions Charge, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The 

cumulative effect of the mitigating 

factors and conservative assumptions 

used in the screening analysis indicates 

that, overall, the proposed rule would 

not likely have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action contains a federal 

mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for state, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. 

Accordingly, the EPA has prepared 

under section 202 of the UMRA a 

written statement of the benefit-cost 

analysis, which can be found in Section 

V of this preamble and in the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis of the Proposed Waste 

Emissions Charge (RIA), available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The 

proposed action in part implements 

mandate(s) specifically and explicitly 

set forth in CAA section 136. 

The applicability, magnitude of 

charge, methane emissions subject to 

charge, and exemptions from charge for 

the WEC program are established by 

CAA section 136(c) through (g). Given 

that this framework is required by 

statute, it is not possible for EPA to 

consider regulatory alternatives that are 

inconsistent with these elements. As 

such, to evaluate the benefits and costs 

of the proposed rule, in the RIA 

accompanying this rulemaking two 

scenarios were evaluated: a baseline 

scenario (i.e., not including the effects of 

the WEC program) and a policy scenario 

inclusive of the costs, benefits, and 

transfers projected under the proposed 

rule. This action is not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

proposed rule does not apply to 

governmental entities unless the 

government entity owns a facility in the 

applicable petroleum and gas industry 

segments and reports more 25,000 mt 

CO2e to subpart W of the GHGRP. It 

would not impose any implementation 

responsibilities on state, local, or tribal 

governments and it is not expected to 

increase the cost of existing regulatory 

programs managed by those 

governments. Thus, the impact on 

governments affected by the proposed 

rule is expected to be minimal. 

However, consistent with the EPA’s 

policy to promote communications 

between the EPA and state and local 

governments, the EPA sought comments 

from small governments concerning the 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect them in 

the development of this proposed rule. 

Specifically, the EPA previously 

published a Request for Information 

(RFI) seeking public comment in a nonregulatory docket to collect responses to 

a range of questions related to the 

Methane Emissions Reduction Program, 

including related to implementation of 

the WEC (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2022–0875). The EPA received 

five comments from government entities 

related to implementation of the WEC; 

these comments were considered during 

the development of the proposed rule. 

The EPA continues to be interested in 

the potential impacts of the proposed 

rule amendments on state, local, or 

tribal governments and welcomes 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This proposed 

rule will not apply to governmental 

entities unless the government entity 

owns a facility in the applicable 

petroleum and gas industry segments 

that and reports more 25,000 mt CO2e to 

subpart W of the GHGRP. Therefore, the 

EPA anticipates relatively few state or 

local government facilities will be 

affected. However, consistent with the 

EPA’s policy to promote 

communications between EPA and state 

and local governments, the EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action has tribal implications. 

However, it will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

federally recognized tribal governments, 

nor preempt tribal law. This proposed 

regulation will apply directly to 

petroleum and natural gas facilities that 

may be owned by tribal governments. 

However, it will generally only have 

tribal implications where the tribal 

entity owns a facility in an applicable 

industry segment that emits GHGs above 

threshold levels; therefore, relatively 

few tribal facilities will be affected. Of 

the subpart W facilities currently 

reporting to the GHGRP in RY2021, we 

identified four facilities currently 

reporting to part 98, subpart W that are 

owned or partially owned by one tribal 

parent company. Based on RY2021 data, 

all four facilities would be WEC 

applicable facilities, and the WEC 

applicable emissions (without 

consideration of exemptions) for the 

individual facilities would range from 

less than 0 mt CH4 for one facility, up 

to about 3,500 mt CH4 for the largest 

facility (which corresponds to a WEC 

obligation of $3.1 million). Note that 

one of the facilities is within the 

onshore natural gas processing sector, 

and thus, this calculation utilizes proxy 

data of CBI throughput, which may not 

reflect the actual facility throughput and 

resulting WEC applicable emissions. 

Each of the four facilities has a different 

owner or operator or combination of 

owners or operators, so the tribe likely 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5365 

46USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change 

on Human Health in the United States: A Scientific 

Assessment. Crimmins, A., J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, 

C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J. Eisen, N. Fann, 

M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M. 

Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, 

Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 

Washington, DC, 312 pp. https://dx.doi.org/ 

10.7930/J0R49NQX. 

47See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2021/01/M-21-12.pdf. 48The 2021 E.O. 13211 guidance memo states that 

the natural gas production decrease that indicates 

the regulatory action is a significant energy action 

is 40 mcf per year. Because this is a relatively small 

amount of natural gas and previous guidance from 

2001 indicated a threshold of 25 million Mcf, we 

assume the 2021 memo was intended to establish 

40 million mcf as the indicator of an adverse energy 

effect. See https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ 

uploads/2017/11/2001-M-01-27-Guidance-forImplementing-E.O.-13211.pdf. 

would not be the WEC obligated party 

for all four facilities. These estimates do 

not consider any exemptions that might 

apply for the three facilities with 

emissions greater than the facility waste 

emissions threshold. 

In addition to tribes that would be 

directly impacted by the WEC due to 

owning a facility subject to the charge, 

the EPA anticipates that tribes could be 

impacted in cases where facilities 

subject to the charge are located in 

Indian country. For example, the EPA 

reviewed the location of the production 

wells reported by facilities under the 

Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Production industry segment and found 

production wells reported under 

subpart W on lands associated with 

approximately 20 tribes. Therefore, 

although the EPA anticipates that at 

most only one tribe may be designated 

as a WEC obligated party and has the 

potential to be subject to the WEC, the 

EPA has sought opportunities to provide 

information to tribal governments and 

representatives during rule 

development. On November 4, 2022, the 

EPA published an RFI seeking public 

comment on a range of questions related 

to the Methane Emissions Reduction 

Program, including implementation of 

the WEC (see Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2022–0875). Further, consistent 

with the EPA Policy on Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribes, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from Tribal 

officials. The EPA will engage in 

consultation with Tribal officials during 

the development of this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to regulatory 

actions that concern environmental 

health or safety risks that the EPA has 

reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This proposed action 

would not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks and does not focus on 

information-gathering actions concerned 

with children’s health. Therefore, this 

proposed action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045. For the same 

reasons, the EPA’s Policy on Children’s 

Health also does not apply. 

Although this proposed action does 

not establish an environmental standard 

applicable to methane emissions or 

mandate methane emissions reductions, 

it is expected that the WEC 

implemented under this proposed 

action would result in elective methane 

mitigation actions by applicable 

facilities in the oil and gas industry in 

order to reduce, or eliminate, the 

imposition of charges. As such, the EPA 

believes that the impacts of this 

proposed action would result in a 

reduction in an environmental health or 

safety risk that has a disproportionate 

effect on children. Accordingly, the 

Agency has elected to evaluate the 

environmental health and welfare 

effects of climate change on children. 

Greenhouse gases, including methane, 

contribute to climate change and are 

emitted in significant quantities by the 

oil and gas industry. The EPA believes 

that the implementation of the WEC in 

this action, if finalized, would improve 

children’s health as a result of methane 

mitigation actions and operational 

changes taken by oil and gas applicable 

facilities to avoid the imposition of 

WEC. The assessment literature cited in 

the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Findings 

concluded that certain populations and 

life stages, including children, the 

elderly, and the poor, are most 

vulnerable to climate-related health 

effects (74 FR 66524, December 15, 

2009). The assessment literature since 

2009 strengthens these conclusions by 

providing more detailed findings 

regarding these groups’ vulnerabilities 

and the projected impacts they may 

experience (e.g., the 2016 Climate and 

Health Assessment).46 These 

assessments describe how children’s 

unique physiological and 

developmental factors contribute to 

making them particularly vulnerable to 

climate change. Impacts to children are 

expected from heat waves, air pollution, 

infectious and waterborne illnesses 

resulting in physical and mental health 

effects from extreme weather events. In 

addition, children are among those 

especially susceptible to most allergic 

diseases, as well as health effects 

associated with storms and floods. 

Additional health concerns may arise in 

low-income households, especially 

those with children, if climate change 

reduces food availability and increases 

prices, leading to food insecurity within 

households. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is 

not likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution or use 

of energy. To make this determination, 

we compare the projected change in 

crude oil and natural gas costs and 

production to guidance articulated in a 

January 13, 2021 OMB memorandum 

‘‘Furthering Compliance with Executive 

Order 13211, Titled ‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use.’ ’’ 47 With respect to 

increases in the cost of energy 

production or distribution, the guidance 

indicates that a regulatory action 

produces a significant adverse effect if 

it is expected to increase costs in excess 

of one percent. With respect to crude oil 

production, the guidance indicates that 

a regulatory action produces a 

significant adverse effect if it is 

expected to produce reductions in crude 

oil supply, in excess of 20 million 

barrels per year. With respect to natural 

gas production, the guidance indicates 

that a regulatory action produces a 

significant adverse effect if it reduces 

natural gas production in excess of 40 

million thousand cubic feet (mcf) per 

year.48 The economic impacts analysis 

conducted as part of the RIA 

accompanying this rulemaking 

estimated a maximum impact on the gas 

market of a 0.05 percent price increase 

and a 0.03 percent decrease in 

production. The highest impact year is 

estimated to be in 2026, with a 

production decrease of 10.7 million mcf 

of natural gas. The analysis projected a 

maximum impact on the oil market of 

0.04 percent price increase and a 0.03 

percent decrease in production. The 

highest impact year is estimated to be in 

2026, with an estimated production 

decrease of 1.27 million barrels of oil. 

These impacts are substantially below 

the thresholds available in OMB 

memoranda as measures of a significant 

adverse effect on the energy supply. 

Further discussion of this analysis is 

available in the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of the Proposed Waste 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5366 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Emissions Charge, available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations and Executive 

Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All 

The EPA believes that the emissions 

reductions likely to result from this rule 

will improve health and environmental 

outcomes for communities facing 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health effects from the pollution subject 

to the waste emissions charge, including 

environmental justice communities. The 

EPA proposes, however, to determine 

that Executive Order 12898 does not 

apply to this rulemaking because it is a 

rule that addresses information 

collection, reporting procedures, and 

imposition of the waste emission charge 

directive of CAA section 136. Although 

the EPA anticipates a reduction in 

methane and associated co-pollutant 

emissions from this action, if finalized, 

these reductions are not the result of 

emissions standards or mandated 

reductions. 

Although this regulation does not 

require action that will directly affect 

human health or environmental 

conditions, the EPA has identified and 

addressed environmental justice 

concerns by electing to conduct a 

qualitative assessment of the 

environmental justice outcomes from 

the proposed action. The EPA believes 

the human health or environmental 

conditions that exist prior to this 

proposed action would result in or have 

the potential to result in 

disproportionate and adverse human 

health or environmental effects on 

people of color, low-income 

populations, and/or Indigenous peoples. 

The EPA identified 563 counties where 

Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Production and/or Onshore Petroleum 

and Natural Gas Gathering and Boosting 

facilities with emissions that may be 

above the waste emissions threshold 

and therefore subject to the WEC 

operated in 2021. These are the counties 

where emissions might change due to 

the WEC. The EPA found that there are 

generally higher percentages of low 

income and members of minority groups 

in these communities who may 

experience higher than average health 

risks. The EPA believes that in aggregate 

the proposed action will result in 

reduction of methane, hazardous air 

pollutants, and volatile organic 

compounds, and, generally, this result 

will improve environmental justice 

outcomes. 

The information supporting this 

Executive Order review is contained in 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

Proposed Waste Emissions Charge, 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

K. Determination Under CAA Section 

307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), 

the Administrator determines that this 

proposed action is subject to the 

provisions of CAA section 307(d). 

Section 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA 

provides that the provisions of CAA 

section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other 

actions as the Administrator may 

determine.’’ 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Courts, Environmental 

protection, Freedom of information, 

Government employees. 

40 CFR Part 99 

Environmental protection, 

Greenhouse gases, Natural gas, 

Petroleum, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Penalties. 

Michael S. Regan, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 2—PUBLIC INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552, 552a, 553; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart B—Confidentiality of Business 

Information 

■ 2. Amend § 2.301 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 2.301 Special rules governing certain 

information obtained under the Clean Air 

Act. 

* * * * * 

(d) Data submitted under part 98 or 

part 99 of this chapter—(1) Sections 

2.201 through 2.215 do not apply to data 

submitted under part 98 or part 99 of 

this chapter that EPA has determined, 

pursuant to sections 114(c) and 307(d) 

of the Clean Air Act, to be either of the 

following: 

(i) Emission data. 

(ii) Data not otherwise entitled to 

confidential treatment pursuant to 

section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

(2) Except as otherwise provided in 

this paragraph (d)(2) and paragraph 

(d)(4) of this section, §§ 2.201 through 

2.215 do not apply to data submitted 

under part 98 or part 99 of this chapter 

that EPA has determined, pursuant to 

sections 114(c) and 307(d) of the Clean 

Air Act, to be entitled to confidential 

treatment. EPA shall treat that 

information as confidential in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 2.211, subject to paragraph (d)(4) of 

this section and § 2.209. 

(3) Upon receiving a request under 5 

U.S.C. 552 for data submitted under part 

98 or part 99 of this chapter that EPA 

has determined, pursuant to sections 

114(c) and 307(d) of the Clean Air Act, 

to be entitled to confidential treatment, 

the EPA office shall furnish the 

requestor a notice that the information 

has been determined to be entitled to 

confidential treatment and that the 

request is therefore denied. The notice 

shall include or cite to the appropriate 

EPA determination. 

(4) Modification of prior 

confidentiality determination. A 

determination made pursuant to 

sections 114(c) and 307(d) of the Clean 

Air Act that information submitted 

under part 98 or part 99 of this chapter 

is entitled to confidential treatment 

shall continue in effect unless, 

subsequent to the confidentiality 

determination, EPA takes one of the 

following actions: 

(i) EPA determines, pursuant to 

sections 114(c) and 307(d) of the Clean 

Air Act, that the information is emission 

data or data not otherwise entitled to 

confidential treatment under section 

114(c) of the Clean Air Act. 

(ii) The Office of General Counsel 

issues a final determination, based on 

the criteria in § 2.208, stating that the 

information is no longer entitled to 

confidential treatment because of 

change in the applicable law or newlydiscovered or changed facts. Prior to 

making such final determination, EPA 

shall afford the business an opportunity 

to submit comments on pertinent issues 

in the manner described by §§ 2.204(e) 

and 2.205(b). If, after consideration of 

any timely comments submitted by the 

business, the Office of General Counsel 

makes a revised final determination that 

the information is not entitled to 

confidential treatment under section 

114(c) of the Clean Air Act, EPA will 

notify the business in accordance with 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5367 

the procedures described in 

§ 2.205(f)(2). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Add part 99 to read as follows: 

PART 99—WASTE EMISSIONS 

CHARGE 

Sec. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

99.1 Purpose and scope. 

99.2 Definitions. 

99.3 Who must file? 

99.4 How do I authorize and what are the 

responsibilities of the designated 

representative? 

99.5 When must I file and remit the 

applicable WEC obligation? 

99.6 How do I file? 

99.7 What are the general reporting, 

recordkeeping, and verification 

requirements of this part? 

99.8 What are the general provisions for 

assessment of the WEC obligation? 

99.9 How are payments required by this 

part made? 

99.10 What fees apply to delinquent 

payments? 

99.11 What are the compliance and 

enforcement provisions of this part? 

99.12 What addresses apply for this part? 

99.13 What are the confidentiality 

determinations and related procedures 

for this part? 

Subpart B—Determining Waste Emissions 

Charge 

99.20 How will the waste emissions 

threshold for each WEC applicable 

facility be determined? 

99.21 How will the WEC applicable 

emissions for a WEC applicable facility 

be determined? 

99.22 How will the net WEC emissions for 

a WEC obligated party be determined? 

99.23 How will the WEC Obligation for a 

WEC obligated party be determined? 

Subpart C—Unreasonable Delay Exemption 

99.30 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption for emissions caused by an 

unreasonable delay in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

infrastructure? 

99.31 What are the reporting requirements 

for the exemption for emissions caused 

by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering or 

transmission infrastructure? 

99.32 How are the methane emissions 

caused by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering or 

transmission infrastructure quantified? 

99.33 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements for methane emissions 

caused by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering or 

transmission infrastructure? 

Subpart D—Regulatory Compliance 

Exemption 

99.40 When does the regulatory compliance 

exemption come into effect, and under 

what conditions does the exemption 

cease to be in effect? 

99.41 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption for regulatory compliance? 

99.42 What are the reporting requirements 

for the exemption for regulatory 

compliance? 

Subpart E—Exemption for Permanently 

Shut-in and Plugged Wells 

99.50 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption of emissions from 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells? 

99.51 What are the reporting requirements 

for the exemption for wells that were 

permanently shut-in and plugged? 

99.52 How are the net emissions 

attributable to all wells at a WEC 

applicable facility that were permanently 

shut-in and plugged in the reporting year 

quantified? 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q; 31 

U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 99.1 Purpose and scope. 

(a) This part establishes requirements 

for owners and operators of certain 

petroleum and natural gas systems 

facilities to make filings and be assessed 

waste emission charges as required by 

section 136 of the Clean Air Act. 

(b) Owners and operators of facilities 

that are subject to this part must follow 

the requirements of this subpart and all 

applicable subparts of this part. If a 

conflict exists between a provision in 

subpart A and any other applicable 

subpart, the requirements of the 

applicable subpart shall take 

precedence. 

§ 99.2 Definitions. 

All terms used in this part shall have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act, unless as defined in this section. 

Terms defined here only apply within 

the context of this rulemaking. 

Act means the Clean Air Act, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Affected facility means, for the 

purposes of the regulatory compliance 

exemption of this part, affected 

facilities, as defined in part 60, subpart 

A of this chapter, that are subject to 

methane emissions requirements 

pursuant to part 60 of this chapter. 

Applicable facility means a facility 

within one or more of the following 

industry segments, as those industry 

segment terms are defined in § 98.230 of 

this chapter. In the case where 

operations from two or more industry 

segments are co-located at the same part 

98 reporting facility, operations for all 

co-located segments constitute a single 

applicable facility under this part: 

(1) Offshore petroleum and natural 

gas production. 

(2) Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production. 

(3) Onshore natural gas processing. 

(4) Onshore natural gas transmission 

compression. 

(5) Underground natural gas storage. 

(6) Liquefied natural gas storage. 

(7) Liquefied natural gas import and 

export equipment. 

(8) Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

gathering and boosting. 

(9) Onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline. 

Carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e 

means the number of metric tons of CO2

emissions with the same global warming 

potential as one metric ton of another 

greenhouse gas and is calculated using 

Equation A–1 in § 98.2(b) of this 

chapter. 

Designated facility means, for 

purposes of the regulatory compliance 

exemption of this part, designated 

facilities, as defined in § 60.21a(b) of 

this chapter, subject to methane 

emissions requirements pursuant to a 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan 

implementing part 60 of this chapter. 

e-GGRT ID number means the 

identification number assigned to a 

facility by the EPA’s electronic 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool for 

submission of the facility’s part 98 

report. 

Facility applicable emissions means 

the annual methane emissions, as 

calculated in § 99.21, associated with a 

WEC applicable facility that are either 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold for the WEC 

applicable facility prior to consideration 

of any applicable exemptions. 

Gas to oil ratio (GOR) means the ratio 

of the volume of gas at standard 

temperature and pressure that is 

produced from a volume of oil when 

depressurized to standard temperature 

and pressure. 

Gathering and boosting system means 

a single network of pipelines, 

compressors and process equipment, 

including equipment to perform natural 

gas compression, dehydration, and acid 

gas removal, that has one or more 

connection points to gas and oil 

production and a downstream endpoint, 

typically a gas processing plant, 

transmission pipeline, LDC pipeline, or 

other gathering and boosting system. 

Gathering and boosting system owner 

or operator means any person that holds 

a contract in which they agree to 

transport petroleum or natural gas from 

one or more onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production wells to a natural 

gas processing facility, another 

gathering and boosting system, a natural 

gas transmission pipeline, or a 

distribution pipeline, or any person 

responsible for custody of the petroleum 

or natural gas transported. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5368 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Global warming potential or GWP 

means the ratio of the time-integrated 

radiative forcing from the instantaneous 

release of one kilogram of a trace 

substance relative to that of one 

kilogram of a reference gas (i.e., CO2). 

GWPs for each greenhouse gas are 

provided in Table A–1 of part 98, 

subpart A of this chapter. 

Greenhouse gas or GHG means the air 

pollutants carbon dioxide (CO2), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), methane 

(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6). 

Natural gas means a naturally 

occurring mixture or process derivative 

of hydrocarbon and non-hydrocarbon 

gases found in geologic formations 

beneath the earth’s surface, of which its 

constituents include, but are not limited 

to, methane, heavier hydrocarbons and 

carbon dioxide. Natural gas may be field 

quality, pipeline quality, or process gas. 

Nonproduction sector means facilities 

in the onshore natural gas processing, 

the liquefied natural gas storage, the 

liquefied natural gas import and export 

equipment, and the onshore petroleum 

and natural gas gathering and boosting 

industry segments as those industry 

segments are defined in § 98.230 of this 

chapter. 

Onshore natural gas transmission 

pipeline owner or operator means, for 

interstate pipelines, the person 

identified as the transmission pipeline 

owner or operator on the Certificate of 

Public Convenience and Necessity 

issued under 15 U.S.C. 717f, or, for 

intrastate pipelines, the person 

identified as the owner or operator on 

the transmission pipeline’s Statement of 

Operating Conditions under section 311 

of the Natural Gas Policy Act, or for 

pipelines that fall under the ‘‘Hinshaw 

Exemption’’ as referenced in section 1(c) 

of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717– 

717 (w)(1994), the person identified as 

the owner or operator on blanket 

certificates issued under 18 CFR 

284.224. If an intrastate pipeline is not 

subject to section 311 of the Natural Gas 

Policy Act (NGPA), the onshore natural 

gas transmission pipeline owner or 

operator is the person identified as the 

owner or operator on reports to the state 

regulatory body regulating rates and 

charges for the sale of natural gas to 

consumers. 

Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production owner or operator means the 

person or entity who holds the permit 

to operate petroleum and natural gas 

wells on the drilling permit or an 

operating permit where no drilling 

permit is issued, which operates a 

facility in the onshore petroleum and/or 

natural gas production industry segment 

(as that industry segment is defined in 

§ 98.230(a)(2) of this chapter). Where 

petroleum and natural gas wells operate 

without a drilling or operating permit, 

the person or entity that pays the State 

or Federal business income taxes is 

considered the owner or operator. 

Operator means, except as otherwise 

defined in this section, any person who 

operates or supervises a facility. 

Owner means, except as otherwise 

defined in this section, any person who 

has legal or equitable title to, has a 

leasehold interest in, or control of an 

applicable facility, except a person 

whose legal or equitable title to or 

leasehold interest in the facility arises 

solely because the person is a limited 

partner in a partnership that has legal or 

equitable title to, has a leasehold 

interest in, or control of the facility shall 

not be considered an ‘‘owner’’ of the 

facility. 

Part 98 report means the annual 

report required under part 98 of this 

chapter for owners and operators of 

certain facilities under the Petroleum 

and Natural Gas Systems source 

category. 

Petroleum means oil removed from 

the earth and the oil derived from tar 

sands and shale. 

Production sector means facilities in 

the offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production and the onshore petroleum 

and natural gas production industry 

segments as those industry segments are 

defined in § 98.230 of this chapter. 

Reporting year means the calendar 

year during which data are required to 

be collected for purposes of the annual 

WEC filing. For example, reporting year 

2024 is January 1, 2024 through 

December 31, 2024, and the annual 

WEC filing for reporting year 2024 is 

submitted to EPA by March 31, 2025. 

Standard temperature and pressure 

means 60 °F and 14.7 psia. 

Transmission sector means facilities 

in the onshore natural gas transmission 

compression, the underground natural 

gas storage, and the onshore 

transmission pipeline industry segments 

as those industry segments are defined 

in § 98.230 of this chapter. 

Waste emissions threshold means the 

metric tons of methane emissions 

calculated by multiplying WEC 

applicable facility throughput by the 

industry segment-specific methane 

intensity thresholds established in CAA 

136(f) and the density of methane 

(0.0192 metric ton per thousand 

standard cubic feet). 

WEC means waste emissions charge, 

the charge established in CAA 136(c) on 

methane emissions that exceed certain 

thresholds. 

WEC applicable emissions means the 

annual methane emissions, as 

calculated in § 99.21, associated with a 

WEC applicable facility that are either 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold for the WEC 

applicable facility after consideration of 

any applicable exemptions. 

WEC applicable facility means an 

applicable facility, as defined in this 

section, for which the owner or operator 

of the part 98 reporting facility reports 

GHG emissions under part 98, subpart 

W of this chapter of more than 25,000 

metric tons CO2e. 

WEC filing means the report and 

payment of applicable WEC obligation 

required to be submitted by a WEC 

obligated party under the requirements 

of this chapter. The WEC filing contains 

information regarding the WEC 

obligated party and WEC applicable 

facilities for the previous reporting year. 

For example, the WEC filing due on 

March 31, 2025 contains information 

regarding reporting year 2024, which is 

January 1, 2024 through December 31, 

2024. 

WEC obligated party means the owner 

or operator as defined in this section for 

the applicable industry segment as of 

December 31 of the reporting year. In 

cases where a WEC applicable facility 

has more than one owner or operator, 

the WEC obligated party shall be a 

person or entity selected by an 

agreement binding on each of the 

owners and operators involved in the 

transaction, following the provisions of 

§ 99.4(b). 

WEC obligation means the WEC 

charge amount resulting from the 

calculations in § 99.23. 

You means a WEC obligated party 

subject to this part 99. 

§ 99.3 Who must file? 

WEC obligated parties, as defined in 

§ 99.2, are required to submit a WEC 

filing and remit applicable WEC 

obligations and charges. 

§ 99.4 How do I authorize and what are the 

responsibilities of the designated 

representative? 

Each WEC obligated party must 

follow the procedures in paragraphs (a) 

through (l) of this section, as applicable, 

to identify a WEC obligated party 

designated representative. In cases 

where a WEC applicable facility has 

more than one owner or operator, the 

WEC obligated party shall be a person 

or entity selected by an agreement 

binding on each of the owners and 

operators involved in the transaction, 

following the provisions of paragraph 

(b) of this section. Failure to select a 

WEC obligated party for each WEC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5369 

applicable facility with multiple owners 

or operators following the procedures of 

paragraph (b) of this section is 

considered a violation of this part for 

each owner and operator (as defined in 

§ 99.2 of this part) for the applicable 

industry segment of the associated WEC 

applicable facility. 

(a) General. Except as provided under 

paragraph (f) of this section, each WEC 

obligated party that is subject to this 

part shall have one designated 

representative, who shall be responsible 

for certifying, signing, and submitting 

WEC filings or other submissions to the 

Administrator under this part. 

(b) Authorization of a designated 

representative. The designated 

representative of each WEC obligated 

party shall be an individual selected by 

an agreement binding on the owner and 

operator of such entity and shall act in 

accordance with the certification 

statement in paragraph (i)(3)(iv) of this 

section. Failure of a WEC obligated 

party to authorize a designated 

representative following the procedures 

of this section is considered a violation 

of this part. 

(c) Responsibility of the designated 

representative. Upon receipt by the 

Administrator of a complete certificate 

of representation under this section for 

the WEC obligated party, the designated 

representative identified in such 

certificate of representation shall 

represent and, by his or her 

representations, actions, inactions, or 

submissions, legally bind the owner and 

operator of such an entity in all matters 

pertaining to this part, notwithstanding 

any agreement between the designated 

representative and said owner and 

operator. The owner and operator shall 

be bound by any decision or order 

issued to the designated representative 

by the Administrator or a court. 

(d) Timing. No WEC filing or other 

submissions under this part for a WEC 

obligated party will be accepted until 

the Administrator has received a 

complete certificate of representation 

under this section for a designated 

representative of the WEC obligated 

party. Such certificate of representation 

shall be submitted at least 60 days 

before the deadline for submission of 

the WEC obligated party’s WEC filing 

under § 99.5. 

(e) Certification of the WEC filing. 

Each WEC filing and any other 

submission under this part for a WEC 

obligated party shall be certified, signed, 

and submitted by the designated 

representative or any alternate 

designated representative of the WEC 

obligated party in accordance with this 

section and § 3.10 of this chapter. 

(1) Each such submission shall 

include the following certification 

statement signed by the designated 

representative or any alternate 

designated representative: ‘‘I am 

authorized to make this submission on 

behalf of the owner and operator of the 

WEC obligated party, for which the 

submission is made. I certify under 

penalty of law that I have personally 

examined, and am familiar with, the 

statements and information submitted 

in this document and all its 

attachments. Based on my inquiry of 

those individuals with primary 

responsibility for obtaining the 

information, I certify that the statements 

and information are to the best of my 

knowledge and belief true, accurate, and 

complete. I am aware that there are 

significant penalties for submitting false 

statements and information or omitting 

required statements and information, 

including the possibility of fine or 

imprisonment.’’ 

(2) The Administrator will accept a 

WEC filing or other submission for a 

WEC obligated party under this part 

only if the submission is certified, 

signed, and submitted in accordance 

with this section. 

(f) Alternate designated 

representative. A certificate of 

representation under this section for the 

WEC obligated party may designate one 

alternate designated representative, who 

shall be an individual selected by an 

agreement binding on the owner and 

operator, and may act on behalf of the 

WEC obligated party designated 

representative. The agreement by which 

the alternate designated representative 

is selected shall include a procedure for 

authorizing the alternate designated 

representative to act in lieu of the 

designated representative. 

(1) Upon receipt by the Administrator 

of a complete certificate of 

representation under this section for a 

WEC obligated party identifying an 

alternate designated representative, the 

following apply. 

(i) The alternate WEC obligated party 

designated representative may act on 

behalf of the WEC obligated party 

designated representative. 

(ii) Any representation, action, 

inaction, or submission by the alternate 

designated representative shall be 

deemed to be a representation, action, 

inaction, or submission by the WEC 

obligated party designated 

representative. 

(2) Except in this section, whenever 

the term ‘‘designated representative’’ is 

used in this part, the term shall be 

construed to include the designated 

representative or any alternate 

designated representative. 

(g) Changing a designated 

representative or alternate designated 

representative. The designated 

representative or alternate designated 

representative identified in a complete 

certificate of representation under this 

section for a WEC obligated party 

received by the Administrator may be 

changed at any time upon receipt by the 

Administrator of another later signed, 

complete certificate of representation 

under this section for the WEC obligated 

party. Notwithstanding any such 

change, all representations, actions, 

inactions, and submissions by the 

previous designated representative or 

the previous alternate designated 

representative of the WEC obligated 

party before the time and date when the 

Administrator receives such later signed 

certificate of representation shall be 

binding on the new designated 

representative and the owner and 

operator of the WEC obligated party. 

(h) Changes in the WEC obligated 

party. Within 90 days after any change 

in the WEC obligated party, the 

designated representative or any 

alternate designated representative shall 

submit a certificate of representation 

that is complete under this section to 

reflect the change. 

(i) Certificate of representation. A 

certificate of representation shall be 

complete if it includes the following 

elements in a format prescribed by the 

Administrator in accordance with this 

section: 

(1) Identification of the WEC obligated 

party for which the certificate of 

representation is submitted. 

(2) The name, organization name 

(company affiliation-employer), address, 

email address, telephone number, and 

facsimile transmission number (if any) 

of the designated representative and any 

alternate designated representative. 

(3) The following certification 

statements by the designated 

representative and any alternate 

designated representative: 

(i) ‘‘I certify that I was selected as the 

designated representative or alternate 

designated representative, as applicable, 

by an agreement binding on the owner 

and operator of the entity.’’ 

(ii) ‘‘I certify that I have all the 

necessary authority to carry out my 

duties and responsibilities under 40 

CFR part 99 on behalf of the owner and 

operator of the entity and that such 

owner and operator shall be fully bound 

by my representations, actions, 

inactions, or submissions.’’ 

(iii) ‘‘I certify that the owner and 

operator of the entity, as applicable, 

shall be bound by any order issued to 

me by the Administrator or a court 

regarding the entity.’’ 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5370 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

(iv) ‘‘If there are multiple owners and 

operators of the entity, I certify that I 

have given a written notice of my 

selection as the ‘designated 

representative’ or ‘alternate designated 

representative’, as applicable, and of the 

agreement by which I was selected to 

each owner and operator of the entity.’’ 

(4) The signature of the designated 

representative and any alternate 

designated representative and the dates 

signed. 

(j) Documents of agreement. Unless 

otherwise required by the 

Administrator, documents of agreement 

referred to in the certificate of 

representation shall not be submitted to 

the Administrator. The Administrator 

shall not be under any obligation to 

review or evaluate the sufficiency of 

such documents, if submitted. 

(k) Binding nature of the certificate of 

representation. Once a complete 

certificate of representation under this 

section for a WEC obligated party has 

been received, the Administrator will 

rely on the certificate of representation 

unless and until a later signed, complete 

certificate of representation under this 

section for the facility is received by the 

Administrator. 

(l) Objections concerning a designated 

representative. 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph 

(g) of this section, no objection or other 

communication submitted to the 

Administrator concerning the 

authorization, or any representation, 

action, inaction, or submission, of the 

designated representative or alternate 

designated representative shall affect 

any representation, action, inaction, or 

submission of the designated 

representative or alternate designated 

representative, or the finality of any 

decision or order by the Administrator 

under this part. 

(2) The Administrator will not 

adjudicate any private legal dispute 

concerning the authorization or any 

representation, action, inaction, or 

submission of any designated 

representative or alternate designated 

representative. 

§ 99.5 When must I file and remit the 

applicable WEC obligation? 

Each WEC obligated party must 

submit their WEC filing including the 

information specified in § 99.7 and 

remit applicable WEC obligation no 

later than March 31 of the year 

following the reporting year. All filing 

revisions must be received according to 

the schedule in § 99.7(e) to be 

considered for revisions to WEC 

obligations. If the submission date falls 

on a weekend or a federal holiday, the 

submission date shall be extended to the 

next business day. 

§ 99.6 How do I file? 

Each WEC filing, certificate of 

representation, and remittance of 

applicable WEC fees for the WEC 

obligated party must be submitted 

electronically in accordance with the 

requirements of this part and in a format 

specified by the Administrator. 

§ 99.7 What are the general reporting, 

recordkeeping, and verification 

requirements of this part? 

The WEC obligated party that is 

subject to the requirements of this part 

must submit a WEC filing to the 

Administrator as specified in this 

section. 

(a) Schedule. The WEC filing must be 

submitted in accordance with § 99.5. 

(b) Content of the WEC filing. For each 

WEC obligated party, report the 

information in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 

through (v) of this section. For each 

WEC applicable facility under common 

ownership or control of the WEC 

obligated party, report the information 

in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (vii) of 

this section. The WEC filing must also 

include payment of applicable WEC 

obligation, as specified in paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. 

(1) Reporting requirements at the 

WEC obligated party level. 

(i) The company name. 

(ii) The United States address for the 

company. 

(iii) The name, address, email 

address, and phone number for the 

designated representative for the WEC 

obligated party. 

(iv) The list of e-GGRT ID number(s) 

under which the WEC applicable 

facilities comprising the WEC obligated 

party as of December 31 of the reporting 

year report under part 98, subpart W of 

this chapter. 

(v) The net WEC emissions, as 

calculated pursuant to § 99.22, and WEC 

obligation, as calculated pursuant to 

§ 99.23, for the WEC obligated party. 

(2) Reporting requirements for each 

WEC applicable facility comprising the 

WEC obligated party. 

(i) The e-GGRT ID under which the 

WEC applicable facility emissions are 

reported under part 98, subpart W of 

this chapter. 

(ii) The industry segment(s) for the 

WEC applicable facility. 

(iii) For WEC applicable facilities in 

the offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production or onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production industry segment 

as defined in § 99.2, if conditions 

specified in § 99.30 regarding emissions 

from delays in permitting are met, 

provide information as specified in 

§ 99.31. 

(iv) If the conditions specified in 

§ 99.40 are met regarding the regulatory 

compliance exemption, report whether 

the WEC applicable facility contains any 

affected facilities under part 60 of this 

chapter or any designated facilities 

under an applicable approved state, 

Tribal, Federal plan in part 62 of this 

chapter. If so, provide the information 

specified in § 99.41, as applicable. 

(v) For WEC applicable facilities in 

the offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production or onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production industry segment 

as defined in § 99.2, if conditions 

specified in § 99.50 regarding emissions 

from permanently shut-in and plugged 

wells are met, you must report the 

information specified in § 99.51. 

(vi) The facility waste emissions 

threshold as calculated pursuant to 

§ 99.20, and, if there is more than one 

applicable industry segment within the 

WEC applicable facility, each industry 

segment waste emissions threshold for 

each applicable industry segment 

within the applicable facility, as 

calculated pursuant to § 99.20. 

(vii) The facility applicable emissions, 

as calculated pursuant to § 99.21 and 

the WEC applicable emissions, as 

calculated pursuant to § 99.21. 

(3) Payment of applicable WEC 

obligation, submitted in accordance 

with § 99.9. 

(c) Verification of the WEC filing. To 

verify the completeness and accuracy of 

WEC filing, the EPA will consider the 

verification status of part 98 reports, and 

may review the certification statements 

described in § 99.4 and any other 

credible evidence, in conjunction with a 

comprehensive review of the WEC 

filing, including attachments. The EPA 

may conduct audits of selected WEC 

obligated parties and associated WEC 

applicable facilities. During such audits, 

the records generated under this part 

must be made available to the EPA. The 

on-site audits may be conducted by 

private auditors contracted by the EPA 

or by Federal, State or local personnel, 

as appropriate, and may be required to 

be arranged by and conducted at the 

expense of the WEC obligated party. 

Nothing in this section prohibits the 

EPA from using additional information, 

including reports, prepared and 

submitted in accordance with part 60 of 

this chapter, or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan under part 

62 of this chapter that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in part 

60 of this chapter, to verify the 

completeness and accuracy of the 

filings. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5371 

(d) Recordkeeping. Retain all required 

records for at least 5 years from the date 

of submission of the WEC filing for the 

reporting year in which the record was 

generated. The records shall be kept in 

an electronic or hard-copy format (as 

appropriate) and recorded in a form that 

is suitable for expeditious inspection 

and review. Upon request by the 

Administrator, the records required 

under this section must be made 

available to EPA. Records may be 

retained off site if the records are readily 

available for expeditious inspection and 

review. For records that are 

electronically generated or maintained, 

the equipment or software necessary to 

read the records shall be made available, 

or, if requested by EPA, electronic 

records shall be converted to paper 

documents. You must retain the 

following records: 

(1) All information required to be 

retained by part 98, subparts A and W 

of this chapter. 

(2) Any other information not 

included in a part 98 report used to 

complete the WEC filing. 

(3) All information required to be 

submitted as part of the WEC filing. 

(e) Annual WEC filing revisions. 

Except as specified in paragraph (e)(2) 

of this section, the provisions of this 

paragraph (e) apply until November 1 of 

the year following the reporting year, or 

for a given reporting year after the 

November 1 deadline if the 

resubmission is related to the resolution 

of unverified data process specified at 

§ 99.8. 

(1) The WEC obligated party shall 

submit a revised WEC filing within 45 

days of discovering that a previously 

submitted WEC filing contains one or 

more substantive errors. The revised 

WEC filing must correct all substantive 

errors. If the resubmission is due to a 

correction in a part 98 report 

resubmitted by a WEC applicable 

facility, the WEC obligated party must 

report the number of corrections made 

in the part 98 report(s) and a description 

of how the changes impact the 

assessment of the WEC obligation. 

(2) The revisions for substantive 

errors as described in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 

and (ii) are not subject to the November 

1 deadline and must be submitted 

according the schedule therein. 

(i) Revised filings for purposes of the 

regulatory compliance exemption must 

be submitted as follows: 

(A) Revised filings to submit a CAA 

section 111(b) or (d) compliance report 

which covers the remaining portion of 

a WEC filing year, which were not 

available at the time of the WEC filing, 

must be submitted on or before the date 

that the compliance report covering the 

remainder of the year is due under the 

applicable requirements of CAA section 

111(b) or (d), as applicable. 

(B) Revised filings to submit findings 

by the WEC obligated party that one or 

more deviations or violations 

discovered after the WEC filing must be 

submitted within 45 days of the 

discovery. 

(ii) The Administrator may notify the 

WEC obligated party in writing that a 

WEC filing previously submitted by the 

owner or operator contains one or more 

substantive errors. Such notification 

will identify each such substantive 

error. The WEC obligated party shall, 

within 45 days of receipt of the 

notification, either resubmit the WEC 

filing that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified 

substantive error (in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of this part) 

or provide information demonstrating 

that the previously submitted report 

does not contain the identified 

substantive error or that the identified 

error is not a substantive error. The EPA 

reserves to right to revise WEC 

obligations for a given reporting year 

after the November 1 final resubmission 

deadline if data errors are discovered by 

EPA at a later date. 

(3) A substantive error is an error that 

impacts the Administrator’s ability to 

accurately calculate a WEC obligated 

party’s WEC obligation, which may 

include, but is not limited to, the list of 

WEC applicable facilities associated 

with a WEC obligated party, the 

emissions or throughput reported in the 

WEC applicable facility part 98 

report(s), emissions associated with 

exemptions, and supporting information 

for each exemption to demonstrate its 

validity. 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section, upon request the 

Administrator may provide an extension 

of the 45-day period for submission of 

a revised report or information under 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section 

if adequate justification is provided by 

the WEC obligated party. The 

Administrator may provide an extension 

of up to 30 days provided that the 

request is received by email to an 

address prescribed by the Administrator 

prior to the expiration of the 45-day 

period and that the request 

demonstrates that it is not practicable to 

submit a revised report or information 

under paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this 

section within 45 days. 

(5) The WEC obligated party shall 

retain documentation for 5 years to 

support any revision made to a WEC 

filing. 

(6) If a facility changes ownership 

such that there is a change to the WEC 

obligated party, the entity that was the 

WEC obligated party at the time of the 

original filing for a reporting year 

remains responsible for any revisions to 

WEC filings for that reporting year. 

(f) Designation of unverified filings 

and reports. Following the verification 

process discussed in § 98.3(h) of this 

chapter for part 98 reports and 

paragraph (c) of this section for WEC 

filings, the EPA shall designate: 

(1) The annual part 98 report 

associated with each WEC applicable 

facility as either verified or unverified. 

An unverified report is one in which the 

EPA has provided notification under 

§ 98.3(h)(2) of this chapter and the 

owner or operator of the WEC 

applicable facility has failed to revise 

and resubmit the report and resolve the 

error or provide justification to the 

satisfaction of the EPA that the 

identified error is not a substantive error 

(in accordance with the applicable 

requirements of § 98.3(h)(3) of this 

chapter). 

(2) The annual WEC filing from each 

WEC obligated party submitted 

pursuant to § 99.7 as either verified or 

unverified. An unverified filing is one 

in which the EPA has provided 

notification under § 99.7(e)(2) and the 

WEC obligated party designated 

representative has failed to resubmit the 

report and for each identified 

substantive error correct the identified 

substantive error (in accordance with 

the applicable requirements of 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section) or 

provide information demonstrating that 

the submitted report does not contain 

the identified substantive error or that 

the identified error is not a substantive 

error. The determination of verification 

status of a part 98 report under 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section will be 

taken into consideration in the 

determination of the verification status 

of a WEC filing. 

§ 99.8 What are the general provisions for 

assessment of the WEC obligation? 

(a) Assessment of the WEC obligation. 

WEC obligation assessments shall be 

made pursuant to § 99.23 on the basis of 

information submitted by the date 

specified in § 99.5 and following the 

submittal requirements of § 99.6. 

(b) Assessment of the WEC obligation 

for unverified filings. If a WEC filing is 

unverified but the EPA is able to correct 

the error(s) based on reported data, the 

EPA will recalculate the WEC using 

available information and provide an 

invoice or refund to the WEC obligated 

party within 60 days of determining a 

WEC filing to be unverified. If the WEC 

obligated party resubmits a WEC filing 

within that timeframe, the EPA will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
5372 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

either verify the resubmission, or take 

the resubmission into account when 

calculating the WEC. 

(c) Third-party audits for unverified 

reports. If the EPA is unable to calculate 

the WEC with available information, the 

EPA may require the WEC obligated 

party to undergo a third party audit. The 

EPA may require the WEC obligated 

party to fund and arrange the third-party 

audit. The third-party auditor must 

review records kept by the WEC 

obligated party, quantify the WEC with 

available information, and the updated 

WEC calculations and supporting data 

must be submitted to the EPA. The EPA 

will then take that information into 

consideration and calculate the WEC 

and provide an invoice or refund to the 

WEC obligated party. 

(1) Third party reviews. An 

independent third-party audit of the 

information provided shall be based on 

a review of the relevant documents and 

shall identify each item required by the 

WEC filing, describe how the 

independent third-party evaluated the 

accuracy of the information provided, 

state whether the independent thirdparty agrees with the information 

provided, and identify any exceptions 

between the independent third-party’s 

findings and the information provided. 

(i) Audits required under this section 

must be conducted by a certified 

independent third-party. The auditor 

must have professional work experience 

in the petroleum engineering field or 

related to oil and gas production, 

gathering, processing, transmission or 

storage. 

(ii) To be considered an independent 

third-party, the independent third party 

shall not be operated by the WEC 

obligated party and the independent 

third party shall be free from any 

interest in the WEC obligated party’s 

business. 

(iii) The independent third-party shall 

submit all records pertaining to the 

audit required under this section, 

including information supporting all of 

the requirements of § 99.8(c)(1) to the 

WEC obligated party. 

(iv) The independent third-party must 

provide to the WEC obligated party 

documentation of qualifications of 

professional work experience in the 

petroleum engineering field or related to 

oil and gas production, gathering, 

processing, transmission or storage. 

(2) Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for WEC obligated parties 

following third party audits. 

(i) The WEC obligated party shall 

provide to EPA the results of the thirdparty audit, including the WEC 

obligation amount and all supporting 

documentation information that is 

included in reporting requirements 

under §§ 99.7, and 99.31, 99.41, and 

99.51, as applicable. 

(ii) The WEC obligated party shall 

provide to EPA documentation of 

qualifications of the third-party auditor. 

(iii) The WEC obligated party shall 

retain all records pertaining to the audit 

required under this section for a period 

of 5 years from the date of creation and 

shall deliver such records to the 

Administrator upon request. 

(d) Resubmittal of filings and reports 

for the current or prior reporting year. If 

resubmittal of a previously submitted 

part 98 report and/or WEC filing, 

submitted as specified in § 99.7(e), 

results in a change to the WEC 

obligation determined for a WEC 

obligated party for the reporting year the 

following process shall apply: 

(1) If the WEC obligation based upon 

the resubmitted report or filing for the 

reporting year is less than the WEC 

obligation previously remitted by the 

WEC obligated party, the Administrator 

shall authorize a refund to the WEC 

obligated party equal to the difference in 

WEC obligation. 

(2) If the WEC obligation based upon 

the resubmitted report or filing for the 

reporting year is greater than the WEC 

obligation previously remitted by the 

WEC obligated party, the Administrator 

shall issue an invoice to the WEC 

obligated party containing a charge in 

the amount determined using Equation 

A–1 of this section. Interest shall not be 

assessed for a change in WEC obligation 

resulting from the timely submittal of a 

regulatory report in accordance with 

§ 99.41(c). 

Where: 

WECr = The charge obligation of the WEC 

obligated party to be resubmitted for the 

difference in WEC obligation, including 

any applicable interest, in dollars. 

DWEC = The difference in WEC obligation, 

calculated as the amount remitted upon 

the original submittal specified in § 99.5 

subtracted from the quantity of WEC 

obligation determined based upon the 

resubmitted report or filing, in dollars. 

iCVFR = The Treasury Current Value of Funds 

Rate as specified in § 99.10(b). 

t = The number of days after the deadline 

specified in § 99.5 for remittance of WEC 

obligation for the reporting year that the 

resubmitted WEC filing or part 99 report 

was received by the Administrator, in 

days. For example, if a reporting year 

2024 part 99 report is resubmitted on 

April 28, 2025, ‘‘t’’ is equal to 28 days. 

If a reporting year 2024 part 99 report is 

resubmitted on April 28, 2026, ‘‘t’’ is 

equal to 393 days. 

365 = Conversion factor from years to days. 

§ 99.9 How are payments required by this 

part made? 

(a) The WEC obligation owed for each 

reporting year must be paid by the WEC 

obligated party as part of the annual 

WEC filling, as required by § 99.7(b), 

and is considered due at the date 

specified in § 99.5. 

(b) Other than the WEC obligation 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, all other charges required by 

this part, including adjusted WEC 

obligations, interest fees, and penalties, 

shall be paid by the WEC obligated 

party in response to an electronic 

invoice or bill by the specified due date, 

or within 30 days of the date of the 

invoice or bill if a due date is not 

provided. 

(c) All WEC obligations, interest fees, 

and penalties required by this subpart 

shall be paid to the Department of the 

Treasury by the WEC obligated party 

electronically in U.S. dollars, using an 

online electronic payment service 

specified by the Administrator. 

§ 99.10 What fees apply to delinquent 

payments? 

(a) Delinquency. WEC obligated party 

accounts are delinquent if the WEC 

obligation payment is not submitted in 

full by the date required by § 99.5. WEC 

obligated party accounts are also 

delinquent if the accounts remain 

unpaid after the due date specified in 

the invoice or other notice of the WEC 

amount owed. 

(b) Interest fee. In accordance with 31 

U.S.C. 3717(a), delinquent WEC 

obligated party accounts shall be 

charged a minimum annual rate of 

interest equal to the average investment 

rate for Treasury tax and loan accounts 

(Current Value of Funds Rate or CVFR) 

most recently published and in effect by 

the Secretary of the Treasury. 

(c) Non-payment penalty. In 

accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717(e), WEC 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.000</GPH>

WECr = flWEC X ( 1 + \:Y (Eq. A-1) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5373 

obligated party accounts that are more 

than 90 days past due shall be charged 

an additional penalty of 6% per year 

assessed on any part of the debt that is 

past due for more than 90 days. 

(d) Penalty for non-submittal. In 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. 7413(d)(1), a 

WEC obligated party that fails to submit 

an annual WEC filing by the date 

specified in § 99.5 may be charged an 

administrative penalty. The penalty 

assessment shall be a daily assessment 

per day that the WEC filing is not 

submitted, assessed up to the value 

specified in Table 1 of § 19.4, as 

amended, of this chapter. The 

assessment of penalty shall begin on the 

date that the WEC filing was considered 

past due per § 99.5 and continue until 

such time that the WEC filing is 

submitted by the WEC obligated party’s 

designated representative. 

§ 99.11 What are the compliance and 

enforcement provisions of this part? 

Any violation of any requirement of 

this part shall be a violation of the Clean 

Air Act, including section 114 (42 

U.S.C. 7414) and section 136 (42 U.S.C. 

7436). A violation would include, but is 

not limited to, failure to submit a WEC 

filing, failure to collect data needed to 

calculate the WEC charge (including any 

data relevant to determining the 

applicability of any exemptions), failure 

to select a WEC obligated party, failure 

to retain records needed to verify the 

amount of WEC charge, providing false 

information in a WEC filing, and failure 

to remit WEC payment. Each day of a 

violation would constitute a separate 

violation. Each day of each violation 

constitutes a separate violation. Any 

penalty assessed shall be in addition to 

any WEC obligation due under this part 

and any fees applicable to delinquent 

payments due under § 99.10. 

§ 99.12 What addresses apply for this 

part? 

All requests, notifications, and 

communications to the Administrator 

pursuant to this part must be submitted 

electronically and in a format as 

specified by the Administrator. 

§ 99.13 What are the confidentiality 

determinations and related procedures for 

this part? 

This section characterizes various 

categories of information for purposes of 

making confidentiality determinations, 

as follows: 

(a) This paragraph (a) applies the 

definition of ‘‘Emission data’’ in 40 CFR 

2.301(a) for information reported under 

this part. ‘‘Emission data’’ cannot be 

treated as confidential business 

information and shall be available to be 

disclosed to the public. The following 

categories of information qualify as 

emission data: 

(1) Methane emission information, 

including the net WEC emissions, waste 

emissions thresholds, WEC applicable 

emissions, and the quantity of methane 

emissions to be exempted due to 

unreasonable delay and wells that were 

permanently shut-in and abandoned. 

(2) Calculation methodology, 

including the method used to determine 

the quantity of methane emissions to be 

exempted due to an unreasonable 

permitting delay and the method used 

to quantify emissions exempted from 

permanently shut-in and plugged wells. 

(3) Facility and unit identifier 

information, including WEC obligated 

party company name and address, the 

name and contact information for the 

designated representative of WEC 

obligated party, signed and dated 

certification statements of the accuracy 

and completeness of the report, facility 

identifiers (e.g., e-GGRT ID number), 

industry segment, well-pad and/or well 

identifiers, and emission source-specific 

methane mitigation activities impacted 

by an unreasonable permitting delay. 

(b) The following types of information 

are not eligible for confidential 

treatment: 

(1) The WEC obligation, as calculated 

pursuant to § 99.23. 

(2) Compliance information, 

including information regarding 

applicable emissions standards or other 

relevant standards of performance or 

requirements, information in 

construction or operating permits, and 

information submitted to document 

compliance with an emissions standard 

or a standard of performance, such as a 

periodic report, prepared and submitted 

in accordance with part 60 of this 

chapter, or an applicable approved state, 

Tribal, or Federal plan under part 62 of 

this chapter that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in part 

60 of this chapter, (excluding any 

information redacted from the report 

and claimed as confidential). 

(3) Published information that is 

publicly available, including 

information that is made available 

through publication of annual reports 

submitted under part 98 of this chapter, 

on company or other websites, or 

otherwise made publicly available. 

(c) If you submit information that is 

not described in paragraphs (a) and (b) 

of this section, you may claim the 

information as confidential and the 

information is subject to the process for 

confidentiality determinations in 40 

CFR part 2 as described in §§ 2.201 

through 2.208. We may require you to 

provide us with information to 

substantiate your claims. If claimed, we 

may consider this substantiating 

information to be confidential to the 

same degree as the information for 

which you are requesting confidential 

treatment. We will make our 

determination based on your statements 

to us, the supporting information you 

send us, and any other available 

information. However, we may 

determine that your information is not 

subject to confidential treatment 

consistent with 40 CFR part 2 and 5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(4). 

(d) Submitted applications and 

reports typically rely on software or 

templates to identify specific categories 

of information. If you submit 

information in a comment field 

designated for users to add general 

information, we will respond to requests 

for disclosing that information 

consistent with paragraphs (a) through 

(c) of this section. 

Subpart B—Determining Waste 

Emissions Charge 

§ 99.20 How will the waste emissions 

threshold for each WEC applicable facility 

be determined? 

The methane waste emissions 

threshold for each applicable industry 

segment within a WEC applicable 

facility for the reporting year will be 

calculated as described in paragraphs (a) 

through (d) of this section, as 

applicable. The methane waste 

emissions threshold for each WEC 

applicable facility will be determined as 

described in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(a) For each offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production industry segment 

or onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segment that sends 

natural gas to sale at a WEC applicable 

facility, the facility waste emissions 

threshold will be calculated using 

Equation B–1 of this section. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.015</GPH>

TH is Prod= 0.002 X Pc'H X Q p d , 4 ng,ro (Eq. B-1) 
5374 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

THis,Prod = The methane waste emissions 

threshold for the industry segment at a 

WEC applicable facility for the reporting 

year in the production sector that has 

natural gas sent to sale, metric tons (mt) 

CH4. 

0.002 = Industry segment-specific methane 

intensity threshold, as specified in CAA 

section 136(f), for methane emissions for 

applicable facilities with natural gas 

sales in the production sector, thousand 

standard cubic feet (Mscf) CH4 per Mscf 

of natural gas sent to sale. 

rCH4 = Density of methane = 0.0192 

kilograms per standard cubic foot (kg/ 

scf) = 0.0192 metric tons per thousand 

standard cubic feet (mt/Mscf). 

Qng,Prod = The total quantity of natural gas 

that is sent to sale from the WEC 

applicable facility in the reporting year, 

as reported pursuant to part 98, subpart 

W of this chapter. For onshore petroleum 

and natural gas production, you must 

use the quantity reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(1)(i)(B) of this 

chapter, in Mscf. For offshore petroleum 

and natural gas production, you must 

use the quantity reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(2)(i) of this 

chapter, in Mscf. 

(b) For each offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production industry segment 

or the onshore petroleum and natural 

gas production industry segment that 

has no natural gas sent to sale at a WEC 

applicable facility, the facility waste 

emissions threshold will be calculated 

using Equation B–2 of this section. 

Where: 

THis,Prod = The annual methane waste 

emissions threshold for the industry 

segment at a WEC applicable facility in 

the production sector that has no natural 

gas sent to sale, mt CH4. 

10 = Industry segment-specific methane 

intensity threshold, as specified in CAA 

section 136(f), for applicable facilities 

with no natural gas sales in the 

production sector, mt CH4 per million 

barrels oil sent to sale. 

Qo,Prod = The total quantity of crude oil that 

is sent to sale from the WEC applicable 

facility in the reporting year, as reported 

pursuant to part 98, subpart W of this 

chapter. For onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production, you must use the 

quantity reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(i)(C) of this chapter, in 

barrels. For offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production, you must use the 

quantity reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(2)(ii) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

10¥6 = Conversion from barrels to million 

barrels. 

(c) For each onshore natural gas 

processing industry segment, liquefied 

natural gas storage industry segment, 

the liquefied natural gas import and 

export equipment industry segment, or 

the onshore petroleum and natural gas 

gathering and boosting industry segment 

at a WEC applicable facility, the facility 

waste emissions threshold will be 

calculated using Equation B–3 of this 

section. 

Where: 

THis,NonProd = The annual methane waste 

emissions threshold for the industry 

segment at a WEC applicable facility in 

the nonproduction sector, mt CH4. 

0.0005 = Industry segment-specific methane 

intensity threshold, as specified in CAA 

section 136(f), for applicable facilities in 

the nonproduction sector, Mscf CH4 per 

Mscf of natural gas sent to sale from or 

through the facility. 

rCH4 = Density of methane = 0.0192 kg/scf = 

0.0192 mt/Mscf. 

Qng,NonProd = The total quantity of natural gas 

that is sent to sale from or through the 

industry segment at a WEC applicable 

facility in the reporting year as reported 

pursuant to part 98, subpart W of this 

chapter. For RY 2024 for onshore natural 

gas processing, you must use the 

quantity reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(3)(ii) of this chapter, in Mscf 

and for RY 2025 and later, you must use 

the quantity reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(3)(ix) of this 

chapter, in Mscf. For LNG import and 

export, you must use sum of the 

quantities reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(6) and (7) of this chapter, in 

Mscf. For LNG storage, you must use the 

quantity reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(8)(ii) of this chapter, in 

Mscf. For onshore petroleum and natural 

gas gathering and boosting, you must use 

the quantity reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(10)(ii) of this chapter, in 

Mscf. 

(d) For each onshore natural gas 

transmission compression industry 

segment, underground natural gas 

storage industry segment, or onshore 

natural gas transmission pipeline 

industry segment at a WEC applicable 

facility, the facility waste emissions 

threshold will be calculated using 

Equation B–4 of this section. 

Where: 

THis,Tran = The annual methane waste 

emissions threshold for the industry 

segment at a WEC applicable facility in 

the transmission sector, mt CH4. 

0.0005 = Industry segment-specific methane 

intensity threshold, as specified in CAA 

section 136(f), for applicable facilities in 

the transmission sector, Mscf CH4 per 

Mscf of natural gas sent to sale from or 

through the facility. 

rCH4 = Density of methane = 0.0192 kg/scf = 

0.0192 mt/Mscf. 

Qng,Tran = The total quantity of natural gas 

that is sent to sale from or through the 

industry segment at a WEC applicable 

facility in the reporting year as reported 

pursuant to part 98, subpart W of this 

chapter. For onshore natural gas 

transmission compression, you must use 

the quantity reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(4)(i) of this chapter, in Mscf. 

For underground natural gas storage, you 

must use the quantity reported pursuant 

to § 98.236(aa)(5)(ii) of this chapter, in 

Mscf. For onshore natural gas 

transmission pipeline, you must use the 

quantity reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(aa)(11)(iv) of this chapter, in 

Mscf. 

(e) For each WEC applicable facility 

that operates in a single industry 

segment, the methane waste emissions 

threshold shall be equal to the value 

calculated in Equation B–1, Equation B– 

2, Equation B–3, or Equation B–4 of this 

section, as applicable. For each WEC 

applicable facility that operates in two 

or more industry segments, the facility 

waste emissions threshold will be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.016</GPH> EP26JA24.017</GPH> EP26JA24.018</GPH>

TH is Prod= 10 X Q p d X 10-6 , o, ro (Eq. B-2) 

THisNonProd = 0.0005 X Pc'H X Q "nP d ' 4 ng,1vo ro (Eq. B-3) 

THisTran = 0.0011 X Pc'H X Q ,,, , 4 ng,,ran (Eq. B-4) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5375 

calculated using Equation B–5 of this 

section. 

Where: 

THWAF = The WEC applicable facility waste 

emissions threshold, mt CH4. 

THis,s = The industry segment waste 

emissions threshold, as calculated in 

Equation B–3 or Equation B–4 of this 

section, for each industry segment ‘‘s’’ at 

the WEC applicable facility, mt CH4. 

N = Number of industry segments at the WEC 

applicable facility. 

§ 99.21 How will the WEC applicable 

emissions for a WEC applicable facility be 

determined? 

(a) The total facility applicable 

emissions for each WEC applicable 

facility will be calculated using 

Equation B–6 of this section. 

Where: 

ETFA,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold for a WEC 

applicable facility prior to consideration 

of any applicable exemptions (i.e., total 

facility applicable emissions), mt CH4.

ESubpartW,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

for a WEC applicable facility, as reported 

under part 98, subpart W of this chapter 

for the corresponding reporting year, mt 

CH4.

THWAF = The waste emissions threshold for 

a WEC applicable facility, as determined 

in § 99.20(e), mt CH4. 

(b) If the total facility applicable 

emissions calculated using Equation B– 

6 of this section are less than or equal 

to 0 mt, then the WEC applicable 

emissions are equal to the total facility 

applicable emissions. 

(c) If the total facility applicable 

emissions calculated using Equation B– 

6 of this section are greater than 0 mt 

and the regulatory compliance 

exemption as specified in § 99.40 

applies to the WEC applicable facility, 

the WEC applicable emissions for that 

facility are equal to 0 mt. 

(d) If the total facility applicable 

emissions calculated using Equation B– 

6 of this section are greater than 0 mt 

and the regulatory compliance 

exemption as specified in § 99.40 does 

not apply to the WEC applicable facility, 

the WEC applicable emissions for each 

WEC applicable facility will be 

calculated using Equation B–7 of this 

section. 

Where: 

EWA,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

associated with a WEC applicable facility 

that are either equal to, below, or 

exceeding the waste emissions threshold 

for the WEC applicable facility (i.e., the 

WEC applicable emissions), mt CH4. If 

the result of this calculation is less than 

0 mt CH4, the WEC appliable emissions 

for the facility are equal to 0 mt CH4. 

ETFA,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions threshold for a WEC 

applicable facility prior to consideration 

of any applicable exemptions for the 

reporting year, mt CH4. 

EDelay,CH4 = The quantity of methane 

emissions exempted, as determined in 

Equation C–1 of § 99.32, at the WEC 

applicable facility in the offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production or 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segment due to an 

unreasonable delay in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

infrastructure, mt CH4. 

EPlug,CH4 = The total quantity of annual 

methane emissions, as determined in 

Equation E–5 of § 99.52, at the WEC 

applicable facility in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

and offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segments, 

attributable to all wells that were 

permanently shut-in and plugged during 

the reporting year in accordance with all 

applicable closure requirements, mt CH4. 

§ 99.22 How will the net WEC emissions 

for a WEC obligated party be determined? 

Net WEC emissions for a WEC 

obligated party, equal to the sum of 

WEC applicable emissions from all 

facilities with the same WEC obligated 

party, as specified in 99.2, will be 

calculated using Equation B–8 of this 

section. 

Where: 

ENetWEC,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

subject to the WEC for the WEC obligated 

party for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

EWA,CH4 = The annual methane emissions 

equal to, below, or exceeding the waste 

emissions thresholds for a WEC 

applicable facility ‘‘j’’ as calculated in 

§ 99.21(b) or (d) under common 

ownership or control of a WEC obligated 

party, mt CH4. 

N = Total number of WEC applicable 

facilities under common ownership or 

control of a WEC obligated party, 

excluding any WEC applicable facilities 

for which the regulatory compliance 

exemption as specified in § 99.40 

applies. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.019</GPH> EP26JA24.020</GPH> EP26JA24.021</GPH> EP26JA24.003</GPH>

N 

THwAF = L THis,s 

s=l 

ErFA,CH4 = EsubpartW,CH4 - THwAF 

N 

ENetWEC,CH4 = L EwA,CH4 

j=l 

(Eq. B-5) 

(Eq. B-6) 

(Eq. B-7) 

(Eq. B-8) 
5376 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 99.23 How will the WEC Obligation for a 

WEC obligated party be determined? 

(a) If the net WEC emissions for a 

WEC obligated party as determined in 

§ 99.22 are less than or equal to zero, the 

WEC obligated party’s WEC obligation is 

zero and the WEC obligated party is not 

subject to a waste emissions charge in 

the reporting year. 

(b) If the net WEC emissions for a 

WEC obligated party as determined in 

§ 99.22 are greater than zero, the WEC 

obligation will be calculated according 

to the applicable provisions in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(1) For reporting year 2024, multiply 

the net WEC emissions from Equation 

B–8 of this subpart by $900 per mt CH4

to determine the WEC obligation. 

(2) For reporting year 2025, multiply 

the net WEC emissions from Equation 

B–8 of this subpart by $1,200 per mt 

CH4 to determine the WEC obligation. 

(3) For reporting year 2026 and each 

year thereafter, multiply the net WEC 

emissions from Equation B–8 of this 

subpart by $1,500 per mt CH4 to 

determine the WEC obligation. 

Subpart C—Unreasonable Delay 

Exemption 

§ 99.30 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption for emissions caused by an 

unreasonable delay in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

infrastructure? 

(a) The WEC applicable facility must 

be in the offshore petroleum and natural 

gas production or onshore petroleum 

and natural gas production industry 

segment as defined in § 99.2. 

(b) The total facility applicable 

emissions for the WEC applicable 

facility as calculated in accordance with 

§ 99.21(a) must exceed 0 mt. 

(c) All requests for information 

regarding the permit received by either 

the production entity potentially 

eligible for the exemption or the entity 

seeking the environmental permit must 

not have exceeded the response time 

requested by the permitting agency, or 

by the relevant production or gathering 

or transmission infrastructure entity 

seeking the permit, or exceeded 30 days 

if no specific response time is requested. 

(d) The WEC facility must report 

flaring emissions in the reporting year 

that occurred as a result of a delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering 

or transmission infrastructure, and are 

in compliance with all applicable local, 

state and federal regulations regarding 

flaring emissions. 

(e) [A set period of months (with exact 

timing to be specified at final)] must 

have passed since submission of a 

complete environmental permit 

application, as certified by the relevant 

permitting authority, to construct 

gathering or transmission infrastructure 

without approval or denial of the 

environmental permit application. 

§ 99.31 What are the reporting 

requirements for the exemption for 

emissions caused by an unreasonable 

delay in environmental permitting of 

gathering or transmission infrastructure? 

(a) Upon meeting all criteria in 

§ 99.30(a) through (f), you shall report 

information regarding an exemption for 

unreasonable delay in permitting of 

gathering or transmission infrastructure 

for a given reporting year. The 

unreasonable delay exemption 

information to be reported is described 

in paragraph (b) of this section. The 

unreasonable delay exemption shall be 

submitted as described in paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(b) For each unreasonable delay 

exemption, the WEC obligated party 

must report the information specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (10) of this 

section. 

(1) The company name and name of 

the facility that submitted the permit 

application to construct and/or operate 

gathering or transmission infrastructure. 

(2) The name and e-GGRT ID number 

under part 98, subpart W of this chapter 

of the production facility impacted by 

the unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering 

or transmission infrastructure. 

(3) The date of the initial permit 

request to build gathering or 

transmission infrastructure. 

(4) An attestation that the entity 

seeking the permit has been responsive 

to the relevant authority regarding the 

permit application, that is that the entity 

has responded to all requests from the 

permitting authority within the time 

frame requested by the relevant 

authority or within 30 days if no 

timeframe is specified. 

(5) For each well-pad impacted by the 

unreasonable delay in permitting of 

gathering or transmission infrastructure: 

(i) The well-pad ID for each well-pad, 

as reported under part 98, subpart W of 

this chapter. 

(ii) A listing of methane emissions 

mitigation activities that are impacted 

by the unreasonable permitting delay. 

(6) The estimated date to commence 

operation of the gathering or 

transmission infrastructure if 

application had been approved before 

[the set period of months elapsed (exact 

timing to be specified at final)]. 

(7) If the application has been 

approved and operations commenced 

during the reporting year, the first date 

that offtake to the gathering or 

transmission infrastructure from the 

implementation of methane emissions 

mitigation occurred. 

(8) The beginning and ending date for 

which the eligible delay limited the 

offtake of Nnatural gas associated with 

methane emissions mitigation activities 

for the reporting year as determined 

according to § 99.32(a). 

(9) The quantity of methane emissions 

to be exempted due to the unreasonable 

delay for the reporting year calculated 

as specified in § 99.32 and the method 

used to determine the quantity of 

methane emissions to be exempted 

(used § 99.32(b)(1); used § 99.32(b)(2)(i); 

used § 99.32(b)(2)(ii) with Kf based on 

volume; used § 99.32(b)(2)(ii) with Kf

based on time). 

(10) Information on all applicable 

local, state, and federal regulations 

regarding flaring emissions and the 

facility’s compliance status for each. 

(11) For each permit relevant to the 

exemption, the name/type of permit, 

permitting agency, and a link to 

information on the permit (e.g., 

available through the permitting 

agency), if available. 

(c) Each submittal under this section 

shall be certified, signed, and submitted 

by the designated representative or any 

alternate designated representative of 

the WEC obligated party in accordance 

with this section and § 3.10 of this 

chapter. 

§ 99.32 How are the methane emissions 

caused by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering or 

transmission infrastructure quantified? 

(a) Determine the time period 

associated with the emissions that 

occurred as a result of the eligible delay 

within the reporting year as specified in 

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(1) The start date of the emissions 

caused by the delay in the reporting 

year is the latter of January 1 of the 

reporting year, or the date on which 

emissions would have been avoided 

through commencement of the 

operation of the gathering or 

transmission infrastructure if the 

application to construct and/or operate 

the gathering or transmission 

infrastructure had been approved within 

a set period of months as specified in 

§ 99.31(b)(6). 

(2) The end time of the emissions 

caused by the delay in the reporting 

year is the earlier of December 31 of the 

reporting year or the date the emissions 

caused by the unreasonable delay ends 

because the infrastructure commenced 

operation. 

(b) For each well-pad or offshore 

platform at a WEC applicable facility 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5377 

impacted by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering 

or transmission infrastructure, you must 

calculate the emissions that occurred at 

the well-pad or offshore platform that 

were caused by the unreasonable delay 

according to paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(1) If the unreasonable delay impacts 

the entire reporting year, and has 

resulted in the entire volume of flaring 

occurring from flare stacks, associated 

gas flaring, or offshore production 

flaring, then use the mass CH4

emissions, in mt CH4, as reported in 

§ 98.236(m)(8)(iii), (n)(10), and/or (s)(2) 

of this chapter, as applicable, for the 

individual flare(s) in the offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segment and onshore 

petroleum gas production industry 

segment used to flare the increased 

volume of gas from methane emissions 

mitigation implementation associated 

with the unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering 

or transmission infrastructure. If 

multiple flares are used to flare the 

increased volume of gas, sum the mass 

CH4 emissions for each flare used to 

flare the increased volume of gas from 

methane emissions mitigation 

implementation to determine the 

cumulative emissions associated with 

the permitting delay. 

(2) If the unreasonable delay impacts 

only a portion of the reporting year or 

only a portion of the flaring emissions, 

determine the eligible emissions as 

specified in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(i) If you have records to calculate the 

mass CH4 emissions from the flare(s) 

used to flare the increased volume of gas 

from methane emissions mitigation 

implementation associated with the 

unreasonable delay in environmental 

permitting of gathering or transmission 

according to the applicable methods in 

subpart W of this chapter for the 

specific time period eligible for the 

exemption, you must calculate the 

methane emissions for the specific time 

period eligible for the exemption from 

each flare used to flare the increased 

volume of gas from methane emissions 

mitigation implementation associated 

with the unreasonable delay. If multiple 

flares are used to flare the increased 

volume of gas, sum the mass CH4

emissions for each flare calculated 

according to this paragraph to determine 

the cumulative emissions associated 

with the permitting delay. 

(ii) If you do not have records to 

calculate the mass CH4 emissions for the 

exemption period according to 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, then 

calculate the emissions that occurred at 

the offshore facility or onshore well-pad 

caused by the unreasonable delay using 

Equation C–1 of this section. 

Where: 

EDelay,CH4 = Annual CH4 emissions associated 

with delay in permitting in the reporting 

year, mt CH4. 

EMMFlare,CH4 = Annual CH4 emissions from the 

flare(s) used to flare increased volume of 

gas from methane emissions mitigation 

implementation reported in subpart W of 

this chapter, mt CH4. 

Kf = Eligible timeframe adjustment factor to 

the CH4 emissions flaring emissions for 

partial year exemption period. If you 

have records of the volume of gas flared 

from the impacted flare(s) during the 

exemption period, use the ratio of the 

volume of gas flared during the 

exemption period to the total annual 

volume of gas flared from the impacted 

flare(s) to determine Kf; otherwise, use 

the ratio of hours in the exemption 

period to the total annual hours in the 

reporting year (8760 or, for leap years, 

8784) to determine Kf. 

Xf = Fraction of the flared emissions reported 

in subpart W of this chapter that 

occurred from the flare(s) due to the 

unreasonable delay. This fraction can be 

estimated based on company records of 

flare emissions prior to the unreasonable 

delay or through engineering 

calculations of flare volumes related to 

other sources vented to the flare(s). 

§ 99.33 What are the recordkeeping 

requirements for methane emissions 

caused by an unreasonable delay in 

environmental permitting of gathering or 

transmission infrastructure? 

(a) For each communication the entity 

seeking the permit has had with the 

permitting authority regarding the 

permit application: 

(1) The date and type of 

communication. 

(2) The date of the facility’s response 

to the communication. 

(3) Information on whether the 

facility’s response included 

modification to the permit application. 

(b) Records of values used in the 

calculation of the emissions that 

occurred at the well-pad caused by the 

unreasonable delay. 

Subpart D—Regulatory Compliance 

Exemption 

§ 99.40 When does the regulatory 

compliance exemption come into effect, 

and under what conditions does the 

exemption cease to be in effect? 

(a) The requirements of this subpart 

only apply to a WEC applicable facility 

when the total facility applicable 

emissions for that WEC applicable 

facility as calculated in accordance with 

§ 99.21(a) exceed 0 mt CH4. 

(b) The requirements of § 99.41 shall 

only be in effect when each of the 

following conditions are met: 

(1) A determination has been made by 

the Administrator that methane 

emissions standards and plans pursuant 

to subsections (b) and (d) of section 111 

of the Act have been approved and are 

in effect in all States with respect to the 

applicable facilities; and 

(2) A determination has been made by 

the Administrator that the emissions 

reductions achieved by compliance with 

the requirements described in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section will result in 

equivalent or greater emissions 

reductions on a nationwide basis as 

would be achieved by the proposed rule 

of the Administrator entitled ‘Standards 

of Performance for New, Reconstructed, 

and Modified Sources and Emissions 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector Climate Review’ (86 

FR 63110; November 15, 2021), if such 

rule had been finalized and 

implemented. 

(c) At such time that the conditions 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of 

this section are met, the reporting 

requirements of § 99.41 shall come into 

effect beginning with the WEC filing 

due on the date specified in § 99.5 in the 

calendar year following the calendar 

year in which the conditions were met. 

Imposition of the waste emission charge 

shall not be made on an applicable 

facility meeting the requirements for 

regulatory compliance exemption for 

methane emissions that occurred during 

the calendar year during which the 

conditions are met. 

(d) If any of the conditions in 

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section 

cease to apply after the Administrator 

has made the determinations in 

paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 

the reporting requirements of § 99.41 

shall cease to be in effect beginning with 

the WEC filing due on the date specified 

in § 99.5 in the calendar year during 

which either of the conditions were no 

longer met. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.022</GPH>

(Eq. C-1) 
5378 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

§ 99.41 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption for regulatory compliance? 

(a) The total facility applicable 

emissions for the WEC applicable 

facility as calculated in accordance with 

§ 99.21(a) or (d) must exceed 0 mt. 

(b) The WEC applicable facility must 

contain one or more affected facilities or 

one or more designated facilities. 

(c) At the WEC applicable facility, all 

affected facilities and all designated 

facilities located at this WEC applicable 

facility, must have no deviations or 

violations with the methane emissions 

requirements of part 60 of this chapter 

and the methane emissions 

requirements requirements of an 

applicable approved state, Tribal, or 

Federal plan in part 62 of this chapter, 

including all applicable emission 

standard, work practice, monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

§ 99.42 What are the reporting 

requirements for the exemption for 

regulatory compliance? 

(a) A facility eligible for the regulatory 

compliance exemption that meets the 

criteria described in § 99.41 shall 

include information as described in 

paragraph (b) of this section. A facility 

that meets the criteria described in 

§ 99.41(a) and (b) but is not eligible for 

the exemption because it does not meet 

the criteria in § 99.41(c) shall include 

information as described in paragraph 

(d) of this section. The regulatory 

compliance exemption information 

shall be submitted as described in 

§ 99.7. 

(b) A facility meeting the criteria in 

§ 99.41 must report all of the 

information specified in paragraphs (b) 

of this section, as applicable. 

(1) For each WEC applicable facility, 

an assertion that the facility meets all of 

the eligibility criteria in § 99.41. 

(2) The ICIS–AIR ID (or Facility 

Registry Service (FRS) ID if the ICIS– 

AIR ID is not available) and EPA 

Registry ID from CEDRI associated with 

each affected facility and designated 

facility located at the WEC applicable 

facility. 

(3) If a report, or reports, prepared and 

submitted in accordance with part 60 of 

this chapter, or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan under part 

62 of this chapter that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in part 

60 of this chapter, cover the complete 

reporting year (i.e., January 1 through 

December 31, inclusive), then submit as 

attachment(s) the applicable report(s). 

(4) If a report, or reports, prepared and 

submitted in accordance with part 60 of 

this chapter, or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan under part 

62 of this chapter that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in part 

60 of this chapter, does not cover the 

complete reporting year (i.e., January 1 

through December 31, inclusive), then 

submit as attachment(s) the applicable 

report(s). 

(c) If, pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section, you are unable to provide 

an annual report covering the entire 

reporting year at the time of the initial 

submittal specified in § 99.5, you must 

provide a revised WEC filing on or 

before such time that an annual report 

covering the entire reporting year is 

required to be submitted under the 

applicable requirements of part 60 of 

this chapter or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan in part 62 

of this chapter. This requirement also 

applies in the case where the initial 

WEC filing contains an annual report 

covering only a portion of the reporting 

year. On or before such time that an 

annual report is due under the 

applicable requirements of part 60 of 

this chapter or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan in part 62 

of this chapter for the portion of the 

reporting year for which a previously 

submitted report does not cover, you 

must provide a revised WEC filing 

including the subsequent annual report. 

The resubmission of the revised WEC 

filing shall be considered timely under 

this paragraph if it is made on or before 

the date that the annual report is due 

under the applicable requirements of 

part 60 of this chapter or an applicable 

approved state, Tribal, or Federal plan 

in part 62 of this chapter. In such cases 

where a newly available report indicates 

one or more deviations or violations 

from applicable methane emissions 

requirements that were not previously 

indicated in the WEC filing for the 

reporting year (i.e., the WEC applicable 

facility would no longer qualify for the 

regulatory compliance exemption), a 

WEC applicable facility would no longer 

be subject the reporting requirements in 

§ 99.42(b) and would become subject to 

the reporting requirements in § 99.42(d) 

in the revised WEC filing. 

(d) If least one of the affected facilities 

subject to the requirements of part 60 of 

this chapter or designated facilities 

subject to the requirements of an 

applicable approved state, Tribal, or 

Federal plan in part 62 of this chapter 

that is contained within your WEC 

applicable facility has a deviation or 

violation from its applicable methane 

emissions requirements (i.e., does not 

meet the criteria in § 99.41(c)), provide 

a copy of one report, prepared and 

submitted in accordance with part 60 of 

this chapter, or an applicable approved 

state, Tribal, or Federal plan under part 

62 of this chapter that implements the 

emission guidelines contained in part 

60 of this chapter, that demonstrates 

that the affected facility or designated 

facility were not in compliance. 

(e) A WEC applicable facility’s 

eligibility for the regulatory compliance 

exemption pursuant to this subpart does 

not constitute a determination of 

compliance for part 60 of this chapter, 

or an applicable approved state, Tribal, 

or Federal plan under part 62 of this 

chapter that implements the emission 

guidelines contained in part 60 of this 

chapter, for any affected facility or 

designated facility present at the 

applicable facility. 

(f) A WEC applicable facility’s 

eligibility for the regulatory compliance 

exemption during a given reporting year 

does not preclude reassessment of 

applicable waste emissions charges for 

that applicable facility upon discovery 

by the Administrator or a delegated 

authority of any violation of the 

methane emissions requirements 

pursuant to part 60 of this chapter, or 

an applicable approved state, Tribal, or 

Federal plan under part 62 of this 

chapter that implements the emission 

guidelines contained in part 60 of this 

chapter, for the affected facilities or 

designated facilities present at the 

applicable facility. 

Subpart E—Exemption for 

Permanently Shut-in and Plugged 

Wells 

§ 99.50 Which facilities qualify for the 

exemption of emissions from permanently 

shut-in and plugged wells? 

(a) The total facility applicable 

emissions for the WEC applicable 

facility containing permanently shut-in 

and plugged wells must exceed 0 mt as 

calculated in accordance with 

§ 99.21(a). 

(b) This exemption is applicable to 

WEC applicable facilities in the offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production or 

onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segment as defined 

in § 99.2 that permanently shut-in and 

plugged well(s) during the reporting 

year. For the purposes of applying this 

exemption, a permanently shut-in and 

plugged well is one that has been 

permanently sealed, following all 

applicable local, state, or federal 

regulations in the jurisdiction where the 

well is located, to prevent any potential 

future leakage of oil, gas, or formation 

water into shallow sources of potable 

water, onto the surface, or into the 

atmosphere. Site reclamation following 

placement of a metal plate or cap is not 

required to be completed for the well to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5379 

be considered permanently shut-in and 

plugged for the purposes of this part. 

§ 99.51 What are the reporting 

requirements for the exemption for wells 

that were permanently shut-in and 

plugged? 

(a) Report the following information 

for each well at a WEC applicable 

facility, in the offshore petroleum and 

natural gas production or onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

industry segment, that was permanently 

shut-in and plugged in the reporting 

year. 

(1) Well identification (ID) number as 

reported in part 98, subpart W of this 

chapter. 

(2) Date the well was permanently 

shut-in and plugged, which for the 

purposes of this exemption, is the date 

when welding or cementing of a metal 

plate or cap onto the casing end was 

completed. 

(3) The statutory citation for each 

applicable state, local, and federal 

regulation stipulating requirements that 

were applicable to the closure of the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well. 

(4) The equation used to calculate 

equipment leak emissions attributable to 

the well (i.e., Equation E–2A or E–2B of 

this subpart). 

(5) The emissions attributable to the 

well calculated using Equation E–1, E– 

3, or E–4 of this subpart, as applicable. 

(b) The total quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to all wells that 

were permanently shut-in and plugged 

at a WEC applicable facility, in the 

offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production or onshore petroleum and 

natural gas production industry 

segment, during the reporting year, 

calculated using Equation E–5 of this 

subpart. 

§ 99.52 How are the net emissions 

attributable to all wells at a WEC applicable 

facility that were permanently shut-in and 

plugged in the reporting year quantified? 

(a) For the purposes of this section, 

the following source types (as specified 

in part 98, subpart W of this chapter) 

constitute emissions directly 

attributable to an offshore petroleum 

and natural gas production or onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

well: 

(1) Wellhead equipment leaks. 

(2) Liquids unloading. 

(3) Workovers with hydraulic 

fracturing. 

(4) Workovers without hydraulic 

fracturing. 

(b) Calculate the annual emissions 

attributable to each well that was 

permanently shut-in and plugged during 

the reporting year and included in the 

submittal pursuant to § 99.51 using 

Equations E–1, E–3 or E–4 of this 

section, as applicable. 

(1) For onshore petroleum and natural 

gas production wells that are part of a 

WEC applicable facility that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged in 

reporting years 2025 and later: 

(i) Equation E–1 of this section must 

be used to quantify the methane 

emissions directly attributable to each 

permanently shut-in and plugged well. 

Where: 

EPW,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions directly attributable to an 

individual well that was permanently 

shut-in and plugged during the reporting 

year in accordance with all applicable 

closure requirements at a WEC 

applicable facility, mt CH4. 

ELeaks,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

wellhead equipment leaks as calculated 

using Equation E–2A or E–2B of this 

section, as applicable, for the reporting 

year, mt CH4. 

ELU,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

liquids unloading as reported pursuant 

to proposed § 98.236(f)(1)(x) or (f)(2)(viii) 

of this chapter, as applicable, for the 

reporting year, mt CH4. 

EWwHF,CH4 = The quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

workovers with hydraulic fracturing as 

reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(g)(9) of this chapter for the 

reporting year, mt CH4. 

EWwoHF,CH4 = The quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

workovers without hydraulic fracturing 

and without flaring as reported pursuant 

to proposed § 98.236(h)(3)(iv) of this 

chapter for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

(ii) If equipment leak surveys were 

used to quantify methane emissions 

from the permanently shut-in and 

plugged well and reported pursuant to 

§ 98.236(q) of this chapter in the part 98 

report for a WEC applicable facility, 

Equation E–2A of this section must be 

used to calculate ELeaks,CH4. 

Where: 

ELeaks,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

wellhead equipment leaks as reported 

pursuant to § 98.236(q) of this chapter for 

the reporting year, mt CH4. 

p = Component type as specified in proposed 

§ 98.233(q)(2)(iii) of this chapter. 

Np = The number of component types with 

detected leaks at the well. 

EFp = The leaker emission factor for 

component ‘‘p’’ as specified in proposed 

§ 98.233(q)(2)(iii) of this chapter, scf 

whole gas/hour/component. 

MCH4 = The mole fraction of CH4 in produced 

gas for the sub-basin associated with the 

well, as reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(I), unitless. 

xp = The total number of specific components 

of type ‘‘p’’ detected as leaking at the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well in 

any leak survey during the year. A 

component found leaking in two or more 

surveys during the year is counted as one 

leaking component. 

Tp,z = The total time the surveyed component 

‘‘z’’ of component type ‘‘p’’ was assumed 

to be leaking. If one leak detection 

survey is conducted in the calendar year, 

assume the component was leaking from 

the beginning of the reporting year until 

the date the well was plugged in 

accordance with § 99.51(a)(2), hours; 

assume a component found leaking in 

the last survey of the year was leaking 

from the preceding survey through the 

date the well was plugged in accordance 

with § 99.51(a)(2), hours; assume a 

component found leaking in a survey 

between the first and last surveys of the 

year was leaking since the preceding 

survey until the date the well was 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.023</GPH> EP26JA24.004</GPH>

(Eq. E-1) 

Np 

Eieaks,CH, = L ( EF, X t r,.z) X MCH, X k X PCH, X 10-3 (Eq. E-2A) 

p=l 
5380 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

plugged in accordance with § 99.51(a)(2), 

hours; and sum times for all leaking 

periods. For each leaking component, 

account for time the component was not 

operational (i.e., not operating under 

pressure) using an engineering estimate 

based on best available data. 

k = The factor to adjust for undetected leaks 

by respective leak detection method, 

where k equals 1.25 for the methods in 

proposed § 98.234 (a)(1), (3) and (5) of 

this chapter; k equals 1.55 for the 

method in proposed § 98.234(a)(2)(i) of 

this chapter; and k equals 1.27 for the 

method in proposed § 98.234(a)(2)(ii) of 

this chapter. Select the factor for the leak 

detection method used for the 

permanently shut-in and plugged well, 

unitless. 

rCH4 = Density of methane, 0.0192 mt/Mscf. 

10¥3 = Conversion factor from scf to Mscf. 

(iii) If equipment leaks by population 

count were used to quantify methane 

emission from the permanently shut-in 

and plugged well and reported pursuant 

to § 98.236(r) of this chapter in the part 

98 report for a WEC applicable facility, 

Equation E–2B of this section must be 

used to calculate ELeaks,CH4.

Where: 

ELeaks,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to the well from 

wellhead equipment leaks as reported 

pursuant to § 98.236(r) of this chapter for 

the reporting year, mt CH4. 

EFwh = The population emission factor for 

wellheads, as listed in proposed Table 

W–1 of subpart W of part 98 of this 

chapter, scf whole gas/hour/wellhead. 

MCH4 = The mole fraction of CH4 in produced 

gas for the sub-basin associated with the 

well as reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(ii)(I) of this chapter, 

unitless. 

T = The total time that has elapsed from the 

beginning of the reporting year until the 

date the well was plugged in accordance 

with § 99.51(a)(2), hours. 

PCH4 = Density of methane, 0.0192 mt/Mscf. 

10¥3 = Conversion factor from scf to Mscf. 

(2) For onshore petroleum and natural 

gas production wells that are part of a 

WEC applicable facility that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged in 

reporting year 2024, Equation E–3 of 

this section must be used to quantify the 

methane emissions attributable to the 

well: 

Where: 

EPW,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to an individual 

well that was permanently shut-in and 

plugged during the reporting year in 

accordance with all applicable closure 

requirements at a WEC applicable 

facility, mt CH4. 

ELkQ = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from equipment leaks reported pursuant 

to proposed § 98.236(q)(2)(ix) of this 

chapter for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

ELkR = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from equipment leaks reported pursuant 

to proposed § 98.236(r)(1)(vi) of this 

chapter for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

ELU = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from liquids unloading as reported 

pursuant to proposed §§ 98.236(f)(1)(x) 

and (f)(2)(viii) of this chapter for the 

reporting year, mt CH4. 

EWwHF = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from workovers with hydraulic 

fracturing as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(g)(9) of this chapter 

for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

EWwoHF = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from workovers without hydraulic 

fracturing as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(h)(3)(iv) of this 

chapter for the reporting year, mt CH4. 

Qng,PW = The total annual quantity of natural 

gas that is produced and sent to sale 

from the well in the reporting year, as 

reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(iii)(C) of this chapter, in 

thousand standard cubic feet. 

6 = Conversion factor from thousand 

standard cubic feet of natural gas to 

barrel of oil equivalent. 

Qoil,PW = The total quantity of crude oil that 

is produced and sent to sale from the 

well in the reporting year, as reported 

pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(iii)(D) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

Qcond,PW = The total quantity of condensate 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the well in the reporting year, as 

reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(iii)(E) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

Qng,WAF = The total quantity of natural gas 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the WEC applicable facility in the 

reporting year, as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(1)(i)(B) of this 

chapter, in thousand standard cubic feet. 

Qoil,WAF = The total quantity of crude oil that 

is produced and sent to sale from the 

WEC applicable facility in the reporting 

year, as reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(1)(i)(C) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

Qcond,WAF = The total quantity of condensate 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the WEC applicable facility in the 

reporting year, as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(1)(i)(D) of this 

chapter, in barrels. 

(3) For offshore petroleum and natural 

gas production wells that are part of a 

WEC applicable facility that are 

permanently shut-in and plugged in any 

reporting year, Equation E–4 of this 

section must be used to quantify the 

methane emissions attributable to the 

well. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.024</GPH> EP26JA24.001</GPH> EP26JA24.002</GPH>

(Eq. E-2B) 

( Qng,PW) Q Q 

-6- + oil.PW + cond,PW 

Epw,cH4 = (ELkQ,CH4 + ELkR,CH4 + Eu1,cH4 + Eww,HF,CH4 + EwwoHF,CH4) X (Q ) (Eq. E-3) 

ng,WAF +Q +Q 6 oil,WAF cond,WAF 

Epw,cH4 = (ELeaks,cHJ X (Q ) ng,WAF +Q +Q 6 oil,WAF cond,WAF 

( Qng,PW) + + 6 Qoil,PW Qcond,PW 

(Eq. E-4) 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 18 / Friday, January 26, 2024 / Proposed Rules 5381 

Where: 

EPW,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to an individual 

well that was permanently shut-in and 

plugged during the reporting year in 

accordance with all applicable closure 

requirements at a WEC applicable 

facility, mt CH4. 

ELeaks,CH4 = The WEC applicable facility total 

annual quantity of methane emissions 

from non-compressor component level 

fugitives (i.e., equipment leaks) reported 

pursuant to proposed § 98.236(s)(3)(ii) of 

this chapter for the reporting year, mt 

CH4. 

Qng,PW = The total annual quantity of natural 

gas that is produced and sent to sale 

from the well in the reporting year as 

reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(2)(iv) of this chapter, in 

thousand scf. 

6 = Conversion factor from thousand 

standard cubic feet of natural gas to 

barrel of oil equivalent. 

Qoil,PW = The total quantity of crude oil that 

is produced and sent to sale from the 

well in the reporting year, as reported 

pursuant to proposed § 98.236(aa)(2)(v) 

of this chapter, in barrels. 

Qcond,PW = The total quantity of condensate 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the well in the reporting year, as 

reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(2)(vi) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

Qng,WAF = The total quantity of natural gas 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the WEC applicable facility in the 

reporting year, as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(2)(i) of this 

chapter, in thousand scf. 

Qoil,WAF = The total quantity of crude oil that 

is produced and sent to sale from the 

WEC applicable facility in the reporting 

year, as reported pursuant to proposed 

§ 98.236(aa)(2)(ii) of this chapter, in 

barrels. 

Qcond,WAF = The total quantity of condensate 

that is produced and sent to sale from 

the WEC applicable facility in the 

reporting year, as reported pursuant to 

proposed § 98.236(aa)(2)(iii) of this 

chapter, in barrels. 

(c) Calculate the total emissions 

attributable to all wells included in the 

submittal received pursuant to § 99.51 

using Equation E–5 of this section: 

EPlug,CH4 = The total quantity of annual 

methane emissions, as determined in 

subpart E of this part, at the WEC 

applicable facility in the onshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

and offshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segments, 

attributable to all wells that were 

permanently shut-in and plugged during 

the reporting year in accordance with all 

applicable closure requirements, mt CH4. 

EPW,CH4 = The annual quantity of methane 

emissions attributable to a well ‘‘j’’ that 

was permanently shut-in and plugged 

during the reporting year in accordance 

with all applicable closure requirements 

at a WEC applicable facility calculated 

using Equation E–1, E–3, or E–4 of this 

section, as applicable. 

N = Total number of wells that were 

permanently shut-in and plugged during 

the reporting year in accordance with all 

applicable closure requirements at a 

WEC applicable facility. 

[FR Doc. 2024–00938 Filed 1–25–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2EP26JA24.006</GPH>

N 

Ep/ug,CH4 = L Epw,CH4 

J=l 

(Eq. E-5)