51794 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

The present value of the updated cost 

savings of the proposed stay are $270 

million at a discount rate of 7 percent 

and $280 million at a discount rate of 

3 percent. The present value of the 

forgone climate benefits using the 

domestic social cost of methane 

estimates are $11 million at 7 percent 

and $37 million at 3 percent. The 

present value of net benefits is $250 

million at 7 percent, and $240 million 

at 3 percent. 

The equivalent annualized values of 

the cost savings are $100 million per 

year when using a 7-percent discount 

rate and $99 million per year using a 3- 

percent discount rate. The equivalent 

annualized values are the annualized 

present values, or the even flow of the 

present values, over the years affected 

by the proposal. The equivalent 

annualized value of the forgone climate 

benefits is $4.3 million per year at 7 

percent and $13 million per year at 3 

percent. The equivalent annualized 

value of net benefits is $97 million per 

year at 7 percent, and $86 million per 

year at 3 percent. Please see the 

memorandum ‘‘Estimated Cost Savings 

and Forgone Benefits Associated with 

the Proposed Rule, Oil and Natural Gas: 

Emission Standards for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources: 

Stay of Certain Requirements’’ available 

in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0505 for details. 

Dated: November 1, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24344 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0346; FRL–9970–56– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AT65 

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 

Standards for New, Reconstructed, 

and Modified Sources: Three Month 

Stay of Certain Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of data 

availability. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is issuing this notice of 

data availability (NODA) in support of 

the proposed rule titled ‘‘Oil and 

Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards 

for New, Reconstructed, and Modified 

Sources: Three Month Stay of Certain 

Requirements,’’ which was published 

on June 16, 2017. In this document, the 

EPA is providing additional information 

on topics raised by stakeholders and is 

soliciting comment on the information 

presented. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 8, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0346, at https://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) 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). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D205–01), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (888) 627– 

7764; email address: airaction@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

information presented in this document 

is organized as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Legal Authority 

III. Stakeholder Input on Sources’ Ability To 

Implement Requirements 

A. Fugitive Emissions Requirements 

B. Well Site Pneumatic Pump 

Requirements 

C. Professional Engineering Certification 

Requirements 

I. Background 

On June 16, 2017, the EPA proposed 

to stay for 2 years certain requirements 

that are contained within the final rule 

titled ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 

Emission Standards for New, 

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,’’ 

published in the Federal Register at 81 

FR 35824, June 3, 2016 (2016 Rule). 

This action proposed to stay the fugitive 

emissions requirements, the well site 

pneumatic pump requirements, and the 

requirements for certification of closed 

vent systems by a professional engineer 

for 2 years, in order to provide the EPA 

with sufficient time to propose, take 

public comment on, and issue a final 

action on the issues concerning the 

specific requirements on which the EPA 

has granted reconsideration. 82 FR 

27645, June 16, 2017. 

The 2-year proposed stay, if finalized 

as proposed, would likely be 

determined to be a major rule under the 

Congressional Review Act. Therefore, 

the 2-year stay would not take effect 

until 60 days after publication or after 

Congress receives the rule report, 

whichever is later. To avoid such a 

potential delay, the EPA concurrently 

proposed on June 16, 2017, a 3-month 

stay which would not qualify as a major 

rule and could become effective upon 

publication. 82 FR 27641. As such, the 

legal and factual basis for the shorter 

stay are the same as those for the 

proposed longer stay, except that the 

shorter stay is intended to cover only 

the period before the longer stay takes 

effect should the EPA finalize both 

rules. 

Subsequent to the June 16, 2017, 

proposals (82 FR 27641 and 82 FR 

27645), the Agency has heard a broad 

range of questions, concerns, and 

constructive suggestions from 

stakeholders on how the proposed stays 

could be improved. Since the legal and 

factual basis for both the proposed 

shorter and longer stays are the same, 

this feedback is relevant to both 

proposals. Therefore, we are issuing a 

NODA regarding this feedback in both 

rulemakings. Similar to the NODA for 

the proposed 2-year stay also published 

today, this NODA for the proposed 3- 

month stay is not intended to address 

all of the issues that have been raised. 

Rather, the purpose of this document is 

to describe and seek comment on 

several ideas with respect to the 

proposed stay raised by stakeholders 

that may go beyond those for which the 

Agency sought comment in the June 16, 

2017, proposals. In this document, we 

describe the specific issues and ideas 

raised by stakeholders and explain 

which of those ideas we consider to be 

within or possibly beyond the scope of 

comment already requested. The 

purpose of this document is to bring 

these ideas to the attention of other 

stakeholders and the public so that they 

may also provide comments to assist in 

developing a final rule. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 51795 

1 80 FR 56649, September 18, 2015. 

2 40 CFR 60.5411a(d). 

3While this document specifically addresses the 

proposed 2-year stay (82 FR 27645, June 16, 2017), 

it is discussing the EPA’s legal authority to stay a 

rule and, as such, is relevant to the proposed 3- 

month stay. 

The feedback the EPA has received 

since proposing the stays relates to the 

EPA’s legal authority to stay these 

requirements and lack of clarity and 

other challenges in implementing these 

three requirements. With respect to the 

implementation challenges, the 

commenters recommend, as an 

alternative to the proposed stays, that 

the EPA amend the 2016 Rule to extend 

the periods currently provided in the 

2016 Rule for establishing the necessary 

infrastructure and phasing in the 

requirements for conducting the initial 

monitoring survey of fugitive emissions 

and for routing well site pneumatic 

pump emissions to onsite controls or 

processes. The feedback similarly 

suggests the need for a phase-in period 

to allow a scale-up of the number of 

qualified professional engineers to meet 

the demand imposed by the 2016 Rule. 

The EPA is soliciting comments on this 

recommendation. Specifically, the EPA 

is soliciting relevant data and 

information, in particular those related 

to the EPA’s analyses and assumptions 

that were used to establish the phase-in 

periods in the 2016 Rule, to help inform 

the EPA why the appropriate duration 

of these periods may have been 

underestimated, as the feedback 

suggests. Further, with respect to the 

requirement for certification of closed 

vent systems by a professional engineer, 

while in the preamble to the 2015 

proposed new source performance 

standards (NSPS) the EPA had 

suggested such certification as a 

potential remedy where a storage vessel 

is improperly designed,1 the final 2016 

Rule requires such certification for 

demonstrating compliance with not 

only the storage vessel emission 

standards, but a number of other 

emission standards, thereby affecting a 

large number of affected sources.2

According to the feedback received, the 

immediate high demand for qualified 

professional engineers to meet this 

certification requirement has made 

implementation of this requirement 

quite challenging. In light of the 

feedback, the EPA is soliciting 

comments, data, and any other 

information that would help the EPA 

determine whether a phase-in period for 

this requirement is needed and, if so, 

the length of such period. 

As in the NODA for the proposed 2- 

year stay, the EPA is soliciting comment 

on this feedback, including whether a 

phase-in period would be an 

appropriate alternative to the proposed 

stay. The EPA is soliciting comment on 

whether a phase-in period would 

provide relief for implementation 

challenges described in this NODA and 

expedite regulatory certainty for owners 

and operators. While the comment 

period on the June 16, 2017, proposal 

for a 3-month stay closed on August 9, 

2017, comments on this notice may 

include additional comments on 

statements made in that proposal. 

II. Legal Authority 

The EPA received comments from 

stakeholders on our legal authority to 

stay these requirements or otherwise 

amend the 2016 Rule to extend the 

‘‘phase-in’’ periods currently provided 

in that rule.3 See Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0505–10577. 

Specifically, noting that these 

requirements are not mandated by Clean 

Air Act (CAA) section 111(b)(1)(B), the 

commenter interprets CAA section 111 

as authorizing the EPA to extend 

compliance deadlines or establish future 

compliance dates. The commenter also 

cites section 705 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) to provide the EPA 

authority to stay these requirements 

pending judicial review. The 

commenter interprets the term 

‘‘postpone’’ in section 705 of the APA 

to include ‘‘delay, defer, adjourn, 

shelve, table, and put on hold.’’ Id. at 7. 

Lastly, the commenter argues that the 

EPA’s general rulemaking authority 

under section 301(a) of the CAA 

authorizes a rulemaking staying these 

requirements because ‘‘Congress has not 

written a ‘clear impediment to the 

issuance’ ’’ of such stay. Id. at 12 

(citations omitted). The EPA solicits 

comments on these legal theories 

provided in this comment document. 

See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0505–10577. 

For the reasons stated below, the EPA 

has legal authority to amend the 2016 

Rule to either stay certain provisions or 

otherwise revise certain aspects of the 

rule. The EPA promulgated the 2016 

Rule pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of 

the CAA in accordance with the noticeand-comment rulemaking procedures 

under section 307(d) of the CAA. 81 FR 

35828, June 3, 2016. The EPA is using 

the same statutory authority and 

following the same procedures in the 

present rulemaking to amend the 2016 

Rule to stay certain requirements for 3 

months (as described in the June 16, 

2017, notice) or make the suggested 

changes to aspects of these requirements 

as described in this action (i.e., 

extension or provision of ‘‘phase-in’’ 

periods). In addition, section 301(a) of 

the CAA provides the Agency with 

broad authority to prescribe regulations, 

including revisions to prior 

rulemakings, as necessary to carry out 

the Administrator’s authorized 

functions under the statute. ‘‘The power 

to decide in the first instance carries 

with it the power to reconsider.’’ 

Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 621 F.2d 1084, 

1086 (10th Cir. 1980); see also, United 

Gas Improvement Co. v. Callery 

Properties, Inc., 382 U.S. 223, 229 

(1965); Mazaleski v. Treusdell, 562 F.2d 

701, 720 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 

Section 111 of the CAA requires the 

EPA to list a source category under that 

section if, ‘‘in [the EPA Administrator’s] 

judgment it causes, or contributes 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare.’’ Once a source 

category is listed, CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) requires that the EPA 

promulgate ‘‘standards of performance’’ 

for new sources in such source category. 

In addition, CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) 

requires the EPA to ‘‘at least every 8 

years review and, if appropriate, revise’’ 

performance standards unless the 

‘‘Administrator determines that such 

review is not appropriate in light of 

readily available information on the 

efficacy’’ of the standard. In 1979, the 

EPA published a list of source 

categories, including Oil and Natural 

Gas, under section 111(b) of the CAA. 

See Priority List and Additions to the 

List of Categories of Stationary Sources, 

44 FR 49222 (August 21, 1979) (‘‘1979 

Priority List’’). In 1985, the EPA 

promulgated NSPS for this source 

category that addressed volatile organic 

compound(s) (VOC) emissions from 

leaking components at onshore natural 

gas processing plants (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart LLL) and sulfur dioxide 

emissions from natural gas processing 

plants (40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK). In 

2012, the EPA conducted its required 

review under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B), 

and promulgated NSPS subpart OOOO, 

which included updates to subparts 

KKK and LLL standards, as well as 

additional VOC standards for this 

source category. 

In addition to the mandatory 

obligations described above, the EPA 

has discretion under CAA section 

111(b)(1)(B) to add new standards of 

performance for additional pollutants or 

emission sources not previously covered 

concurrent with, or independent of, the 

8-year review. Pursuant to section 

111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the EPA has 

promulgated new performance 

standards for previously unregulated 

sources concurrent with the 8-year 

review. See, e.g., 71 FR 9866 (February 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
51796 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

4The 2016 Rule also includes standards for 

reducing methane emissions from the oil and 

natural gas sector, as well as revisions to the 

previously promulgated Oil and Natural Gas NSPS 

(40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO). 

27, 2006) (new particular matter 

standards for boilers); 73 FR 35838 (June 

24, 2008) (new nitrogen oxide standards 

for additional sources at refineries); 77 

FR 49490 (August 16, 2012) (new VOC 

standards for additional sources at oil 

and gas facilities). However, the 

appropriate time for promulgating such 

new standards may not always align 

with the 8-year review cycle. See, e.g., 

73 FR 35838, 35859. (The EPA did not 

promulgate performance standards for 

greenhouse gas emissions as part of the 

8-year review of the NSPS for refineries 

because the Agency was still in the 

process of gathering information and 

reviewing controls.) While the EPA 

could conduct the required periodic 

review sooner than every 8 years, which 

would potentially allow the EPA to 

conduct the review and set additional 

standards concurrently, the EPA does 

not believe that the schedule for the 

statutorily required review should be 

driven by the timing for promulgating 

additional performance standards that 

are discretionary. On the other hand, 

there is no reason that the EPA’s 

authority and discretion to promulgate 

such standards should be constrained 

by the timing of the 8-year review. The 

EPA, therefore, reasonably interprets 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) to allow the 

Agency to exercise its discretion to 

promulgate new performance standards 

for additional sources or pollutants 

when appropriate (concurrent with or 

independent of the 8-year review). 

Pursuant to this authority under 

section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the EPA 

promulgated the 2016 Rule which 

contained, among other things, a 

number of new performance standards 

for emission sources not previously 

covered, including the fugitive 

emissions components at well sites and 

compressor stations, as well as 

pneumatic pumps at well sites.4 The 

EPA promulgated the fugitive emissions 

requirements for well sites and 

compressor stations pursuant to section 

111(h) of the CAA, which authorizes the 

EPA to set a design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standard where 

it is not technically feasible to prescribe 

or enforce an emission standard. 80 FR 

56593, 56637 (September 18, 2015). A 

work practice standard generally 

consists of a set of activities that sources 

must perform and a time period for 

completing the activities. See, e.g., 40 

CFR 60.632 (180 days from initial 

startup to comply with the requirements 

to detect and repair leaks at onshore oil 

and natural gas processing plants). 

Similar to existing work practice 

standards, the fugitive emissions 

requirements in the 2016 Rule specify a 

set of activities (e.g., developing an 

emission monitoring plan, conducting 

initial and subsequent surveys, repair or 

replacement, and resurvey of fugitive 

emissions components according to the 

plan) and time frames for performing 

the activities. 40 CFR 60.5397a. 

Specifically, the 2016 Rule specifies a 

period of time (i.e., until June 3, 2017, 

or 60 days after starting up production, 

whichever is later) for sources to 

establish the necessary infrastructure, 

develop a monitoring plan, secure the 

required personnel and equipment, and 

conduct the initial monitoring survey of 

fugitive emissions components at well 

sites and compressor stations. 81 FR 

35858–9 and 35863. 

The 2016 Rule similarly did not 

establish an emission limit for well site 

pneumatic pumps, but instead requires 

that emissions from well site pneumatic 

pumps be routed to an available control 

or process onsite, unless a qualified 

professional engineer certifies that it is 

not technically feasible to do so. As 

with the fugitive emissions 

requirements, the 2016 Rule similarly 

provided a period of time (until 

November 30, 2016) for owners and 

operators to conduct the ground work 

required for routing well site pneumatic 

pumps to an available onsite control or 

process (or, if it is not technically 

feasible to do so, for obtaining a 

certification by a qualified engineer of 

the technical infeasibility). 81 FR 35859, 

June 3, 2016. 

The 2016 Rule also added a 

requirement that all closed vent systems 

routing emissions from storage vessels, 

compressors, and pneumatic pump 

affected facilities be certified by a 

qualified professional engineer. This 

certification requirement is not an 

emission standard under CAA section 

111(a)(1) or a design, equipment, work 

practice, or operational standard under 

CAA section 111(h); it is a compliance 

measure that would provide additional 

assurance that sources are meeting the 

emission standards for storage vessels, 

compressors, and pneumatic pumps. 

Some of these emission standards, such 

as those for storage vessels and 

compressors, were promulgated in 2012 

under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA. 

Through the two June 16, 2017, 

actions, the EPA is proposing to amend 

the 2016 Rule to stay for 3 months and 

2 years, respectively, the fugitive 

emissions requirements, the well site 

pneumatic pump requirements, and the 

certification requirement described 

above. Since then, the EPA has received 

suggestions that, instead of staying these 

requirements, the EPA extend the 

current phase-in periods for the fugitive 

emissions requirements and well site 

pneumatic pump requirements, as well 

as providing one for the requirement for 

certification of closed vent systems by a 

professional engineer. Agencies have 

inherent authority to reconsider past 

decisions and to revise, replace, or 

repeal a decision to the extent permitted 

by law and supported by a reasoned 

explanation. FCC v. Fox Television 

Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); 

Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm 

Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 

(1983) (‘‘State Farm’’). This includes a 

decision regarding the appropriate 

length of the phase-in periods provided 

in the 2016 Rule for specific 

requirements, as well as whether to 

provide one for phasing in an additional 

compliance assurance measure, or 

whether to stay these three requirements 

at issue while they are being revised 

through rulemaking. 

Section 301(a) of the CAA provides 

the EPA with broad rulemaking 

authority to carry out the CAA. 

Notwithstanding the potential 

constraint that other parts of the CAA 

may have on the EPA’s authority to stay 

a rule pursuant to section 301(a), See 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 

v. Reilly, 976 F.2d 36, 41 (D.C. Cir. 

1992), there is no such constraint here 

with respect to staying the fugitive 

emissions requirements, the well site 

pneumatic pump requirements, and the 

certification requirement in the 2016 

Rule, the promulgation of which was 

discretionary and not compelled by 

CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). In a case 

analyzing a similar general rulemaking 

authority granted to the Federal Reserve 

Board by the Truth in Lending Act, the 

Supreme Court held quite broadly that, 

where ‘‘the empowering provision of a 

statute states simply that an agency may 

make such rules and regulations as 

necessary to carry out the provisions of 

an act, the validity of a regulation 

promulgated thereunder will be 

sustained so long as it is ‘reasonably 

related to the purposes of the enabling 

legislation.’ ’’ Mourning v. Family 

Publications Service, Inc., 411 U.S. 356, 

369 (1973) (quoting Thorpe v. Housing 

Authority of City of Durham, 393 U.S. 

268, 280–81 (1969)). In a CAA section 

301(a) case, the District of Columbia 

Circuit Court of Appeals held that CAA 

section 301(a) authorizes the EPA to use 

rulemaking to issue the enhanced 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

programs guidance under section 182 of 

the CAA. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 51797 

5 Including California, Colorado, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. 

6See, for example, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0505–10577 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2017–0346–0329. 

7See, for example, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0505–11108 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0505–12337. 

v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

Noting the absence of any provision in 

CAA section 182 preventing issuing 

such guidance through rulemaking, the 

Court deferred to the Agency’s 

determination that the regulation was 

necessary as long as it provided a 

reasoned explanation. Id. at 1148. 

The EPA’s proposed stay of the three 

requirements at issue, as well as the 

stakeholder-suggested extension or 

provision of ‘‘phase-in’’ periods for 

these requirements, is consistent with 

the purposes of the CAA and, therefore, 

authorized under section 301(a) of the 

CAA. The EPA promulgated these 

requirements for purposes of achieving 

meaningful emission reductions under 

the regulatory schemes established in 

the 2016 Rule to complement other 

emission reduction efforts and address 

certain challenges (e.g., technical 

infeasibility and time needed for 

building up for necessary equipment 

and trained personnel). For instance, the 

EPA promulgated both the fugitive 

emissions requirements and a process 

for applying and obtaining an 

alternative means of emissions 

limitations (AMEL) with the clear intent 

to achieve emission reductions from 

currently uncontrolled sources while 

still allowing sources subject to effective 

existing state fugitive emissions 

programs an avenue to continue 

implementing such programs, as well as 

to encourage the use of innovative 

technology. Therefore, in promulgating 

the fugitive emissions requirements, the 

EPA clearly intended and anticipated 

the implementation of alternatives in 

lieu of such requirements. However, 

stakeholders indicated that this purpose 

of the 2016 Rule was frustrated by the 

fact that the current AMEL provisions 

are not sufficiently clear to allow 

sources to take advantage of them. 

Stakeholders suggested that further 

revision or clarification would be 

required before sources can apply and 

obtain approval to use an innovative 

technology or implement their current 

state program in lieu of the 2016 Rule 

requirements. The EPA received input 

from stakeholders stating that without 

staying the fugitive emissions 

requirements pending the EPA’s 

reconsideration, the regulated entities 

would incur significant and potentially 

unnecessary additional costs and 

compliance burden to implement the 

2016 Rule, and, in some cases, at the 

expense of disrupting or complicating 

compliance with applicable state 

programs, just to later revert back to 

what they were doing in the first place. 

These were the consequences that the 

EPA sought to avoid by promulgating 

the AMEL in the 2016 Rule. While not 

all states have fugitive emissions 

programs, considering that many states 

with high oil and gas production do 

have such programs in place,5 it is not 

clear that the marginal additional 

emission reductions achieved during 

the EPA’s reconsideration process 

outweigh the potential disruption to 

existing state programs and companyspecific programs. In light of the 

discussion above, the EPA believes that 

the proposed stay of the fugitive 

emissions requirements pending its 

reconsideration process is reasonable 

and authorized under sections 111 and 

301 of the CAA. 

With respect to the well site 

pneumatic pump requirements, the 

2016 Rule acknowledges that routing 

the pneumatic pump emissions to an 

available onsite control or process may 

not always be technically feasible and, 

therefore, provides a technical 

infeasibility exemption for such routing 

except for pneumatic pumps located at 

a ‘‘greenfield site.’’ However, some 

sources could not tell based on the 2016 

Rule definition of ‘‘greenfield site,’’ 

which was not proposed for notice and 

comment, whether they are ‘‘greenfield 

sites,’’ even though they are 

encountering technical infeasibility, 

and, therefore, risk being in 

noncompliance. Delaying these 

requirements until the EPA resolves this 

potential problem through its 

reconsideration process is consistent 

with the 2016 Rule to require emission 

reductions from well site pneumatic 

pumps only where it is technically 

feasible to do so. 

Lastly, as mentioned above, the closed 

vent certification by professional 

engineer requirement is a compliance 

measure included in the 2016 Rule to 

provide additional assurance that 

sources are meeting the emission 

standards for a wide range of 

equipment, some of which have been in 

place since 2012. The EPA granted 

reconsideration of this requirement 

because the EPA had not considered its 

cost and whether the additional 

assurance justifies such expenditure. 

The EPA’s proposed stay while 

conducting this evaluation is clearly 

consistent with section 111 of the CAA, 

which expressly identifies cost as a 

factor for consideration when 

promulgating emission standards. See 

CAA section 111(a)(1). 

For the reasons stated above, both the 

proposed stay and the suggestion by 

stakeholders to extend (or provide) the 

phase-in periods are lawful exercises of 

the EPA’s statutory authority and 

discretion under the CAA. The EPA 

solicits comment on the EPA’s legal 

authorities for taking these actions. In 

addition, as mentioned above, the EPA 

solicits comment on stakeholder input 6

on the EPA’s legal authorities to take 

these actions. 

III. Stakeholder Input on Sources’ 

Ability To Implement Requirements 

In the June 16, 2017, proposal for the 

3-month stay, the EPA referenced the 

proposed 2-year stay, in which the EPA 

explained that it is proposing to stay the 

requirements at issue pending 

reconsideration due to its concern that 

sources should not be compelled to 

comply with these requirements 

pending the EPA’s reconsideration of 

issues associated with these 

requirements, as these issues impact the 

ability of a wide range of sources to 

achieve and show compliance with their 

applicable standards. 82 FR 27642; 82 

FR 27646–8, June 16, 2017. As 

explained above, unlike the proposed 2- 

year stay, the 3-month stay was not 

intended to reflect the time for 

completing the reconsideration process 

or to resolve the implementation issues 

discussed in this NODA, but rather to 

help avoid a delay for the proposed 

longer stay to take effect; otherwise, the 

legal and factual bases for the stay in 

both proposed actions are the same. 

Therefore, as in the NODA for the 2-year 

stay, the EPA similarly solicits 

comments on the legal and factual bases 

for the proposed 3-month stay, as well 

as comments and information on the 

challenges raised in the feedback 

received since proposing the stay. 

Since proposing to stay the 

requirements pending reconsideration, 

the EPA received feedback from some 

stakeholders indicating that there are 

additional issues affecting sources’ 

ability to implement the above 

mentioned requirements besides those 

for which the EPA has granted 

reconsideration.7 Some stakeholders 

suggested that the EPA should amend 

the 2016 Rule by extending the ‘‘phasein’’ periods provided in the 2016 Rule 

for a build-up of the number of trained 

personnel (i.e., certified monitoring 

survey contractors, qualified 

professional engineers) and equipment 

(i.e., monitoring instruments) required 

to meet the demand imposed by the 

fugitive emissions requirements and the 

well site pneumatic pump requirements. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
51798 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

8See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505– 

7237. 

9See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505– 

7632, p. 4–282. 

The EPA had anticipated that during 

these periods, ‘‘sources will begin to 

phase in these requirements as 

additional devices and personnel 

become available.’’ 81 FR 35859 and 

35863. As in the NODA for the proposed 

2-year stay, we similarly solicit 

comment on whether more time (and 

how much more) is needed for ‘‘phasing 

in’’ these requirements. In addition, the 

EPA solicits comments in this NODA on 

whether an extension of these phase-in 

periods rather than the stay for 3 

months would provide more certainty to 

the regulated community should there 

be a delay before the longer stay (or 

extension), if finalized, would take 

effect. Some stakeholders suggested that 

these concerns may also exist with 

respect to other provisions requiring 

professional engineer certifications. 

As mentioned above, the EPA 

previously anticipated that some of 

these issues might be present for a more 

limited period and, therefore, provided 

in the 2016 Rule a ‘‘phase-in’’ period for 

both the fugitive emissions 

requirements and the pneumatic pump 

requirements. 81 FR 35851, 35858–9, 

35863, June 3, 2016. Specifically, in 

regards to the fugitive emissions 

requirements, in light of the large 

number of sources, the EPA concluded 

that time was needed to allow an 

increase in production of the required 

equipment and scale-up of trained 

personnel, as well as for sources to 

establish the groundwork and secure the 

necessary monitoring equipment and 

personnel. The 2016 Rule, therefore, 

provided a ‘‘phase-in’’ period by 

allowing sources to conduct initial 

monitoring by June 3, 2017, or within 60 

days after production starts, whichever 

is later. 81 FR 35858–9, 35863, June 3, 

2016. Some stakeholders suggested that 

some sources continue to have difficulty 

securing the necessary equipment and/ 

or personnel to conduct the required 

monitoring survey of fugitive emissions. 

For a similar reason, the 2016 Rule 

provided a phase-in period until 

November 30, 2016, to connect well site 

pneumatic pumps to an existing control 

or process onsite. 81 FR 35851, June 3, 

2016. 

However, some stakeholders 

suggested that the time provided in the 

2016 Rule may not have been adequate 

to accommodate the number of affected 

sources subject to these requirements. In 

addition, some stakeholders indicated 

that sources that must now comply with 

these requirements upon startup may be 

particularly affected by these 

challenges. Therefore, the EPA solicits 

comment and information on these 

challenges that sources are experiencing 

in carrying out these requirements. 

Further, the EPA is soliciting comment 

on whether, in light of the numerous 

ongoing compliance issues, the EPA 

should amend the above mentioned 

phase-in periods in the 2016 Rule 

instead of simply staying the 

requirements. The EPA additionally is 

soliciting comment on the appropriate 

length of a phase-in period to address 

the challenges sources are experiencing 

in carrying out the requirements in the 

2016 Rule. 

Some stakeholders suggested that the 

challenges regarding acquiring 

necessary equipment and trained 

personnel may also exist with respect to 

the requirement of certification of 

closed vent systems by a professional 

engineer. We note that the 2016 Rule 

does not have a phase-in period 

associated with the closed vent system 

certification by professional engineer 

requirement, which must be met by a 

wide range of sources (i.e., storage 

vessels, compressors, and pneumatic 

pumps), even though the EPA 

acknowledged that securing such 

professional engineer certification may 

take time. 81 FR 35851, June 3, 2016. 

The EPA, therefore, solicits comment on 

whether time (and how much) should 

be provided to allow a further building 

up of the number of professional 

engineers experienced in these 

requirements to meet the demand posed 

by this certification requirement. 

A stay would mean that sources do 

not have to comply while the stay is in 

place. It would not, however, change 

any dates in the 2016 Rule. This could 

create some uncertainty for sources 

regarding their obligations upon 

expiration of the stay. A change to the 

phase-in periods (or the addition of 

such a period where the rule does not 

currently provide one) could provide 

greater certainty to sources. In light of 

this, the EPA solicits comment on 

whether it is more appropriate to extend 

the phase-in periods in lieu of issuing 

a 3-month stay. The EPA additionally 

solicits comment on whether a phase-in 

period will provide additional relief and 

certainty to the regulated community. 

As mentioned above, the EPA solicits 

comment on the appropriate length of 

time needed to address the challenges 

sources are experiencing in carrying out 

these requirements in the 2016 Rule and 

the suggestion to extend the ‘‘phase-in’’ 

periods established in the 2016 Rule for 

the fugitive emissions requirements and 

the well site pneumatic pump 

requirements, as well as the suggestion 

to provide a phase-in period for the 

requirement for certification of closed 

vent systems by a professional engineer. 

A. Fugitive Emissions Requirements 

The EPA proposed to stay the fugitive 

emissions requirements at well sites and 

compressor stations while it reconsiders 

the process and criteria for requesting 

and receiving approval for the use of an 

AMEL and the applicability of the 

fugitive emissions requirements to low 

production well sites. 82 FR 27642–3 

and 27646, June 16, 2017. These issues 

determine the universe of sources that 

must implement the fugitive emissions 

requirements. 82 FR 27646. The EPA 

has received feedback from some 

stakeholders that securing certified 

monitoring survey contractors and 

monitoring instruments has been more 

difficult than predicted, and, therefore, 

the EPA is soliciting comment on the 

availability of contractors and 

monitoring instruments, and the impact 

on owners and operators complying 

with the requirements of the 2016 Rule. 

The EPA is soliciting comment on 

extending the phase-in period and the 

appropriate length of the phase-in 

period to allow for an adequate buildup of the personnel and equipment 

required for meeting the fugitive 

emissions requirements. Specifically, 

the EPA solicits comment on whether 

the impact of this requirement and any 

feasibility issues are relevant to few 

sources or a systemic issue related to 

many sources. 

The EPA also received feedback 

regarding the applicability of the 

fugitive emissions requirements to 

third-party equipment at well sites 

which is ancillary to production (e.g., 

equipment such as meters owned by 

midstream operators). The 2016 Rule 

requires that all fugitive emissions 

components at a well site be monitored 

and repaired, but there has been 

confusion as to the appropriate scope of 

components that are included in the 

definition of the well site for the fugitive 

emissions requirements. During the 

public comment period on the 2016 

Rule, the EPA received feedback that 

ancillary midstream assets (e.g., meters) 

should be excluded from the fugitive 

emissions requirements because they 

are owned by legally distinct companies 

from the well site owner and operator 

and could have limited emissions.8 The 

EPA’s response to this comment was to 

state in its Response to Comments that 

‘‘the resolution for any leaking 

components identified during surveys 

can be managed by the operator through 

cooperative agreements with other 

potential owners at the site.’’ 9 The EPA 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 51799 

10See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505– 

12245 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017– 

0346–0328. 

11See Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2017–0346– 

0328 and Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0505–12245. 

12 Id. 

13 Id. 

14Blowdown refers to the release of entrained gas 

from equipment that causes a reduction in system 

pressure or a complete depressurization. For 

example, a blowdown may occur to reduce line 

pressure and discharge gas to ensure safe working 

conditions during maintenance and repair 

activities. 

has since received feedback that there 

are complicated site configurations and 

contractual arrangements that the EPA 

did not consider in the 2016 Rule that 

could prevent compliance, including 

situations where the third-party 

equipment could be made subject to the 

2016 Rule based on actions made by 

another operator.10 The EPA is 

soliciting comment on this feedback, 

specifically, legal and logistical issues 

that could prevent midstream operators, 

or other operators of ancillary thirdparty equipment, from compliance with 

the 2016 Rule, and suggestions for 

addressing this issue. The EPA 

additionally solicits comment on the 

number of contracts that would need to 

be renegotiated and associated burden. 

The EPA is further soliciting comment 

on whether, in light of the above, the 

EPA should stay or otherwise extend the 

phase-in period as it applies to thirdparty equipment on well sites until after 

the EPA has addressed this compliance 

issue. 

The EPA additionally received 

feedback regarding technical, safety, and 

environmental issues associated with 

the delay of repair provisions in the 

2016 Rule. The EPA proposed that if 

‘‘repair or replacement [of a leaking 

fugitive emissions component] is 

technically infeasible or unsafe to repair 

during operation of the unit, the repair 

or replacement must be completed 

during the next scheduled shutdown or 

within 6 months, whichever is earlier.’’ 

80 FR 56668, September 18, 2015. 

Stakeholders responded with concerns 

about ‘‘delays lasting longer than six 

months due to availability of supplies 

needed to complete repairs and 

information regarding the frequency of 

delayed repairs. Some commenters also 

indicated that in some cases, requiring 

prompt repairs could lead to more 

emissions than if repairs were able to be 

delayed, for example if a well shut-in or 

vent blow-down is required.’’ 81 FR 

35858, June 3, 2016. In response to these 

comments, the EPA extended the time a 

component can be placed on delay of 

repair from 6 months to 2 years, and, in 

conjunction with this extension, added 

that ‘‘however, if an unscheduled or 

emergency vent blowdown, compressor 

station shutdown, well shutdown, or 

well shut-in occurs during the delay of 

repair period, the fugitive emissions 

components would need to be fixed at 

that time.’’ Id. 

Since publication of the 2016 Rule, 

the EPA has received feedback that 

requiring repair or replacement of 

fugitive emissions components during 

unscheduled or emergency vent 

blowdowns could result in natural gas 

supply disruptions, safety concerns, and 

increased emissions.11 In particular, 

stakeholder feedback suggests that 

compliance with this provision could 

result in prolonged shutdowns 

impacting natural gas supply if 

necessary parts and skilled labor is 

unavailable, and avoidable blowdowns 

resulting in greater emissions than the 

leaking component.12 This feedback 

additionally indicates that these events 

may not necessarily result in the 

blowdown of all equipment located 

onsite and, thus, the equipment needing 

repair may not been affected by the 

blowdown.13 14 The EPA is soliciting 

comment on this feedback, specifically, 

the shutdown, shut-in, or blowdown 

scenarios that result in the technical, 

safety, and environmental issues 

described, and suggestions for 

addressing these issues. The EPA is 

further soliciting comment on whether, 

in light of the above, the EPA should 

stay or otherwise extend the phase-in 

period as it applies to equipment 

requiring delay of repair at well sites 

and compressor stations until after the 

EPA has addressed this compliance 

issue. 

As the need for a proposed 3-month 

stay is contingent upon the EPA 

concluding that either a 2-year stay or 

an extension of the phase-in period is 

warranted, the comments that the EPA 

is soliciting are equally relevant to this 

rulemaking. In addition, the EPA 

solicits comment on whether the 

potential delay is better addressed 

through a short stay or extension of the 

current phase-in period. 

B. Well Site Pneumatic Pump 

Requirements 

The EPA proposed to stay the 

requirements for well site pneumatic 

pump standards while it reconsiders the 

technical infeasibility exemption and 

the definition of ‘‘greenfield site.’’ 82 FR 

27647, June 16, 2017. The EPA 

acknowledges that the technical 

infeasibility exemption that the EPA 

finalized in the 2016 Rule adopted a 

different approach than previously 

applied to the oil and gas industry and 

created an unanticipated and unnoticed 

distinction between ‘‘greenfield’’ (new 

development) and ‘‘non-greenfield’’ 

sites. For a discussion on the technical 

infeasibility exemption provided in the 

2016 Rule, please see 81 FR 35844–5, 

June 3, 2016. Some stakeholders have 

suggested that this distinction has 

caused confusion among owners and 

operators on what sites qualify for the 

technical infeasibility exemption. The 

EPA received stakeholder feedback that 

some owners and operators may have 

been unintentionally restricted in the 

design of new sites that, for technical 

reasons, could not employ controls or 

processes for certain pneumatic pump 

installations. The EPA is soliciting 

comment on technical constraints of 

new ‘‘greenfield’’ sites and specific site 

designs such as these which present 

challenges in implementing the well site 

pneumatic pump requirements in the 

2016 Rule. The EPA is, therefore, 

soliciting comment on extending the 

phase-in period for 2 years, the time 

period the EPA estimates its 

reconsideration process and the 

issuance of the resulting rule would 

take, so that the EPA may provide the 

necessary clarification or revision in 

conjunction with its reconsideration 

process, thereby addressing all issues in 

one rulemaking. As the need for a 

proposed 3-month stay is contingent 

upon the EPA concluding that either a 

2-year stay or an extension of the phasein period is warranted, the comments 

that the EPA is soliciting are equally 

relevant to this rulemaking. In addition, 

the EPA solicits comment on whether 

the potential delay is better addressed 

through a short stay or extension of the 

current phase-in period. The EPA is also 

soliciting comment on extending the 

phase-in period and the appropriate 

length of the phase-in period for the 

well site pneumatic pump requirements 

as an alternative to the proposed stay of 

these requirements. 

C. Professional Engineering Certification 

Requirements 

The EPA proposed to stay the 

requirement for closed vent system 

certification by professional engineer 

while the EPA evaluates the benefits, as 

well as the cost and other compliance 

burden, associated with this 

requirement. 82 FR 27647, June 16, 

2017. Such costs and associated burden 

are significant in light of the number of 

affected sources. Based on the EPA’s 

estimates, approximately 16,000 

affected sources (i.e., pneumatic pumps, 

compressors, and storage vessels) came 

online between the proposed rule and 

the final 2016 Rule, not counting those 

that have and will come online since. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
51800 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 8, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA received feedback that owners 

and operators had to reanalyze and 

potentially redesign the closed vent 

systems in order to meet this 

certification requirement. Subsequent to 

the proposed stay, the EPA received 

feedback from some stakeholders that 

owners and operators have struggled to 

obtain professional engineers to 

complete these certifications primarily 

because of a shortage of professional 

engineers certified in each state of 

operation with experience in the design 

of these systems. In light of this, the 

EPA is soliciting comment on the 

availability of professional engineers 

qualified in each state of operation and 

experienced in the oil and gas field and 

the costs associated with completing the 

certification requirements in the 2016 

Rule. The EPA additionally solicits 

comment on the costs of reanalyzing 

and redesigning sites in order to comply 

with the requirements of the 2016 Rule. 

Lastly, in light of the challenges 

described above, the EPA is soliciting 

comment on providing a period to phase 

in this certification period as an 

alternative to staying this requirement. 

As the need for a proposed 3-month stay 

is contingent upon the EPA concluding 

that either a 2-year stay or a provision 

of a phase-in period is warranted, the 

comments that the EPA is soliciting are 

equally relevant to this rulemaking. In 

addition, the EPA solicits comment on 

whether the potential delay is better 

addressed through a short stay or 

provision of a phase-in period. The EPA 

emphasizes that neither the proposed 

stay (or, in the alternative, provision of 

a phase-in period) for this certification 

requirement would affect sources’ 

obligation to meet the underlying 

applicable emission standards during 

that time frame. As explained above, 

this certification requirement is not an 

emission standard, but a compliance 

measure to provide additional assurance 

that the emission standards are being 

met. 

Dated: November 1, 2017. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2017–24341 Filed 11–7–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS