Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2247
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration
Posted Date: 2020-09-15T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57398-57460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18115]

[[Page 57397]]

Vol. 85

Tuesday,

No. 179

September 15, 2020

Part III

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, 
and Modified Sources Reconsideration; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 85 , No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 57398]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483; FRL-10013-60-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT54

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action finalizes amendments to the new source performance 
standards (NSPS) for the oil and natural gas sector. The Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) granted reconsideration on the fugitive 
emissions requirements, well site pneumatic pump standards, 
requirements for certification of closed vent systems (CVS) by a 
professional engineer (PE), and the provisions to apply for the use of 
an alternative means of emission limitation (AMEL). This final action 
includes amendments as a result of the EPA's reconsideration of the 
issues associated with the above mentioned four subject areas and other 
issues raised in the reconsideration petitions for the NSPS, as well as 
amendments to streamline the implementation of the rule. This action 
also includes technical corrections and additional clarifying language 
in the regulatory text and/or preamble where the EPA concludes further 
clarification is warranted.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by 
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy 
form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically 
through https://www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for 
members of the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading 
Room are closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the 
risk of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to 
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For 
further information and updates on EPA Docket Center services, please 
visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The EPA continues to 
carefully and continuously monitor information from the Center for 
Disease Control, local area health departments, and our Federal 
partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding 
COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action, 
contact Ms. Karen Marsh, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-
05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 
telephone number: (919) 541-1065; fax number: (919) 541-0516; and email 
address: marsh.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. A number of acronyms and terms 
are used in this preamble. While this may not be an exhaustive list, to 
ease the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the 
following terms and acronyms are defined:

AMEL Alternative Means of Emission Limitation
ANSI American National Standards Institute
AVO Auditory, Visual, and Olfactory
boe Barrels of Oil Equivalent
BSER Best System of Emissions Reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 Eq. Carbon dioxide equivalent
CPI Consumer Price Indices
CVS Closed Vent System
DOE Department of Energy
EAV Equivalent Annualized Value
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEAST Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GHGI Greenhouse Gas Inventory
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant(s)
ITRC Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council
LDAR Leak Detection and Repair
METEC Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center
NEMS National Energy Modeling System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSSN National Standards System Network
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OGI Optical Gas Imaging
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PE Professional Engineer
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PRD Pressure Relief Device
PRV Pressure Relief Valve
PTE Potential To Emit
PV Present Value
REC Reduced Emissions Completion
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTC Responses to Comments
SOCMI Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry
The Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit
tpy Tons Per Year
TSD Technical Support Document
UIC Underground Injection Control
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

    Organization of this document. The information presented in this 
preamble is presented as follows:

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Final Rule
    C. Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?
    D. Judicial Review
III. Background
IV. Summary of the Final Standards
    A. Well Completions
    B. Pneumatic Pumps
    C. Storage Vessels
    D. CVS
    E. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations
    F. AMEL
    G. Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants
    H. Sweetening Units
    I. Recordkeeping and Reporting
    J. Technical Corrections and Clarifications
V. Significant Changes Since Proposal
    A. Storage Vessels
    B. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations
    C. AMEL
VI. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses
    A. Major Comments Concerning Storage Vessels
    B. Major Comments Concerning Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites 
and Compressor Stations
    C. Major Comments Concerning AMELs
VII. Impacts of These Final Amendments
    A. What are the air impacts?
    B. What are the energy impacts?
    C. What are the compliance cost reductions?
    D. What are the economic and employment impacts?
    E. What are the forgone benefits?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

[[Page 57399]]

    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The purpose of this action is to finalize amendments to the NSPS 
for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production source category (located 
at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 60, subpart OOOOa) based 
on the EPA's reconsideration of those standards. On June 3, 2016, the 
EPA published a final rule titled ``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: 
Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Final 
Rule,'' at 81 FR 35824 (``2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa''). The 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa set the standards for reducing emissions of greenhouse 
gases (GHG), in the form of limitations on methane, and volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) from the oil and natural gas sources 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 15, 2015.\1\ 
Following promulgation of the final rule, the Administrator received 
petitions for reconsideration of several provisions of the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa.\2\ The EPA granted reconsideration on four issues: (1) 
The applicability of the fugitive emissions requirements to low 
production well sites, (2) the process and criteria for requesting 
approval of an AMEL, (3) the well site pneumatic pump standards, and 
(4) the requirements for certification of CVS by a PE. On October 15, 
2018, the EPA published a proposed rulemaking titled ``Oil and Natural 
Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified 
Sources Reconsideration,'' in which we proposed amendments to the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa to address the issues for which reconsideration was 
granted, as well as other implementation issues and technical 
corrections. 83 FR 52056. After considering public comments and new 
data submitted by the commenters, the EPA is finalizing certain 
amendments to the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa as proposed, finalizing other 
amendments with changes from the proposal in response to comments and 
new data that were received, and not finalizing some of the proposed 
amendments in response to comments and new data that were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
    \2\ Copies of the petitions are provided in Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the amendments described above, this action includes 
amendments to address other issues raised in the reconsideration 
petitions for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa and to clarify and streamline 
implementation of the rule. These amendments relate to the following 
provisions: Well completions (location of a separator during flowback, 
screenouts, and coil tubing cleanouts), onshore natural gas processing 
plants (definition of capital expenditure and monitoring), storage 
vessels (applicability), and general clarifications (certifying 
official and recordkeeping and reporting). Lastly, in addition to the 
amendments addressing reconsideration and implementation issues, the 
EPA is finalizing technical corrections of inadvertent errors in the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa.
    In addition to this action, the EPA has published a separate final 
rule in the Federal Register of Monday, September 14, 2020, that 
finalizes additional amendments to the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa which 
are not addressed by this action. That separate final rule, titled 
``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review: Final Rule'' (FRL-10013-44-
OAR; FR Doc. 2020-18114) is herein referred to as the ``Review Rule.'' 
Specifically, the Review Rule removes sources in the transmission and 
storage segment from the source category by revising the definition of 
the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production source category, rescinds the 
standards (including both the VOC and methane requirements) applicable 
to those sources, and rescinds the methane-specific requirements of the 
NSPS applicable to sources in the production and processing segments. 
For further information about these additional amendments, see the 
final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of the 
Federal Register of Monday, September 14, 2020. Please refer to the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for both this action and the Review 
Rule to see the combined impacts of both actions.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions of This Final Rule

    Provided below is a summary of each key amendment, clarification, 
or correction made to the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa that is included in 
this final action.
    Well completions. The EPA is finalizing its proposed amendment to 
40 CFR 60.5375a(a)(1)(iii) to allow the separator to be nearby during 
flowback, but the separator must be available and ready for use as soon 
as it is technically feasible for the separator to function. We are 
also amending 40 CFR 60.5375a(a)(1)(i) to clarify that the separator 
that is required during the initial flowback stage may be a production 
separator as long as it is designed to accommodate flowback. Finally, 
we are amending the definition of flowback at 40 CFR 60.5430a to 
exclude screenouts, coil tubing cleanouts, and plug drill outs. As 
explained in the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, these are 
functional processes that allow for flowback to begin; as such, they 
are not part of the flowback. 83 FR 52082.
    Pneumatic pumps. The EPA is finalizing an amendment to extend the 
exemption from control where it is technically infeasible to route 
pneumatic pump emissions to a control device. The final rule extends 
this exemption to all pneumatic pump affected facilities at all well 
sites by removing the reference to greenfield sites in 40 CFR 
60.5393a(b) and the greenfield site definition from 40 CFR 60.5430a. 
Additionally, in order to qualify for the technical infeasibility 
exemption, the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires certification by a 
qualified PE that routing a pneumatic pump to a control device or a 
process is technically infeasible. 40 CFR 60.5393a(b)(5). This final 
rule allows certification of technical infeasibility by either a 
qualified PE or an in-house engineer with expertise on the design and 
operation of the pneumatic pump.
    Storage vessels. This final rule amends the applicability criteria 
for storage vessel affected facilities by establishing criteria for 
calculating potential for VOC emissions under different scenarios. 
Specifically, for individual storage vessels that are part of a 
controlled tank battery (i.e., two or more storage vessels manifolded 
together with piping such that all vapors are shared between the 
headspace of the storage vessels, and where emissions are routed 
through a CVS to a process or a control device with a destruction 
efficiency of at least 95.0 percent for VOC emissions) that is subject 
to a

[[Page 57400]]

legally and practicably enforceable limit, potential VOC emissions may 
be determined by averaging the emissions from the entire tank battery 
across the number of storage vessels in the battery. For a controlled 
tank battery described above, if the average per storage vessel VOC 
emissions are greater than 6 tons per year (tpy), then all storage 
vessels in that battery are storage vessel affected facilities. For 
individual storage vessels that do not meet the criteria described 
above, the potential VOC emissions is determined according to the 
proposed criteria, which the EPA is finalizing in this action; where 
the VOC emissions are greater than 6 tpy, the storage vessel is an 
affected facility.
    CVS. This final rule incorporates the option for owners and 
operators to demonstrate that the pneumatic pump CVS is operated with 
no detectable emissions by (1) an annual inspection using EPA Method 21 
of appendix A-7 of part 60 (``Method 21''), (2) monthly audio/visual/
olfactory (AVO) monitoring, or (3) optical gas imaging (OGI) monitoring 
at the frequencies specified for fugitive monitoring. Additionally, 
this final rule incorporates the option for a storage vessel CVS to be 
monitored by either monthly AVO monitoring or OGI monitoring at the 
frequencies specified for fugitive monitoring. Finally, this final rule 
allows for certification of the CVS design and capacity assessment by 
either a qualified PE or an in-house engineer with expertise on the 
design and operation of the CVS.
    Fugitive emissions requirements. The EPA is finalizing several 
amendments to the requirements for the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at well sites and compressor stations. The monitoring 
frequencies in this final rule are semiannual for well sites and 
compressor stations, and annual for well sites and compressor stations 
located on the Alaska North Slope. The final rule excludes low 
production well sites (where the total combined oil and natural gas 
production for the well site is at or below 15 barrels of oil 
equivalent (boe) per day) from fugitive emissions monitoring, as long 
as they maintain the records specified in the final rule to demonstrate 
that their total well site production is at or below 15 boe per day. A 
low production well site that subsequently produces above this 
threshold is required to comply with the fugitive emissions 
requirements.
    This final rule also finalizes separate initial monitoring 
requirements for the Alaska North Slope compressor stations, as 
proposed. Compressor stations located on the Alaska North Slope that 
start up between September and March must conduct initial monitoring 
within 6 months of startup or by June 30, whichever is later; 
compressor stations that start up between April and August must conduct 
initial monitoring within 90 days of startup. This final rule revises 
the initial monitoring requirement for well sites and compressor 
stations not located on the Alaska North Slope by requiring initial 
monitoring within 90 days of startup. Additionally, this final rule 
allows fugitive monitoring to stop when all major production and 
processing equipment is removed from a well site such that it becomes a 
wellhead-only well site.
    In addition to the amendments related to monitoring frequencies, 
the final rule (1) specifies the events that constitute modifications 
to an existing separate tank battery surface site (which is a ``well 
site'' for purposes of well site fugitive emissions requirements); (2) 
revises the repair requirements to specify that a first attempt at 
repair must be made within 30 days of identifying fugitive emissions 
and final repair must be made within 30 days of the first attempt at 
repair; (3) amends the definition of a well site to exclude third-party 
equipment located downstream of the custody meter assembly and 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I non-hazardous and UIC Class 
II disposal wells from the fugitive emissions requirements; and (4) 
revises the requirements for the monitoring plan, recordkeeping, and 
reporting associated with the fugitive emissions requirements.
    AMEL. This final rule amends the provisions for application of an 
AMEL for emerging technologies or for existing state fugitive emissions 
programs. Additionally, this final rule provides alternative fugitive 
emissions standards for well sites and compressor stations located in 
specific states.
    Onshore natural gas processing plants. This final rule revises the 
definition of ``capital expenditure'' at 40 CFR 60.5430a by replacing 
the equation used to determine the percent of replacement cost, ``Y'', 
with one that is based on the ratio of consumer price indices (CPI). 
Additionally, this final rule exempts components that are in VOC 
service for less than 300 hours/year from monitoring. The EPA is also 
revising the equipment leak standards for onshore natural gas 
processing plants (40 CFR 60.5400a) to include the same initial 
compliance provision that is in the original equipment leak standards 
for onshore natural gas processing plants. 40 CFR part 60, subpart KKK. 
That provision, which is codified at 40 CFR 60.632(a), requires 
compliance ``as soon as practicable but no later than 180 days after 
initial startup.'' The EPA has not been able to find a record 
explaining or otherwise indicating that we intended to change this 
initial compliance deadline for the leak standards at onshore natural 
gas processing plants when NSPS subparts OOOO and OOOOa were 
promulgated; accordingly, in these amendments to NSPS subpart OOOOa, 
the EPA is adding this provision back into the leak standards for 
onshore natural gas processing plants in NSPS subpart OOOOa at 40 CFR 
60.5400a.
    Sweetening units. This final rule revises the affected facility 
description for the sulfur dioxide (SO2) standards to 
correctly define such affected facilities as any onshore sweetening 
unit that processes natural gas produced from either onshore or 
offshore wells at 40 CFR 60.5365a(g).

C. Costs and Benefits

    The EPA has projected the compliance cost reductions, emissions 
changes, and forgone benefits that may result from the final 
reconsideration. The projected cost reductions and forgone benefits are 
presented in detail in the RIA accompanying this final rule. The RIA 
focuses on the elements of the final rule--the provisions related to 
fugitive emissions requirements and certification by a PE--that are 
likely to result in quantifiable cost or emissions changes compared to 
a baseline that includes the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requirements. We 
estimated the effects of this final rule for all sources that are 
projected to change compliance activities under this action for the 
analysis years 2021 through 2030. The RIA also presents the present 
value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV) of costs, benefits, 
and net benefits of this action in 2016 dollars.
    A summary of the key results of this final rule is presented in 
Table 1. Table 1 presents the PV and EAV, estimated using discount 
rates of 7 and 3 percent, of the changes in benefits, costs, and net 
benefits, as well as the change in emissions under the final rule. 
Here, the EPA refers to the cost reductions as the ``benefits'' of this 
rule and the forgone benefits as the ``costs'' of this rule in Table 1. 
The net benefits are the benefits (cost reductions) minus the costs 
(forgone benefits).

[[Page 57401]]

Table 1--Cost Reductions, Forgone Benefits and Forgone Emissions Reductions of the Final Rule, 2021 Through 2030
                                                [Millions 2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      7-Percent discount rate         3-Percent discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        PV              EAV             PV              EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (Total Cost Reductions)................            $750            $100            $950            $110
Costs (Forgone Benefits)........................              19             2.5              71             8.1
Net Benefits \1\................................             730              97             880             100
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions.......................................                        Forgone Reductions
    Methane (short tons)........................                              450,000
    VOC (short tons)............................                              120,000
    Hazardous Air Pollutant(s) (HAP) (short
     tons)......................................                               4,700
Methane (million metric tons carbon dioxide
 equivalent (CO2 Eq.))..........................                                10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates are rounded to two significant digits and may not sum due to independent rounding.

    This final rule is expected to result in benefits (compliance cost 
reductions) for affected owners and operators. The PV of these benefits 
(cost reductions), discounted at a 7-percent rate, is estimated to be 
about $750 million, with an EAV of about $100 million (Table 1). Under 
a 3-percent discount rate, the PV of cost reductions is $950 million, 
with an EAV of $110 million (Table 1).
    The estimated costs (forgone benefits) include the monetized 
climate effects of the projected increase in methane emissions under 
the final rule. The PV of these climate-related costs (forgone 
benefits), discounted at a 7-percent rate, is estimated to be about $19 
million, with an EAV of about $2.5 million (Table 1). Under a 3-percent 
discount rate, the PV of the climate-related costs (forgone benefits) 
is about $71 million, with an EAV of about $8.1 million (Table 1). The 
EPA also expects that there will be increases in VOC and HAP emissions 
under the proposal. While the EPA expects that the forgone VOC emission 
reductions may also degrade air quality and adversely affect health and 
welfare effects associated with exposure to ozone, particulate matter 
with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and HAP, 
we did not quantify these effects at this time. This omission should 
not imply that these forgone benefits do not exist. To the extent that 
the EPA were to quantify these ozone and particulate matter (PM) 
impacts, the Agency would estimate the number and value of avoided 
premature deaths and illnesses using an approach detailed in the 
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 
Ozone NAAQS RIA (U.S. EPA, 2012; U.S. EPA, 2015). Such an analysis 
would account for the distribution of air pollution-attributable risks 
among populations most vulnerable and susceptible to PM2.5 
and ozone exposure.
    The PV of the net benefits of this rule, discounted at a 7-percent 
rate, is estimated to be about $730 million, with an EAV of about $97 
million (Table 1). Under a 3-percent discount rate, the PV of net 
benefits is about $880 million, with an EAV of about $100 million 
(Table 1).

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially affected by this action 
include:

      Table 2--Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Examples of
             Category               NAICS code \1\   regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................          211120  Crude Petroleum
                                                     Extraction.
                                            211130  Natural Gas
                                                     Extraction.
                                            221210  Natural Gas
                                                     Distribution.
                                            486110  Pipeline
                                                     Distribution of
                                                     Crude Oil.
                                            486210  Pipeline
                                                     Transportation of
                                                     Natural Gas.
Federal Government................  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government.....  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be 
affected by this action. To determine whether your entity is affected 
by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria 
found in the final rule. If you have questions regarding the 
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, your air 
permitting authority, or your EPA Regional representative listed in 40 
CFR 60.4 (General Provisions).

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    This final action is available in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov/, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483. Additionally, 
following signature by the Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of 
this final action at https://www.epa.gov/controlling-air-pollution-oil-and-natural-gas-industry. This website provides information on all of 
the EPA's actions related to control of air pollution in the oil and 
natural gas industry. Following publication in the Federal Register, 
the EPA will post the Federal Register version of the final rule and 
key technical documents at this same website. A redline version of the 
regulatory language that incorporates the final changes in this action 
is available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0483).

[[Page 57402]]

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action, which finalizes amendments to the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, is based on the same legal authorities that the EPA relied upon 
for the original promulgation of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. The EPA 
promulgated the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa pursuant to its standard-
setting authority under section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
and in accordance with the rulemaking procedures in section 307(d) of 
the CAA. Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to issue 
``standards of performance'' for new sources in a category listed by 
the Administrator based on a finding that the category of stationary 
sources causes or contributes significantly to air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. In the 
Review Rule (published in the Federal Register of Monday, September 14, 
2020), the EPA has interpreted CAA section 111(b)(1)(B) to require a 
determination that the emissions of any air pollutant not already 
subject to an NSPS for the source category (or evaluated in association 
with the listing of the source category) cause or contribute 
significantly to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare. CAA section 111(a)(1) defines ``a 
standard of performance'' as ``a standard for emissions of air 
pollutants which reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable 
through the application of the best system of emission reduction which 
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirement) 
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.'' The 
standard that the EPA develops, based on the best system of emission 
reduction (BSER) is commonly a numerical emission limit, expressed as a 
performance level (e.g., a rate-based standard). However, CAA section 
111(h)(1) authorizes the Administrator to promulgate a work practice 
standard or other requirements, which reflect the best technological 
system of continuous emission reduction, if it is not feasible to 
prescribe or enforce a standard of performance. This action includes 
amendments to the fugitive emissions standards for well sites and 
compressor stations, which are work practice standards promulgated 
pursuant to CAA section 111(h)(1). 81 FR 35829.
    The final amendments in this document result from the EPA's 
reconsideration of various aspects of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. 
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 Televisions 
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''). ``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).

D. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final 
rule is available only by filing a petition for review in the United 
Stated Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by 
November 16, 2020. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to 
enforce these requirements. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further 
provides that ``[o]nly an objection to a rule or procedure which was 
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment 
(including any public hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' 
This section also provides a mechanism for the EPA to convene a 
proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection 
can demonstrate to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such 
objection within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for 
such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within 
the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of 
central relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to 
make such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for 
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 
3000, EPA WJC, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a 
copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the 
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.

III. Background

    On June 3, 2016, the EPA published a final rule titled ``Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Source; Final Rule,'' at 81 FR 35824 (``2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa''). The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa established standards of 
performance for GHG and VOC emissions from new, modified, and 
reconstructed sources in the oil and natural gas sector. For further 
information on the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 
2016) and associated Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. Following 
promulgation of the final rule, the Administrator received petitions 
for reconsideration of several provisions of the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa. Copies of the petitions are provided in the docket for this 
final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483). Several states and 
industry associations also sought judicial review of the rule, and that 
litigation is currently being held in abeyance. American Petroleum 
Institute, et al. v. EPA, No. 13-1108 (D.C. Cir.) (and consolidated 
cases).
    In a letter to the petitioners dated April 18, 2017, the EPA 
granted reconsideration of the fugitive emissions requirements at well 
sites and compressor stations.\3\ In a subsequent notification, the EPA 
granted reconsideration of two additional issues: Well site pneumatic 
pump standards and the requirements for certification of CVS by a 
PE.\4\ On October 15, 2018, the EPA proposed amendments and 
clarifications to address the issues under reconsideration, as well as 
issues related to the implementation of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa 
that have come to the EPA's attention. During this rulemaking, the EPA 
reviewed additional information, including information in the annual 
compliance reports submitted for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa and on 
costs associated with fugitive emissions monitoring. The additional 
information has allowed the EPA to more accurately assess the emission 
reductions and costs associated with the fugitive emissions 
requirements of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa before evaluating revisions 
in this rulemaking. Further, the EPA used the additional information to 
update the overall burden estimates for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, 
thus, providing a more accurate baseline on which to compare any burden 
reductions achieved through this final rule. Upon review of the updated 
cost estimates,

[[Page 57403]]

the EPA concludes the burden of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa was 
underestimated, and this rulemaking provided an opportunity to reduce 
the burden of the rule, particularly related to the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements. This action finalizes amendments that would 
significantly reduce the recordkeeping and reporting burden of the rule 
while continuing to assure compliance. This action also addresses 
several other implementation issues that were raised following 
promulgation of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. The EPA is addressing 
these issues at the same time to provide clarity and certainty for the 
public and the regulated community regarding these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7730.
    \4\ 82 FR 25730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of the Final Standards

    This final rule amends certain requirements in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa, as discussed in this section. These amendments are 
effective on November 16, 2020. Therefore, the standards in NSPS 
subpart OOOOa change from that date forward. Accordingly, after 
November 16, 2020, all affected facilities that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015 must comply 
with the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa as amended; the previous requirements 
no longer apply.

A. Well Completions

    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires that the owner or operator of 
a well affected facility have a separator on site during the entire 
flowback period. 40 CFR 60.5375a(a)(1)(iii). The EPA proposed and 
received supportive comments on allowing the separator to be located in 
close enough proximity to the well site for use as soon as sufficient 
flowback is present for the separator to function. Consistent with the 
proposal, this final rule amends 40 CFR 60.5375a(a)(1)(iii) to allow 
the separator to be at a nearby centralized facility or well pad that 
services the well affected facility during flowback as long as the 
separator can be utilized as soon as it is technically feasible for the 
separator to function. The EPA is also amending 40 CFR 
60.5375a(a)(1)(i) to clarify that the separator that is required during 
the initial flowback stage may be a production separator as long as it 
is also designed to accommodate flowback.
    The October 15, 2018, proposal also included proposed amendments to 
the definition of flowback. The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, 40 CFR 
60.5430a defines flowback as the process of allowing fluids and 
entrained solids to flow from a well following a treatment, either in 
preparation for a subsequent phase of treatment of in preparation for 
cleanup and returning the well to production. The term flowback also 
means the fluids and entrained solids that emerge from a well during 
the flowback process. The flowback period begins when material 
introduced into the well during the treatment returns to the surface 
following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing. The flowback period 
ends when either the well is shut in and permanently disconnected from 
the flowback equipment or at the startup of production. The flowback 
period includes the initial flowback stage and the separation flowback 
stage.
    In the October 15, 2018, proposed rulemaking, the EPA explained 
that screenouts, coil tubing cleanouts, and plug drill outs are 
functional processes that allow for flowback to begin; as such, they 
are not part of the flowback. 83 FR 52082. The proposed rulemaking 
included definitions for screenouts, coil tubing cleanouts, and plug 
drill outs, as proposed. Specifically, a screenout is an attempt to 
clear proppant from the wellbore in order to dislodge the proppant out 
of the well. A coil tubing cleanout is a process where an operator runs 
a string of coil tubing to the packed proppant within a well and jets 
the well to dislodge the proppant and provide sufficient lift energy to 
flow it to the surface. A plug drill-out is the removal of a plug (or 
plugs) that was used to isolate different sections of the well. The EPA 
proposed to exclude screenouts, coil tubing cleanouts, and plug drill 
outs from the definition of flowback. This final rule amends the 
definition of flowback and finalizes the definitions for screenouts, 
coil tubing cleanouts, and plug drill outs, as proposed.
    This final rule does not include a definition for a permanent 
separator. The EPA proposed such a definition in conjunction with our 
proposal to streamline reporting and recordkeeping requirements for 
flowback routed through production separators (which we referred to as 
``permanent separators'' in the proposed rulemaking). As explained in 
the preamble to the proposed rulemaking, when a production separator is 
used for both well completions and production, the production separator 
is connected at the onset of the flowback and stays on after flowback 
and at the startup of production; in that event, certain reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements associated with well completions (e.g., 
information about when a separator is hooked up or disconnected during 
flowback) would be unnecessary. 83 FR 52082. We, therefore, proposed to 
remove such unnecessary data reporting and recordkeeping requirements 
when a ``permanent separator'' (as defined in the proposed rulemaking) 
is used for flowback. Upon further review, we learned that the term 
``permanent separator,'' as defined in our proposed rulemaking, does 
not accurately describe production separators that are also used during 
flowback because such production separators may not be permanent 
fixtures of a site. Therefore, while the final rule streamlines 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements for flowback routed through 
production separators, on the condition that those separators are 
designed to accommodate flowback, it does not include the term 
``permanent separator'' or the proposed definition. The details of 
these streamlined elements are provided in section IV.I.1 of this 
preamble.

B. Pneumatic Pumps

    Under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, a pneumatic pump located at a 
non-greenfield site is not required to reduce its emissions by 95 
percent if it is technically infeasible to route the pneumatic pump to 
a control device or process. This final rule expands the technical 
infeasibility exemption to pneumatic pumps at all well sites by 
removing the reference to greenfield site in 40 CFR 60.5393a(b) and the 
associated definition of greenfield site at 40 CFR 60.5430a. For the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, the EPA concluded that circumstances that 
could otherwise make control of a pneumatic pump technically infeasible 
at an existing location could be addressed in the design and 
construction of a new site. In the proposal, the EPA explained 
petitioners' concerns that, even at greenfield sites, certain scenarios 
present circumstances where the control of a pneumatic pump may be 
technically infeasible despite the site being newly designed and 
constructed. 83 FR 52061. We, therefore, proposed to expand the 
technical infeasibility provision to apply to pneumatic pumps at all 
well sites and solicited comments on scenarios where routing a pump to 
a control device or process would be technically infeasible at 
greenfield sites. The EPA received numerous comments in support of the 
proposal. After consideration of the comments and further review of the 
standards, this action finalizes the proposed exemption from control if 
it is technically infeasible to route emissions from a pneumatic pump 
to a control device at all well sites, including greenfield sites. In 
addition to the reasons specified in the proposal, the EPA has 
reevaluated

[[Page 57404]]

the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa standards for pneumatic pumps, and it is 
clear that the EPA did not intend to require the installation of a 
control device for the sole purpose of controlling emissions from a 
pneumatic pump, even at greenfield sites. Furthermore, in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa, the assessment of technical infeasibility for a 
pneumatic pump is conducted within the context of an existing control 
device, not a control device that might be installed to also 
accommodate the pneumatic pump emissions. Therefore, the EPA concludes 
that when determining technical feasibility at any site, the technical 
feasibility is determined for the routing of pneumatic pump emissions 
to the controls which are needed for the processes at the site. 
Moreover, while it is likely uncommon that an owner or operator cannot 
design a greenfield site with a control device to reduce pneumatic pump 
emissions (e.g., because the design from conception would be able to 
include necessary scenarios), the EPA cannot account for every scenario 
that may occur, especially given the potential intermittent nature of 
pneumatic pump emissions. Therefore, the EPA agrees with Petitioners 
and numerous commenters that it is appropriate to allow the owner or 
operator to demonstrate that it is technically infeasible to route 
pneumatic pump emissions to a control device or a process at any well 
site. The owner or operator must justify and provide professional or 
in-house engineering certification for any site where the control of 
pneumatic pump emissions is technically infeasible. The expansion of 
the technical infeasibility provision is reflected in 40 CFR 
60.5393a(b), where we are removing paragraphs (b)(1) and (2).
    In addition, we are amending paragraph (b)(5) to state that boilers 
and process heaters are not control devices for the purposes of the 
pneumatic pump standards. Two commenters stated that boilers and 
process heaters located at well sites are not inherently designed for 
the control of emissions and raised concerns that routing pneumatic 
pump emissions to these devices may result in frequent safety trips and 
burner flame instability (i.e., high temperature limit shutdowns, loss 
of flame signal, etc.).\5\ The comments further contend that requiring 
the technical infeasibility evaluation for every boiler and process 
heater located at a wellsite would result in unnecessary administrative 
burden since each such evaluation would be raising the same concerns 
described above. The EPA agrees with the commenters and has revised the 
standards to state that boilers and process heaters are not considered 
control devices for the purposes of controlling pneumatic pump 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0781 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the certification 
requirements for the determination that it is technically infeasible to 
route emissions from pneumatic pumps to a control device or process. 
The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires certification of technical 
infeasibility by a qualified PE; however, the EPA proposed allowing 
this certification by either a PE or an in-house engineer because in-
house engineers may be more knowledgeable about site design and control 
than a third-party PE. After considering the comments, some supporting 
and some opposing the proposal, the EPA continues to believe that 
certification by an in-house engineer is appropriate. We are, 
therefore, amending the rule to allow certification of technical 
infeasibility by either a PE or an in-house engineer with expertise on 
the design and operation of the pneumatic pump.

C. Storage Vessels

    The storage vessel standards apply to individual storage vessels 
with the potential for VOC emissions of 6 tpy or greater. The 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa requires a calculation of the potential for VOC emissions 
from individual storage vessels. In the proposal, the EPA sought to 
address instances where storage vessels are designed and operated as a 
manifolded battery and to address questions regarding where averaging 
emissions may be appropriate for the calculation of potential for VOC 
emissions. This final rule addresses the challenges of calculating the 
potential for VOC emissions from individual storage vessels that are 
part of a controlled battery by specifying separate calculation 
requirements for these storage vessels. Specifically, the final rule 
allows owners and operators to average the emissions across the number 
of storage vessels in a controlled battery provided that specific 
design and operational criteria are met. These specific design and 
operational criteria include requirements to manifold the vessels such 
that all vapors are shared between the headspace of the storage vessels 
and route the collected vapors through a CVS to a process or a control 
device with a destruction efficiency of at least 95.0 percent for VOC 
emissions, and must be included in legally and practicably enforceable 
limits in a permit or other requirement established under a Federal, 
state, local, or tribal authority. Under the final rule, if these 
criteria are met, the owner or operator may calculate the average 
emissions from the individual storage vessels in that battery to 
determine if the average emissions are greater than 6 tpy. If the 
average emissions are greater than 6 tpy, then each of the individual 
storage vessels in that battery is a storage vessel affected facility. 
However, if the average emissions are less than 6 tpy, then none of the 
storage vessels in that battery are a storage vessel affected facility.
    In addition, the final rule finalizes the proposed methods for 
calculating the potential for VOC emissions for storage vessels that do 
not meet the design and operational criteria specified above. Those 
storage vessels include individual storage vessels, as well as 
manifolded storage vessels that do not meet the criteria specified 
(e.g., less than 95-percent control). These storage vessels must 
determine applicability by calculating their potential for VOC 
emissions in accordance with the methods specified in this final rule. 
The calculation of the potential for VOC emissions may take into 
account legally and practically enforceable limits on storage vessels 
but must be determined on an individual storage vessel basis without 
averaging emissions across the number of storage vessels at the site, 
even if the storage vessels are manifolded together. If the potential 
for VOC emissions from the individual storage vessel is greater than 6 
tpy, then that storage vessel is a storage vessel affected facility. If 
the potential for VOC emissions from the individual storage vessel is 
less than 6 tpy, then that storage vessel is not a storage vessel 
affected facility.
    The EPA is also amending the applicability criteria to clarify how 
owners and operators must determine the potential for VOC emissions for 
storage vessels located at onshore natural gas processing plants and 
compressor stations. The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa specifies that the 
calculation is based on the first 30 days of production to an 
individual storage vessel. We received comments on the proposal that 
this production period is not an accurate reflection of the potential 
for VOC emissions from storage vessels not located at a well site. 
Specifically, onshore natural gas processing plants and compressor 
stations are designed to process or transport a specific capacity of 
gas from multiple sites upstream of these facilities. The design 
capacity is based on planned growth with additional sites coming online 
over time, which means

[[Page 57405]]

the storage vessels at gas processing plants and compressor stations do 
not receive the maximum throughput for which they are designed during 
the first 30 days of their operation. For these storage vessels, the 
commenters indicated they have been utilizing forecasting to predict 
future throughput and emissions when applying for an operating permit. 
The EPA agrees that the language in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa does 
not appropriately capture the information needed to make an informed 
applicability determination for these storage vessels. Therefore, we 
are revising the final rule to clarify that, for storage vessels 
located at onshore natural gas processing plants and compressor 
stations, the potential for VOC emissions may be determined based on 
the emission limit or throughput limit (as an input for calculating the 
potential for VOC emissions), established in a legally and practicably 
enforceable limit, or based on the projected maximum average daily 
throughput determined using generally accepted engineering models, such 
as process simulations based on representative or actual liquid 
analysis to determine volumetric condensate rates from the storage 
vessels based on the maximum gas throughput capacity of each facility.

D. CVS

    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires that CVS be operated with no 
detectable emissions, as demonstrated through specific monitoring 
requirements associated with the specific affected facilities (i.e., 
storage vessels, pneumatic pumps, centrifugal compressors, and 
reciprocating compressors). In the October 15, 2018, proposal, the EPA 
proposed amending the requirements for CVS associated with pneumatic 
pumps to require monthly AVO monitoring instead of the required annual 
Method 21 monitoring, thereby aligning the demonstration requirements 
for pneumatic pumps with those for storage vessels. 83 FR 52083. The 
EPA received comments recommending (1) retaining annual Method 21 as an 
option and (2) including OGI monitoring as an additional option because 
OGI is already being used to monitor fugitive emissions components at 
the well site and the CVS can readily be monitored at the same time. 
Based on these public comments, the EPA is amending the requirements 
for these no detectable emissions demonstrations for CVS for pneumatic 
pumps, with some changes from the proposal. Specifically, we are 
incorporating the option to demonstrate the pneumatic pump CVS is 
operated with no detectable emissions by an annual inspection using 
Method 21, monthly AVO monitoring, or OGI monitoring at the frequencies 
specified in section IV.E of this preamble.
    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires monthly AVO inspections on CVS 
for storage vessels to demonstrate operation with no detectable 
emissions. Similar to CVS for pneumatic pumps, the EPA is adding OGI 
monitoring at the frequencies specified in section IV.E of this 
preamble as another option for demonstrating no detectable emissions 
from CVS for storage vessels.
    While the final rule provides these options for demonstrating the 
operation of the CVS with no detectable emissions, it is important to 
note that any detection with AVO or any visual image when using OGI is 
considered an indication of detected emissions. It is not the EPA's 
intent to allow owners and operators to conduct an inspection using OGI 
that results in the visual image of emissions, and then follow that 
inspection with AVO to conclude no emissions are present. If any of the 
options specified result in detected emissions, the standard of ``no 
detectable emissions'' is not met.
    Additionally, the EPA is finalizing revisions to the certification 
requirements for CVS design. Specifically, we are amending the rule to 
allow either a PE or an in-house engineer with expertise on the design 
and operation of the CVS to certify the design and operation will meet 
the requirement to route all vapors to the control device or back to 
the process.

E. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations

1. Monitoring Frequency
    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires semiannual monitoring and 
quarterly monitoring for fugitive emissions at well sites and 
compressor stations, respectively. The EPA proposed amending these 
monitoring frequencies as follows: (1) Annual monitoring for well sites 
with total combined production greater than 15 boe per day, (2) 
biennial monitoring for well sites with total combined production at or 
below 15 boe per day, and (3) co-proposed semiannual and annual 
monitoring for compressor stations. Additionally, the EPA proposed to 
allow owners and operators to stop monitoring at well sites when all of 
the major production and processing equipment is removed, such that the 
well site becomes a wellhead-only well site. After considering the 
comments and additional data, we are not finalizing the proposed 
changes to the monitoring frequencies for fugitive emissions components 
at well sites and compressor stations, with two exceptions explained 
below. The required fugitive monitoring frequencies for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site or compressor 
station are as follows:
     Semiannual monitoring for well sites, excluding well sites 
with total production for the site at or below 15 boe per day (herein 
referred to as ``low production well sites'') and well sites on the 
Alaska North Slope;
     Semiannual monitoring for compressor stations, excluding 
those on the Alaska North Slope;
     Annual monitoring for well sites (excluding low production 
well sites) and compressor stations located on the Alaska North Slope; 
and
     Monitoring may be stopped once all major production and 
processing equipment is removed from a well site such that it contains 
only one or more wellheads.
     Low production well sites are excluded from fugitive 
monitoring requirements as long as the total production of the well 
site remains at or below 15 boe per day, as determined on a rolling 12-
month basis and demonstrated by the records specified in the final 
rule. To determine if a well site is a low production well site, the 
EPA is finalizing the following calculation periods:
    [cir] For a well site that newly triggers the fugitive emissions 
requirements of the NSPS after the effective date of the rule, or a 
well site that triggered the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requirements 
within 11 months prior to the effective date of the rule but does not 
have 12-months' worth of production data, the total well site 
production calculation is based on the first 30 days of production;
    [cir] For a well site subject to the fugitive emissions 
requirements that subsequently has production decline, the total well 
site production calculation is based on a rolling 12-month average;
    [cir] For a well site that has previously been determined to be low 
production but later takes an action (e.g., drills a new well, performs 
a well workover, etc.) that may increase production, the total well 
site production calculation is based on the first 30 days of production 
following completion of the action. This re-determination must be 
completed at any time an action occurs, regardless of the original 
startup of production date.
2. Modification
    The October 15, 2018, proposal did not propose amendments to the 
events

[[Page 57406]]

that constitute modifications of the collection of fugitive emissions 
components located at a well site or a compressor station but did take 
comment on whether additional clarification is necessary. The EPA's 
consideration of the comments received did not result in changes to 
modifications for well sites and compressor stations, therefore, this 
final rule retains the events currently identified in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa that qualify as modifications of the collection of 
fugitive emissions components located at a well site or a compressor 
station.
    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa specifies that, for the purposes of 
fugitive emissions components at a well site, a modification occurs 
when (1) a new well is drilled at an existing well site, (2) a well is 
hydraulically fractured at an existing well site, or (3) a well is 
hydraulically refractured at an existing well site. 40 CFR 60.5365a(i). 
Because this provision does not specifically address modifications of a 
well site that is a separate tank battery surface site, the EPA 
proposed language to address modifications of separate tank battery 
surface sites. Specifically, the EPA proposed that a modification of a 
well site that is a separate tank battery surface site occurs when (1) 
any of the actions listed above for well sites occurs at an existing 
separate tank battery surface site, (2) a well modified as described 
above sends production to an existing separate tank battery surface 
site, or (3) a well site subject to the fugitive emissions requirements 
removes all major production and processing equipment such that it 
becomes a wellhead-only well site and sends production to an existing 
separate tank battery surface site. After considering the comments 
received related to the proposed modification language relevant for 
separate tank battery surface sites, the EPA is finalizing this 
provision as proposed.
3. Initial Monitoring for Well Sites and Compressor Stations
    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires fugitive emissions monitoring 
to begin within 60 days of startup of production (for well sites) or 
startup of a compressor station. The October 15, 2018, proposal did not 
propose any change to this requirement but solicited comment 
identifying specific reasons why a change might be appropriate. 83 FR 
52075. We received comments stating that well sites and compressor 
stations do not achieve normal operating conditions within the first 60 
days of startup. Commenters suggested a range of options from 90 days 
to 180 days. Based on these comments, the EPA agrees that maintaining 
the requirement to conduct initial monitoring within 60 days of startup 
would not provide as effective of a survey as providing additional time 
to allow the well site or compressor station to reach normal operating 
conditions. The purpose of the initial monitoring is to identify any 
issues associated with installation and startup of the well site or 
compressor station. By providing sufficient time to allow owners and 
operators to conduct the initial monitoring survey during normal 
operating conditions, the EPA expects that there will be more 
opportunity to identify and repair sources of fugitive emissions, 
whereas, a partially operating site may result in missed emissions that 
remain unrepaired for a longer period of time. The additional 30 days 
provided in this final rule will still allow for identification and 
mitigation of fugitive emissions in a timely manner. Therefore, the 
final rule requires that initial monitoring be completed within 90 days 
after the startup of production for well sites and 90 days after the 
startup of a compressor station. Additionally, for low production well 
sites that take an action which subsequently increases production above 
15 boe per day based on the first 30 days of production following the 
action, the final rule requires that initial monitoring be completed 
within 90 days after the startup of production following the action.
4. Repair Requirements
    This final rule amends the fugitive emissions repair requirements. 
The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requires repair within 30 days of 
identifying fugitive emissions and a resurvey to verify that the repair 
was successful within 30 days of the repair. In the proposal, the EPA 
proposed to require a first attempt at repair within 30 days of 
identifying fugitive emissions and final repair, including the resurvey 
to verify repair, within 60 days of identifying fugitive emissions. We 
proposed these revisions because stakeholders raised questions on 
whether emissions identified during the resurvey would result in 
noncompliance with the repair requirement. The EPA agreed that repairs 
should be verified as successful prior to the repair deadline, 
therefore, we proposed a definition of repair that includes the 
resurvey. The net result of the proposal was that sources would have up 
to 60 days to complete repairs, which was an increase from the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa requirement of 30 days. We received comments from 
owners and operators that a total of 60 days was not necessary to 
complete a successful repair, therefore, this final rule amends the 
fugitive emissions repair requirements with changes from the proposal. 
Specifically, we are finalizing the proposal that a first attempt at 
repair is required within 30 days of identifying fugitive emissions and 
requiring final repair within 30 days of the first attempt at repair. 
While this final rule would still allow up to a total of 60 days to 
complete repairs, several owners and operators indicated in their 
comments that the majority of repairs are completed onsite during the 
time of the monitoring survey. We are also finalizing as proposed 
definitions for the terms ``first attempt at repair'' and ``repaired.'' 
Specifically, the definition of ``repaired'' includes the verification 
of successful repair through a resurvey of the fugitive emissions 
component.
    The EPA is also amending the requirements for when delayed repairs 
must be completed. The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, as amended on March 12, 
2018,\6\ specifies that where the repair of a fugitive emissions 
component is ``technically infeasible, would require a vent blowdown, a 
compressor station shutdown, a well shutdown or well shut-in, or would 
be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the repair must be 
completed during the next scheduled compressor station shutdown, well 
shutdown, well shut-in, after a planned vent blowdown, or within 2 
years, whichever is earlier.'' \7\ The EPA did not propose any 
additional revisions to this provision, but solicited comment on 
whether additional changes were necessary. 83 FR 52076. We received 
comments expressing concerns with requiring repairs during the next 
scheduled compressor station shutdown, without regard to whether the 
shutdown is for maintenance purposes. The commenters stated that 
repairs must be scheduled and that where a planned shutdown is for 
reasons other than scheduled maintenance, completion of the repairs 
during that shutdown may be difficult and disrupt gas transmission. The 
EPA agrees that requiring the completion of delayed repairs only during 
those scheduled compressor station shutdowns where maintenance 
activities are scheduled is reasonable and anticipates that these 
maintenance shutdowns occur on a regular schedule. Therefore, the final 
rule requires completion of delayed repairs during the ``next scheduled 
compressor station

[[Page 57407]]

shutdown for maintenance, scheduled well shutdown, scheduled well shut-
in, after a scheduled vent blowdown, or within 2 years, whichever is 
earliest.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 83 FR 10638.
    \7\ 40 CFR 60.5397a(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Definitions Related to Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and 
Compressor Stations
    The EPA is finalizing, as proposed, amendments to the definition of 
well site, for purposes of fugitive emissions monitoring, to exclude 
equipment owned by third parties and oilfield wastewater disposal wells 
(referred to as saltwater disposal wells in the proposal). 
Additionally, based on information received in public comments, the EPA 
is also amending the definition to exclude oilfield disposal wells used 
for solid waste disposal. The amended definition for ``well site'' 
excludes third party equipment from the fugitive emissions requirements 
by excluding ``the flange immediately upstream of the custody meter 
assembly and equipment, including fugitive emissions components located 
downstream of this flange.'' To clarify this exclusion, the final rule 
defines ``custody meter'' as the meter where natural gas or hydrocarbon 
liquids are measured for sales, transfers, and/or royalty 
determination, and the ``custody meter assembly'' as an assembly of 
fugitive emissions components, including the custody meter, valves, 
flanges, and connectors necessary for the proper operation of the 
custody meter, as proposed. The exclusion does not extend to other 
third-party equipment at a well site that is not associated with the 
custody meter and custody meter assembly (e.g., dehydrators).
    This final rule further amends the definition of a well site to 
exclude UIC Class I oilfield disposal wells and UIC Class II oilfield 
wastewater disposal wells. The EPA proposed excluding UIC Class II 
oilfield wastewater disposal wells because of our understanding that 
they have negligible fugitive emissions. 83 FR 52077. Commenters 
suggested that we also should exclude UIC Class I oilfield disposal 
wells for the same reasons. Both types of disposal wells are permitted 
through UIC programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act for surface and 
groundwater protection. The EPA agrees with the commenters that the 
potential fugitive methane and VOC emissions from UIC Class I oilfield 
disposal wells are low. Therefore, the final rule includes a definition 
for UIC Class I oilfield disposal wells. The definition for a UIC Class 
I oilfield disposal well is a well with a UIC Class I permit that meets 
the definition in 40 CFR 144.6(a)(2) and receives eligible fluids from 
oil and natural gas exploration and production operations. 
Additionally, the EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the definition of UIC 
Class II oilfield wastewater disposal wells. The definition for a UIC 
Class II oilfield wastewater disposal well is a well with a UIC Class 
II permit where wastewater resulting from oil and natural gas 
production operations is injected into underground porous rock 
formations not productive of oil or gas, and sealed above and below by 
unbroken, impermeable strata. Consequently, UIC Class I and UIC Class 
II disposal facilities without wells that produce oil or natural gas 
are not considered well sites for the purposes of fugitive emissions 
requirements.
    The EPA is also finalizing, as proposed, the definition of startup 
of production as it relates to fugitive emissions requirements. 
Specifically, startup of production is defined as the beginning of 
initial flow following the end of flowback when there is continuous 
recovery of salable quality gas and separation and recovery of any 
crude oil, condensate or produced water, except as otherwise provided 
herein. For the purposes of the fugitive monitoring requirements of 
Sec.  60.5397a, startup of production means the beginning of the 
continuous recovery of salable quality gas and separation and recovery 
of any crude oil, condensate or produced water.

F. AMEL

1. Incorporation of Emerging Technologies
    The EPA is amending the application requirements for requesting the 
use of an AMEL for well completions, reciprocating compressors, and the 
collection of fugitive emissions components located at a well site or 
compressor station. Applications for an AMEL may be submitted by, among 
others, owners or operators of affected facilities, manufacturers or 
vendors of leak detection technologies, or trade associations. The 
application must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the 
AMEL achieves emission reductions at least equivalent to the work 
practice standards in this rule. At a minimum, the application should 
include field data that encompass seasonal variations, and may be 
supplemented with modeling analyses, test data, and/or other 
documentation. The specific work practice(s), including performance 
methods, quality assurance, the threshold that triggers action, and the 
mitigation thresholds are also required as part of the application. For 
example, for a technology designed to detect fugitive emissions, 
information such as the detection criteria that indicate fugitive 
emissions requiring repair, the time to complete repairs, and any 
methods used to verify successful repair would be required.
2. Incorporation of State Fugitive Emissions Programs
    This final rule includes alternative fugitive emissions standards 
for specific state fugitive emissions programs that the EPA has 
concluded are at least equivalent to the fugitive emissions monitoring 
and repair requirements at 40 CFR 60.5397a(e), (f), (g), and (h). These 
alternative fugitive emissions standards may be adopted for certain 
individual well sites or compressor stations that are subject to 
fugitive emissions monitoring and repair so long as the source complies 
with specified Federal requirements applicable to each approved 
alternative state program. For example, a well site that is subject to 
the requirements of Pennsylvania General Permit 5A, section G, 
effective August 8, 2018, could comply with those standards in lieu of 
the monitoring, repair, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in 
the NSPS. However, the company must develop and maintain a fugitive 
emissions monitoring plan, as required in 40 CFR 60.5397a(c) and (d), 
and must monitor all of the fugitive emissions components, as defined 
in 40 CFR 60.5430a, regardless of the components that must be monitored 
under the alternative standard. Additionally, the facility must submit, 
as an attachment to its annual report for NSPS subpart OOOOa, the 
report that is submitted to its state in the format submitted to the 
state, or the information required in the report for NSPS subpart OOOOa 
if the state report does not include site-level monitoring and repair 
information. If a well site is located in the state but is not subject 
to the state requirements for monitoring and repair (i.e., not 
obligated to monitor or repair fugitive emissions), then the well site 
must continue to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 60.5397a in its 
entirety.
    In addition to providing alternative fugitive emissions standards 
for well sites and compressor stations located in California, Colorado, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and well sites in Utah, these amendments 
provide application requirements to request alternative fugitive 
emissions standards as state, local, and tribal programs continue to 
develop. Applications for alternative fugitive emissions standards 
based on state, local, or tribal programs may be submitted by any 
interested

[[Page 57408]]

person, including individuals, corporations, partnerships, 
associations, states, or municipalities. Similar to the applications 
for AMEL for emerging technologies, the application must include 
sufficient information to demonstrate that the alternative fugitive 
emissions standards achieve emissions reductions at least equivalent to 
the fugitive emissions monitoring and repair requirements in this rule. 
At a minimum, the application must include the monitoring instrument, 
monitoring procedures, monitoring frequency, definition of fugitive 
emissions requiring repair, repair requirements, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements. If any of the sections of the regulations or 
permits approved as alternative fugitive emissions standards are 
changed at a later date, the state must follow the procedures outlined 
in 40 CFR 60.5399a to apply for a new evaluation of equivalency.

G. Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants

1. Capital Expenditure
    The EPA is amending the definition of ``capital expenditure'' at 40 
CFR 50.5430a by replacing the equation used to determine the percent of 
replacement cost, ``Y.'' The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa contains a 
definition for ``Y'' that would result in an error, thus, making it 
difficult to determine whether a capital expenditure had occurred. The 
EPA proposed to revise the base year in the equation for ``Y'' with the 
year 2015 and to define ``Y'' as equal to 1 for facilities constructed 
in the year 2015. Additionally, we solicited comment on an alternative 
approach that would utilize CPI. While the EPA proposed these specific 
amendments to the equation used to determine the value of ``Y,'' we 
received public comments that supported the alternative approach which 
would more appropriately reflect inflation than the original equation. 
The EPA solicited comment on this alternative and is finalizing the 
alternative because we agree it is appropriate. The final equation for 
``Y'' is based on the CPI, where ``Y'' equals the CPI of the date of 
construction divided by the most recently available CPI of the date of 
the project, or ``CPIN/CPIPD.'' Further, the 
final rule specifies that the ``annual average of the consumer price 
index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), U.S. city average, all items'' 
must be used for determining the CPI of the year of construction, and 
the ``CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items'' must be used for 
determining the CPI of the date of the project. This amendment 
clarifies that the comparison of costs is between the original date of 
construction of the process unit and the date of the project which adds 
equipment to the process unit.
2. Equipment in VOC Service Less Than 300 Hours per Year (hr/yr)
    The October 15, 2018, proposal included an exemption from the 
requirements for equipment leaks at onshore natural gas processing 
plants. Specifically, the EPA proposed an exemption from monitoring for 
equipment that an owner or operator designates as being in VOC service 
less than 300 hr/yr. 83 FR 52086. The EPA received comments supporting 
this proposed exemption; therefore, we are amending the final rule as 
proposed. This exemption applies to equipment at onshore natural gas 
processing plants that is used only during emergencies, used as a 
backup, or that is in service only during startup and shutdown.
3. Initial Compliance Period
    The EPA is amending NSPS subpart OOOOa to specify that the initial 
compliance deadline for the equipment leak standards for onshore 
natural gas processing plants is 180 days. Specifically, the EPA is 
including in NSPS subpart OOOOa the provision requiring compliance ``as 
soon as practicable, but no later than 180 days after initial startup'' 
that is already in 40 CFR 60.632(a), which is part of subpart KKK of 
the part, ``Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC from 
Onshore Natural Gas Processing Plants for which Construction, 
Reconstruction, or Modification Commenced After January 20, 1984, and 
on or before August 23, 2011'' (NSPS subpart KKK). In 2012, the EPA 
revised the standards in NSPS subpart KKK with the promulgation of NSPS 
subpart OOOO \8\ by lowering the leak definition for valves from 10,000 
parts per million (ppm) to 500 ppm and requiring the monitoring of 
connectors. 77 FR 49490, 49498. While no changes to the compliance 
deadlines were made or discussed in NSPS subpart OOOO, 40 CFR 60.632(a) 
was not included in NSPS subpart OOOO and, as a result, was also not 
included in NSPS subpart OOOOa. During the rulemaking for NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, the EPA declined a request to include the language in 40 CFR 
60.632(a) in NSPS subpart OOOOa, explaining that such inclusion was not 
necessary because NSPS subpart OOOOa already incorporates by reference 
a similar statement (i.e., 40 CFR 60.482-1a(a)) which requires each 
owner and operator to ``demonstrate compliance . . . within 180 days of 
initial startup,'' 80 FR 56593, 56647-8. In reassessing the issue, the 
EPA notes that NSPS subpart KKK includes both 40 CFR 60.632(a) and 40 
CFR 60.482-1(a), a provision that is the same as 40 CFR 60.482-1a(a), 
suggesting that at the time of promulgation of NSPS subpart KKK, the 
EPA did not think that 40 CFR 60.482-1(a) (and 40 CFR 60.482-1a(a)) 
make 40 CFR 60.632(a) redundant or unnecessary. To remain consistent 
with NSPS subpart KKK, the EPA is amending NSPS subpart OOOOa to 
include a provision similar to 40 CFR 60.632(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas 
Production, Transmission and Distribution for Which Construction, 
Modification or Reconstruction Commenced After August 23, 2011, and 
on or before September 18, 2015.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule requires monitoring to begin as soon as practicable, 
but no later than 180 days after the initial startup of a new, 
modified, or reconstructed process unit at an onshore natural gas 
processing plant. Once started, monitoring must continue with the 
required schedule. For example, if pumps are monitored by month 3 of 
the initial startup period, then monthly monitoring is required from 
that point forward. This initial compliance period is different than 
the compliance requirements for newly added pumps and valves within a 
process unit that is already subject to a leak detection and repair 
(LDAR) program. Initial monitoring for those newly added pumps and 
valves is required within 30 days of the startup of the pump or valve 
(i.e., when the equipment is first in VOC service).

H. Sweetening Units

    This final rule revises the applicability criteria for the 
SO2 standards for sweetening units to correctly define an 
affected facility as any onshore sweetening unit that processes natural 
gas produced from either onshore or offshore wells. Sweetening units 
are used to convert hydrogen sulfide (H2S) in acid gases 
(i.e., H2S and CO2) that are separated from 
natural gas by a sweetening process (e.g., amine treatment) into 
elemental sulfur in the Claus process.\9\ These units can exist 
anywhere in the production and processing segment of the source 
category, including as stand-alone processing facilities that do not 
extract or fractionate natural gas liquids from field gas. The 
SO2 standards for onshore sweetening units were first 
promulgated in 1985 and codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLL. In 
2012,

[[Page 57409]]

based on our review of the standards, the EPA tightened the 
SO2 standards, which were codified in NSPS subpart OOOO and 
later carried over to NSPS subpart OOOOa. In the process of finalizing 
this current rulemaking to amend NSPS subpart OOOOa, the EPA discovered 
that NSPS subpart OOOOa inexplicably limits the applicability of the 
SO2 standards to only those sweetening units that are 
located at onshore natural gas processing plants, which NSPS subpart 
OOOOa defines as ``any processing site engaged in the extraction of 
natural gas liquids from field gas, fractionation of mixed natural gas 
liquids to natural gas products, or both. . . .'' 40 CFR 60.5430a. NSPS 
subpart LLL did not contain this limitation, and the EPA did not offer 
any rationale for creating it during the promulgation of either NSPS 
subpart OOOO or NSPS subpart OOOOa, nor can we identify any reason why 
the extraction of natural gas liquids relates in any way to the 
SO2 standards such that the standards should only apply to 
sweetening units located at onshore natural gas processing plants 
engaged in extraction or fractionation activities. Sweetening units 
emit SO2 in the same manner, regardless of whether they are 
located at an onshore natural gas processing plant or at processing 
facilities without extraction or fractionation activities. Therefore, 
the EPA concludes that the limitation was made in error and is now 
correcting the error by revising the affected facility description for 
the SO2 standards to include all onshore sweetening units 
that process natural gas produced from either onshore or offshore 
wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Recordkeeping and Reporting

    The EPA is amending NSPS subpart OOOOa to streamline the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements as discussed below for the 
specified affected facilities. These amendments reflect consideration 
of the public comments received on the proposal.
1. Well Completions
    For each well site affected facility that routes flowback entirely 
through one or more production separators, owners and operators are 
only required to record and report the following elements:
     Well Completion ID;
     Latitude and longitude of the well in decimal degrees to 
an accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using North 
American Datum of 1983;
     U.S. Well ID;
     The date and time of the onset of flowback following 
hydraulic fracturing or refracturing or identification that the well 
immediately starts production; and
     The date and time of the startup of production.
    For periods where salable gas is unable to be separated, owners and 
operators will also be required to record and report the date and time 
of onset of flowback, the duration and disposition of recovery, the 
duration of combustion and venting (if applicable), reasons for venting 
(if applicable), and deviations.
2. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations
    For each collection of fugitive emissions components located at a 
well site or compressor station, the EPA is amending the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements as follows:
     Revise the requirements in 40 CFR 60.5397a(d)(1) to 
require inclusion of procedures that ensure all fugitive emissions 
components are monitored during each survey within the monitoring plan.
     Remove the requirement to maintain records of a digital 
photo of each monitoring survey performed, captured from the OGI 
instrument used for monitoring.
     Remove the requirement to maintain records of the number 
and type of fugitive emissions components or digital photo of fugitive 
emissions components that are not repaired during the monitoring 
survey. These records are not required once repair is completed and 
verified with a resurvey.
     Require records of the total well site production for low 
production well sites.
     Require records of the date of first attempt at repair and 
date of successful repair.
     Revise reporting to specify the type of site (i.e., well 
site, low production well site, or compressor station) and when the 
well site changes status to a wellhead-only well site.
     Remove requirement to report the name or ID of operator 
performing the monitoring survey.
     Remove requirement to report the number and type of 
difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-to-monitor components that are 
monitored during each monitoring survey.
     Remove requirement to report the ambient temperature, sky 
conditions, and maximum wind speed.
     Remove requirement to report the date of successful 
repair.
     Remove requirement to report the type of instrument used 
for resurvey.
    In addition to streamlining the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, the EPA is also finalizing the form that is used for 
submitting annual reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data 
Reporting Interface (CEDRI) with this final rule. Per the requirement 
in 40 CFR 60.5420a(b)(11), affected facilities must submit all 
subsequent reports via CEDRI, once the form has been available in CEDRI 
for at least 90 calendar days. The EPA anticipates that the deadline to 
begin submitting subsequent annual reports required by 40 CFR 
60.5420a(b) through CEDRI will be [INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER DATE OF 
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. However, owners and operators 
should verify the date that the form becomes available in CEDRI by 
checking the ``Initial Availability Date'' listed on the CEDRI website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri).

J. Technical Corrections and Clarifications

    The EPA is revising NSPS subpart OOOOa to include the following 
technical corrections and clarifications.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5385a(a)(1), 60.5410a(c)(1), 
60.5415a(c)(1), and 60.5420a(b)(4)(i) and (c)(3)(i) to clarify that 
hours or months of operation at reciprocating compressor facilities 
must be measured beginning with the date of initial startup, the 
effective date of the requirement (August 2, 2016), or the last rod 
packing replacement, whichever is latest.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5393a(b)(3)(ii) to correctly cross-
reference paragraph (b)(3)(i) of that section.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5397a(c)(8) to clarify the calibration 
requirements when Method 21 of appendix A-7 to part 60 is used for 
fugitive emissions monitoring.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5397a(d)(3) to correctly cross-reference 
paragraphs (g)(3) and (4) of that section.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5401a(e) to remove the word ``routine'' 
to clarify that pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor 
service and light liquid service, and pressure relief devices in gas/
vapor service within a process unit at an onshore natural gas 
processing plant located on the Alaska North Slope are not subject to 
any monitoring requirements.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5410a(e) to correctly reference pneumatic 
pump affected facilities located at a well site as opposed to pneumatic 
pump affected facilities not located at a natural gas processing plant 
(which would include those not at a well site). This correction 
reflects that the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa did not finalize requirements 
for pneumatic pumps at gathering and boosting compressor stations. 81 
FR 35850.

[[Page 57410]]

     Revise 40 CFR 60.5411a(a)(1) to remove the reference to 
Sec.  60.5412a(a) and (c) for reciprocating compressor affected 
facilities.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5411a(d)(1) to remove the reference to 
storage vessels, as this paragraph applies to all the sources listed in 
40 CFR 60.5411a(d), not only storage vessels.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5412a(a)(1) and (d)(1)(iv) to clarify 
that all boilers and process heaters used as control devices on 
centrifugal compressors and storage vessels must introduce the vent 
stream into the flame zone. Additionally, revise 40 CFR 
60.5412a(a)(1)(iv) and (d)(1)(iv)(D) to clarify that the vent stream 
must be introduced with the primary fuel or as the primary fuel to meet 
the performance requirement option. This is consistent with the 
performance testing exemption in 40 CFR 60.5413a and continuous 
monitoring exemption in 40 CFR 60.5417a for boilers and process heaters 
that introduce the vent stream with the primary fuel or as the primary 
fuel.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5412a(c) to correctly reference both 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of that section, for managing carbon in a 
carbon adsorption system.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5413a(d)(5)(i) to reference fused silica-
coated stainless steel evacuated canisters instead of a specific name 
brand product.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5413a(d)(9)(iii) to clarify the basis for 
the total hydrocarbon span for the alternative range is propane, just 
as the basis for the recommended total hydrocarbon span is propane.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5413a(d)(12) to clarify that all data 
elements must be submitted for each test run.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5415a(b)(3) to reference all applicable 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5416a(a)(4) to correctly cross-reference 
40 CFR 60.5411a(a)(3)(ii).
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5417a(a) to clarify requirements for 
controls not specifically listed in paragraph (d) of that section.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5422a(b) to correctly cross-reference 40 
CFR 60.487a(b)(1) through (3) and (b)(5).
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5422a(c) to correctly cross-reference 40 
CFR 60.487a(c)(2)(i) through (iv) and (c)(2)(vii) through (viii).
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5423a(b) to simplify the reporting 
language and clarify what data are required in the report of excess 
emissions for sweetening unit affected facilities.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5430a to remove the phrase ``including 
but not limited to'' from the ``fugitive emissions component'' 
definition. During the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa rulemaking, we stated in 
a response to comment that we are removing this phrase,\10\ but we did 
not do so in that rulemaking and are finalizing that change in this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7632, Chapter 
4, page 4-319.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Revise 40 CFR 60.5430a to remove the phrase ``at the sales 
meter'' from the ``low pressure well'' definition to clarify that when 
determining the low pressure status of a well, pressure is measured 
within the flow line, rather than at the sales meter.
     Revise Table 3 to correctly indicate that the performance 
tests in 40 CFR 60.8 do not apply to pneumatic pump affected 
facilities.
     Revise Table 3 to include the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a well site and the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a compressor station in the list of exclusions 
for notification of reconstruction.
     Revise 40 CFR 60.5393a(f), 60.5410a(e)(8), 60.5411a(e), 
60.5415a(b) introductory text and (b)(4), 60.5416a(d), 60.5420a(b) 
introductory text and (b)(13), and introductory text in Sec. Sec.  
60.5411a and 60.5416a, to remove language associated with the 
administrative stay we issued under section (d)(7)(B) of the CAA in 
``Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, 
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Grant of Reconsideration and 
Partial Stay'' (June 5, 2017). The administrative stay was vacated by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit on July 
3, 2017.

V. Significant Changes Since Proposal

    This section identifies significant changes since the proposed 
rulemaking. These changes reflect the EPA's consideration of over 
500,000 comments submitted on the proposal and other information 
received since the proposal. In this section, we discuss the 
significant changes since proposal by affected facility type and the 
rationales for those changes. Additional information related to these 
changes, such as specific comments and our responses, is in section VI 
of this preamble and in materials available in the docket.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Response to Comments (RTC) document and technical 
support documents (TSD) in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Storage Vessels

    In the October 15, 2018, proposal, the EPA proposed clarifications 
on how to calculate the potential for VOC emissions for purposes of 
determining whether a storage vessel has the potential for 6 tpy or 
more of VOC emissions and, therefore, is an affected facility subject 
to the storage vessels standards under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. 
Specifically, the EPA proposed amendments to the definition of 
``maximum average daily throughput'' that provided distinct 
methodologies for calculating the throughput of an individual storage 
vessel based on how throughput is measured and recorded. We proposed 
the amendments because owners and operators continued to express 
confusion over how to calculate this throughput.
    Numerous commenters \12\ expressed objections to several aspects of 
the proposed amendments, particularly to the EPA's assumption that 
averaging emissions across storage vessels in a controlled battery 
would underestimate a storage vessel's potential VOC emissions. The 
commenters explained why averaging across storage vessels in controlled 
batteries has a sound basis in engineering and addresses the EPA's 
concern about flash emissions, which constitute most of the emissions 
from storage vessels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0773, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483-0775, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0780, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-
0801, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0996, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0999, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483-1006, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1009, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-
1236, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1243, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1248, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483-1261, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1343, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-
0483-1578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the commenters pointed out that tank batteries 
typically share vapor space (the tank volume above the liquid) and 
joint piping used to collect generated vapors, which are then routed 
back to a process or conveyed to a control device, when one is used, or 
vented through one common pressure relief valve (PRV). For purposes of 
this discussion, the EPA considers this configuration as a manifolded 
system that collects and routes vapors across the headspace. (This is 
different than liquid manifolded systems where liquids can be 
introduced to any tank in the system.) The commenters noted that vapors 
flow both into and out of each tank within the battery and into 
overflow piping on a continuous basis, and vapors will always flow from 
high pressure areas to low pressure areas when flow is mechanically 
unrestricted. The commenters explained that, in this configuration, the 
flash emissions from the first tank will flow into the other tanks and 
vent line space associated with the battery until the total pressure in 
the system exceeds the back-pressure of the flare or other control 
device, or in systems without controls, the PRV.

[[Page 57411]]

The commenters asserted that only then will the emissions (i.e., the 
vapors) be released from the PRV if uncontrolled; routed back to a 
process; or combusted by the control equipment. Therefore, the 
commenters suggested that because the vapors from individual storage 
vessels are comingled and not individually emitted from the originating 
storage vessels, it is appropriate to allow sources to average the 
emissions across the number of storage vessels in the controlled 
battery in order to attribute emissions to individual storage vessels.
    After considering these comments and subsequent conversations with 
the commenters,\13\ the EPA reevaluated the proposal. Based on this 
review, the EPA agrees with the commenters that, in certain situations, 
averaging emissions across a controlled battery may be appropriate for 
purposes of determining whether to subject the storage vessels in the 
tank battery to the storage vessel standards in NSPS subpart OOOOa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Memoranda for March 27, 2019 Meeting with American 
Petroleum Institute, April 9, 2019 Meeting with Hess, and May 1, 
2019 Meeting with GPA Midstream located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to fully understand where averaging of emissions across a 
controlled battery may be appropriate, under this final rule, for 
purposes of determining whether to subject the storage vessels in the 
controlled battery to the storage vessel standards in NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, the EPA considered the level of control that would be achieved 
where uncontrolled potential emissions are greater than 6 tpy. The 
standards in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa require reducing uncontrolled 
emissions from individual storage vessel affected facilities by 95.0 
percent.
    For controlled batteries, as liquids are introduced to a storage 
vessel in the system, the vapors transfer to the piping, or common 
header, enter the common vapor space, and commingle with vapors from 
other storage vessels in the manifolded system. When the combined vapor 
pressure in the common header reaches a specified set point, the vapors 
are typically conveyed through a CVS to either a vapor recovery unit 
(which routes vapors back to a process) or a control device. Where this 
controlled battery is designed and operated to route the vapors in this 
manner, emissions from an individual storage vessel within the 
controlled battery are indistinguishable from emissions from other 
storage vessels within the controlled battery; each individual storage 
vessel does not directly emit (e.g., flash emissions) to the 
atmosphere. These controlled batteries are typically subject to 
specific design and operational criteria through a legally and 
practicably enforceable limit (e.g., through permits or other 
requirements established through Federal, state, local, or tribal 
authority). To the extent that the control, through the battery's 
design and operation, already reduces 95 percent or more of the VOC 
emissions, no additional emission reductions would be achieved by 
subjecting each individual storage vessel in the controlled battery 
operating under legally and practicably enforceable limits to the 
storage vessel standards in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. However, the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa considers any storage vessel with the potential 
for VOC emissions greater than 6 tpy, including those with legally and 
practicably enforceable limits, a storage vessel affected facility. 
This final rule does not change that 6 tpy applicability threshold, but 
it does include specific criteria that must be included in the legally 
and practicably enforceable limit before averaging of emissions will be 
allowed for the purposes of determining whether the potential for VOC 
emissions from the individual storage vessels in a controlled tank 
battery is above the 6 tpy threshold. Specifically, the legally and 
practicably enforceable limit must require the storage vessels to be 
(1) manifolded together with piping such that all vapors are shared 
among the headspaces of the storage vessels, (2) equipped with a CVS 
that is designed, operated, and maintained to route vapors back to the 
process or to a control device, and (3) designed and operated to route 
vapors back to the process or to a control device that reduces VOC 
emissions by at least 95.0 percent. The EPA concludes that averaging 
emissions across the number of storage vessels in a controlled battery 
subject to the design and operational criteria specified above, through 
a legally and practicably enforceable limit, is the appropriate way to 
determine if the storage vessels in that battery are affected 
facilities under NSPS subpart OOOOa. Where the average VOC emissions 
across the number of storage vessels in the controlled battery is 6 tpy 
or greater, all of the storage vessels in the controlled battery are 
storage vessel affected facilities and subject to the requirements for 
storage vessels in NSPS subpart OOOOa. However, where the average 
emissions are less than 6 tpy, none of the storage vessels in the 
controlled battery are storage vessels affected facilities.
    For storage vessels that do not meet all of the design and 
operational criteria specified in this final rule, which includes 
single storage vessels (whether controlled or not) and storage vessels 
that are connected in some way but do not meet all of the criteria 
described above, the final rule requires owners and operators to 
calculate the potential for VOC emissions on an individual storage 
vessel basis to determine if the storage vessel is a storage vessel 
affected facility, as proposed. Where the potential for VOC emissions 
from a storage vessel is 6 tpy or greater, the storage vessel is a 
storage vessel affected facility. We have not revised the BSER for 
storage vessel affected facilities; as a result, the storage vessel 
standards in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa remain applicable to these 
storage vessels if their potential for VOC emissions is 6 tpy or 
greater, based on each individual storage vessel and without averaging 
across the storage vessels at the site.
    The final rule continues to require that an owner or operator 
calculate the potential for VOC emissions using generally accepted 
methods for estimating emissions based on the maximum average daily 
throughput. In this final rule, the EPA is amending the definition of 
maximum average daily throughput to specify how to determine throughput 
for the calculation of the potential for VOC emissions. Specifically, 
this amended definition specifies how storage vessels that commence 
construction, reconstruction, or modification after the effective date 
of this final rule must determine the throughput to each individual 
storage vessel in order to calculate the potential for VOC emissions. 
This definition is relevant to the individual storage vessels or 
connected storage vessels that do not meet the specified design and 
operational criteria defined for controlled tank batteries (i.e., tank 
batteries that are allowed to average emissions across the tanks in the 
battery).
    In summary, this final rule amends the definition of ``maximum 
average daily throughput,'' to specify how the potential for VOC 
emissions are calculated. Additionally, this final rule allows for a 
calculation of the average VOC emissions to determine the applicability 
of the storage vessel standards to storage vessels in controlled 
batteries where specific design and operational criteria are 
incorporated as legally and practicably enforceable requirements into a 
permit or other requirement established under Federal, state, local, or 
tribal authority. The specific design and operational criteria are as 
follows: (1) The storage vessels are manifolded together with piping 
such that all vapors are shared

[[Page 57412]]

between the headspace of the storage vessels, (2) the storage vessels 
are equipped with a CVS that is designed, operated, and maintained to 
route collected vapors back to the process or to a control device, and 
(3) collected vapors are routed to a process or a control device that 
achieves at least 95.0-percent control of VOC emissions. If the 
potential for VOC emissions (or average emissions where applicable) is 
greater than or equal to 6 tpy, the storage vessel is a storage vessel 
affective facility.
    The amendments discussed above, including the definition of 
``maximum average daily throughput,'' apply to storage vessels that 
commence construction, reconstruction, or modification after the 
effective date of this final rule, which is November 16, 2020. Owners 
and operators of storage vessels that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015, and on or 
before November 16, 2020 may still have uncertainty regarding whether 
they determined their applicability appropriately. If so, these owners 
and operators should contact the EPA if they have questions regarding 
how they previously determined applicability for these sources.

B. Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and Compressor Stations

    The October 15, 2018, proposal included various proposed amendments 
to the fugitive emissions standards. Two major aspects of those 
proposed amendments were (1) reduction in the monitoring frequency for 
well sites and compressor stations and (2) revisions to the monitoring 
plan, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. This final rule 
includes changes from the proposal in both areas. First, the EPA is not 
finalizing the proposed annual monitoring frequency at non-low 
production well sites. As explained in more detail below, the EPA 
concluded that the three areas of uncertainty that were the basis for 
proposing amendments to the monitoring frequencies for well sites and 
compressor stations did not result in an overestimate of the cost-
effectiveness of the monitoring frequencies in the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, and semiannual monitoring remains cost effective based on the 
revised cost estimates for well sites with total production greater 
than 15 boe per day, which are presented in the TSD for this final 
rule. Therefore, the final rule retains semiannual monitoring for well 
sites with total production greater than 15 boe per day.
    Additionally, the EPA is neither finalizing the proposed biennial 
monitoring frequency at low production well sites (i.e., well sites 
with total production at or below 15 boe per day) nor retaining the 
current semiannual monitoring requirement because monitoring is not 
cost effective at any frequency for these well sites based on the 
revised cost estimates. Instead, the final rule requires that a low 
production well site either maintain its total production at or below 
15 boe per day or conduct semiannual monitoring. This requirement 
applies to well sites that produce at or below 15 boe per day during 
the first 30 days of production, as well as those sites that experience 
a decline in production where the total production for the well site, 
based on a rolling 12-month average, is at or below 15 boe per day, as 
demonstrated by the records required in the final rule.
    Further, the EPA is finalizing the co-proposed semiannual 
monitoring frequency for gathering and boosting compressor stations. As 
explained in more detail below in section V.B.4 of the preamble, based 
on our comparison of the cost-effectiveness of semiannual and quarterly 
monitoring and consideration of other cost-related factors, we are 
finalizing semiannual monitoring for gathering and boosting compressor 
stations. This final rule does not address fugitive emissions 
monitoring for transmission and storage compressor stations because the 
Review Rule (published in the Federal Register of Monday, September 14, 
2020) revises the source category by removing sources in the 
transmission and storage segment from the category. As such, the Review 
Rule rescinds the GHG and VOC standards for sources in the transmission 
and storage segment. Regardless, the TSD for this final action does 
include relevant updates to the model plants for the transmission and 
storage compressor stations.
    The revised cost estimates for fugitive monitoring of well sites 
and gathering and boosting compressor stations rely on updates the EPA 
made to the model plants, including updates that address the areas of 
uncertainty that we identified in the October 15, 2018, proposal, as 
well as the revisions to the monitoring plan, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements we are making in this final rule, which reduce 
administrative burden without compromising our ability to determine 
compliance with the standards. This section describes the analyses and 
resulting amendments to the fugitive emissions standards in this final 
rule.
1. Areas of Uncertainty
    In the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, the EPA concluded that a fugitive 
emissions monitoring and repair program that includes semiannual OGI 
monitoring at well sites and quarterly monitoring at compressor 
stations and the repair of any components identified with fugitive 
emissions was the BSER for the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at well sites and compressor stations.\14\ 81 FR 35826. 
While the EPA continued to maintain that OGI is the BSER for reducing 
fugitive emissions at well sites and compressor stations in the October 
15, 2018, proposal, we proposed less frequent monitoring after 
identifying three areas of uncertainty that led to concerns that we 
might have overestimated the emission reductions, and, therefore, cost 
effectiveness, of the monitoring frequencies specified in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa. We solicited comments on these three areas of 
uncertainty, as well as additional information, so that we could better 
assess the emission reductions that occur at different monitoring 
frequencies. Additional detailed discussion on the areas of uncertainty 
is available in the TSD for this final rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The rule allows the use of Method 21 as an alternative to 
OGI but did not conclude Method 21 was BSER because OGI was found to 
be more cost effective. See 81 FR 35856.
    \15\ See TSD located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the October 15, 2018, proposal, regarding the EPA's cost 
analysis in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, we stated that the ``EPA 
identified three areas of the analysis that raise concerns regarding 
the emissions reductions: (1) The percent emission reduction achieved 
by OGI, (2) the occurrence rate of fugitive emissions at different 
monitoring frequencies, and (3) the initial percentage of fugitive 
emissions components identified with fugitive emissions.'' 83 FR 52063. 
Given these areas of concern, we solicited information to further 
refine our analysis and reduce or eliminate these uncertainties. 
Several commenters provided information that the EPA used to evaluate 
each of these areas for this final rule.
    Reductions using OGI. In the October 15, 2018, proposal, the EPA 
maintained the estimates for emissions reductions achieved when using 
OGI at any type of site, which are 30 percent for biennial monitoring, 
40 percent for annual monitoring, 60 percent for semiannual monitoring, 
and 80 percent for quarterly monitoring. As stated in the proposal, one 
stakeholder asserted that annual monitoring was more appropriate for 
compressor stations than the required quarterly monitoring. This 
stakeholder stated that the estimated control

[[Page 57413]]

efficiency for quarterly monitoring should be 90 percent (instead of 80 
percent) and annual monitoring should be 80 percent (instead of 40 
percent), based on the stakeholder's interpretation of results from a 
study conducted by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 
(CAPP).\16\ In response to this information, the EPA reviewed the CAPP 
report and was unable to conclude that annual OGI monitoring would 
achieve 80-percent emissions reductions, as stated by the 
stakeholder.\17\ In its submission of public comments on the proposal, 
and in subsequent clarifying discussions, the stakeholder continued to 
assert that the EPA had understated the emissions reductions achieved 
with annual monitoring.\18\ As discussed in the TSD,\19\ we have 
reevaluated the information provided in the CAPP report and are still 
unable to conclude that the CAPP report demonstrates that annual OGI 
monitoring would achieve 80-percent emissions reductions. In brief, we 
concluded that the results of the CAPP report indicate that quarterly 
monitoring could achieve 92-percent emission reductions while annual 
monitoring could achieve 56-percent emission reductions based on 
attributing the recommended frequencies at which the components at 
compressor stations should be monitored to the emissions reported for 
those component types. However, as stated in our discussion in the TSD, 
these emissions reductions may also be due to factors such as improved 
emissions factors and not actual emissions reductions resulting from 
monitoring and repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ CAPP, ``Update of Fugitive Equipment Leak Emission 
Factors,'' prepared for CAPP by Clearstone Engineering, Ltd., 
February 2014.
    \17\ See memorandum, ``EPA Analysis of Fugitive Emissions Data 
Provided by Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA),'' 
located at Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0060. August 21, 
2018.
    \18\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1002 and 
Memorandum for the April 30, 2019 Meeting with INGAA, located at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
    \19\ See TSD, section 2.4.1.1 for more details at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another commenter provided information related to the emissions 
reductions achieved when using OGI at the various monitoring 
frequencies.\20\ The commenter referenced a study performed by Dr. 
Arvind Ravikumar as supporting the EPA's estimates of emissions 
reductions for annual and semiannual monitoring using OGI.\21\ This 
study utilized the Fugitive Emissions Abatement Simulation Toolkit 
(FEAST) model that was developed by Stanford University to simulate 
emissions reductions achieved at the various monitoring frequencies. 
The study used information from the EPA's model plant analysis for the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, including the site-level baseline emissions. 
Emissions reductions were estimated at 32 percent for annual 
monitoring, 54 percent for semiannual monitoring, and 70 percent for 
quarterly monitoring, which the EPA considers to be comparable to the 
EPA's estimated reduction efficiencies for OGI at these monitoring 
frequencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041.
    \21\ See Appendix D to Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-
2041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the EPA updated its analysis of emissions reductions using 
Method 21 for comparison to the estimated reductions using OGI. As 
previously stated in the proposal TSD,\22\ data from the Synthetic 
Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) in the 1995 Equipment 
Leak Protocol Document (1995 Protocol) was used to estimate the Method 
21 effectiveness at the various monitoring frequencies. In the proposal 
TSD, we stated, ``it is not possible to correlate OGI detection 
capabilities with a Method 21 instrument reading, provided in ppm. 
However, based on the EPA's current understanding of OGI technology and 
the types of hydrocarbons found at oil and natural gas well sites and 
compressor stations, the emission reductions from an OGI monitoring and 
repair program likely correlate to a Method 21 monitoring and repair 
program with a fugitive emissions definition somewhere between 2,000 to 
10,000 ppm.'' \23\ We received comments asserting that the EPA 
inappropriately used Method 21 effectiveness estimates based on SOCMI 
to justify the emissions reductions for OGI. In response to these 
comments, the EPA updated the Method 21 effectiveness estimates using 
information for the oil and gas industry, as described in the TSD for 
this final rule.\24\ The revised analysis estimates emissions 
reductions when using Method 21 to be 40 percent for annual monitoring, 
54 percent for semiannual monitoring, and 67 percent for quarterly 
monitoring, when using the average reductions achieved at leak 
definitions of 500 ppm and 10,000 ppm. While not a direct comparison, 
the EPA estimates emission reductions using OGI would likely be higher 
because OGI will detect large emissions, such as emissions from thief 
hatches on controlled storage vessels, that Method 21 would otherwise 
not detect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0040.
    \23\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0040, at page 
25.
    \24\ See TSD at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, the EPA performed detailed analyses of the CAPP 
studies, the FEAST model results, and the updated Method 21 estimates 
to determine whether changes to the estimated effectiveness of OGI 
monitoring is appropriate. Based on these analyses, we conclude that 
the estimated effectiveness percentages of OGI monitoring at the 
various frequencies are appropriate and do not need adjustment.
    Leak occurrence rates. The second uncertainty identified in the 
October 15, 2018, proposal relates to the occurrence rate of fugitive 
emissions, or the percentage of components identified with fugitive 
emissions during each survey. In the proposal, the EPA stated, 
``because the model plants assume that the percentage of components 
found with fugitive emissions is the same regardless of the monitoring 
frequency, we acknowledge that we may have overestimated the total 
number of fugitive emissions components identified during each of the 
more frequent monitoring cycles.'' 83 FR 52064. There are numerous ways 
the number of leaking components could impact the cost effectiveness of 
monitoring, including (1) the amount of baseline emissions, (2) the 
potential emission reductions, and (3) the number of repairs required.
    In the 2016 analysis, the EPA assumed that each monitoring survey 
at a well site would identify four components with fugitive emissions. 
That is, when a site is monitored annually, we estimated four total 
components leaking for that year, but if that same site were monitored 
semiannually, we estimated eight total components leaking for that 
year. However, we have found that a constant leak occurrence rate is 
not reflected in our analysis of Method 21 monitoring, the information 
provided through comments on the proposal, or a review of the annual 
compliance reports submitted to the EPA for the NSPS subpart OOOOa. 
Rather, the information demonstrates that occurrence rates differ based 
on monitoring frequency. For example, the information we reviewed in 
the annual compliance reports for well site fugitive emissions 
components demonstrated that, on average, three components were 
identified as leaking where only one survey had taken place in a 12-
month period, and two components were identified as leaking, per 
survey, where more than one survey had occurred in

[[Page 57414]]

a 12-month period.\25\ These values are similar to those provided by 
two commenters that provided detailed information on the number of 
components identified with fugitive emissions at different monitoring 
frequencies.\26\ Therefore, we updated the well site model plant 
analysis to include an average of three components per annual survey 
and two components per semiannual survey (for a total of four repairs 
annually).\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See TSD located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
    \26\ See Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0801 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041.
    \27\ The 2016 model plant analysis included an evaluation of 
quarterly monitoring for well sites. Because semiannual monitoring 
is required, it was not possible to determine the quarterly 
occurrence rate for well sites using this information. See TSD for 
additional analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2016 analysis, the EPA assigned each type of compressor 
station (i.e., gathering and boosting, transmission, and storage) a 
specific leak occurrence rate. While annual compliance reports were 
submitted for compressor stations complying with NSPS subpart OOOOa, it 
was not possible to determine which stations were which type. However, 
for gathering and boosting compressor stations, detailed information 
was provided by GPA Midstream.\28\ While the number of reported leaks 
varied widely in the dataset, the EPA's analysis of the data 
demonstrated that, on average, 11 components were identified as leaking 
during a 12-month period, with monitoring frequencies ranging from 
monthly to annually.\29\ Therefore, we assumed that a total of 11 
components, on average, would be identified as leaking over the course 
of a full year's worth of monitoring, regardless of monitoring 
frequency. That is, we assumed that if monitoring occurs semiannually, 
on average, 11 components will be leaking over the course of the two 
surveys in that year. This estimate takes into account the reported 
variation in the number of components identified as leaking during each 
survey. For example, a gathering and boosting compressor station that 
is monitoring quarterly may identify the following number of components 
as leaking: Three components in Quarter 1; two components in Quarter 2; 
four components in Quarter 3; and two components in Quarter 4. If that 
same gathering and boosting compressor station were monitored annually, 
then all 11 components would be identified during the one annual 
survey. This is different than the assumption used in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa. Utilizing the estimate of 11 components identified as 
leaking over the course of 1 year provides an annual estimate of the 
repair costs for gathering and boosting compressor stations which is 
independent of the monitoring survey costs. That is, on average, the 
same number of repairs are made in a single year, regardless of the 
frequency of surveys, which helps account for the variability presented 
in the dataset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1261.
    \29\ See TSD located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the EPA is no longer using a linear function for 
occurrence rates as we did in the proposal or the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa. Instead, we have based occurrence rates on available information 
that is specific to fugitive emissions monitoring frequencies for each 
type of facility. Specifically, we estimate a total of two repairs 
(leaking components) at the annual monitoring frequency and three 
repairs at the semiannual monitoring frequency for well sites. For 
gathering and boosting compressor stations we estimate that, on 
average, 11 repairs are necessary over the course of a year. This 
updated analysis more directly reflects the reality that leak 
occurrence rates are not linear between frequencies and more 
appropriately estimates the number of repairs (and, thus, emission 
reductions and costs) at more frequent monitoring. Thus, the EPA no 
longer considers leak occurrence rates to raise uncertainties with the 
analysis or to overestimate emissions.
    Initial leak rate. The final uncertainty raised in the October 15, 
2018, proposal was the initial percentage of components identified with 
fugitive emissions (``initial leak rate''). While the EPA did not use 
an initial leak rate in our estimate of the baseline emissions, one 
commenter noted that initial leak rate should be considered a key 
element for understanding potential baseline emissions. The commenter 
stated its belief that the emissions factor the EPA used to estimate 
baseline emissions was calculated using an initial leak rate that was 
too high, thus, biasing the baseline emissions (and the resulting 
emission reductions) high.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa TSD, the EPA stated incorrectly that 
the model plant analysis assumed an initial leak rate of 1.18 
percent.\31\ One commenter pointed out that this initial leak rate, 
which was also cited in the October 15, 2018, proposal, was not the 
actual estimate used for the model plant analysis. The commenter is 
correct on this point. The uncontrolled emissions factors for non-thief 
hatch fugitive emission components the EPA used to estimate model plant 
emissions are based on Table 2-4 of the Protocol for Equipment Leak 
Emission Estimates (``Protocol Document'').\32\ While the initial leak 
rates that are inherent in these emissions factors are not specifically 
stated in the Protocol Document, the commenter performed a back-
calculation of the fraction of leaking components using Table 5-7 of 
the Protocol Document and the weighted leak fraction for all components 
using the number of each component per model plant. That result, with 
which the EPA agrees, shows that when using Method 21 and a leak 
definition of 500 ppm, the estimated initial leak rate is 2.5%, and 
when using Method 21 and a leak definition of 10,000 ppm, the estimated 
initial leak rate is 1.65 percent.\33\ However, the initial leak rate 
is only one contributing factor to baseline emissions. Another 
contributing factor is the magnitude of emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7631.
    \32\ See U.S. EPA, ``1995 Protocol for Equipment Leak Emission 
Estimates Emission Standards'' located at Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483-0002.
    \33\ See memorandum, ``Summary of Data Received on the October 
15, 2018 Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa 
Related to Model Plant Fugitive Emissions.'' February 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While several commenters \34\ provided information on the number or 
percentage of components identified with fugitive emissions, no 
commenters provided component-level information on the magnitude of 
those emissions.\35\ In June 2019, a study was published in Elementa 
that examined fugitive emissions from 67 oil and natural gas well sites 
and gathering and boosting compressor stations in the Western U.S.\36\ 
As discussed in the TSD, the study included quantification of fugitive 
emissions from components located at well sites and gathering and 
boosting compressor stations. The EPA evaluated the measured fugitive 
emissions from that study for central production, well production, and 
well site facilities, as defined by the study. We then evaluated the 
average emissions across those three site types to compare those 
emissions to

[[Page 57415]]

the estimated emissions using the average emissions factors from the 
EPA Protocol Document. The average well site emissions measured in the 
study were comparable to the model plant well site emissions. 
Therefore, the EPA determined that the use of the emissions factors 
from the 1995 Protocol Document was still appropriate and has 
maintained use of these average emissions factors in the model plant 
analyses supporting this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See, for example, Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-
0801, EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1261, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041.
    \35\ See memorandum, ``Summary of Data Received on the October 
15, 2018 Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa 
Related to Model Plant Fugitive Emissions.'' February 10, 2020.
    \36\ See Pasci, A.P., Ferrara, T., Schwan, K., Tupper, P., Lev-
On, M., Smith, R., and Ritter, K., 2019. ``Equipment Leak Detection 
and Quantification at 67 Oil and Gas Sites in the Western United 
States.'' Elem Sci Anth, 7(1), p.29 located at http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.368.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, we identified three areas of potential uncertainty 
in the October 15, 2018, proposal: (1) The effectiveness of OGI at the 
various frequencies, (2) the leak occurrence rate for each survey, and 
(3) the initial leak rate. The EPA was concerned that we might have 
overestimated the emission reductions from the monitoring frequencies 
in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa due to these three areas of 
uncertainties. However, after evaluating the data provided by 
commenters and making the appropriate revisions to our model plant 
analysis, the EPA no longer believes that these three areas create 
uncertainty or resulted in an overestimation of emissions reductions.
2. Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Administrative Burden Associated 
With the Fugitive Emissions Program
    In addition to proposing reduced monitoring frequencies, the EPA 
proposed amending the monitoring plan requirements in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa. Specifically, we proposed these amendments to address 
concerns that the requirements, such as the site map and observation 
path, resulted in significant costs that increase over time due to the 
increase in the number of facilities subject to the requirements each 
year. The EPA proposed allowing alternatives to the site map and 
observation path that would also ensure that all fugitive components at 
a site are monitored. 83 FR 52078 and 9. The EPA received comments 
expressing concern that, in addition to the costs associated with the 
development and necessary updates of the monitoring plan, the EPA had 
underestimated the administrative burden associated with the extensive 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the fugitive emissions 
standards in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. These commenters stated that 
this burden represents the largest cost of the fugitive emissions 
program in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa.\37\ In the October 15, 2018, 
proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposed to streamline certain 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa 
to reduce burden on the industry, including the fugitive emissions 
recordkeeping and reporting. 83 FR 52059. In response to these 
comments, the EPA re-evaluated the fugitive emissions program, with a 
focus on identifying areas to reduce unnecessary administrative burden 
and provide flexibility for future innovation, while retaining 
sufficient recordkeeping and reporting requirements to assure that 
affected facilities are complying with the standards. After concluding 
this re-evaluation, we found that certain requirements were unnecessary 
and burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, we examined the commenters' assertion and supporting 
information that the EPA underestimated the recordkeeping and reporting 
costs in both the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa and the October 15, 2018, 
proposal. To better understand the commenters' statements regarding the 
recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, we reviewed the specific recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements for the fugitive emissions program, including the 
monitoring plan. Based on this review, we agree with the commenters 
that the recordkeeping and reporting burden was underestimated in both 
the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa and the October 15, 2018, proposal, as 
described below.
    In the October 15, 2018, proposal, we had proposed reducing certain 
monitoring frequencies. While we updated portions of the model plant 
analysis for fugitive emissions to reflect these proposed changes, we 
did not make specific changes related to recordkeeping and reporting 
costs. As shown in the proposal TSD,\38\ we estimated that the 
development of a monitoring plan was a one-time cost of $3,672 per 
company-defined area, which is estimated as consisting of 22 well sites 
or seven gathering and boosting compressor stations. We estimated 
reporting costs to be at $245 per site per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See TSD at Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, we reevaluated the cost burden of the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements associated with the fugitive emissions standards 
in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa prior to considering any additional 
changes to those standards that might further reduce the cost burden. 
This step was necessary to provide a correct baseline for comparison 
when evaluating the burden reductions associated with potential changes 
to the standards.
    Before considering the information provided in the comments, we 
removed certain line items from the previous analysis as described. We 
removed the initial and subsequent planning activities because these 
items were not clearly representative of actual recordkeeping 
activities that are associated with the fugitive emissions requirements 
of the rule (e.g., records management systems, tracking components, 
data review, etc.). We also removed the cost associated with 
notification of initial compliance status because such notification is 
not required under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. Next, we considered the 
comments and information received on our estimate of the cost to 
develop a monitoring plan under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. One 
commenter provided information on the range of costs that have been 
incurred by owners and operators to develop a monitoring plan since the 
rule has been in place.\39\ These estimated costs range from $5,600 to 
$8,800, which is more than our estimate of $3,672. In examining the 
information provided by the commenter in further detail, we note that 
hourly rates are higher than the standard labor rate used in EPA's 
calculations, which would attribute to the difference in costs. Next, 
commenters dispute our assumption that the monitoring plan is a one-
time cost for the company. Several commenters stated while most of the 
monitoring plan is associated with a one-time cost, the required site 
map and observation path require frequent updates as the equipment at 
the site changes. One of these commenters provided an estimate of the 
cost to develop the initial site map and observation path for an 
individual site, and the cost of updating these items for each 
monitoring survey.\40\ This information provided estimates that 
companies have already spent approximately $650 developing the 
individual site map and observation path for each site and an 
additional $150 updating these items for each monitoring survey. Based 
on this information, we agree it is appropriate to account for the 
necessary updates for

[[Page 57416]]

the site map and observation path when estimating the cost burden of 
the rule. Therefore, we split the monitoring plan costs into three 
items in our model plant analysis: (1) Develop company-wide fugitive 
emissions monitoring plan, (2) develop site-specific fugitive 
monitoring plan (i.e., site map and observation path), and (3) 
management of change (site map and observation path). Additionally, we 
applied hourly rates, based on information provided by the commenter, 
to estimate costs instead of using the flat cost values provided. The 
updated estimates associated with developing a monitoring plan for well 
sites under the existing standards are $2,448 to develop the general 
company-wide monitoring plan (assumes 22 well sites), $400 to develop 
the site map and observation path for each site, and $184 to update the 
individual site map and observation path annually (based on semiannual 
monitoring). This would result in a total cost for development of the 
monitoring plan for the 22 well site company-defined area of $15,296, 
including updates to the site map and observation path at the 
semiannual surveys conducted that first year. For gathering and 
boosting compressor stations, we estimate it costs $1,530 to develop a 
company-wide monitoring plan (assumes seven stations per plan), $400 to 
develop the site map and observation path for each site, and $367 to 
update the individual site map and observation path annually (based on 
quarterly monitoring). This would result in a total cost of $6,899 for 
development of the monitoring plan for the seven gathering and boosting 
compressor station company-defined area, including updates to the site 
map and observation path at the quarterly surveys conducted that first 
year. Based on available information, we believe these costs are 
representative of the costs to develop and maintain the monitoring plan 
as required in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483; EPA's ``Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources Reconsideration; Proposed Rule''; 83 FR 52056 
(October 15, 2018). Dated May 22, 2019, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
    \40\ See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483; EPA's ``Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources Reconsideration; Proposed Rule''; 83 FR 52056 
(October 15, 2018). Dated May 22, 2019, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We then examined the recordkeeping costs associated with the 
fugitive emissions requirements. As stated above, we were unable to 
locate clearly defined estimates for recordkeeping costs for the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa, therefore, all costs are new in our baseline 
estimate of the actual cost of the existing standards and are based on 
information received from commenters and previous information collected 
by the Agency for similar programs. There are extensive records 
required for each survey that is performed, regardless of the 
frequency; therefore, we recognize that appropriate data management is 
critical to ensuring compliance with the standards. As explained in the 
TSD for this final rule,\41\ we evaluated costs for the set-up for a 
database system, which ranged from commercially available options to 
customized systems. Because there are commercial systems currently 
available that allow owners and operators to maintain records in 
compliance with the standards, we did not find it appropriate to apply 
customized system costs to determine an average or range of costs. 
Therefore, our initial database set-up fee is estimated as $18,607 for 
22 well sites and seven gathering and boosting compressor stations. In 
addition to this initial set-up fee, we recognize that there are annual 
licensing fees that include technical support and updates to software. 
Therefore, we have incorporated an ongoing annual fee of approximately 
$470. Finally, there is recordkeeping associated with tracking observed 
fugitive emissions and repairs, such as scheduling repairs and quality 
control of the data. Based on information provided by commenters,\42\ 
we estimate additional recordkeeping costs at $430 for well sites and 
$860 for gathering and boosting compressor stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See TSD at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
    \42\ See Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483; EPA's ``Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources Reconsideration; Proposed Rule''; 83 FR 52056 
(October 15, 2018). Dated May 22, 2019, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483. See memorandum for May 1, 2019 meeting with 
GPA Midstream located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we evaluated the current estimate for reporting costs 
associated with the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. One commenter asserted 
they spent over 500 hours reporting information through the Compliance 
and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) for their sources.\43\ 
We examined the information reported to CEDRI for this commenter and 
concluded they have reported information for approximately 100 well 
sites, which would equate to 5 hours per site. This is comparable to 
our estimate of 4 hours per well site; therefore, we did not update the 
cost estimate for reporting associated with the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, we updated the cost burden estimates for recordkeeping 
based on the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. As updated, the annualized 
recordkeeping and reporting costs for the existing rule, on a per site 
basis, are approximately $1,500 per well site and $2,500 per gathering 
and boosting compressor station. These costs represent the baseline 
from which any changes to the cost burden for reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements in this final rule are compared. It is 
important to note that while these costs represent the costs for each 
individual site, the EPA estimates that currently there are over 40,000 
well sites and 1,250 compressor stations currently subject to the 
fugitive emissions requirements in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. When 
multiplied, the total annualized costs to the industry is estimated to 
exceed $60 million per year.
    After updating the recordkeeping and reporting costs for the 
existing requirements, we evaluated requests by commenters recommending 
specific changes to those requirements. Several commenters requested 
removal of or amendments to specific line items. These included items 
such as the site map and observation path requirement in the monitoring 
plan, records related to the date and repair method for each repair 
attempt, and name of the operator performing the survey. After further 
review of the specific requirements, for the reasons explained below, 
we agree with the commenters that some of the items are not critical or 
are redundant for demonstrating compliance and, therefore, are an 
unnecessary burden.
    We are amending the monitoring plan by removing the requirement for 
a site map and observation path when OGI is used to perform fugitive 
emissions surveys. This requirement was in place to ensure that all 
fugitive emissions components could and would be imaged during each 
survey. As explained in the TSD,\44\ we agree with the commenters that 
a site map and observation path are only one way to ensure all 
components are imaged. We are replacing the specified site map and 
observation path with a requirement to include procedures to ensure 
that all fugitive emissions components are monitored during each survey 
in the monitoring plan. These procedures may include a site map and 
observation path, an inventory, or narrative of the location of each 
fugitive emissions component, but may also include other procedures not 
listed here. These company-defined procedures are consistent with other 
requirements for procedures in the monitoring plan, such as the 
requirement for procedures for determining the maximum viewing distance 
and maintaining this viewing distance during a survey. As previously 
stated, we had not accurately accounted for the ongoing cost of 
updating the site map and observation path as changes

[[Page 57417]]

occur at the site. Based on information provided by one commenter, we 
estimate this amendment will save each site $580 with the semiannual 
monitoring frequency. These cost reductions are based on an initial 
cost of $400 to develop the site map and observation path, plus $180 to 
update the site map or observation path each year, based on a 
semiannual monitoring frequency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See TSD at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are not finalizing the proposed recordkeeping requirement to 
keep records of each repair attempt. Instead, the final rule requires 
maintaining a record only for the first attempt at repair and the 
completion of repair. Other interim repair attempts are not necessary 
for demonstrating compliance with the repair requirements. 
Additionally, we are removing the requirement to maintain records of 
the number and type of components not repaired during the monitoring 
survey. The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa required maintaining a record of 
the number and type of components found with fugitive emissions that 
were not repaired during the monitoring survey. After further review, 
this information can be derived from, and is, therefore, redundant to, 
other records of the survey date and repair dates required for all 
fugitive emissions components. While it is difficult to quantify the 
reduction in cost burden of the removal of these records, we have 
estimated a reduction in cost of 25 percent, or $107 per site per year 
as discussed in the TSD.
    We are also amending the reporting requirements to streamline 
reporting based on comments received and further reconsideration of 
what information is essential to demonstrate compliance with the 
standards. First, as we are finalizing the electronic reporting form 
for the annual report required by 40 CFR 60.5420a(b) concurrently with 
this action, we are updating the CEDRI reporting template to reflect 
the streamlined reporting requirements in this final action and ease 
review of the information contained within the form. Specifically, for 
reporting compliance with the fugitive emissions requirements, we have 
created dropdown menus for the operator to select the type of site for 
which they are reporting (i.e., well site or compressor station), to 
indicate whether the well site changed status to a wellhead-only well 
site during the reporting period, and identify any approved alternative 
fugitive emissions standard that was used during the reporting period 
for the site. Second, we are removing specific items from the annual 
report as listed in section IV.I.3 of this preamble. We are removing 
the requirement to report the name or unique ID of the operator 
performing the survey; however, this information must be maintained in 
the record, similar to the LDAR requirements for onshore natural gas 
processing plants. We are removing the requirement to report the number 
and type of difficult-to-monitor and unsafe-to-monitor components that 
were monitored during the specified survey. This information is 
required to be kept in the record, and the type and number of these 
components would already be included in the reported number and type of 
components found with fugitive emissions during the survey. The date of 
successful repair is being removed from the report because we already 
require owners and operators to report the number and type of fugitive 
emissions not repaired on time. The date of successful repair will be 
maintained in the record. Finally, the type of instrument used for the 
resurvey is being removed from the report because the rule allows 
either OGI or Method 21 (analyzer or a soap bubbles test). The 
information is required to be kept in the record. Similar to the 
recordkeeping changes identified in the previous paragraph, it is 
difficult to estimate the reduced cost burden of each of these 
individual items. That said, as shown in the TSD, we have estimated a 
burden reduction of 25 percent, or $61 per site per annual report.
    In summary, the amendments to the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements in this final rule will reduce the recordkeeping and 
reporting burden for NSPS subpart OOOOa. The estimated annualized 
recordkeeping and reporting costs for this final rule, on a per site 
basis, are approximately $1,100 per well site and $1,750 per gathering 
and boosting compressor station. This results in an annualized burden 
reduction of approximately 27 percent for well sites and 30 percent for 
gathering and boosting compressor stations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See TSD for additional information on the estimated cost 
burden at the individual site level at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Additional Updates to the Model Plants
    We also received information from commenters that suggested 
additional updates beyond those already discussed above. These included 
the major equipment counts and survey costs. A detailed discussion of 
these updates, which we agree are necessary, is provided in the 
TSD.\46\ A summary of these updates is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See TSD at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Well sites. In the October 15, 2018, proposal, we maintained the 
assumed flat contractor fee of $600 per survey. However, information 
from commenters suggested this may be an overestimate of survey costs 
if an hourly rate were used. To examine this comment, we analyzed the 
CEDRI reports, and evaluated the survey times that were reported. Based 
on this information, we estimated it takes operators 3.4 hours to 
complete a survey at a well site, including the travel time to and from 
the well site. This is based on an average survey time of approximately 
1.4 hours. The travel time considers travel between sites and the 
shared travel of mobilizing a monitoring operator. We applied an hourly 
rate of $134 based on the Regulatory Analysis performed by the Colorado 
Department of Public Health and Environment in support of Colorado's 
Regulation 7.\47\ We believe this more accurately reflects the costs of 
performing the survey than the previously assumed flat rate of $600.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 
``Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Revisions to Colorado Air Quality 
Control Commission Regulation Numbers 3, 6, and 7'' (5 CCR 1001-5, 5 
CCR 1001-8, and CCR 1001-9), February 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Low production well sites. The low production well site model 
plants (i.e., well sites with total production at or below 15 boe per 
day) were updated after further review of the Fort Worth Study, updates 
to the Greenhouse Gas Inventory (GHGI), and based on comments received. 
First, the counts of wellheads, separators, meters/piping, and 
dehydrators were recalculated after removing well sites that listed no 
production on the day prior to emissions measurements during the Fort 
Worth Study. This resulted in a decrease in the number of separators 
and meters/piping for the low production gas well pad. The scaling 
factors were also updated based on these revisions and applied to low 
production oil well pads and low production associated gas well pads. 
Further discussion on these changes are in the TSD. Like the well sites 
discussed above, we maintained the estimate of one controlled storage 
vessel per low production well site. One commenter provided some 
preliminary information regarding component counts, specific to valves 
and storage vessels, but also stated in their comments that the 
information was not representative.\48\ Therefore, as discussed in the 
TSD, it was not appropriate to revise the model plants using 
information this commenter provided. We also

[[Page 57418]]

performed an analysis of the survey time and found that on average, the 
surveys for low production well sites were approximately 30 minutes. 
After accounting for travel time, we estimate that each survey of a low 
production well site takes 2.4 hours. We applied the same hourly rate 
of $134 to estimate the total cost of each survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Gathering and boosting compressor stations. Information of average 
equipment counts were provided by GPA Midstream for gathering and 
boosting compressor stations.\49\ We updated the model plant estimate 
to use this information. Specifically, we revised the estimated number 
of separators from 11 to five, meter/piping from seven to six, 
gathering compressors from five to three, in-line heaters from seven to 
one, and dehydrators from five to one, which reduces the baseline 
emissions estimated for the compressor station. We maintained the cost 
for the survey of $2,300 because the commenter indicated this was 
appropriate based on implementation of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See Docket Item ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-1261.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cost Effectiveness of Fugitive Emissions Requirements
    With the revisions discussed in sections V.B.1 through 3 of this 
preamble incorporated in the model plants, we reexamined the costs and 
emission reductions for various monitoring frequencies to determine the 
updated costs of control. In evaluating the costs for this final rule, 
we also reexamined the decisions made in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa 
for comparison. In the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, we evaluated the 
controls under different approaches, namely a single pollutant approach 
and multipollutant approach.\50\ Further, we stated that a frequency is 
considered cost effective if the cost of control for any one scenario 
of methane (without consideration of VOC), VOC (without consideration 
of methane), or the combination of both pollutants is cost 
effective.\51\ That is, if the cost of control for reducing VOC, where 
all costs are attributed to VOC control and zero to methane control, is 
cost effective, then that frequency is cost effective regardless of the 
methane-only or multipollutant costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 80 FR 56616. Under the single pollutant approach, we 
assign all costs to the reduction of one pollutant and zero costs 
for all other pollutants simultaneously reduced. Under the 
multipollutant approach, we allocate the annualized costs across the 
pollutant reductions addressed by the control option in proportion 
to the relative percentage reduction of each pollutant controlled. 
For purposes of the multipollutant approach, we assume that 
emissions of methane and VOC are controlled at the same time, 
therefore, half of the cost is apportioned to the methane emission 
reductions and half of the cost is apportioned to VOC emission 
reductions. In this evaluation, we examined both approaches across 
the range of identified monitoring frequencies, annual, semiannual, 
and quarterly.
    \51\ See 80 FR 56617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Review Rule, finalized in the Federal Register of Monday, 
September 14, 2020, we are rescinding the methane standards for NSPS 
subpart OOOOa. Therefore, in this final rule, we examined the cost 
effectiveness for the control of VOC emissions only. For each frequency 
evaluated in this final rule, we examined the total cost effectiveness 
of each monitoring frequency (i.e., the cost of control for each 
frequency from a baseline of no monitoring). This is consistent with 
how costs were examined in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. For the reason 
explained in the preamble to the October 15, 2018, proposal, in 
addition to evaluating the total cost effectiveness of the different 
monitoring frequencies, this final rule also considers incremental cost 
(i.e., the additional cost to achieve the next increment of emission 
reduction) to be an appropriate tool for assessing the effects of 
different stringency levels of control costs.\52\ 83 FR 52070. It is 
important to note that the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa analysis did not 
present the incremental costs between each of the monitoring 
frequencies evaluated. The TSD supporting this final rule presents the 
cost of control for annual, semiannual, and quarterly monitoring 
frequencies for well sites producing greater than 15 boe per day and 
compressor stations, and biennial, annual, and semiannual monitoring 
frequencies for low production well sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See also, ``Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of 
VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry 
(SOCMI); Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in 
Petroleum Refineries``; 72 FR 64860, 64864 (``2007 NSPS subparts VV 
and VVa'') (in its BSER analysis, the EPA evaluated the additional 
cost and emission reduction from lowering the leak definition for 
valves and determined that the additional emission reduction for 
SOCMI, at $5,700/ton of VOC, is not cost effective.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When examining the costs of each monitoring frequency, we 
recognized that a significant percentage of the costs are independent 
of the monitoring frequency. That is, when annualized, the 
recordkeeping and reporting costs remain unchanged as monitoring 
frequencies increase. For example, the annualized cost of semiannual 
monitoring is approximately 20 percent higher than the annualized cost 
of annual monitoring at well sites. However, the cost effectiveness of 
the annual monitoring is a higher $/ton reduced because semiannual 
monitoring results in approximately 50 percent more emissions 
reductions than annual monitoring. Therefore, while more frequent 
monitoring does increase the costs of surveys for the year, the bulk of 
the costs are realized regardless of monitoring frequency. In other 
words, whereas we assumed during the proposal that reduced monitoring 
frequencies would lead to large cost savings, the analyses we performed 
for this final rule demonstrate that monitoring frequency is not the 
most significant factor in the overall cost of the fugitive emissions 
requirements. Below we present the costs of control for the monitoring 
frequencies at the model plants for well sites, low production well 
sites, and compressor stations.
    Table 3 presents the costs of control for VOC emissions at the 
monitoring frequencies evaluated in this final rule and compares those 
costs to the costs presented for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. With the 
updates to the model plants discussed in section V.B.1 through 3 of 
this preamble, the EPA estimates that the semiannual monitoring 
currently required by the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa for well sites has a 
cost-effectiveness value of $4,324/ton of VOC emissions reduced. This 
value is $1,135/ton less than was estimated for semiannual monitoring 
in 2016, after adjusting for inflation. Therefore, we have determined 
that semiannual monitoring remains cost effective for well sites 
producing greater than 15 boe per day. We also considered the 
incremental cost effectiveness of semiannual monitoring compared to 
annual monitoring. This analysis showed that it cost $2,666/ton of 
additional VOC emissions reduced between the annual and semiannual 
monitoring frequencies. This cost is very reasonable and, therefore, 
further supports retaining semiannual monitoring. Finally, the EPA 
notes that, while we did not propose or take comment on quarterly 
monitoring for well sites, this monitoring frequency results in a total 
cost of control of $4,725/ton of VOC emissions reduced, which is also 
less than the inflation-adjusted cost-effectiveness value for quarterly 
monitoring that was calculated in 2016. However, the incremental cost 
to reduce additional emissions by going from semiannual monitoring to 
quarterly monitoring is $5,927/ton, which is a value that is higher 
than the EPA has previously found to be cost effective in the past.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See 2007 NSPS subparts VV and VVa, 72 FR 64864, cited in 
the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa final rule, 80 FR 56636. See TSD for 
additional analysis and cost information, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.

[[Page 57419]]

   Table 3--Cost-Effectiveness of Control for Well Sites Subject to Fugitive Emissions Standards Under Subpart
                                             OOOOA of 40 CFR Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cost effectiveness ($/ton VOC)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                Monitoring frequency                    2016 TSD total      2020 TSD total         2020 TSD
                                                      cost effectiveness  cost effectiveness   incremental cost
                                                              \1\                 \2\            effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual..............................................              $4,723              $5,153
Semiannual..........................................               5,459               4,324               2,666
Quarterly...........................................               7,559               4,725               5,927
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values from the 2016 TSD have been adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes.
\2\ As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, the EPA received comments that our original 2016 estimates
  were low, especially for recordkeeping and reporting burden. The 2020 estimates include adjustments to the
  2016 estimates based on this information (which is higher than the 2016 TSD) plus include streamlined
  recordkeeping and reporting as well as other updates. In addition, the revised analysis found that the
  majority of the costs of the fugitive requirements are annual costs and do not vary with the monitoring
  frequency. That is, the recordkeeping and reporting burden remain consistent regardless of the monitoring
  frequency and the cost of each survey is not directly proportional to the incremental emissions reductions
  achieved at more frequent surveys. This is further explained in section V.B.2 of this preamble. Hence, Table 3
  shows an increase in cost effectiveness for the annual monitoring frequency, but a decrease in the cost
  effectiveness for the semiannual and quarterly cost effectiveness from the 2020 TSD. In contrast, the 2016
  values presented here are directly from the 2016 TSD and have not been adjusted based on our new analysis of
  what the 2016 rule cost.

    As shown in the EPA's revised model plant analysis in the TSD for 
this final rule, and consistent with the October 15, 2018, proposal, 
there is sufficient evidence that low production well sites are 
different than well sites with higher production and, therefore, 
warrant a separate evaluation of the cost of control. The EPA did not 
include a separate analysis of low production well sites in the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa. Therefore, all costs presented above for well sites 
from the 2016 analysis also would apply to low production well sites. 
The EPA proposed biennial monitoring of low production well sites 
(i.e., well sites with total production at or below 15 boe per day). 
Based on the revised cost analysis, the EPA estimates that the proposed 
biennial monitoring frequency has a cost effectiveness of $6,061/ton of 
VOC emissions reduced. In addition, we estimate that annual monitoring 
would cost $7,577/ton VOC, and semiannual monitoring currently required 
by the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa has a cost of $6,116/ton of VOC 
emissions reduced. All of these values are higher than the inflation-
adjusted value of $5,459/ton VOC that was estimated for semiannual 
monitoring at well sites in 2016. Further, all of these costs are 
higher than a value the EPA has previously stated is not cost 
effective.\54\ Therefore, we have determined that none of the 
monitoring frequencies are cost effective for low production well 
sites. Table 4 provides a summary of the costs of control for low 
production well sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ See 2007 NSPS subparts VV and VVa, 72 FR 64864, cited in 
the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa final rule, 80 FR 56636. See TSD for 
additional analysis and cost information, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.

  Table 4--Cost-Effectiveness of Control for Low Production Well Sites Subject to Fugitive Emissions Standards
                                      Under Subpart OOOOA of 40 CFR Part 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cost effectiveness ($/ton VOC)
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                Monitoring frequency                    2016 TSD total      2020 TSD total         2020 TSD
                                                      cost effectiveness  cost effectiveness   incremental cost
                                                              \1\                 \2\            effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biennial \3\........................................                 N/A              $6,061
Annual..............................................              $4,723               7,577             $12,125
Semiannual..........................................               5,459               6,116               3,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values from the 2016 TSD have been adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes.
\2\ As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, the EPA received comments that our original 2016 estimates
  were low, especially for recordkeeping and reporting burden. The 2020 estimates include adjustments to the
  2016 estimates based on this information (which is higher than the 2016 TSD) plus include streamlined
  recordkeeping and reporting as well as other updates. In addition, the revised analysis found that the
  majority of the costs of the fugitive requirements are annual costs and do not vary with the monitoring
  frequency. That is, the recordkeeping and reporting burden remain consistent regardless of the monitoring
  frequency and the cost of each survey is not directly proportional to the incremental emissions reductions
  achieved at more frequent surveys. This is further explained in section V.B.2 of this preamble. Further, low
  production well site model plants were not developed as part of the 2016 rulemaking. Therefore, the 2016
  values presented here were for all well sites, without consideration of production. Hence, Table 4 shows an
  increase in cost effectiveness for the monitoring frequencies presented. In contrast, the 2016 values
  presented here are directly from the 2016 TSD and have not been adjusted based on our new analysis of what the
  2016 rule cost.
\3\ Biennial monitoring was not evaluated in 2016, therefore, no cost effectiveness is presented in Table 4.

    Further, while this final rule does not have to consider the costs 
of controlling methane emissions, the EPA did evaluate those costs. The 
costs for all of the monitoring frequencies evaluated for low 
production well sites are greater

[[Page 57420]]

than the highest value for methane that the EPA determined to be 
reasonable in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa for both methane only and 
under the multipollutant approach.\55\ In the 2015 proposal for NSPS 
subpart OOOOa, the EPA stated that a cost of control of $738 per ton of 
methane reduced did not appear excessive when all costs are assigned to 
methane reduction and zero to VOC reduction. 80 FR 56624. Based on the 
revised analysis, the costs of control of methane emissions under the 
single pollutant approach for low production well sites are more than 
double this value of $738 per ton at all of the monitoring frequencies 
evaluated. This value is also exceeded under a multipollutant approach 
where methane reduction only assumes half the cost, as explained in the 
TSD.\56\ Therefore, even if we had not rescinded the methane standards 
in the Review Rule, we would still conclude that fugitive emissions 
monitoring, at any of the frequencies evaluated, is not cost effective 
for low production well sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Section 2.5.1.1 of the TSD for additional information.
    \56\ For the multipollutant approach, the emissions of each 
pollutant are calculated based on the relative percentage of each 
pollutant in the gas emitted. Since the same control is applied to 
the gas emitted, the cost is divided in half to attribute the costs 
of control equally between the two pollutants (methane and VOC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we are concluding that fugitive emissions monitoring is not 
cost effective for low production well sites, production at these well 
sites could potentially increase to greater than 15 boe per day, 
rendering monitoring to be cost effective. For example, a new well may 
be drilled at a well site, or the existing wells may be refractured to 
increase the production levels. When these actions occur, the final 
rule requires a new 30-day calculation of the total well site 
production. If the total production remains at or below 15 boe per day, 
no monitoring is required as long as the owner or operator continues to 
maintain the production at these low levels. However, if the total 
production following one of these actions has increased to greater than 
15 boe per day, the owner or operator must begin monitoring for 
fugitive emissions within 90 days of the startup of production 
following such action, the same as the requirement for a modified well 
site. Therefore, under the final rule, low production well sites remain 
affected facilities; however, they have the option of maintaining 
production at or below 15 boe per day on a continuous basis instead of 
implementing the fugitive monitoring requirement.
    There are three timeframes in which we are requiring sources to 
calculate the total production from the well site. First, there are 
well sites that have not yet triggered the requirements in NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, which are those constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
this final rule becomes effective. The owner or operator of such a well 
site has the option to calculate the total well site production based 
on the first 30 days of production. If the total production from all of 
the wells at the well site is at or below 15 boe per day (combined for 
both oil and natural gas produced at the site), then the owner or 
operator of the well site may either maintain production at or below 
this threshold on a rolling 12-month average or begin the fugitive 
emissions program. The owner or operator must comply with one of these 
two requirements at any and all times. If the total production of the 
well site is above 15 boe per day as determined in the first 30 days of 
production, then the site must begin the fugitive emissions program, 
including completing the initial monitoring within 90 days of startup 
of production. Recognizing that there are some well sites that have 
triggered the fugitive emissions requirements that may not have 12-
months' worth of production data yet but are already able to 
demonstrate they are low production, the final rule contains a 
provision to allow the owner or operator to use production records 
based on the first 30 days of production after becoming subject to the 
NSPS to determine if the well site is low production. This 
determination must be made by December 14, 2020. After that date, the 
owner or operator may use the rolling 12-month average, as described 
next, for demonstrating the well site is low production.
    Next, recognizing that production declines over time, we are also 
allowing an option for owners or operators subject to the monitoring 
requirement to determine whether the total production for the well site 
declines to 15 boe per day or below when calculated on a rolling 12-
month average. If the total well site production is at or below this 
threshold on a rolling 12-month average, then the owner or operator has 
the option to stop fugitive monitoring and instead maintain total well 
site production below this threshold. The owner or operator must comply 
with either the fugitive monitoring requirement or maintain total well 
site production below this threshold at any and all times.
    Finally, the EPA is aware that a low production well site could 
later increase production due to subsequent activities, as discussed 
above. For example, owners or operators commonly take actions to 
increase production as production declines or continue to drill new 
wells after the initial startup of production of the well site. If 
production subsequently increases to greater than 15 boe per day, it 
would be cost effective to implement the fugitive emissions monitoring 
requirement. In light of the above, the final rule requires that any 
well site that is not conducting fugitive emissions monitoring because 
total well site production is at or below the threshold must 
redetermine the total well site production following any of the 
following actions: A new well is drilled, a well is hydraulically 
fractured or re-fractured, a well is stimulated in any manner for the 
purpose of increasing production (including well workovers), or a well 
at the well site is shut-in for the purposes of increasing production 
from the well site. These well sites must recalculate the total well 
site production based on the first 30 days of production following the 
completion of that action. It is inappropriate to continue to utilize a 
rolling 12-month average because the production in the 11 months prior 
to the action that increased production would bias the average low. 
Like well sites constructed, reconstructed, or modified after this 
final rule, these well sites must recalculate the total well site 
production based on the first 30 days of production following the 
completion of that action to increase production.
    We have not calculated the impacts of the production calculation 
because owners and operators are already required to track production 
for other purposes, regardless of environmental regulation, and we do 
not anticipate any additional burden associated with these records for 
purposes of this rule.
    The final rule also requires semiannual monitoring of gathering and 
boosting compressor stations. As with fugitive monitoring of well 
sites, based on the revised cost analysis in the TSD for the final 
rule, the EPA reexamined the costs and emission reductions, including 
incremental cost and emission reductions, for various monitoring 
frequencies. In the October 15, 2018, proposed rulemaking, the EPA co-
proposed annual and semiannual monitoring of fugitive emissions at all 
compressor stations. As previously discussed, the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa requires quarterly monitoring for compressor stations, including 
gathering and boosting stations, transmission stations, and storage 
stations. Therefore, the 2016 determination that quarterly monitoring 
was cost effective was based on the

[[Page 57421]]

weighted average of the cost-effectiveness values for all of those 
station types. In the Review Rule, which was finalized in the Federal 
Register of Monday, September 14, 2020, the EPA has removed the 
transmission and storage segments from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas 
Production source category and rescinded the standards for those 
sources. As a consequence, only gathering and boosting compressor 
stations remain subject to the standards of NSPS subpart OOOOa.
    After updating the compressor station model plants, the EPA 
estimates that the quarterly monitoring currently required by the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa has a cost effectiveness of $3,221/ton of VOC 
emissions reduced at gathering and boosting compressor stations. The 
EPA also considered the incremental cost effectiveness of going from 
semiannual monitoring to quarterly monitoring. This analysis showed 
that it cost $4,988/ton of additional VOC emissions reduced between the 
semiannual and quarterly monitoring frequencies. These values (total 
and incremental) are considered cost-effective for VOC reduction based 
on past EPA decisions, including the 2016 rulemaking. However, the 
incremental cost of $4,988/ton of additional VOC reduced is on the high 
end of the range that we had previously found to be cost-effective for 
VOC.\57\ In contrast, semiannual monitoring is very cost-effective, at 
a total cost of $2,632/ton and incremental cost of $2,501/ton between 
annual and semiannual monitoring to reduce an additional 2,156 tons of 
VOC per year.\58\ We further note that moving from annual to semiannual 
monitoring achieves the same incremental reduction in VOC emissions as 
moving from semiannual to quarterly monitoring (2,156 tons/year) but at 
half the cost per ton of additional VOC reduced ($2,501/ton instead of 
$4,988/ton). Moreover, additional factors influence our evaluation of 
the appropriateness of selecting quarterly monitoring as compared to 
semiannual monitoring for compressor stations. In particular, the oil 
and gas industry is currently experiencing significant financial 
hardship that may weigh against the appropriateness of imposing the 
additional costs associated with more frequent monitoring.\59\ The EPA 
also acknowledges that there are potential efficiencies, and potential 
cost savings, with applying the same monitoring frequencies for well 
sites and compressor stations,\60\ In light of all of these 
considerations, the EPA thinks it is reasonable to forgo quarterly 
monitoring and choose semiannual monitoring as the BSER for compressor 
stations. Table 5 provides a summary and comparison of these costs per 
ton of VOC reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 2007 NSPS subparts VV and VVa, 72 FR 64864, cited in 
the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa final rule, 80 FR 56636. See TSD for 
additional analysis and cost information, located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
    \58\ See Table 2-35f of the TSD located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483.
    \59\ See Iyke, B. N., 2020. ``COVID-19: The reaction of US oil 
and gas producers to the pandemic.'' Energy RESEARCH LETTERS, 1(2), 
located at https://erl.scholasticahq.com/article/13912.pdf.
    See Gil-Alana, L. A., & Monge, M., 2020. ``Crude Oil Prices and 
COVID-19: Persistence of the Shock.'' Energy RESEARCH LETTERS, 1(1), 
located at https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.13200.
    See Sharif, et al., 2020. ``COVID-19 pandemic, oil prices, stock 
market, geopolitical risk and policy uncertainty nexus in the US 
economy: Fresh evidence from the wavelet-based approach.'' 
International Review of Financial Analysis, 70, 7101496, located at 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101496.
    \60\ See Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-0755 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483-0773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this final rule does not have to consider the cost-
effectiveness of controlling methane emissions, the EPA did evaluate 
those costs per ton of methane reduced. As discussed above for low 
production well sites, the highest costs per ton of methane reduced 
that we have found to be cost-effective in the past is $738/ton. 
Assigning all costs to methane (under the single pollutant approach) 
results in a total cost per ton of $895/ton and incremental cost per 
ton of $1,387/ton of methane reduced for quarterly monitoring, which 
almost doubles the highest cost per ton of methane reduced that we had 
previously found to be cost-effective ($738/ton). Under the 
multipollutant approach, the incremental cost per ton of additional 
methane reduced is $695/ton. While this incremental cost per ton is 
cost-effective, it is also at the high end of the range. Therefore, 
based on these costs per ton of methane reduced and considering the 
current financial hardships being experienced across the oil and gas 
industry, we would have similarly required semiannual monitoring even 
if methane had remained a regulated pollutant.

      Table 5--Cost-Effectiveness of Control for Compressor Stations Subject to Fugitive Emissions Standards Under Subpart OOOOA of 40 CFR Part 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Cost effectiveness ($/ton VOC)
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Gathering and boosting stations                           Compressor station weighted-average
      Monitoring frequency       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    2016 TSD total      2020 TSD total         2020 TSD         2016 TSD total                             2020 TSD
                                  cost effectiveness  cost effectiveness   incremental cost   cost effectiveness    2020 TSD total     incremental cost
                                          \1\                 \2\            effectiveness            \1\         cost effectiveness     effectiveness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual..........................              $2,105              $2,698  ..................              $3,278              $3,606  ..................
Semiannual......................               2,443               2,632              $2,501               3,682               3,341              $2,811
Quarterly.......................               3,391               3,221               4,988               5,006               3,908               5,607
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Values from the 2016 TSD have been adjusted for inflation for comparison purposes.
\2\ As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, the EPA received comments that our original 2016 estimates were low, especially for recordkeeping and
  reporting burden. The 2020 estimates include adjustments to the 2016 estimates based on this information (which is higher than the 2016 TSD) plus
  include streamlined recordkeeping and reporting as well as other updates. In addition, the revised analysis found that the majority of the costs of
  the fugitive requirements are annual costs and do not vary with the monitoring frequency. That is, the recordkeeping and reporting burden remain
  consistent regardless of the monitoring frequency and the cost of each survey is not directly proportional to the incremental emissions reductions
  achieved at more frequent surveys. This is further explained in section V.B.2 of this preamble. Hence, Table 5 shows an increase in cost effectiveness
  for the annual and semiannual monitoring frequencies, but a decrease in the cost effectiveness for the quarterly cost effectiveness from the 2020 TSD.
  In contrast, the 2016 values presented here are directly from the 2016 TSD and have not been adjusted based on our new analysis of what the 2016 rule
  cost.

C. AMEL

    The 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa contains provisions for requesting an 
AMEL for specific work practice standards covering well completions, 
reciprocating compressors, and the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at well sites and compressor stations. While written with 
emerging technologies as the focus, the provisions in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart

[[Page 57422]]

OOOOa could also be used for state programs, though the application 
requirements were unclear on certain points. Therefore, the EPA 
proposed amendments to the application requirements as they relate to 
emerging technologies in order to streamline the application process, 
and proposed a new section to address state programs, including 
proposed alternative fugitive emissions standards based on our review 
of existing state programs. This section describes changes, based on 
information provided in public comments, to the AMEL provisions.
1. Emerging Technologies
    The EPA continues to recognize that new technologies are expected 
to enter the market soon that could locate sources of fugitive 
emissions sooner and at lower costs than the current technologies 
required by the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. While the EPA established a 
foundation for approving the use of these emerging technologies in the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, we proposed specific revisions in the October 
15, 2018, proposal to help streamline the application requirements and 
process. Specifically, we proposed to allow owners and operators to 
apply for an AMEL on their own, or in conjunction with manufacturers or 
vendors and trade associations. We also proposed to allow the use of 
test data, modeling analyses, and other documentation to support field 
test data, provided seasonal variations are accounted for in the 
analyses. While we received many supportive comments on these specific 
proposed amendments, we also received comments asserting that the 
application process is still too restrictive and burdensome to promote 
innovation.
    First, the commenters stated that applications seeking approval of 
an alternative should be accepted by the EPA from manufacturers and 
vendors independently of owners and operators. We have reviewed the 
information provided by the commenters and agree that it is appropriate 
in the context of the revisions to 40 CFR 60.5398a to remove language 
that previously indicated from whom the Administrator would consider 
applications under that section because section 111(h)(3) of the CAA 
states ``any person'' can request an AMEL, and if they establish to the 
satisfaction of the Administrator that the AMEL will achieve emission 
reductions that are at least equivalent with the requirements of the 
rule, then the Administrator will allow the alternative. While the 
final rule allows any person to submit an application for an AMEL under 
this provision, the final rule still includes the minimum information 
that must be included in each application in order for the EPA to make 
a determination of equivalency and, thus, be able to approve an 
alternative. This final rule requires applications for these AMEL to 
include site-specific information to demonstrate equivalent emissions 
reductions, as well as site-specific procedures for ensuring continuous 
compliance.
    Next, the commenters generally supported the proposal to allow the 
use of test data, modeling analyses, and other documentation to support 
field test data. In addition to their support of these supplemental 
data, commenters also requested that the final rule allow the use of 
information collected during testing at controlled testing facilities 
to be considered in lieu of site-specific field testing. The EPA 
considered whether it would be appropriate to allow this information 
and has concerns related to the representativeness of the information 
when compared to actual operating sites. For example, we are aware of 
one controlled testing facility located in the U.S., the Methane 
Emissions Technology Evaluation Center (METEC) located in Fort Collins, 
Colorado.\61\ That facility is equipped with several different 
configurations of well pads using equipment that was donated from the 
oil and natural gas industry. The test well pads do not produce or 
process field gas; in fact, none of the equipment that is onsite is in 
contact with field gas. Instead, METEC utilizes compressed natural gas 
that is transported from offsite in order to create controlled leaks. 
In establishing controlled leaks, METEC uses tubing with leak points 
near typical leak interfaces to simulate a leak; however, these 
releases are not operated at pressures or temperatures that are 
typically encountered at an operating well site in the field. While we 
agree that testing at a controlled testing facility such as the METEC 
site can be helpful to understanding how a technology may perform, and 
the information gathered from such controlled test sites can be useful 
in supplementing other data, it is inappropriate to rely solely on the 
information collected at these types of facilities as being 
representative of how the technology would perform at an operating well 
site or compressor station. At this time, the EPA does not believe that 
it can determine the efficacy of a monitoring or detection technology 
where demonstrations take place only under controlled conditions. By 
extension, the EPA would be unable to determine the validity of whether 
an alternative indeed achieves equivalent emissions reductions if only 
presented with data from testing at a controlled testing facility. 
Therefore, we are finalizing amendments that require field test data, 
but that allow the use of test data, modeling analyses, data collected 
at controlled testing facilities, and other documentation to support 
and supplement field test data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See https://energy.colostate.edu/metec for more information 
on the METEC facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, we solicited comment on whether groups of sites within a 
specific area that are operated by the same operator could be grouped 
under a single AMEL. We received comments that discussed this broad 
application of alternatives in two distinct ways: (1) Allowing the 
aggregation of emission sources beyond the individual site in order to 
demonstrate equivalent emission reductions, and (2) allowing the use of 
approved AMELs at future sites that are designed and operated under the 
conditions specified in the approved AMEL. We evaluated both types of 
broad approval options raised in the comments by considering the 
definitions in the existing rule and the AMEL provisions of section 
111(h)(3) of the CAA.
    In the first instance, we evaluated whether it would be appropriate 
to allow the aggregation of emission sources beyond the individual site 
when evaluating the equivalency of an alternative. Specifically, we 
considered whether an applicant for an AMEL related to fugitive 
emissions monitoring could aggregate the total fugitive emissions 
across multiple sites within a specific geographic area, such as a 
basin, in order to demonstrate the requested AMEL would achieve at 
least equivalent emission reductions as the NSPS requirements for 
fugitive emissions monitoring and repair at an individual site. The 
work practice standards for the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at a well site or at a compressor station were established 
pursuant to section 111(h) of the CAA, which allows an opportunity for 
an AMEL. In accordance with section 111(h)(3) of the CAA, a source may 
use an approved AMEL for purposes of compliance with the established 
work practice. The commenters stated that the generic use of the word 
``source'' allows aggregation of fugitive emissions components amongst 
multiple sites and is not limited to single sites. The EPA does not 
agree that aggregating fugitive emissions across multiple sites is a 
viable method to determine equivalency with the NSPS provided the 
definitions of affected facility in NSPS subpart OOOOa related to the 
collection of

[[Page 57423]]

fugitive emissions components. NSPS subpart OOOOa defines the 
``source'' that is subject to the work practice standards for fugitive 
emissions as the ``collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
well site'' and the ``collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station'' in 40 CFR 60.5365a(i) and (j). These terms specify 
single-site applicability for the work practice standard. Because the 
rule does not define an affected facility or a source to be a 
geographic area, such as a basin, it is the EPA's determination that a 
demonstration of equivalent emission reductions for purposes of 
evaluating alternatives to the BSER has been based on the fugitive 
emissions at a single site, and not an aggregation of emissions across 
multiple well sites, compressor stations, or a combination of these two 
site types with an averaging or trading program akin to what the EPA 
has referred to in the past as a ``bubble'' approach. For further 
discussion on this topic, see section VI.C.2 of this preamble.
    The second point raised by commenters was that requiring site-
specific approvals (i.e., AMELs that list specific well sites or 
compressor stations) would result in unnecessary burden as new sites 
with the same owner or operator, similar equipment, operating 
conditions, and in the same geographic area (e.g., basin) are 
constructed. According to commenters, this unnecessary burden results 
from the need for the owner or operator to apply for an AMEL for each 
of these sites in the future, even though the AMEL would be identical 
to the previously approved AMELs for similar sites. We agree with the 
commenters that it is possible that AMELs could, where appropriate, be 
approved for future use at sites not included in the original 
application as discussed below. Commenters also encouraged the EPA to 
consider the potential for AMELs applicable to specific types of 
facilities with different owners or operators within an industry 
category or geographic region.
    While the EPA is not amending 40 CFR 60.5398a at this time to 
address broad approvals of AMEL applications, we do recognize that the 
Agency has discretion in certain circumstances to allow for broad 
approval of alternatives via several different paths. First, for 
example, an applicant could submit an AMEL application for an 
alternative technology (and associated work practice) that includes 
specific site characteristics under which the technology (and 
associated work practice) has been tested and that demonstrates 
equivalent reductions to the standards in the NSPS. The application 
would include an explanation of these characteristics (e.g., 
characteristics of the formation, operating conditions at the site, 
type of equipment and processes located at the site, and variables that 
affect performance of the technology or work practice) and a request 
that the EPA consider broad approval of the application such that sites 
(including those subject to the NSPS at the time of application and 
future sites) that meet the same characteristics could utilize the same 
approved alternative without the need for additional application to the 
EPA. The scope of such an approval might be limited based on any number 
of conditions as appropriate (such as those mentioned above). The EPA 
believes that, depending on the facts of the application, some type of 
broad approval may be a feasible path forward, but we will need to 
evaluate the information specific to the application in hand once 
received. As of the date of this final rule, the EPA has received no 
applications for AMELs to be able to determine if additional amendments 
(beyond those in this final rule) are necessary for such a situation, 
and how such potential amendments might be drafted to facilitate such 
broad approvals. In summary, if the applicant believes that it is 
appropriate to apply the alternative to more sites than those listed in 
the application because the proposed alternative can achieve 
equivalency for other sites, then the applicant should state this 
intent and make this demonstration to the EPA within the application. 
If provided with sufficient information, explanation, justification, 
and documentation, the EPA may determine under what defined conditions, 
if any, it is appropriate to allow the use of the alternative once 
approved at any site meeting those conditions, including sites 
constructed in the future.
    Second, the EPA is interested in developing a framework in the 
future for AMEL requests that share similar characteristics (e.g., 
technologies) in order to streamline both applications and approvals. 
While the EPA has not received applications related to the work 
practice standards in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, we have evaluated 
and approved AMELs for other sources in a few instances for one 
specific control technology, pressure assisted multi-point flares (for 
further information, see the EPA rulemaking Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0783). In the course of reviewing those applications, the EPA was 
able to establish testing criteria for this particular control 
technology to demonstrate equivalency with the underlying operational 
standards (i.e., 98-percent control efficiency) as well as other 
certain design, equipment, and work practice standards, which, if met, 
would help streamline approval of applications submitted after that 
point. The EPA is committed to working with stakeholders to develop 
testing criteria for technologies and work practices for NSPS subpart 
OOOOa. However, due to the variability of this sector, as well as the 
wide-ranging array of technologies currently being pursued for 
development, we are unable to amend the language within this rule and 
provide such a framework at this time. For the pressure assisted multi-
point flares, the EPA developed the testing framework in conjunction 
with an application and with stakeholder feedback from the first AMEL 
requests received and approved for that particular technology. We have 
not yet reached that critical first step of an application being 
submitted to the EPA to determine what testing framework might be 
appropriate, or how that framework might be technology family-specific 
(e.g., continuous point monitors, aerial surveys, mobile equipment). We 
encourage interested stakeholders to continue engaging with us early in 
any application process so additional streamlining measures can be 
evaluated. The EPA is committed to improving this process of evaluating 
emerging technologies and may publish another request for information 
regarding technology innovation and the application process.
    Third, if an applicant can demonstrate that a technology has very 
broad applicability across the entire industry, then, in addition to 
exploring the possibility of an AMEL, the EPA also would consider 
whether to undertake a rulemaking process to amend NSPS subpart OOOOa 
to allow for widespread use of the technology. As always, the EPA will 
review each application individually to determine if it has 
demonstrated that the alternative will achieve equivalent or greater 
emission reductions than the work practice standard the alternative 
would replace.
    In summary, we are finalizing amendments to the application 
requirements for an AMEL in 40 CFR 60.5398a. We are allowing 
applications from any person. Further, we are allowing the use of 
supplemental data, such as test data, data collected at controlled 
testing facilities, modeling analyses, and other relevant 
documentation, to support field data that are collected to demonstrate 
the emissions reductions achieved. While

[[Page 57424]]

we are not amending the rule to specifically state an approved AMEL can 
be used for future sources, we recognize that it may be possible, where 
appropriate, for the EPA to establish specific conditions during the 
AMEL process under which an approved alternative may be applied at 
sites not specifically listed in the application.
2. State Fugitive Emissions Programs
    To reduce duplicative burdens to the industry related to the 
fugitive emissions requirements, the EPA proposed alternative fugitive 
emissions standards for well sites and compressor stations located in 
specific states. These alternative standards were proposed based on the 
EPA's review of the monitoring and repair requirements of the 
individual state fugitive emissions requirements \62\ relevant to well 
sites and compressor stations. In the proposal, we stated that a well 
site or compressor station, located in the specified state, could elect 
to comply with the specified state program as an alternative to the 
monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in the NSPS. 
However, these sites would be required to monitor all fugitive 
emissions components, as defined in the NSPS, comply with the 
requirement to develop a monitoring plan, and report the information 
required by the NSPS because the sites remain affected facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Note, several states refer to the fugitive emissions 
standards as LDAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similar to the proposed amendments for emerging technologies, we 
received support for the proposed amendments for state programs. 
However, some commenters stated that the EPA should recognize the 
approved state programs as wholly equivalent to the NSPS, including for 
all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The commenters indicated 
that the EPA's equivalency determination still leaves the regulated 
community in certain states subject to duplicative requirements. They 
added that complying with two different reporting and recordkeeping 
schemes for the same site is very burdensome and provided no 
environmental benefit.
    For the proposal, we evaluated 14 existing state programs to 
determine whether they are equivalent to the fugitive emissions 
requirements in 40 CFR 60.5397a. That evaluation included a qualitative 
comparison of the fugitive emissions components covered by the state 
programs, monitoring instruments, leak or fugitive emissions 
definitions, monitoring frequencies, repair requirements, and 
recordkeeping requirements to the requirements of the NSPS.\63\ 
However, at the time of the proposal, the EPA had not evaluated the 
reporting requirements of the 14 individual state programs. We have 
completed that evaluation for this final rule for the state programs 
that we proposed as alternative standards and the results of that 
evaluation are discussed in more detail in section VI.C.2 of this 
preamble. We also updated the overall analysis of equivalency.\64\ 
Through this additional evaluation, we concluded that the recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements of the various state programs do not need to 
be exactly equivalent to the requirements of the NSPS subpart OOOOa 
because the purpose of recordkeeping and reporting requirements is to 
ensure compliance with whatever standards apply. Obviously, the state 
programs we evaluated are not identical to the NSPS, so it stands to 
reason that their associated recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
might differ. Therefore, when evaluating the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements in the individual state programs, we focused our 
review on the elements of those requirements that we deemed essential 
to a demonstration of compliance with the individual alternative 
standards. Sites remain subject to the NSPS, because the alternative 
standards are standards within the NSPS, therefore, compliance 
demonstrations are necessary through recordkeeping and reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See memorandum, ``Equivalency of State Fugitive Emissions 
Programs for Well Sites and Compressor Stations to Final Standards 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483. January 17, 2020.
    \64\ See memorandum, ``Equivalency of State Fugitive Emissions 
Programs for Well Sites and Compressor Stations to Final Standards 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483. January 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At a minimum, the EPA requires reports to include information that 
allows a demonstration of compliance for all fugitive emissions 
components (as defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a) at the individual site level 
(i.e., well site or compressor station). This means the report must 
provide information on each individual monitoring survey conducted at 
each well site or compressor station adopting the alternative fugitive 
emissions standards. We reviewed the reports required under state law 
for the six states for which we are finalizing alternative fugitive 
emissions standards (i.e., California, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
Texas, and Utah) to determine (1) if site-level information is required 
in the reports and (2) if the information reported demonstrates 
compliance through inclusion of elements such as the date of the 
survey, monitoring instrument used, information for each identified 
fugitive emission, repair information, and delayed repair information. 
For three of the six states (California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) where 
we are finalizing alternative standards, the required state reports are 
site-specific and include information that will demonstrate compliance 
with the alternative standards. For the other three states (Colorado, 
Texas, and Utah), site-specific reporting is not required, or will not 
demonstrate compliance with the alternative standards. Therefore, the 
sites adopting the alternative standards for Colorado, Texas, and Utah, 
would need to provide the site-specific reports required in 40 CFR 
60.5420a(b)(7). As discussed in detail in section V.B.2 of this 
preamble, the EPA is amending the recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements related to the fugitive emissions requirements. The result 
of these amendments is an annualized burden reduction of approximately 
27 percent for well sites and 30 percent for gathering and boosting 
compressor stations, and those same burden reductions will be realized 
by sites in these three states.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See TSD for additional information on the estimated cost 
burden at the individual site level at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the three states that do not require site-specific reporting, 
we reviewed the state's recordkeeping requirements to determine if any 
additional records would be necessary for reporting the required 
information under the NSPS. We found that for each of the three states, 
the records are very similar to, if not the same as, the information 
required under the NSPS. Given that additional records beyond those 
required by the state are not necessary, the EPA concludes that there 
is no duplicative recordkeeping burden associated with compliance with 
these alternative standards. This, in addition to the significant 
reduction in reporting burden discussed in section V.B.2 of this 
preamble, allows the EPA to conclude the submission of the reports 
required in 40 CFR 60.5420a(b)(7) presents minimal burden for sites in 
Colorado, Texas, and Utah.
    Therefore, to summarize, the final rule requires reporting of 
information to demonstrate site-level compliance with the alternative 
fugitive emissions standards as follows:
     Where the state report includes site-specific information 
for each fugitive emissions survey that demonstrates compliance with 
the alternative

[[Page 57425]]

standard, the owner or operator has the option to either (a) provide 
the EPA with a copy of the state report, in the format in which is it 
submitted to the state, based on the following order of preference: (1) 
As a binary file; (2) as an Extensible Markup Language (XML) schema; 
(3) as a searchable portable document format (PDF); or (4) as a scanned 
PDF of a hard copy, or (b) provide the report required by 40 CFR 
60.5420a(b)(7)(i) and (ii) to the EPA in accordance with the applicable 
reporting procedures.
     Where the state report does not include site-specific 
information for each fugitive emissions survey, the owner or operator 
must report the information required by 40 CFR 60.5420a(b)(7)(i) and 
(ii) to the EPA in accordance with the procedures applicable to such a 
submission.
    Any owner or operator has the option to complete the information 
required by 40 CFR 60.5420a(b)(7) in lieu of submitting a copy of the 
state report. As described in section IV.I of this preamble, electronic 
reporting through CEDRI is now required for all reports under 40 CFR 
60.5420a(b). Thus, the EPA is requiring electronic submission of 
reports for the alternative fugitive emissions requirements, regardless 
of whether the state continues to allow paper copy submissions.
    The EPA believes that adoption of these alternative standards will 
further reduce the burden of the fugitive emissions standards on the 
industry from this rule. No additional recordkeeping beyond that 
required by the alternative standard is necessary. Additional 
justification for the EPA's decision to adopt these state programs as 
alternative fugitive emission standards is provided in the memorandum 
\66\ summarizing the EPA's review of each state program's requirements 
and in section VI of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See memorandum, ``Equivalency of State Fugitive Emissions 
Programs for Well Sites and Compressor Stations to Final Standards 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483. January 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that one commenter expressed concern over the proposed 
state equivalency determinations and noted that several of the programs 
evaluated have specific applicability thresholds where the standards 
only apply to a subset of sources, whereas the NSPS applies to all new, 
modified, or reconstructed sources.\67\ We agree that the applicability 
thresholds for these state programs are different from the NSPS, but we 
do not agree that additional regulatory text is necessary to address 
this concern. The regulatory thresholds included in state programs that 
limit or reduce monitoring and repair requirements do not affect the 
requirements for sources subject to the NSPS. Therefore, if a site 
subject to the NSPS is not also subject to the state program because of 
the state-specific applicability threshold, the site would still be 
required to comply with the requirements of the NSPS. Where 
appropriate, we have amended the regulatory text to clearly define the 
requirements of the alternative standard. More discussion of this 
comment and our response is provided in section VI.C.2 of this 
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Docket ID Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483-2041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Summary of Significant Comments and Responses

    This section summarizes the significant comments on the proposed 
amendments and our responses to those comments. Additional comments and 
responses are summarized in the RTC document available in the docket.

A. Major Comments Concerning Storage Vessels

    The EPA received numerous comments on the proposed amendments to 
the definition of ``maximum average daily throughput,'' which is key in 
the determination of storage vessel affected facility status under the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. Many of the comments we received were related 
to manifolded storage vessel systems. The EPA considered those comments 
and is finalizing changes to the rule to address a subset of these 
manifolded storage vessel systems (i.e., controlled storage vessel 
batteries as described in section V.A of this preamble). A more 
detailed summary of the comments regarding controlled storage vessel 
batteries, and our responses to those comments, is available in the RTC 
document for this action (see Chapter 6).\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Chapter 6 of the RTC document located at Docket ID No. 
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the comments the EPA received on controlled storage 
vessel batteries, we also received other comments related to storage 
vessel applicability determination criteria. Below is a discussion 
related to three of these topics: (1) The use of legally and 
practicably enforceable limits that maintain VOC emissions from storage 
vessels below 6 tpy, (2) the calculation of maximum average daily 
throughput based only on the days of actual production in the first 30 
days, and (3) the determination of maximum average daily throughput for 
storage vessels at gathering and boosting compressor stations, onshore 
natural gas processing plants, and transmission and storage compressor 
stations.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that the EPA proposed additional 
parameters on what constitutes a ``legally and practicably 
enforceable'' limit; and, therefore, heightened the standard for 
allowing use of such limit in estimating a storage vessel's potential 
VOC emissions for purposes of determining applicability of the storage 
vessel standards at 40 CFR 60.5395a. Specifically, the commenters took 
issue with the statement in the preamble to the October 15, 2018, 
proposed rulemaking where the EPA stated ``only limits that meet 
certain enforceability criteria may be used to restrict a source's 
potential to emit, and the permit or requirement must include 
sufficient compliance assurance terms and conditions such that the 
source cannot lawfully exceed the limit.'' 83 FR 52085. One commenter 
claimed that these additional criteria (1) conflict with prior EPA 
statements made during earlier oil and gas NSPS rulemakings; (2) 
conflict with the EPA's traditional practice of deferring to states 
regarding the appropriate mechanisms for limiting potential to emit 
(PTE); (3) raise concerns about how this new interpretation/approach 
would apply in the title V and New Source Review/Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration context where operators are relying on the 
same control requirements to limit their PTE; (4) raise significant 
concerns about retroactive application; and (5) ignore that the 
requirements for fugitive components under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa 
are not tied to storage tank applicability and apply regardless of 
whether a storage tank is an affected facility under the rule.
    Commenters also cited the EPA's ``enforceability criteria'' 
guidance, which was first introduced in 1995, and asserted that the 
EPA's proposed additional criteria were not consistent with that 
guidance. One commenter was concerned that the EPA's proposal not only 
conflicted with the Agency's traditional and consistent practice, it 
also threatened to subject sources to the NSPS that already determined 
their potential for VOC emissions was below the 6 tpy threshold by 
using the EPA's prior guidance.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters because we did not 
propose additional parameters on what would constitute a legally and 
practicably enforceable limit. Rather, in the proposal preamble, the 
EPA simply summarized its position on this matter based on the existing 
substantial body of EPA guidance and administrative

[[Page 57426]]

decisions relating to potential emissions and emissions limits. As the 
EPA explained, limits that meet certain enforceability criteria may be 
used to restrict a source's potential emissions. For example, any such 
emission limit must be enforceable as a practical matter, which 
requires that the permit or requirement specifies how emissions will be 
measured or determined for purposes of demonstrating compliance with 
the limit. The permit or requirement must also include sufficient terms 
and conditions such that the source cannot lawfully exceed the limit 
(e.g., monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting). For additional 
information and a summary of the EPA's position on establishing legally 
and practicably enforceable limits on potential emissions, including 
examples of ``enforceability criteria,'' see In the Matter of Yuhuang 
Chemical Inc. Methanol Plant St. James Parish, Louisiana, Order on 
Petition No. VI-2015-03 (August 31, 2016) at 13-15.
    Comment: Under the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, the applicability of 
the storage vessel standards is based on a single storage vessel's 
potential for VOC emissions, which is calculated using the storage 
vessel's ``maximum average daily throughput.'' While ``maximum average 
daily throughput'' is defined in 40 CFR 60.5430a of the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa, several stakeholders indicated that clarification of 
this definition was needed. As a result, the EPA proposed a revised 
definition. 83 FR 52106. The EPA received several comments related to 
the proposed definition, which requires that ``production to a single 
storage vessel must be averaged over the number of days production was 
actually sent to that storage vessel.'' Most of the commenters objected 
to this proposed definition, claiming that it would be more appropriate 
to average over the entire 30-day evaluation period rather than only 
those days when production was sent to the storage vessel. With regard 
to tank batteries, one commenter asserted that the proposed definition 
would not result in an accurate estimate of the potential emissions 
from individual storage vessels because it would overestimate the total 
amount of production that each tank could receive over the 30-day 
evaluation period. Further, the commenter stated that the proposed 
definition would significantly overestimate the volume of flow to the 
tank battery as a whole when compounded across multiple tanks and 
extrapolated across an entire year. Multiple commenters also generally 
stated that the EPA's proposed definition failed to account for the 
fact that maximum well production has a limit based on what the wells 
can produce. However, the EPA did receive one comment that agreed with 
the proposed definition and that owners and operators should not be 
able to include days where the storage vessel does not receive 
production when determining storage vessel applicability.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the comments suggesting that 
``maximum average daily throughput'' should be determined by averaging 
across the full 30-day evaluation period instead of the days when 
production is actually sent to an individual storage vessel during that 
period. As stated in the proposal, the maximum average daily throughput 
``was intended to represent the maximum of the average daily production 
rates in the first 30-day period to each individual storage vessel,'' 
83 FR 52084, which is not the same as an average daily production rate 
based on averaging total production across a full 30-day period. As 
explained further in the proposal, in all possible scenarios for 
determining the daily production, only the number of days in which 
production is sent to the individual storage vessel is used for 
averaging, which may be less than the full 30 days in the evaluation 
period. Indeed, including days where no production was received would 
reduce the maximum average daily throughput to an individual storage 
vessel under any of the scenarios described in the proposal. 83 FR 
52084. The commenters did not explain how averaging actual throughput 
to a storage vessel across the full 30 days would accurately reflect 
the ``maximum average daily production rates,'' therefore, we do not 
agree with the commenters' suggestion to use this value for the purpose 
of determining a storage vessel's potential for VOC emissions.
    The EPA also disagrees with comments suggesting that the EPA's 
proposed definition would overestimate the potential for VOC emissions 
for individual storage vessels in a tank battery by failing to account 
for the overall production to the tank battery during the 30-day 
period. In addition to the definition of ``maximum average daily 
throughput'' which provided for two operational scenarios, the EPA 
further explained in the proposal how to determine the daily or average 
daily throughput, from which the maximum average daily throughput is 
determined, depending on how throughput is measured. 83 FR 52084. The 
EPA's proposed definition is based on either the daily (i.e., directly 
measured via automated level gauging or daily manual gauging) or 
average daily (i.e., manual gauging at the start and end of loadouts 
which occur over more than one day) throughput routed to a storage 
vessel while receiving production; the fact that the storage vessel is 
receiving that amount daily clearly indicates that it has the potential 
to do so. The total throughput to the entire tank battery during the 
30-day period is not germane to this determination. Because there are 
likely multiple daily throughput or average daily throughput values for 
an individual storage vessel during the 30-day evaluation period, the 
maximum of those values is used to calculate the potential for VOC 
emissions, thus, the use of the term ``maximum average daily 
throughput.''
    While the EPA is finalizing the definition of ``maximum average 
daily throughput'' as proposed, we note that the final rule provides 
other mechanisms for determining a storage vessel's applicability 
without having to calculate the maximum average daily throughput. 
Specifically, the final rule allows owners and operators of controlled 
tank batteries meeting specified criteria to average VOC emissions 
across the number of storage vessels in the tank battery to determine 
applicability for the individual storage vessels in the battery. Also, 
as provided in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, and unchanged by this final 
rule, if a facility has a legally and practicably enforceable limit 
that restricts production to an individual storage vessel, then it is 
acceptable to use this restricted production level as the maximum 
average daily throughput for that individual storage vessel.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the methods for determining the 
potential for VOC emissions from storage vessels in the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa were not appropriate for storage vessels located at 
compressor stations (including gathering and boosting compressor 
stations) and onshore natural gas processing plants, and they indicated 
that the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 60.5365a(e) and the definition of 
maximum average daily throughput did not alleviate this problem. More 
specifically, commenters noted that the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa is 
clear that storage vessels at well sites must determine the potential 
for VOC emissions based on the maximum average daily throughput based 
on the first 30 days that liquids are sent to the storage vessel. The 
commenter noted that storage vessels at compressor stations and onshore 
natural gas processing plants are designed to receive liquids from 
multiple well sites that may start up production over a

[[Page 57427]]

longer period of time. Because these storage vessels may not experience 
the same peak in throughput to the storage vessels during the first 30-
days of receiving liquids as storage vessels at well sites, the 
commenter indicated that owners or operators may underestimate the 
potential emissions using the throughput for the first 30 days. 
Therefore, commenters requested that the EPA clarify the appropriate 
time period for calculating the maximum average daily throughput for 
storage vessels at facilities located downstream of well sites. 
Alternatively, commenters suggested that storage vessels at gathering 
and boosting compressor stations be allowed to use generally accepted 
engineering models that project future throughput. The commenters 
explained that compressor stations (including gathering and boosting 
compressor stations) and onshore natural gas processing plants 
typically utilize process simulations based on representative or actual 
liquid analysis to determine potential VOC emissions and volumetric 
condensate rates from the storage vessels based on the maximum gas 
throughput capacity of each facility. These generally accepted 
engineering models and calculation methodologies are then utilized to 
obtain Federal, state, local, or tribal authority issued permits to set 
legally and practicably enforceable limits to maintain potential VOC 
emissions from storage vessels at less than 6 tpy. The commenter 
requested that the EPA allow use of these generally accepted models and 
calculation methodologies to project future maximum throughput volumes.
    Response: The EPA agrees with these commenters that potential VOC 
emissions from storage vessels at facilities downstream of well sites 
should not be determined based on the first 30 days that liquids are 
sent to those storage vessels as they are unlikely to experience the 
same peak in throughput during that period as storage vessels at well 
sites. It is the EPA's understanding, based on the information provided 
by the commenters and subsequent conversations,\69\ that these 
midstream and downstream storage vessels may continue to see an 
increase in throughput as additional upstream well sites begin sending 
fluids to these compressor stations and onshore natural gas processing 
plants. Based on the EPA's review and understanding of the generally 
accepted engineering models for projecting future throughput to a 
storage vessel, the EPA agrees that these engineering models are 
appropriate for projecting the maximum throughput for purposes of 
calculating the potential for VOC emissions from storage vessels 
located downstream of well sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See memorandum for ``May 1, 2019 Meeting with GPA 
Midstream,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above reasons, the EPA is amending the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa to specifically provide the following two options for 
determining the potential for VOC emissions from storage vessels at 
facilities downstream of well sites. The first option, which is already 
allowed in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa, allows owners or operators to 
take into account throughput and/or emission limits incorporated as 
legally and practicably enforceable limits in a permit or other 
requirement established under a Federal, state, local, or tribal 
authority. The second option allows the use of generally accepted 
engineering models (e.g., volumetric condensate rates from the storage 
vessels based on the maximum gas throughput capacity of each producing 
facility) to project the maximum throughput used to calculate the 
potential for VOC emissions.

B. Major Comments Concerning Fugitive Emissions at Well Sites and 
Compressor Stations

    In section V.B of this preamble, we discuss the significant changes 
from the proposal to this final rule related to the fugitive emissions 
requirements for well sites and compressor stations. The discussions in 
section V.B of this preamble include a summary of the major comments 
and our responses related to those changes. Specifically, section V.B 
of this preamble discusses the following topics: (1) The three areas of 
uncertainty potentially affecting the cost-effectiveness analysis that 
were identified in the October 15, 2018, proposal; (2) recordkeeping, 
reporting, and other administrative burden from the fugitive emissions 
requirements; (3) other updates to the model plants; and (4) cost 
effectiveness of fugitive emissions requirements. We also discuss our 
re-evaluation of BSER after consideration of all these topics.
    In addition to the topics discussed in section V.B of this 
preamble, the EPA received comments on other aspects related to the 
fugitive emissions requirements. This section provides a discussion of 
comments and our responses regarding the following three topics: (1) 
The EPA's model plant analysis for low production well sites; (2) the 
effect of system pressure on fugitive emissions at low production well 
sites; and (3) monitoring of compressors at compressor stations when 
operating and not in standby mode. More detailed summaries and 
additional comments on the fugitive emissions requirements are included 
in Chapter 8 of the RTC document included in the rulemaking docket for 
this action.
    Comment: The EPA created model plants representing low production 
well sites for purposes of analyzing the emissions and costs of a 
fugitive emissions monitoring and repair program at these types of well 
sites. In the proposal, we also acknowledged that operating pressures 
and production volumes are factors that can cause changes in the 
fugitive emissions at a well site. 83 FR 52067. However, the EPA was 
unable to incorporate these factors into the emission estimates in the 
model plants, and, therefore, developed model plants that relied on 
equipment and component counts to analyze fugitive emissions from low 
production well sites.
    Some industry commenters disagreed with the use of model plants 
that rely on component counts alone to estimate fugitive emissions from 
low production wells due to differences in the type and size of 
equipment and operating conditions (e.g., operating pressure) at low 
production well sites. The commenters did agree that it is reasonable 
to associate the number of components to the potential for leaks. 
However, the commenters continued to maintain that emissions from low 
production wells are inherently different from large production wells 
because of the basic physics of production and how operators change the 
physical equipment as production warrants. Commenters indicated that 
the fugitive emissions factors used by the EPA, which were developed 
for generally predicting emission levels, account for different types 
of fugitive emission components, but do not factor in the amount of 
production or line pressure.
    Response: As stated in the proposal, the EPA continues to recognize 
that variations in equipment, operating conditions, and geological 
aspects across the country at low production well sites may affect 
fugitive emissions from low production well sites. As described in 
section V.B of this preamble, we have made updates to the low 
production well site model plants and re-evaluated the emissions and 
costs of fugitive emissions monitoring and repair requirements at low 
production well sites. Based on this updated analysis, the EPA 
concludes that fugitive emissions monitoring and repair is not cost 
effective at any monitoring frequency for low

[[Page 57428]]

production well sites. See section V.B of this preamble for additional 
discussion.
    Comment: The EPA received additional comments and data related to 
the low production well site model plants developed and analyzed for 
the proposal. One commenter conducted a brief survey of its member 
companies' gas well site operations in 13 states and provided low 
production well site component counts. This commenter pointed out that 
the majority of emissions (around 80 percent) from the low production 
well site model plants are from valves and storage vessel thief 
hatches. Therefore, the commenter only provided counts of these 
components, along with the number of wellheads. This commenter 
explained that the data show fewer wellheads and valves than assumed in 
the proposal model plant for low production gas well sites. The 
commenter stated that it did not consider the data to be fully 
representative of low production well sites nationwide; nevertheless, 
relying on the difference in component counts, the commenter claimed 
that the EPA overestimated the fugitive emissions in the low production 
model plants used for the proposal.
    Response: While the commenter specifically stated that it did not 
consider the data to be fully representative of low production well 
sites nationwide, we reviewed the information and compared it to the 
low production well site model plants used for the proposal analysis. 
Specifically, we compared the weighted-average component counts of the 
information provided by the commenter to the EPA's low production well 
site model plant. The information provided by the commenter showed that 
the weighted-average number of storage vessels was approximately the 
same as that used in the EPA model plant, the number of well heads was 
half (one versus two in the EPA model plant), and the number of valves 
was just under 25 percent (23 versus 100 in the EPA model plant). If 
the model plant was modified with these adjusted component counts, the 
overall difference in emissions would be just over 50 percent.
    After consideration of this information, the EPA concluded it 
provides an insufficient basis to revise the low production well site 
model plant component counts because the information was limited to 
valves, connectors, and storage vessels at a sample of sites the 
commenter admitted were not fully representative of low production well 
sites. However, as discussed above in section V.B of this preamble, we 
did conduct further review of the data originally used to develop the 
model plant parameters, as well as GHGI data. That review resulted in a 
35-percent decrease in the number of valves for the low production gas 
well site model plant, as well as decreases in the numbers of the other 
components. More detailed information on our analysis of the component 
count information submitted by commenters is contained in a technical 
memorandum.\70\ As shown in the revised model plant analysis, a 
fugitive emissions monitoring program is not cost effective for low 
production well sites at any of the frequencies analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Memorandum. ``Summary of Data Received on the October 15, 
2018 Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOOa Related to 
Model Plant Fugitive Emissions.'' February 10, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The EPA proposed defining low production well sites as 
sites where the average combined oil and natural gas production for the 
wells at the site is at or below 15 boe per day averaged over the first 
30 days of production. 83 FR 52093. Several commenters recommended 
changing the definition of a low production well site to be based on 
the U.S. Tax Code definition of stripper wells. These commenters also 
recommended using 12 months of production to determine if a site is low 
production because most well sites newly affected by NSPS subpart OOOOa 
will not meet the definition based on the first 30 days of production 
and because production declines over time such that eventually all well 
sites become low production.
    Response: The EPA has not adopted the stripper well definition for 
purposes of determining if a well site is low production in this action 
because the U.S. Tax Code definition applies to individual wells, not 
well sites. The fugitive emissions standards apply to the collection of 
fugitive emissions components located at a well site. Adoption of the 
stripper well definition could result in a scenario where one well at 
the site is considered low production but the other wells are not, 
which is inconsistent with the affected facility definition for 
fugitive emissions components, where the entire site is treated as one 
unit. Therefore, the calculation of production for purposes of 
determining if the well site is low production is based on the total 
well site production and not the individual well production averaged 
across the number of wells at the well site.
    However, the EPA does agree with the commenters that determination 
of low production status based solely on the first 30 days of 
production does not account for decline in production over time. 
Therefore, the final rule specifies that a low production well site is 
a well site with total well site production of oil and natural gas at 
or below 15 boe per day. This calculation can be based on the first 30 
days of production for determining initial applicability to the rule 
and based on a rolling 12-month average to account for production 
decline. See section V.B of this preamble for additional discussion.
    Comment: Commenters urged the EPA to use the Department of Energy 
(DOE) research program \71\ announced on October 23, 2018, to determine 
more accurate assessments of low production well emissions. The 
commenters asserted that the DOE study provides the EPA the opportunity 
to collect direct emissions data on fugitive emissions at low 
production well sites. The commenters concluded that these data would 
provide the EPA with a baseline that shows the distinctions between 
large wells and low production wells and the differences that may exist 
between types of wells and between production regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ https://www.netl.doe.gov/node/5775.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA is regularly updated on the DOE program and 
provides technical input on many projects. However, data from the DOE-
funded study on low production wells are not currently available. The 
conclusions made in this final rule are based on currently available 
information, which includes many data sources that cover low production 
wells, such as DrillingInfo, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, and 
other emission measurement studies. As discussed in this section and in 
section V.B of this preamble, the EPA agrees that existing information 
shows that low production well sites may have lower emissions than well 
sites with higher production. As such, the final rule has separate 
requirements for well sites with total production at or below 15 boe 
per day, instead of the required fugitive emissions monitoring program 
(including semiannual monitoring) for well sites above this production 
threshold.
    Comment: In addition to co-proposing annual monitoring of fugitive 
emissions components located at a compressor station, the EPA proposed 
a requirement that each compressor at the station must be monitored at 
least once per calendar year when it is operating. The EPA also 
solicited comment regarding the effect the compressor operating mode 
has on fugitive emissions and the proposal to require at least one 
monitoring a year during times that are representative of operating 
conditions for the compressor station.

[[Page 57429]]

    Several industry commenters opposed the EPA's proposal to require 
that each compressor be monitored while in operation (i.e., not in 
stand[hyphen]by mode), because if the station is subject to annual 
monitoring (which was co-proposed), this requirement would result in a 
requirement for every compressor to be operating during the monitoring 
survey, even if all of the compressors are not needed at that time to 
move gas downstream. The commenters believed that the result of this 
requirement would be the generation of emissions from compressor 
blowdowns following the monitoring survey in order to return the 
compressors to the operating modes they were in prior to the survey. 
The requirement would also create unnecessary recordkeeping and 
scheduling complexity/burden, according to commenters. Requiring 
equipment to be monitored in a specific mode of operation, especially 
at less frequent monitoring than quarterly, would increase overall 
emissions if that equipment must change its operational status solely 
to fulfill that requirement. These commenters recommended that the EPA 
allow operators to conduct surveys with facility operations as they are 
found when the survey is conducted.
    However, another commenter stated that its data suggests that it is 
important to conduct monitoring on fully operating compressors to 
maximize the number of leaks detected. The commenter stated that beyond 
these data, it is also simply common sense that as the ratio of 
pressurized to depressurized components increases, so will the number 
of leaks detected (depressurized components do not leak). One of the 
problems is that operation modes vary seasonally at each compressor 
station, and within each compressor station, the operating modes of 
each unit can vary daily based on demand. The commenter asserted that 
the current quarterly compressor monitoring frequency creates a higher 
probability of conducting a survey where each compressor is monitored 
in a pressurized mode at least once per year. If the EPA moved to less 
frequent monitoring, the commenter recommended that there should be 
some condition to ensure that a reasonable effort is made to schedule 
the surveys during a time of peak operation.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the input provided by the commenters. 
While we agree with the one commenter that the opportunity for fugitive 
emissions is greater when a compressor is pressurized and operating, 
the EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement that each compressor 
must be monitored while in operation (i.e., not in stand-by mode) at 
least annually. The EPA has specified in the final rule that the 
monitoring survey of fugitive emissions components at a gathering and 
boosting compressor station is semiannual after the initial survey and 
subsequent semiannual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 
every 4 to 7 months. Therefore, as pointed out by the commenter, the 
likelihood that all monitoring events in a year will be when a specific 
individual compressor is not operating is relatively low. For the 
reason stated above, this final rule does not require monitoring of 
each individual compressor at the station while it is in operation 
(i.e., not in stand-by mode) at least once per calendar year.
    However, the EPA does conclude that it is important that the 
operating mode during the monitoring survey be recorded. While we would 
not expect that owners or operators would modify their operating 
schedules to avoid monitoring when the compressor is operating, or that 
they would purposely schedule every monitoring event during shutdown 
periods, we believe that this record would inform the Agency if this 
were occurring and, if so, how often. This information will provide 
valuable points for future analyses on leak rates and operating modes. 
Therefore, the final rule requires that owners and operators keep a 
record of the operating mode of each compressor at the time of the 
monitoring survey.

C. Major Comments Concerning AMELs

1. Emerging Technologies
    The EPA received comments related to AMELs for emerging 
technologies on several topics. The comments received by the EPA that 
resulted in significant rule changes are discussed in section V.C.1 of 
this preamble, along with our response and rationale for the changes. 
The specific topics were (1) who can submit an AMEL application, (2) 
what data can or must be included in an AMEL application, and (3) what 
broader applications of alternatives are permitted. Further details on 
comments related to the broader applications of AMEL technology, 
specifically on the issues of applying AMEL to multiple similar sites 
or to categories of sources, are provided below along with the EPA's 
responses. Other comments, and more detailed comments covering the 
topics discussed in this preamble related to emerging technologies can 
be found in the RTC document available in the docket, along with EPA's 
responses.
    Comment: In the proposal, the EPA reiterated its position that AMEL 
approvals would be made on a site-specific basis but noted that 
applicants could include multiple sites within one application as 
necessary. Many commenters disagreed with that proposal, stating that 
the EPA should allow approved AMELs to apply more broadly to multiple 
sites, basin-wide, industry-wide, or even based on nation-wide 
efficacy. Commenters asserted that restricting AMEL approval to a 
specific site is inconsistent with the EPA's past practice for OGI, in 
which the EPA determined that OGI achieves emission reductions 
equivalent to Method 21 for several industries and source categories in 
a single rulemaking.\72\ Some commenters feared that the site-specific 
approval process that includes Federal Register notice and comment 
requirements is so onerous that it will stifle innovation in new 
technology, and another noted that its customers have indicated that 
they would not apply for an AMEL if approval is site-specific. 
Commenters pointed out that the site-specific approval process could 
create a crush of AMEL applications for hundreds or thousands of sites, 
but the applications would be limited to only the technologies 
previously approved or most likely to be approved as AMEL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See the Alternative Work Practice located at 40 CFR 
60.18(g), (h), and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the EPA's concern that alternative technologies may 
need to be adjusted for site-specific conditions, such as gas 
compositions, allowable emissions, or the landscape, several commenters 
suggested that the EPA could account for factors affecting variability, 
such as the weather or landscaping, by imposing conditions for the use 
of the technology and/or require periodic instrument checks, 
calibration records, or other actions to ensure equivalent emission 
reductions are achieved within the approved AMEL. The commenters also 
noted that if there is concern about allowable emissions impacting the 
usability of a particular technology, that technology may only be 
approvable for use as an approach to direct inspection efforts, but 
this factor would not affect the ability for it to be approved for that 
use at multiple sites.
    Response: The EPA does not seek to stifle innovation of emerging 
technologies. In fact, the Agency is actively involved in many multi-
stakeholder groups aimed at developing frameworks and criteria that 
will promote the development of possible alternatives. As such, the EPA 
strongly encourages interested parties to discuss possible alternatives 
with the Agency.

[[Page 57430]]

However, the EPA disagrees that this final rule should be the vehicle 
used to make determinations about any particular technology because the 
proposed rulemaking did not evaluate any specific technology. The EPA 
also disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with the EPA's past 
practice for OGI, in which the EPA allowed the use of OGI as an 
alternative to Method 21 for several industries and source categories 
in a single rulemaking.\73\ The EPA notes that while the AMEL process 
provided for in CAA section 111(h)(3) contains elements similar to a 
rulemaking (such as notice and opportunity for public hearing), 
approval of an alternative does not always require rulemaking. If a 
technology is developed that could be broadly applied to oil and gas 
sites as an alternative to what is required in NSPS subpart OOOOa, it 
may be more appropriate to incorporate such a technology into the rule 
through a formal rulemaking process so that every affected facility can 
make use of that alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See 40 CFR 60.18(g), (h), and (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section V.C.1 of this preamble, the EPA agrees that 
in some circumstances, it may be appropriate to apply an approved AMEL 
to multiple sites, including future sites. If the applicant of an AMEL 
believes that it is appropriate to apply the alternative to more sites 
than those listed in the application, the applicant should specify this 
within the application and provide any characteristics or variables 
that are applicable to the type of sites where the equivalency 
demonstration is being made. Specifically, the applicant should provide 
relevant information, including any specific conditions (e.g., 
technology-specific variables that affect performance), procedures 
(e.g., specific work practice that will be followed to identify 
emissions and make repairs), or site characteristics under which the 
alternative must be applied (e.g., formation variables, site operating 
conditions, equipment at the site, etc.), to demonstrate equivalence 
with the emissions reductions that would be achieved under the 
requirements of the NSPS. The EPA will evaluate these defined 
conditions and additional conditions, if any, under which it might be 
appropriate to allow future use of the alternative once approved via 
the AMEL process. For example, the EPA might approve the use of a 
specific fugitive emissions detection technology that operates with the 
same performance under specific work practice requirements, 
environmental conditions, and site configurations and operations. In 
that example, the EPA might determine it is appropriate to approve the 
AMEL and define the specific parameters (e.g., environmental 
conditions, site configurations, and operations) within the approval to 
allow the use of that alternative at sites meeting those same 
conditions without the need for additional future application to the 
EPA. However, each of these determinations would necessarily be made on 
a case-by-case basis provided the application contains all necessary 
information to make such a broad determination for applicability of the 
AMEL. Given that these determinations are made on facts and showings 
that are specific to each proposed alternative, the EPA has determined 
that the best course forward is for an applicant to submit an 
application seeking a broadly applicable AMEL and for the Agency to 
then use its evaluation of that application as a template for future 
applications, thereby streamlining the process.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the EPA should approve the 
use of alternative technologies under the Agencies' AMEL authority for 
broad categories of sources subject to NSPS subpart OOOOa, such as 
fugitive emissions components across multiple sites. They remarked that 
there is nothing in the statute that requires the EPA to set source-
specific AMELs, and the EPA's position regarding the necessity of 
source-by-source applications and approvals for AMEL is incorrectly 
taken from a narrow reading of the language of CAA section 111(h)(3). 
The commenters stated that, while the language of CAA section 111(h)(3) 
provides that an AMEL is permitted to be used ``by the source'' for 
purposes of compliance, the EPA's reading of this provision to disallow 
the granting of AMEL for use by multiple sources is inconsistent with 
the NSPS approach of developing standards for whole categories of 
sources.
    Some commenters said that because an AMEL will serve as a 
replacement for a category-wide CAA section 111(h)(1) standard, a 
demonstration that an AMEL will achieve an emission reduction at least 
equivalent to a CAA section 111(h)(1) standard could be made on a 
category-wide basis and be applied to an entire source category. These 
commenters suggested that allowing for source category-wide AMEL 
determinations would be consistent with the overall structure of CAA 
section 111 and its focus on category-wide standards under CAA sections 
111(b) and (h)(1) and with the limitation prohibiting the EPA from 
imposing specific technological emission reduction requirements 
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(5).
    These commenters further stated that the EPA's regulation 
implementing CAA section 112(h)(3) recognizes that the EPA is 
authorized to approve an AMEL for ``source(s) or category(ies) of 
sources on which the alternative means will achieve equivalent emission 
reductions.'' \74\ They contended that, given the similarities between 
the programs authorized under CAA section 111 and CAA section 112, and 
particularly the similarity of CAA sections 111(h)(3) and 112(h)(3), 
the EPA should adopt a policy of applying an AMEL to source categories 
for CAA section 111(h)(3) in the same manner as it has done with 
respect to CAA section 112(h)(3). They noted that in other rules, such 
as the visibility provisions that require the best available retrofit 
technology (BART), the EPA's rules allow the EPA and the states to 
authorize BART alternatives that can apply to groups of sources and 
that allow emission averaging across sources, even over wide regions, 
rather than imposing source-specific emission limits or source-specific 
alternatives to such limits. The commenters stated that if alternatives 
to emission limits (or work practice standards) for groups of sources 
under these provisions are permissible despite the continued references 
to the term ``source'' in the statutory language, then a source 
category-wide AMEL is surely permissible under CAA section 111(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See 40 CFR 63.6(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: On the first point raised by commenters, and as explained 
in the EPA's response above, the EPA agrees that in some instances 
broad use of an approved alternative may be appropriate. The current 
construct of the AMEL application process in NSPS subpart OOOOa does 
not prevent the EPA from taking this path as suggested by the 
commenters.
    The commenters also suggest that the EPA should apply AMEL to a 
source category in the same manner in which the EPA has done for 
applications submitted through section 112(h)(3) of the CAA. While the 
EPA has approved AMEL for sources subject to standards under section 
112 of the CAA, these approvals have been made on a site-specific 
basis, in which each application specifically lists the facilities that 
are applying for approval. Further, while similar, CAA section 
112(h)(3) does not apply for purposes of demonstrating equivalence with 
work practice standards in the NSPS.

[[Page 57431]]

    For purposes of evaluating whether an alternative to fugitives 
monitoring provides at least equivalent emission reductions as the 
applicable standards in the context of NSPS subpart OOOOa, the EPA 
asserts that the emissions from an individual site are the only 
appropriate measure for comparison. First, the BSER determination for 
the collection of fugitive emissions components is based on a single 
well site, or a single compressor station, not a collection of well 
sites and/or compressor stations, and not the emissions of the entire 
source category. The source category for which NSPS subpart OOOOa sets 
standards of performance under CAA section 111 is the Crude Oil and 
Natural Gas Production source category. This category is defined in 40 
CFR 60.5430a as crude oil production, which includes the well and 
extends to the point of custody transfer to the crude oil transmission 
pipeline or any other forms of transportation; and natural gas 
production and processing, which includes the well and extend to, but 
does not include, the point of custody transfer to the natural gas 
transmission and storage segment.\75\ Within this source category, the 
EPA has set standards of performance (BSER) for individual affected 
facilities. These affected facilities are the only emission sources 
within the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production source category for 
which these NSPS apply and are defined in 40 CFR 60.5365a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See the Review Rule published in the Federal Register of 
Monday, September 14, 2020 and supporting information located at 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the EPA has defined the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a well site and the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a compressor station as individual affected 
facilities in the rule. Affected facilities are defined at the 
individual site level, and not as the collection of fugitive emissions 
components across multiple sites, or a collection of sources within a 
basin. Further, the standards that apply to these affected facilities 
are specific to the individual well site or compressor station, as 
defined in 40 CFR 60.5365a(i) and (j) and 40 CFR 60.5397a. For example, 
the collection of fugitive emissions components at an existing well 
site become subject to the fugitive emissions requirements when (1) a 
new well is drilled at that well site, (2) an existing well at that 
well site is hydraulically fractured, or (3) an existing well at that 
well site is hydraulically refractured. In all three cases, the event 
that triggers the requirements for an existing well site are based on 
site-specific changes, and not changes at other nearby sites. Drilling 
a new well at a well site within the same basin, for instance, does not 
trigger the fugitive emissions requirements for all well sites located 
in that basin.
    When establishing the requirements for the collection of fugitive 
emissions components, the EPA limited the applicability to individual 
well sites or compressor stations. The work practice standards set in 
accordance with section 111(h)(1) of the CAA were established for the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at an individual well site 
or compressor station. Since the NSPS does not define the emission 
source subject to BSER as a basin, or other aggregation of emission 
points, the EPA finds it inappropriate to evaluate alternatives that 
seek to implement such a definition. As a practical matter, the EPA 
concludes that any determination of equivalent emission reductions 
through an AMEL under section 111(h)(3), or for an alternative work 
practice under section 111(h)(1), of the CAA for these NSPS should be 
determined at the same affected facility level (i.e., collection of 
fugitive emissions components at a well site or at a compressor 
station) as the original work practice standards.
    Similar to the EPA's explanation in the Affordable Clean Energy 
rule (``ACE''), here the EPA does not need to determine whether it 
would have reasonable grounds to define ``source'' for purposes of the 
fugitive emissions monitoring work practice standard as a geographic 
area, such as a basin. Because these NSPS define an affected facility 
for this purpose as the collection of fugitive emissions components at 
a well site, and the collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station, the EPA does not think it is appropriate for AMEL 
applications to accommodate the averaging of emissions.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 81 FR 32520, 32556 and 57 (July 8, 2019) (section 
titled ``Averaging and Trading'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, it is unclear whether the commenters are suggesting that 
such aggregation would take into account emissions from sources within 
a basin not subject to these NSPS, such as existing oil and gas well 
sites or compressor stations, or sources that emit VOC that are 
included in a different source category. In response to this point, the 
EPA directs commenters to the discussion of CAA section 111, generation 
shifting, and emission offsets included in ACE.\77\ ``[T]he plain 
language of CAA section 111 does not authorize the EPA to select as the 
BSER a system that is premised on application to the source category as 
a whole or to entities entirely outside the regulated source 
category.'' \78\ This principle also applies in the context of 
evaluating alternatives to the established BSER.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Id. at 32523-26.
    \78\ Id. at 32524.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, commenters suggest that averaging should be appropriate 
here because the EPA allows averaging in its BART program. However, 
that comparison is not appropriate because it fails to consider 
differences between BART and the BSER for this NSPS. The BART 
requirement is just one component of a larger strategy to make 
reasonable progress towards the national goal of remedying visibility 
impairment in certain areas. The EPA determined in the BART context 
that if a state can demonstrate that an alternative strategy, such as 
an emissions trading scheme, will be even more effective at improving 
visibility, such a ``better-than-BART'' strategy may be adopted to 
fulfill the role that would otherwise by filled by BART. However, in 
the context of this NSPS there is less flexibility on this point than 
in the BART program because, as explained above, there are no other 
components to reducing emissions aside from the BSER, the BSER is not 
based on reasonable progress, and this NSPS does not define the 
emission source subject to BSER as a basin or other aggregation of 
emission points.
2. State Fugitive Emissions Programs
    The EPA received comments related to the alternative fugitive 
emissions standards on several topics. The comments received by the EPA 
that resulted in significant rule changes are discussed in section 
V.C.2 of this preamble, along with our response and rationale for the 
changes. Specifically, these topics were related to whether the state 
regulations/requirements determined to be alternative fugitive 
standards to NSPS subpart OOOOa fugitive requirements will provide 
adequate coverage of the emission sources in the state and the 
potential for duplicative reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 
Further details on comments related to these topics are provided below, 
along with other significant comments and the EPA's responses. Other 
comments, and more detailed comments covering the topics discussed in 
this preamble, related to the state fugitive monitoring programs can be 
found in the RTC document

[[Page 57432]]

available in the docket, along with the EPA's responses.
    Comment: The EPA proposed alternative fugitive emissions standards 
based on our determination that certain states had existing 
requirements equivalent to the proposed fugitive emissions 
requirements. These determinations were based on qualitative 
assessments comparing various aspects of the requirements, such as 
monitoring frequencies and repair deadlines. Two commenters stated that 
the equivalency determinations must be quantitative if the EPA wants to 
set alternative standards because they are similar to AMELs. The 
commenters indicated that the Agency's analysis evaluated whether a 
state has regulations that are similar to the EPA's regulations, rather 
than whether the emissions reductions achieved by those regulations are 
quantitatively equivalent. One of the commenters stated that the EPA's 
qualitative comparison is legally insufficient because it does not meet 
the statutory requirement that an applicant ``establish'' that an AMEL 
``will achieve'' reductions in emissions ``at least equivalent to'' the 
reduction achieved under the Federal standards.\79\ This commenter 
stated that, without a quantitative comparison, it is impossible to 
determine whether an AMEL will achieve at least an equivalent reduction 
in pollutant emissions. The commenter further notes that past AMEL 
approvals under this provision were based on detailed quantitative 
determinations for each facility to determine the exact emissions 
levels that would be achievable at that facility, and then those levels 
were compared to the emissions levels achievable under the present 
NSPS. The commenter stated that the EPA's policy changes in how 
equivalency is determined are inconsistent with the requirements of 
section 111(h) of the CAA and also stated that the EPA's approach of 
``combining . . . aspects of the state requirements to formulate 
alternatives,'' \80\ to determine equivalency is not a permissible or 
reasonable approach. The commenter noted that while some aspects of a 
state-level program may be more protective than the corresponding 
Federal requirements, others may not be, and the commenter stated that 
qualitative comparisons cannot determine the net effects of program 
elements that point in opposite directions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See CAA section 111(h)(3).
    \80\ See 83 FR 52081.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA agrees that in some instances when the EPA is 
evaluating an alternative, it would be preferable to use a quantitative 
analysis, but we do not agree that such analysis is necessary or 
prudent in this instance for determining the equivalency of fugitive 
emissions requirements in state regulations. The CAA does not require 
the EPA to conduct a quantitative analysis to evaluate an alternative 
standard or to determine whether that alternative is equivalent to the 
underlying standard. Work practice standards under section 111(h)(1) of 
the CAA are set when ``it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce a 
standard of performance.'' Section 111(h)(2) of the CAA further defines 
that the phrase not feasible to prescribe or enforce a standard of 
performance means any situation in which the Administrator determines 
that: (A) A pollutant or pollutants cannot be emitted through a 
conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such pollutant; 
or (B) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class 
of sources is not practicable due to technological or economic 
limitations. Fugitive emissions are not quantified within the rule, and 
the technologies used in this rule to detect fugitive emissions do not 
quantify the actual emissions that are detected and then remediated 
through repair. Further, even if direct quantification were possible 
through the currently approved technologies, those quantified emissions 
would only represent the fugitive emissions detected on that specific 
day and would not offer information related to how long those emissions 
were present prior to detection, or account for any emissions that 
occur between monitoring surveys. Due to the fact-specific 
circumstances of the work practice standard in the existing rule, it is 
not practical for the EPA to conduct an accurate and meaningful 
quantitative analysis of the alternatives. It is also not necessary for 
the EPA to conduct a quantitative analysis. The statute does not 
require a quantitative analysis. Therefore, the most practical way to 
evaluate the equivalence of a fugitive emissions monitoring and repair 
program is through the site-specific qualitative comparison that we 
used. It is the EPA's determination that the analysis, which evaluates 
the types of components monitored, the frequency of monitoring, the 
detection instrument, the threshold that triggers repairs, and the 
repair deadline, is sufficient and appropriate for demonstrating that 
the six programs identified as alternative fugitive standards are 
equivalent to the fugitive emissions requirements of NSPS subpart 
OOOOa.\81\ Therefore, we have not conducted a quantitative analysis of 
the individual state programs that are finalized in this action as 
alternative standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See memorandum, ``Equivalency of State Fugitive Emissions 
Programs for Well Sites and Compressor Stations to Final Standards 
at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483. January 17, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter performed its own quantitative assessment of 
the state programs that the EPA proposed as equivalent to NSPS subpart 
OOOOa with the October 15, 2018, proposal. From this analysis, the 
commenter stated that it found differences in the applicability 
thresholds for several of the state programs, which results in the 
state programs (combined) covering only 34 percent of the total wells 
that would be covered by the proposal or the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa in 
these states. The commenter also stated that state programs vary in 
stringency and may not reduce emissions to the same level as the EPA 
standards, such as the Ohio and Texas provisions that allow for 
inspection frequency to decrease based on the percentage of components 
leaking. The commenter asserted that its assessment demonstrates that 
both the Ohio and Texas programs reduce emissions to a lesser extent 
than the proposed requirements, while California and Colorado meet the 
emission reduction levels accomplished by the proposal. Overall, the 
commenter said that the state programs will achieve a reduction of 
methane emissions that is 36 percent less than the reduction that would 
be achieved by the amendments proposed on October 15, 2018. When 
compared to the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requirements, the commenter 
said that the state programs would result in 58 percent less emissions 
reductions. The commenter remarked that these findings demonstrate that 
these state programs are not equivalent to either the proposal or the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. Another commenter also remarked that the 
California Air Resources Board has performed a preliminary assessment 
of state programs against the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa and found that 
only the California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Texas programs 
(within narrow parameters) are likely to be equivalent.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the analysis provided by the commenter 
but notes that the analysis appears to include an incorrect assumption. 
Specifically, the commenter stated that only 34 percent of the wells 
covered by the fugitive emissions requirements in NSPS subpart OOOOa 
and that are also

[[Page 57433]]

located in one of the six states with proposed alternative fugitive 
standards would actually be subject to those alternative fugitive 
standards. This is not correct. The assumption by the commenter is that 
the alternative standards are deficient because not all of the sites 
that are currently subject to NSPS subpart OOOOa would be required to 
monitor and, thus, reduce fugitive emissions. This assumption is 
incorrect. The applicability criteria found in NSPS subpart OOOOa will 
continue to apply regardless of the state's applicability criteria.
    Using Texas as an example, the commenters stated that only 5 
percent of the sites that are subject to NSPS subpart OOOOa would have 
monitoring requirements under the alternative fugitive standards for 
well sites located in Texas. While this percentage may represent those 
sites in Texas that can utilize the alternative, this does not mean 
that the other 95 percent of sites escape regulation under the NSPS. If 
a well site is subject to the Texas standards, then that well site may 
opt to comply with those State-level standards as an alternative to 
certain Federal fugitive emissions requirements in NSPS subpart OOOOa. 
However, if a well site located in Texas is not subject to the State-
level requirements and is subject to the NSPS (95 percent of the sites 
according to the commenter), then the alternative standard would not be 
available to that site, and monitoring would be required through the 
requirements in NSPS subpart OOOOa. Put another way, the alternatives 
included in this final rule do not alter the applicability criteria of 
the NSPS for any sites. If a well site in Texas was required to comply 
with the NSPS before the alternative was approved, then that site is 
still required to comply with the NSPS, but the final rule affords 
certain sites an alternative way to demonstrate that compliance with 
the NSPS, if they so choose. Moreover, regardless of whether the site 
complies with the fugitive emissions requirements in NSPS subpart 
OOOOa, or the alternative fugitive standards for their state, they must 
conduct the specific monitoring and repair for the NSPS subpart OOOOa 
defined fugitive emissions components at a well site or compressor 
station, as applicable.
    Comment: Several commenters asserted that the EPA should recognize 
the approved state programs as wholly equivalent to the fugitive 
emissions requirements in the NSPS and fully delegate the 
implementation of those fugitive emissions requirements to those 
states, including the states' recordkeeping and reporting requirements. 
The commenters noted that the EPA is requiring operators to use the 
fugitive emission component definition from the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa 
and the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa reporting and monitoring plan.
    Two of the commenters observed that they are required to comply 
with both the state requirements and Federal fugitive emissions 
programs concurrently. The commenters stated that complying with two 
different recordkeeping and reporting schemes for the same site is very 
burdensome with no added benefit for the environment. Sites that 
operate where they are subject to both the NSPS and a state program 
will sometimes be required to keep two very similar sets of records to 
comply with both standards. Likewise, sites in this situation may be 
required to report similar overlapping information to both the Federal 
system and a state system. According to commenters, this overlap in 
recordkeeping and reporting (and sometimes in monitoring plans) creates 
redundant work that unnecessarily consumes resources. The commenters go 
on to assert that requiring the Federal reporting and monitoring plan 
defeats the purpose and any benefit from the EPA approving state 
programs and suggest that if a state program is not adequate in the 
EPA's opinion, then the EPA should address the issue with the 
individual state, so it can be approved in whole. Commenters added that 
as an alternative, the EPA could require that the fugitive emissions 
component definition from NSPS subpart OOOOa be used when following an 
alternative standard, even if the state program definitions differ, but 
the EPA should not require any duplicative administrative burden.
    Further, the commenters stated that CAA Section 111 fits squarely 
within the cooperative federalism tradition, with CAA section 111(c) 
expressly calling on states to develop ``a procedure for implementing 
and enforcing standards of performance for new sources'' and calling on 
the Administrator to delegate ``any authority he has . . . to implement 
and enforce such standards.'' \82\ Two commenters noted that the EPA 
did not evaluate the equivalency of state reporting requirements or 
monitoring plans and, thus, did not propose any alternative standards 
for these aspects of the NSPS subpart OOOOa fugitive emissions 
requirements. These commenters stated that the exclusion of state 
reporting and monitoring plan requirements from the EPA's equivalency 
evaluation leaves the regulated community in certain states subject to 
potentially duplicative regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ See CAA section 111(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: It is unclear to the EPA what commenters mean by ``wholly 
equivalent'' and ``fully delegate,'' but we are providing a response 
based on our interpretation that commenters are requesting approved 
alternative standards only require recordkeeping and reporting to the 
individual states and not to the EPA. After considering the comments 
provided, the EPA reviewed the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
for each of the six states that were proposed for alternative fugitive 
standards in the October 15, 2018, proposal (California, Colorado, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah). For California, Ohio, and 
Pennsylvania, the EPA was able to identify site-specific reporting 
requirements in the state reports which, while not identical to the 
reporting for NSPS subpart OOOOa, were determined to be appropriate to 
demonstrate compliance with the alternative fugitive standards for 
those states. Therefore, in this final rule, we are allowing well sites 
and compressor stations located in California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania 
that adopt the alternative fugitive standards to electronically submit 
a copy of the report that is submitted to their state as specified in 
40 CFR 60.5420a(b)(7)(iii). As discussed in section V.C of this 
preamble, this report must be submitted in the format in which it was 
submitted to the state, noting the following order of preference: (1) 
As a binary file, (2) as a XML schema, (3) as a searchable PDF, or (4) 
as a scanned PDF of a hard copy.
    In reviewing the reporting requirements for Colorado, we noted that 
the report is a fillable form to the state that summarizes all 
monitoring events for that year at the company-level. Therefore, no 
site-specific information is available. We then reviewed the 
recordkeeping forms for Colorado to identify what information is 
required for the individual sites and compared that information to the 
required annual report for NSPS subpart OOOOa. We identified one 
recordkeeping element required by NSPS subpart OOOOa that was not 
already included in the recordkeeping requirements for Colorado: 
Deviations from certain requirements in the monitoring plan. Given that 
the Federal monitoring plan, and deviations from that plan, are still 
required for all sites that adopt the alternative fugitive standards, 
there are no additional recordkeeping elements that would be needed 
beyond what the State already requires. While the EPA has determined

[[Page 57434]]

that the Colorado program for fugitive emissions requirements is an 
acceptable alternative to NSPS subpart OOOOa, the company-level reports 
in Colorado are insufficient to demonstrate compliance for individual 
sites. Therefore, we are still requiring that well sites and compressor 
stations located in Colorado that adopt the alternative fugitive 
standard must report the information required by NSPS subpart OOOOa for 
fugitive emissions components at well sites and compressor stations.
    Our review of the Texas reporting requirements found that sites 
only report information when fugitive emissions are found. While this 
may be appropriate for demonstrating compliance to the State, it is not 
adequate information for the EPA to ensure compliance with the 
alternative fugitive standards for well sites and compressor stations 
located in Texas. Similar to Colorado, we examined the recordkeeping 
requirements and found that sites located in the State are already 
required by the State to keep records that facilitate the reporting 
required by NSPS subpart OOOOa for fugitive emissions components at 
well sites and compressor stations. Therefore, we are requiring that 
well sites and compressor stations located in Texas that adopt the 
alternative fugitive standards must report the information required in 
NSPS subpart OOOOa.
    Finally, the requirements in Utah do not include reporting. Similar 
to Colorado and Texas, we reviewed the recordkeeping requirements. For 
Utah, sites must keep records of the monitoring plan and the monitoring 
surveys. We found these records are similar to the information that is 
required in the NSPS subpart OOOOa report for fugitive emissions 
components and would not require additional recordkeeping. Therefore, 
we are requiring that well sites located in Utah that adopt the 
alternative fugitive standards must report the information required in 
NSPS subpart OOOOa.

VII. Impacts of These Final Amendments

A. What are the air impacts?

    The EPA projected that, from 2021 to 2030, relative to the 
baseline, the final rule will forgo about 450,000 short tons of methane 
emissions reductions (10 million tons CO2 Eq.), 120,000 
short tons of VOC emissions reductions, and 4,700 short tons of HAP 
emission reductions from facilities affected by this reconsideration. 
The EPA estimated regulatory impacts beginning in 2021 as it is the 
first full year of implementation of this rule. The EPA estimated 
impacts through 2030 to illustrate the accumulating effects of this 
rule over a longer period. The EPA did not estimate impacts after 2030 
for reasons including limited information, as explained in the RIA.

B. What are the energy impacts?

    There will likely be minimal change in emissions control energy 
requirements resulting from this rule. Additionally, this final action 
continues to encourage the use of emission controls that recover 
hydrocarbon products that can be used on-site as fuel or reprocessed 
within the production process for sale. The energy impacts described in 
this section are those energy requirements associated with the 
operation of emission control devices. Potential impacts on the 
national energy economy from the rule are discussed in the economic 
impacts section.

C. What are the compliance cost reductions?

    The PV of the regulatory compliance cost reduction associated with 
this final rule over the 2021 to 2030 period was estimated to be $800 
million (in 2016 dollars) using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.0 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate. The EAV (rounded to two 
significant figures) of these cost reductions is estimated to be $110 
million per year using either a 7-percent or 3-percent discount rate.
    These estimates do not, however, include the forgone producer 
revenues associated with the decrease in the recovery of saleable 
natural gas, though some of the compliance actions required in the 
baseline would likely have captured saleable product that would have 
otherwise been emitted to the atmosphere. Estimates of the value of the 
recovered product were included in previous regulatory analyses as 
offsetting compliance costs. Because of the deregulatory nature of this 
final action, the EPA projected a reduction in the recovery of saleable 
product. Using the 2020 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projection of 
natural gas prices to estimate the value of the change in the recovered 
gas at the wellhead projected to result from the final action, the EPA 
estimated a PV of regulatory compliance cost reductions of the final 
rule over the 2021 to 2030 period of $750 million using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $950 million using a 3-percent discount rate. The 
corresponding estimates of the EAV of cost reductions after accounting 
for the forgone revenues were $100 million per year using a 7-percent 
discount rate and $110 million per year using a 3-percent discount 
rate.

D. What are the economic and employment impacts?

    The EPA used the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate 
the impacts of the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa on the U.S. energy system. 
The NEMS is a publicly available model of the U.S. energy economy 
developed and maintained by the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
and is used to produce the AEO, a reference publication that provides 
detailed projections of the U.S. energy economy. The EPA estimated 
small impacts on crude oil and natural gas markets of the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa rule over the 2020 to 2025 period. This final rule will 
result in a decrease in total compliance costs relative to the 
baseline. Therefore, the EPA expects that this rule will partially 
reduce the impacts estimated for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa in the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa RIA.
    Executive Order 13563 directs Federal agencies to consider the 
effect of regulations on job creation and employment. According to the 
Executive order, ``our regulatory system must protect public health, 
welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, 
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the 
best available science.'' (Executive Order 13563, 2011). While a 
standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard 
benefit-cost analysis, such an analysis is of concern in the current 
economic climate given continued interest in the employment impact of 
regulations such as this final rule. The EPA estimated the changes in 
compliance-related labor impacts due to the changes finalized in this 
rule. As presented in the RIA for this action, the EPA projected there 
will be reductions in the labor required for compliance-related 
activities associated with the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa requirements 
relating to fugitive emissions monitoring and certifications of CVS.

E. What are the forgone benefits?

    The EPA expects forgone climate and health benefits due to the 
forgone emissions reductions projected under this final rule. The EPA 
estimated the forgone domestic climate benefits from the forgone 
methane emissions reductions using an interim measure of the domestic 
social cost of methane (SC-CH4). The SC-CH4 
estimates used here were developed under Executive Order 13783 for use 
in regulatory analyses until an improved estimate of the impacts of 
climate change to the U.S.

[[Page 57435]]

can be developed based on the best available science and economics. 
Executive Order 13783 directed agencies to ensure that estimates of the 
social cost of GHG used in regulatory analyses ``are based on the best 
available science and economics'' and are consistent with the guidance 
contained in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, 
``including with respect to the consideration of domestic versus 
international impacts and the consideration of appropriate discount 
rates'' (Executive Order 13783, Section 5(c)). In addition, Executive 
Order 13783 withdrew the TSDs and the August 2016 Addendum to these 
TSDs describing the global social cost of GHG estimates developed under 
the prior Administration as no longer representative of government 
policy. The withdrawn TSDs and Addendum were developed by an 
interagency working group that included the EPA and other executive 
branch entities and were used in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa RIA.
    The EPA estimated the PV of the forgone domestic climate benefits 
over the 2021 to 2030 period to be $19 million under a 7-percent 
discount rate and $71 million under a 3-percent discount rate. The EAV 
of these forgone benefits is estimated $2.5 million per year under a 7-
percent discount rate and $8.1 million per year under a 3-percent 
discount rate. These values represent only a partial accounting of 
domestic climate impacts from methane emissions and do not account for 
health effects of ozone exposure from the increase in methane 
emissions.
    Under the final rule, the EPA expects that forgone VOC emission 
reductions will degrade air quality and are likely to adversely affect 
health and welfare associated with exposure to ozone, PM2.5, 
and HAP, but we did not quantify these effects at this time due to the 
data limitations described below. This omission should not imply that 
these forgone benefits may not exist; rather, it reflects the inherent 
difficulties in accurately modeling the direct and indirect impacts of 
the projected reductions in emissions for this industrial sector. To 
the extent that the EPA were to quantify these ozone and PM impacts, it 
would estimate the number and value of avoided premature deaths and 
illnesses using an approach detailed in the Particulate Matter NAAQS 
and Ozone NAAQS RIAs.83 84 This approach relies on full-form 
air quality modeling. The Agency is committed to assessing ways of 
conducting full-form air quality modeling for the oil and natural gas 
sector that would be suitable for use in regulatory analysis in the 
context of NSPS, including ways to address the uncertainties regarding 
the scope and magnitude of VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ U.S. EPA. December 2012. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for 
the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Particulate Matter.'' EPA-452/R-12-005. Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/finalria.pdf. Accessed 
January 9, 2020.
    \84\ U.S. U.S. EPA. September 2015. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis 
of the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Ground-Level Ozone.'' EPA-452/R-15-007. Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division. 
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/20151001ria.pdf. Accessed January 
9, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When quantifying the incidence and economic value of the human 
health impacts of air quality changes, the Agency sometimes relies upon 
alternative approaches to using full-form air quality modeling, called 
reduced-form techniques, often reported as ``benefit-per-ton'' values 
that relate air pollution impacts to changes in air pollutant precursor 
emissions.\85\ A small, but growing, literature characterizes the air 
quality and health impacts from the oil and natural gas 
sector.86 87 88 The Agency feels more work needs to be done 
to vet the analysis and methodologies for all potential approaches for 
valuing the health effects of VOC emissions before they are used in 
regulatory analysis, but is committed to continuing this work. 
Recently, the EPA systematically compared the changes in benefits, and 
concentrations where available, from its benefit-per-ton technique and 
other reduced-form techniques to the changes in benefits and 
concentrations derived from full-form photochemical model 
representation of a few different specific emissions scenarios.\89\ The 
Agency's goal was to create a methodology by which investigators could 
better understand the suitability of alternative reduced-form air 
quality modeling techniques for estimating the health impacts of 
criteria pollutant emissions changes in the EPA's benefit-cost 
analysis, including the extent to which reduced form models may over- 
or under-estimate benefits (compared to full-scale modeling) under 
different scenarios and air quality concentrations. The EPA Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) recently convened a panel to review this 
report.\90\ In particular, the SAB will assess the techniques the 
Agency used to appraise these tools; the Agency's approach for 
depicting the results of reduced-form tools; and, steps the Agency 
might take for improving the reliability of reduced-form techniques for 
use in future RIAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ U.S. EPA. 2018. ``Technical Support Document: Estimating 
the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17 
Sectors.'' February. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/sourceapportionmentbpttsd_2018.pdf. Accessed 
January 9, 2020.
    \86\ Fann, N., K.R. Baker, E.A.W. Chan, A. Eyth, A. Macpherson, 
E. Miller, and J. Snyder. 2018. ``Assessing Human Health 
PM2.5 and Ozone Impacts from U.S. Oil and Natural Gas 
Sector Emissions in 2025.'' Environmental Science and Technology 
52(15):8095-8103.
    \87\ Litovitz, A., A. Curtright, S. Abramzon, N. Burger, and C. 
Samaras. 2013. ``Estimation of Regional Air-Quality Damages from 
Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction in Pennsylvania.'' 
Environmental Research Letters 8(1), 014017.
    \88\ Loomis, J. and M. Haefele. 2017. ``Quantifying Market and 
Non-market Benefits and Costs of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United 
States: A Summary of the Literature.'' Ecological Economics 138:160-
167.
    \89\ This analysis compared the benefits estimated using full-
form photochemical air quality modeling simulations (CMAQ and CAMx) 
against four reduced-form tools, including: InMAP; AP2/3; EASIUR and 
the EPA's benefit-per-ton.
    \90\ 85 FR 23823 (April 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that 
was submitted to OMB for review. Any changes made in response to OMB 
recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an 
analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this 
action. This RIA is available in the docket. The RIA describes in 
detail the basis for the EPA's assumptions and characterizes the 
various sources of uncertainties affecting the estimates below.
    Table 6 shows the present value and equivalent annualized value of 
the costs, benefits, and net benefits of the final rule for the 2021 to 
2030 period relative to the baseline using discount rates of 7 and 3 
percent, respectively. The table also shows the total forgone emission 
reductions projected from 2021 to 2030 relative to the baseline. In the 
following table, we refer to the compliance cost reductions as the 
``benefits'' and the forgone benefits as the ``costs'' of this final 
action. The net benefits are the benefits (total cost

[[Page 57436]]

reductions) minus the costs (forgone domestic climate benefits).

  Table 6--Summary of the Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value of the Monetized Forgone Benefits, Cost
             Reductions, and Net Benefits From 2021 to 2030, 7-Percent and 3-Percent Discount Rates
                                               [Millions of 2016$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      7-Percent discount rate         3-Percent discount rate
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        PV              EAV             PV              EAV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits (Total Cost Reductions)................            $750            $100            $950            $110
Compliance Cost Reductions......................             800             110           1,000             110
Forgone Value of Product Recovery...............              44             5.9              57             6.5
Costs (Forgone Domestic Climate Benefits).......              19             2.5              71             8.1
Net Benefits....................................             730              97             880             100
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Non-monetized Forgone Benefits..................  Non-monetized climate impacts from increases in methane
                                                  emissions.
                                                  Health effects of PM2.5 and ozone exposure from an increase of
                                                  about 120,000 short tons of VOC from 2021 through 2030.
                                                  Health effects of HAP exposure from an increase of about 4,700
                                                  short tons of HAP from 2021 through 2030.
                                                  Health effects of ozone exposure from an increase of about
                                                  450,000 short tons of methane from 2021 through 2030.
                                                  Visibility impairment.
                                                  Vegetation effects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Estimates are rounded to two significant digits and may not sum due to independent rounding.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory 
action. Details on the estimated cost reductions of this final rule can 
be found in the EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits 
associated with this action.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this 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 2523.04, Control Number 2060-0721. You can find 
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly 
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not 
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    A summary of the information collection activities previously 
submitted to the OMB for the final action titled ``Standards of 
Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Facilities for which 
Construction, Modification, or Reconstruction Commenced After September 
18, 2015'' (2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa), under the PRA, and assigned OMB 
Control Number 2060-0721, can be found at 81 FR 35890. You can find a 
copy of the 2016 ICR in the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0505-7626). The EPA is revising the information collection 
activities as a result of the amendments in this final rule. You can 
find a copy of the revised ICR in the docket for this rule (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2017-0483), and it is briefly summarized here.
    Comments were received on the October 15, 2018 (83 FR 52056) 
proposed rulemaking indicating that the recordkeeping and reporting 
burden for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa was significantly 
underestimated, as discussed in section V.B.2 of this preamble. After 
consideration of these comments, the EPA updated the assessment of the 
recordkeeping and reporting burden for the 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa. The 
updated 2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa ICR was used as the ``baseline'' from 
which changes in the Review Rule published in the Federal Register of 
Monday, September 14, 2020 were compared. Additional information on the 
Review Rule can be found at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0757.
    This final rule includes additional revisions to the information 
collection activities for NSPS subpart OOOOa.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of onshore oil 
and natural gas affected facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 519.
    Frequency of response: Annually or semiannually, depending on the 
requirement.
    Total estimated burden: 1,124,965 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $215,874,903, includes $2,681,370 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. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In 
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant 
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no 
net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small 
entities subject to the rule. This is a deregulatory action, and the 
burden on all entities affected by this final rule, including small 
entities, is reduced compared to the 2016 NSPS subpart

[[Page 57437]]

OOOOa. See the RIA for details. We have, therefore, concluded that this 
action will relieve regulatory burden for all directly regulated small 
entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in 
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, 
local, or tribal governments, or the private sector.

F. 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to 
this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA 
does not believe the environmental health risks or safety risks 
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. 
While children may experience forgone benefits as a result of this 
action, the potential forgone emission reductions (and related 
benefits) from the final amendments are small compared to the overall 
emission reductions (and related benefits) from the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa.
    This final action does not affect the level of public health and 
environmental protection already being provided by existing NAAQS and 
other mechanisms in the CAA. This action does not affect applicable 
local, state, or Federal permitting or air quality management programs 
that will continue to address areas with degraded air quality and 
maintain the air quality in areas meeting current standards. Areas that 
need to reduce criteria air pollution to meet the NAAQS will still need 
to rely on control strategies to reduce emissions. The EPA does not 
believe this decrease in emission reductions projected from this action 
will have a disproportionate adverse effect on children's health.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This 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. In the RIA accompanying the 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa, the EPA used the NEMS to estimate the impacts of the 
2016 NSPS subpart OOOOa on the United States energy system. The EPA 
estimated small impacts of that rule over the 2020 to 2025 period 
relative to the baseline for that rule. This final rule is estimated to 
result in a decrease in total compliance costs, with the reduction in 
costs affecting a subset of the affected entities under NSPS subpart 
OOOOa. Therefore, the EPA expects that this deregulatory action will 
reduce the impacts estimated for the final NSPS in the 2016 RIA and, as 
such, is not a significant energy action.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action involves technical standards.\91\ Therefore, the EPA 
conducted searches for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission 
Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Reconsideration 
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database 
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Searches 
were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 6, 
10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No 
applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS) were identified for EPA 
Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 21, and 22 and none were brought to its attention 
in comments. All potential standards were reviewed to determine the 
practicality of the VCS for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ These technical standards are the same as those previously 
finalized at 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOa (81 FR 35824). 2016 NSPS 
subpart OOOOa also previously incorporated by reference 10 technical 
standards. The incorporation by reference remains unchanged in this 
action. See Docket ID Item Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7657 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0505-7658.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two VCS were identified as an acceptable alternative to the EPA 
test methods for the purpose of this rule. First, ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-
1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (Part 10),'' was identified to be 
used in lieu of EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 15A, and 16A manual portions 
only and not the instrumental portion. This standard includes manual 
and instructional methods of analysis for carbon dioxide, carbon 
monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and 
SO2. Second, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Test Method for 
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas 
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 18 with the following caveats; only use when the target 
compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM 
D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total 
VOC Method. (ASTM D6420-99 (2010) is not incorporated by reference in 
40 CFR part 60.) The search identified 19 VCS that were potentially 
applicable for this rule in lieu of the EPA reference methods. However, 
these have been determined to not be practical due to lack of 
equivalency, documentation, validation of data, and other important 
technical and policy considerations. For additional information, please 
see the memorandum, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Oil and 
Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and 
Modified Sources Reconsideration,'' located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0483.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately 
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as 
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 
While these communities may experience forgone benefits as a result of 
this action, the potential forgone emission reductions (and related 
benefits) from the final amendments are small compared to the overall 
emission reductions (and related benefits) from the 2016 NSPS subpart 
OOOOa. The amendments in this final action will decrease the projected 
emission reductions of the rule it revises by a small degree. Based on 
the revisions in this final rule, for the year 2025, we estimate a 
decrease in the projected emissions reductions anticipated by the 2016 
NSPS subpart OOOOa in the production and processing segments of about 
12 to 15 percent for methane and about 7 to 9 percent for VOC.

[[Page 57438]]

    Moreover, this action does not affect the level of public health 
and environmental protection already being provided by existing NAAQS, 
including ozone and PM2.5, and other mechanisms in the CAA. 
This action does not affect applicable local, state, or Federal 
permitting or air quality management programs that will continue to 
address areas with degraded air quality and maintain the air quality in 
areas meeting current standards. Areas that need to reduce criteria air 
pollution to meet the NAAQS will still need to rely on control 
strategies to reduce emissions.

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Reporting and recordkeeping.

Andrew Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 60 is amended 
as follows:

PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart OOOOa--Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural 
Gas Facilities for Which Construction, Modification or 
Reconstruction Commenced After September 18, 2015

0
2. Section 60.5360a is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.5360a  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    (a) This subpart establishes emission standards and compliance 
schedules for the control of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from affected facilities in 
the crude oil and natural gas production source category that commence 
construction, modification, or reconstruction after September 18, 2015.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.5365a is amended by revising paragraphs (e), (f) 
introductory text, (g) introductory text, and (g)(1) and adding 
paragraph (i)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5365a  Am I subject to this subpart?

* * * * *
    (e) Each storage vessel affected facility, which is a single 
storage vessel as specified in paragraph (e)(1), (2), or (3) of this 
section.
    (1) A single storage vessel that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015, and on or 
before November 16, 2020, is a storage vessel affected facility if its 
potential for VOC emissions is equal to or greater than 6 tons per year 
(tpy) as determined according to this paragraph (e)(1). The potential 
for VOC emissions must be calculated using a generally accepted model 
or calculation methodology, based on the maximum average daily 
throughput (as defined in Sec.  60.5430a) determined for a 30-day 
period prior to the applicable emission determination deadline 
specified in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, except as 
provided in paragraph (e)(5)(iv). The determination may take into 
account requirements under a legally and practicably enforceable limit 
in an operating permit or other requirement established under a 
Federal, state, local, or tribal authority.
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, a 
single storage vessel that commenced construction, reconstruction or 
modification after November 16, 2020, is a storage vessel affected 
facility if the potential for VOC emissions is equal to or greater than 
6 tpy as determined according to paragraph (e)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 
section, except as provided in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section. 
The determination may take into account requirements under a legally 
and practicably enforceable limit in an operating permit or other 
requirement established under a Federal, state, local, or tribal 
authority. The potential for VOC emissions is calculated on an 
individual storage vessel basis and is not averaged across the number 
of storage vessels at the site.
    (i) For each storage vessel receiving liquids pursuant to the 
standards for well affected facilities in Sec.  60.5375a, including 
wells subject to Sec.  60.5375a(f), you must determine the potential 
for VOC emissions within 30 days after startup of production of the 
well, except as provided in paragraph (e)(5)(iv) of this section. The 
potential for VOC emissions must be calculated for each individual 
storage vessel using a generally accepted model or calculation 
methodology, based on the maximum average daily throughput, as defined 
in Sec.  60.5430a, determined for a 30-day period of production.
    (ii) For each storage vessel located at a compressor station or 
onshore natural gas processing plant, you must determine the potential 
for VOC emissions prior to startup of the compressor station or onshore 
natural gas processing plant using either method described in paragraph 
(e)(2)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section.
    (A) Determine the potential for VOC emissions using a generally 
accepted model or calculation methodology and based on the throughput 
established in a legally and practicably enforceable limit in an 
operating permit or other requirement established under a Federal, 
state, local, or tribal authority; or
    (B) Determine the potential for VOC emissions using a generally 
accepted model or calculation methodology and based on projected 
maximum average daily throughput. Maximum average daily throughput is 
determined using a generally accepted engineering model (e.g., 
volumetric condensate rates from the storage vessels based on the 
maximum gas throughput capacity of each producing facility) to project 
the maximum average daily throughput for the storage vessel.
    (3) If a storage vessel battery, which consists of two or more 
storage vessels, meets all of the design and operational criteria 
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iv) of this section through 
legally and practicably enforceable standards in a permit or other 
requirement established under Federal, state, local, or tribal 
authority, then each storage vessel in such storage vessel battery is a 
storage vessel affected facility.
    (i) The storage vessels must be manifolded together with piping 
such that all vapors are shared among the headspaces of the storage 
vessels;
    (ii) The storage vessels must be equipped with a closed vent system 
that is designed, operated, and maintained to route the vapors back to 
the process or to a control device;
    (iii) The vapors collected in paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section 
must be routed back to the process or to a control device that reduces 
VOC emissions by at least 95.0 percent; and
    (iv) The VOC emissions, averaged across the number of storage 
vessels in the battery meeting all of the criteria of paragraphs 
(e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section, are equal to or greater than 6 
tpy.
    (v) If a storage vessel battery meeting all of the criteria 
specified in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section through 
legally and practicably

[[Page 57439]]

enforceable standards in a permit or other requirements established 
under Federal, state, local, or tribal authority, emits less than 6 tpy 
of VOC emissions averaged across the number of storage vessels in the 
battery, none of the storage vessels in the battery are storage vessel 
affected facilities.
    (4) A storage vessel affected facility that subsequently has its 
potential for VOC emissions decrease to less than 6 tpy shall remain an 
affected facility under this subpart.
    (5) For storage vessels not subject to a legally and practicably 
enforceable limit in an operating permit or other requirement 
established under Federal, state, local, or tribal authority, any vapor 
from the storage vessel that is recovered and routed to a process 
through a VRU designed and operated as specified in this section is not 
required to be included in the determination of potential for VOC 
emissions for purposes of determining affected facility status, 
provided you comply with the requirements in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) 
through (iv) of this section.
    (i) You meet the cover requirements specified in Sec.  60.5411a(b).
    (ii) You meet the closed vent system requirements specified in 
Sec.  60.5411a(c) and (d).
    (iii) You must maintain records that document compliance with 
paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (iv) In the event of removal of apparatus that recovers and routes 
vapor to a process, or operation that is inconsistent with the 
conditions specified in paragraphs (e)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, 
you must determine the storage vessel's potential for VOC emissions 
according to this section within 30 days of such removal or operation.
    (6) The requirements of this paragraph (e)(6) apply to each storage 
vessel affected facility immediately upon startup, startup of 
production, or return to service. A storage vessel affected facility 
that is reconnected to the original source of liquids is a storage 
vessel affected facility subject to the same requirements that applied 
before being removed from service. Any storage vessel that is used to 
replace any storage vessel affected facility is subject to the same 
requirements that applied to the storage vessel affected facility being 
replaced.
    (7) A storage vessel with a capacity greater than 100,000 gallons 
used to recycle water that has been passed through two stage separation 
is not a storage vessel affected facility.
    (f) The group of all equipment within a process unit at an onshore 
natural gas processing plant is an affected facility.
* * * * *
    (g) Sweetening units located at onshore natural gas processing 
plants that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction 
after September 18, 2015, and on or before November 16, 2020, and 
sweetening units that commence construction, modification, or 
reconstruction after November 16, 2020.
    (1) Each sweetening unit that processes natural gas produced from 
either onshore or offshore wells is an affected facility; and
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (4) For purposes of Sec.  60.5397a, a ``modification'' to an 
existing source separate tank battery surface site occurs when:
    (i) Any of the actions in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through (iii) of 
this section occurs at an existing source separate tank battery surface 
site;
    (ii) A well sending production to an existing source separate tank 
battery site is modified, as defined in paragraphs (i)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section; or
    (iii) A well site subject to the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a 
removes all major production and processing equipment, as defined in 
Sec.  60.5430a, such that it becomes a wellhead only well site and 
sends production to an existing source separate tank battery surface 
site.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 60.5375a is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1)(i), 
(a)(1)(iii) introductory text, and (f)(3)(ii) and adding paragraph 
(f)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5375a  What VOC standards apply to well affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) During the initial flowback stage, route the flowback into one 
or more well completion vessels or storage vessels and commence 
operation of a separator unless it is technically infeasible for a 
separator to function. The separator may be a production separator, but 
the production separator also must be designed to accommodate flowback. 
Any gas present in the initial flowback stage is not subject to control 
under this section.
* * * * *
    (iii) You must have the separator onsite or otherwise available for 
use at a centralized facility or well pad that services the well 
affected facility during well completions. The separator must be 
available and ready for use to comply with paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this 
section during the entirety of the flowback period, except as provided 
in paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) Route all flowback into one or more well completion vessels 
and commence operation of a separator unless it is technically 
infeasible for a separator to function. Any gas present in the flowback 
before the separator can function is not subject to control under this 
section. Capture and direct recovered gas to a completion combustion 
device, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or 
explosion, or where high heat emissions from a completion combustion 
device may negatively impact tundra, permafrost, or waterways. 
Completion combustion devices must be equipped with a reliable 
continuous pilot flame.
    (4) You must submit the notification as specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(a)(2), submit annual reports as specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(1) and (2) and maintain records specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(c)(1)(iii) for each wildcat and delineation well. You must 
submit the notification as specified in Sec.  60.5420a(a)(2), submit 
annual reports as specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(1) and (2), and 
maintain records as specified in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(1)(iii) and (vii) 
for each low pressure well.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 60.5385a is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.5385a  What VOC standards apply to reciprocating compressor 
affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) On or before the compressor has operated for 26,000 hours. The 
number of hours of operation must be continuously monitored beginning 
upon initial startup of your reciprocating compressor affected 
facility, August 2, 2016, or the date of the most recent reciprocating 
compressor rod packing replacement, whichever is latest.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 60.5393a is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) and 
removing paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5393a  What VOC standards apply to pneumatic pump affected 
facilities?

* * * * *

[[Page 57440]]

    (b) For each pneumatic pump affected facility at a well site you 
must reduce natural gas emissions by 95.0 percent, except as provided 
in paragraphs (b)(3), (4), and (5) of this section.
    (1)-(2) [Reserved]
    (3) You are not required to install a control device solely for the 
purpose of complying with the 95.0 percent reduction requirement of 
paragraph (b) of this section. If you do not have a control device 
installed on site by the compliance date and you do not have the 
ability to route to a process, then you must comply instead with the 
provisions of paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. For the 
purposes of this section, boilers and process heaters are not 
considered control devices. In addition, routing emissions from 
pneumatic pump discharges to boilers and process heaters is not 
considered routing to a process.
    (i) Submit a certification in accordance with Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(8)(i)(A) in your next annual report, certifying that there 
is no available control device or process on site and maintain the 
records in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(16)(i) and (ii).
    (ii) If you subsequently install a control device or have the 
ability to route to a process, you are no longer required to comply 
with paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section and must submit the 
information in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(8)(ii) in your next annual report and 
maintain the records in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(16)(i), (ii), and (iii). You 
must be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section within 30 days of startup of the control device or within 30 
days of the ability to route to a process.
    (4) If the control device available on site is unable to achieve a 
95-percent reduction and there is no ability to route the emissions to 
a process, you must still route the pneumatic pump affected facility's 
emissions to that control device. If you route the pneumatic pump 
affected facility to a control device installed on site that is 
designed to achieve less than a 95-percent reduction, you must submit 
the information specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(8)(i)(C) in your next 
annual report and maintain the records in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(16)(iii).
    (5) If an owner or operator determines, through an engineering 
assessment, that routing a pneumatic pump to a control device or a 
process is technically infeasible, the requirements specified in 
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section must be met.
    (i) The owner or operator shall conduct the assessment of technical 
infeasibility in accordance with the criteria in paragraph (b)(5)(iii) 
of this section and have it certified by either a qualified 
professional engineer or an in-house engineer with expertise on the 
design and operation of the pneumatic pump in accordance with paragraph 
(b)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) The following certification, signed and dated by the qualified 
professional engineer or in-house engineer, shall state: ``I certify 
that the assessment of technical infeasibility was prepared under my 
direction or supervision. I further certify that the assessment was 
conducted and this report was prepared pursuant to the requirements of 
Sec.  60.5393a(b)(5)(iii). Based on my professional knowledge and 
experience, and inquiry of personnel involved in the assessment, the 
certification submitted herein is true, accurate, and complete.''
    (iii) The assessment of technical infeasibility to route emissions 
from the pneumatic pump to an existing control device onsite or to a 
process shall include, but is not limited to, safety considerations, 
distance from the control device or process, pressure losses and 
differentials in the closed vent system, and the ability of the control 
device or process to handle the pneumatic pump emissions which are 
routed to them. The assessment of technical infeasibility shall be 
prepared under the direction or supervision of the qualified 
professional engineer or in-house engineer who signs the certification 
in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(ii) of this section.
    (iv) The owner or operator shall maintain the records specified in 
Sec.  60.5420a(c)(16)(iv).
    (6) If the pneumatic pump is routed to a control device or a 
process and the control device or process is subsequently removed from 
the location or is no longer available, you are no longer required to 
be in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this 
section, and instead must comply with paragraph (b)(3) of this section 
and report the change in the next annual report in accordance with 
Sec.  60.5420a(b)(8)(ii).
    (c) If you use a control device or route to a process to reduce 
emissions, you must connect the pneumatic pump affected facility 
through a closed vent system that meets the requirements of Sec. Sec.  
60.5411a(d) and (e), 60.5415a(b)(3), and 60.5416a(d).
* * * * *

0
7. Section 60.5395a is amended by revising the introductory text to 
read as follows:

Sec.  60.5395a  What VOC standards apply to storage vessel affected 
facilities?

    Each storage vessel affected facility must comply with the VOC 
standards in this section, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this 
section.
* * * * *

0
8. Section 60.5397a is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(2), 
(c)(7)(i) introductory text, and (c)(8) introductory text, adding 
paragraph (c)(8)(iii), and revising paragraphs (d), (f), (g) 
introductory text, (g)(1), (2), and (5), and (h) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5397a  What fugitive emissions VOC standards apply to the 
affected facility which is the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at a well site and the affected facility which is the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station?

* * * * *
    (a) You must comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, unless 
your affected facility under Sec.  60.5365a(i) (i.e., the collection of 
fugitive emissions components at a well site) meets the conditions 
specified in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section. If 
your affected facility under Sec.  60.5365a(i) (i.e., the collection of 
fugitive emissions components at a well site) meets the conditions 
specified in either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, you 
must comply with either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) You must monitor all fugitive emission components, as defined 
in Sec.  60.5430a, in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (g) of 
this section. You must repair all sources of fugitive emissions in 
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section. You must keep records in 
accordance with paragraph (i) of this section and report in accordance 
with paragraph (j) of this section. For purposes of this section, 
fugitive emissions are defined as any visible emission from a fugitive 
emissions component observed using optical gas imaging or an instrument 
reading of 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater using Method 21 of 
appendix A-7 to this part.
    (i) First 30-day production. For the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a well site, where the total production of the 
well site is at or below 15 barrels of oil equivalent (boe) per day for 
the first 30 days of production, according to Sec.  60.5415a(j), you 
must comply with the provisions of either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of 
this section. Except as provided in this paragraph (a)(1)(i), the 
calculation must be performed within 45 days of the end of the first 30 
days of production. To convert gas production to equivalent barrels of 
oil, divide the cubic feet of gas produced by 6,000. For well sites 
that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification between

[[Page 57441]]

October 15, 2019, and November 16, 2020, the owner or operator may use 
the records of the first 30 days of production after becoming subject 
to this subpart, if available, to determine if the total well site 
production is at or below 15 boe per day, provided this determination 
is completed by December 14, 2020.
    (ii) Well site production decline. For the collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a well site, where, at any time, the total 
production of the well site is at or below 15 boe per day based on a 
rolling 12-month average, you must comply with the provisions of either 
paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. To convert gas production to 
equivalent barrels of oil, divide the cubic feet of gas produced by 
6,000.
    (2) You must maintain the total production for the well site at or 
below 15 boe per day based on a rolling 12-month average, according to 
Sec. Sec.  60.5410a(k) and 60.5415a(i), comply with the reporting 
requirements in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(i)(C), and the recordkeeping 
requirements in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(15)(ii), until such time that you 
perform any of the actions in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v) of this 
section. If any of the actions listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 
(v) of this section occur, you must comply with paragraph (a)(3) of 
this section.
    (i) A new well is drilled at the well site;
    (ii) A well at the well site is hydraulically fractured;
    (iii) A well at the well site is hydraulically refractured;
    (iv) A well at the well site is stimulated in any manner for the 
purpose of increasing production, including well workovers; or
    (v) A well at the well site is shut-in for the purpose of 
increasing production from the well.
    (3) You must determine the total production for the well site for 
the first 30 days after any of the actions listed in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section is completed, according to Sec.  
60.5415a(j), comply with paragraph (a)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section, 
the reporting requirements in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(i)(C), and the 
recordkeeping requirements in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(15)(iii).
    (i) If the total production for the well site is at or below 15 boe 
per day for the first 30 days after the action is completed, according 
to Sec.  60.5415a(j), you must either continue to comply with paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section or comply with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (ii) If the total production for the well site is greater than 15 
boe per day for the first 30 days after the action is completed, 
according to Sec.  60.5415a(j), you must comply with paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section and conduct an initial monitoring survey for the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at the well site in 
accordance with the same schedule as for modified well sites as 
specified in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(1).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) Technique for determining fugitive emissions (i.e., Method 21 
of appendix A-7 to this part or optical gas imaging meeting the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) through (vii) of this section).
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (i) Verification that your optical gas imaging equipment meets the 
specifications of paragraphs (c)(7)(i)(A) and (B) of this section. This 
verification is an initial verification, and may either be performed by 
the facility, by the manufacturer, or by a third party. For the 
purposes of complying with the fugitive emissions monitoring program 
with optical gas imaging, a fugitive emission is defined as any visible 
emissions observed using optical gas imaging.
* * * * *
    (8) If you are using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part, your 
plan must also include the elements specified in paragraphs (c)(8)(i) 
through (iii) of this section. For the purposes of complying with the 
fugitive emissions monitoring program using Method 21 of appendix A-7 
of this part a fugitive emission is defined as an instrument reading of 
500 ppm or greater.
* * * * *
    (iii) Procedures for calibration. The instrument must be calibrated 
before use each day of its use by the procedures specified in Method 21 
of appendix A-7 of this part. At a minimum, you must also conduct 
precision tests at the interval specified in Method 21 of appendix A-7 
of this part, Section 8.1.2, and a calibration drift assessment at the 
end of each monitoring day. The calibration drift assessment must be 
conducted as specified in paragraph (c)(8)(iii)(A) of this section. 
Corrective action for drift assessments is specified in paragraphs 
(c)(8)(iii)(B) and (C) of this section.
    (A) Check the instrument using the same calibration gas that was 
used to calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures 
specified in Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part, Section 10.1, 
except do not adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration 
gas value. If multiple scales are used, record the instrument reading 
for each scale used. Divide the arithmetic difference of the initial 
and post-test calibration response by the corresponding calibration gas 
value for each scale and multiply by 100 to express the calibration 
drift as a percentage.
    (B) If a calibration drift assessment shows a negative drift of 
more than 10 percent, then all equipment with instrument readings 
between the fugitive emission definition multiplied by (100 minus the 
percent of negative drift/divided by 100) and the fugitive emission 
definition that was monitored since the last calibration must be re-
monitored.
    (C) If any calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of 
more than 10 percent from the initial calibration value, then, at the 
owner/operator's discretion, all equipment with instrument readings 
above the fugitive emission definition and below the fugitive emission 
definition multiplied by (100 plus the percent of positive drift/
divided by 100) monitored since the last calibration may be re-
monitored.
    (d) Each fugitive emissions monitoring plan must include the 
elements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section, at 
a minimum, as applicable.
    (1) If you are using optical gas imaging, your plan must include 
procedures to ensure that all fugitive emissions components are 
monitored during each survey. Example procedures include, but are not 
limited to, a sitemap with an observation path, a written narrative of 
where the fugitive emissions components are located and how they will 
be monitored, or an inventory of fugitive emissions components.
    (2) If you are using Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part, your 
plan must include a list of fugitive emissions components to be 
monitored and method for determining the location of fugitive emissions 
components to be monitored in the field (e.g., tagging, identification 
on a process and instrumentation diagram, etc.).
    (3) Your fugitive emissions monitoring plan must include the 
written plan developed for all of the fugitive emissions components 
designated as difficult-to-monitor in accordance with paragraph (g)(3) 
of this section, and the written plan for fugitive emissions components 
designated as unsafe-to-monitor in accordance with paragraph (g)(4) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (f)(1) You must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 90 days 
of the startup of production, as defined in

[[Page 57442]]

Sec.  60.5430a, for each collection of fugitive emissions components at 
a new well site or by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. For a modified 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, the initial 
monitoring survey must be conducted within 90 days of the startup of 
production for each collection of fugitive emissions components after 
the modification or by June 3, 2017, whichever is later. 
Notwithstanding the preceding deadlines, for each collection of 
fugitive emissions components at a well site located on the Alaskan 
North Slope, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, that starts up production 
between September and March, you must conduct an initial monitoring 
survey within 6 months of the startup of production for a new well 
site, within 6 months of the first day of production after a 
modification of the collection of fugitive emission components, or by 
the following June 30, whichever is latest.
    (2) You must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 90 days of 
the startup of a new compressor station for each collection of fugitive 
emissions components at the new compressor station or by June 3, 2017, 
whichever is later. For a modified collection of fugitive emissions 
components at a compressor station, the initial monitoring survey must 
be conducted within 90 days of the modification or by June 3, 2017, 
whichever is later. Notwithstanding the preceding deadlines, for each 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a new compressor station 
located on the Alaskan North Slope that starts up between September and 
March, you must conduct an initial monitoring survey within 6 months of 
the startup date for new compressor stations, within 6 months of the 
modification, or by the following June 30, whichever is latest.
    (g) A monitoring survey of each collection of fugitive emissions 
components at a well site or at a compressor station must be performed 
at the frequencies specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this 
section, with the exceptions noted in paragraphs (g)(3) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Except as provided in this paragraph (g)(1), a monitoring 
survey of each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site must be conducted at least semiannually after the initial survey. 
Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 4 
months apart and no more than 7 months apart. A monitoring survey of 
each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site located 
on the Alaskan North Slope must be conducted at least annually. 
Consecutive annual monitoring surveys must be conducted at least 9 
months apart and no more than 13 months apart.
    (2) Except as provided in this paragraph (g)(2), a monitoring 
survey of the collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station must be conducted at least semiannually after the 
initial survey. Consecutive semiannual monitoring surveys must be 
conducted at least 4 months apart and no more than 7 months apart. A 
monitoring survey of the collection of fugitive emissions components at 
a compressor station located on the Alaskan North Slope must be 
conducted at least annually. Consecutive annual monitoring surveys must 
be conducted at least 9 months apart and no more than 13 months apart.
* * * * *
    (5) You are no longer required to comply with the requirements of 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section when the owner or operator removes all 
major production and processing equipment, as defined in Sec.  
60.5430a, such that the well site becomes a wellhead only well site. If 
any major production and processing equipment is subsequently added to 
the well site, then the owner or operator must comply with the 
requirements in paragraphs (f)(1) and (g)(1) of this section.
    (h) Each identified source of fugitive emissions shall be repaired, 
as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, in accordance with paragraphs (h)(1) and 
(2) of this section.
    (1) A first attempt at repair shall be made no later than 30 
calendar days after detection of the fugitive emissions.
    (2) Repair shall be completed as soon as practicable, but no later 
than 30 calendar days after the first attempt at repair as required in 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (3) If the repair is technically infeasible, would require a vent 
blowdown, a compressor station shutdown, a well shutdown or well shut-
in, or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit, the 
repair must be completed during the next scheduled compressor station 
shutdown for maintenance, scheduled well shutdown, scheduled well shut-
in, after a scheduled vent blowdown, or within 2 years, whichever is 
earliest. For purposes of this paragraph (h)(3), a vent blowdown is the 
opening of one or more blowdown valves to depressurize major production 
and processing equipment, other than a storage vessel.
    (4) Each identified source of fugitive emissions must be resurveyed 
to complete repair according to the requirements in paragraphs 
(h)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section, to ensure that there are no 
fugitive emissions.
    (i) The operator may resurvey the fugitive emissions components to 
verify repair using either Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part or 
optical gas imaging.
    (ii) For each repair that cannot be made during the monitoring 
survey when the fugitive emissions are initially found, a digital 
photograph must be taken of that component or the component must be 
tagged during the monitoring survey when the fugitives were initially 
found for identification purposes and subsequent repair. The digital 
photograph must include the date that the photograph was taken and must 
clearly identify the component by location within the site (e.g., the 
latitude and longitude of the component or by other descriptive 
landmarks visible in the picture).
    (iii) Operators that use Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part to 
resurvey the repaired fugitive emissions components are subject to the 
resurvey provisions specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(iii)(A) and (B) of 
this section.
    (A) A fugitive emissions component is repaired when the Method 21 
instrument indicates a concentration of less than 500 ppm above 
background or when no soap bubbles are observed when the alternative 
screening procedures specified in section 8.3.3 of Method 21 of 
appendix A-7 of this part are used.
    (B) Operators must use the Method 21 monitoring requirements 
specified in paragraph (c)(8)(ii) of this section or the alternative 
screening procedures specified in section 8.3.3 of Method 21 of 
appendix A-7 of this part.
    (iv) Operators that use optical gas imaging to resurvey the 
repaired fugitive emissions components, are subject to the resurvey 
provisions specified in paragraphs (h)(4)(iv)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (A) A fugitive emissions component is repaired when the optical gas 
imaging instrument shows no indication of visible emissions.
    (B) Operators must use the optical gas imaging monitoring 
requirements specified in paragraph (c)(7) of this section.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 60.5398a is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 57443]]

Sec.  60.5398a  What are the alternative means of emission limitations 
for VOC from well completions, reciprocating compressors, the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site and the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station?

    (a) If, in the Administrator's judgment, an alternative means of 
emission limitation will achieve a reduction in VOC emissions at least 
equivalent to the reduction in VOC emissions achieved under Sec.  
60.5375a, Sec.  60.5385a, or Sec.  60.5397a, the Administrator will 
publish, in the Federal Register, a notice permitting the use of that 
alternative means for the purpose of compliance with Sec.  60.5375a, 
Sec.  60.5385a, or Sec.  60.5397a. The authority to approve an 
alternative means of emission limitation is retained by the 
Administrator and shall not be delegated to States under section 111(c) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
    (b) Any notice under paragraph (a) of this section must be 
published only after notice and an opportunity for a public hearing.
    (c) Determination of equivalence to the design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational requirements of this section will be evaluated 
by the following guidelines:
    (1) The applicant must provide information that is sufficient for 
demonstrating the alternative means of emission limitation achieves 
emission reductions that are at least equivalent to the emission 
reductions that would be achieved by complying with the relevant 
standards. At a minimum, the application must include the following 
information:
    (i) Details of the specific equipment or components that would be 
included in the alternative.
    (ii) A description of the alternative work practice, including, as 
appropriate, the monitoring method, monitoring instrument or 
measurement technology, and the data quality indicators for precision 
and bias.
    (iii) The method detection limit of the technology, technique, or 
process and a description of the procedures used to determine the 
method detection limit. At a minimum, the applicant must collect, 
verify, and submit field data encompassing seasonal variations to 
support the determination of the method detection limit. The field data 
may be supplemented with modeling analyses, controlled test site data, 
or other documentation.
    (iv) Any initial and ongoing quality assurance/quality control 
measures necessary for maintaining the technology, technique, or 
process, and the timeframes for conducting such measures.
    (v) Frequency of measurements. For continuous monitoring 
techniques, the minimum data availability.
    (vi) Any restrictions for using the technology, technique, or 
process.
    (vii) Initial and continuous compliance procedures, including 
recordkeeping and reporting, if the compliance procedures are different 
than those specified in this subpart.
    (2) For each technology, technique, or process for which a 
determination of equivalency is requested, the application must provide 
a demonstration that the emission reduction achieved by the alternative 
means of emission limitation is at least equivalent to the emission 
reduction that would be achieved by complying with the relevant 
standards in this subpart.
    (d) Any alternative means of emission limitations approved under 
this section shall constitute a required work practice, equipment, 
design, or operational standard within the meaning of section 111(h)(1) 
of the CAA.

0
10. Add Sec.  60.5399a to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5399a  What alternative fugitive emissions standards apply to 
the affected facility which is the collection of fugitive emissions 
components at a well site and the affected facility which is the 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station: 
Equivalency with state, local, and tribal programs?

    This section provides alternative fugitive emissions standards 
based on programs under state, local, or tribal authorities for the 
collection of fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  
60.5430a, located at well sites and compressor stations. Paragraphs (a) 
through (e) of this section outline the procedure for submittal and 
approval of alternative fugitive emissions standards. Paragraphs (f) 
through (n) provide approved alternative fugitive emissions standards. 
The terms ``fugitive emissions components'' and ``repaired'' are 
defined in Sec.  60.5430a and must be applied to the alternative 
fugitive emissions standards in this section. The requirements for a 
monitoring plan as specified in Sec.  60.5397a(c) and (d) apply to the 
alternative fugitive emissions standards in this section.
    (a) Alternative fugitive emissions standards. If, in the 
Administrator's judgment, an alternative fugitive emissions standard 
will achieve a reduction in VOC emissions at least equivalent to the 
reductions achieved under Sec.  60.5397a, the Administrator will 
publish, in the Federal Register, a notice permitting use of the 
alternative fugitive emissions standard for the purpose of compliance 
with Sec.  60.5397a. The authority to approve alternative fugitive 
emissions standards is retained by the Administrator and shall not be 
delegated to States under section 111(c) of the CAA.
    (b) Notice. Any notice under paragraph (a) of this section will be 
published only after notice and an opportunity for public hearing.
    (c) Evaluation guidelines. Determination of alternative fugitive 
emissions standards to the design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational requirements of Sec.  60.5397a will be evaluated by the 
following guidelines:
    (1) The monitoring instrument, including the monitoring procedure;
    (2) The monitoring frequency;
    (3) The fugitive emissions definition;
    (4) The repair requirements; and
    (5) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    (d) Approval of alternative fugitive emissions standard. Any 
alternative fugitive emissions standard approved under this section 
shall:
    (1) Constitute a required design, equipment, work practice, or 
operational standard within the meaning of section 111(h)(1) of the 
CAA; and
    (2) Be made available for use by any owner or operator in meeting 
the relevant standards and requirements established for affected 
facilities under Sec.  60.5397a.
    (e) Notification. (1) An owner or operator must notify the 
Administrator of adoption of the alternative fugitive emissions 
standards within the first annual report following implementation of 
the alternative fugitive emissions standard, as specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(a)(3).
    (2) An owner or operator implementing one of the alternative 
fugitive emissions standards must submit the reports specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii). An owner or operator must also maintain the 
records specified by the specific alternative fugitive emissions 
standard for a period of at least 5 years.
    (f) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site or a compressor 
station in the State of California. An affected facility, which is the 
collection of fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  
60.5430a, located at a well site or a compressor station in the State 
of California may elect to reduce VOC emissions through compliance with 
the monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping

[[Page 57444]]

requirements in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, sections 
95665-95667, effective January 1, 2020, as an alternative to complying 
with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(1) and (2), (g)(1) through 
(4), (h), and (i). The information specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and the information specified in either Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(B) or (C) may be provided as an alternative to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (g) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site or a compressor 
station in the State of Colorado. An affected facility, which is the 
collection of fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  
60.5430a, located at a well site or a compressor station in the State 
of Colorado may elect to comply with the monitoring, repair, and 
recordkeeping requirements in Colorado Regulation 7, Part D, section 
I.L or II.E, effective February 14, 2020, for well sites and compressor 
stations, as an alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  
60.5397a(f)(1) and (2), (g)(1) through (4), (h), and (i), provided the 
monitoring instrument used is an optical gas imaging or a Method 21 
instrument (see appendix A-7 of this part). Monitoring must be 
conducted on at least a semiannual basis for well sites and compressor 
stations. If using the alternative in this paragraph (g), the 
information specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and (C) must be 
provided in lieu of the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (h) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site in the State of 
Ohio. An affected facility, which is the collection of fugitive 
emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at a well 
site in the State of Ohio may elect to comply with the monitoring, 
repair, and recordkeeping requirements in Ohio General Permits 12.1, 
Section C.5 and 12.2, Section C.5, effective April 14, 2014, as an 
alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(1), 
(g)(1), (3), and (4), (h), and (i), provided the monitoring instrument 
used is optical gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument (see appendix A-7 
of this part) with a leak definition and reading of 500 ppm or greater. 
Monitoring must be conducted on at least a semiannual basis and skip 
periods cannot be applied. The information specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and the information specified in either Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(B) or (C) may be provided as an alternative to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (i) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a compressor station in the 
State of Ohio. An affected facility, which is the collection of 
fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at 
a compressor station in the State of Ohio may elect to comply with the 
monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in Ohio General 
Permit 18.1, effective February 7, 2017, as an alternative to complying 
with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(2), (g)(2) through (4), (h), 
and (i), provided the monitoring instrument used is optical gas imaging 
or a Method 21 instrument (see appendix A-7 of this part) with a leak 
definition and reading of 500 ppm or greater. Monitoring must be 
conducted on at least a semiannual basis and skip periods cannot be 
applied. The information specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and 
the information specified in either Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(B) or (C) 
may be provided as an alternative to the requirements in Sec.  
60.5397a(j).
    (j) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site in the State of 
Pennsylvania. An affected facility, which is the collection of fugitive 
emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at a well 
site in the State of Pennsylvania may elect to comply with the 
monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in Pennsylvania 
General Permit 5A, section G, effective August 8, 2018, as an 
alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(2), 
(g)(2) through (4), (h), and (i), provided the monitoring instrument 
used is an optical gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument (see appendix 
A-7 of this part). The information specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and the information specified in either Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(B) or (C) may be provided as an alternative to the 
requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (k) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a compressor station in the 
State of Pennsylvania. An affected facility, which is the collection of 
fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at 
a compressor station in the State of Pennsylvania may elect to comply 
with the monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in 
Pennsylvania General Permit 5, section G, effective August 8, 2018, as 
an alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  
60.5397a(f)(2), (g)(2) through (4), (h), and (i), provided the 
monitoring instrument used is an optical gas imaging or a Method 21 
instrument (see appendix A-7 of this part). The information specified 
in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and the information specified in either 
Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(B) or (C) may be provided as an alternative 
to the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (l) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site in the State of 
Texas. An affected facility, which is the collection of fugitive 
emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at a well 
site in the State of Texas may elect to comply with the monitoring, 
repair, and recordkeeping requirements in the Air Quality Standard 
Permit for Oil and Gas Handling and Production Facilities, section 
(e)(6), effective November 8, 2012, or at 30 Texas Administrative Code 
section 116.620, effective September 4, 2000, as an alternative to 
complying with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(2), (g)(2) through 
(4), (h), and (i), provided the monitoring instrument used is optical 
gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument (see appendix A-7 of this part) 
with a leak definition and reading of 500 ppm or greater. Monitoring 
must be conducted on at least a semiannual basis and skip periods may 
not be applied. If using the requirement in this paragraph (l), the 
information specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and (C) must be 
provided in lieu of the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (m) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a compressor station in the 
State of Texas. An affected facility, which is the collection of 
fugitive emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, located at 
a compressor in the State of Texas may elect to comply with the 
monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in the Air Quality 
Standard Permit for Oil and Gas Handling and Production Facilities, 
section (e)(6), effective November 8, 2012, or at 30 Texas 
Administrative Code section 116.620, effective September 4, 2000, as an 
alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(2), 
(g)(2) through (4), (h), and (i), provided the monitoring instrument 
used is optical gas imaging or a Method 21 instrument (see appendix A-7 
of this part) with a leak definition and reading of 500 ppm or greater. 
Monitoring must be conducted on at least a semiannual basis and skip

[[Page 57445]]

periods may not be applied. If using the alternative in this paragraph 
(m), the information specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and (C) 
must be provided in lieu of the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).
    (n) Alternative fugitive emissions requirements for the collection 
of fugitive emissions components located at a well site in the State of 
Utah. An affected facility, which is the collection of fugitive 
emissions components, as defined in Sec.  60.5430a, and is required to 
control emissions in accordance with Utah Administrative Code R307-506 
and R307-507, located at a well site in the State of Utah may elect to 
comply with the monitoring, repair, and recordkeeping requirements in 
the Utah Administrative Code R307-509, effective March 2, 2018, as an 
alternative to complying with the requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(f)(2), 
(g)(2) through (4), (h), and (i). If using the alternative in this 
paragraph (n), the information specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(7)(iii)(A) and (C) must be provided in lieu of the 
requirements in Sec.  60.5397a(j).

0
11. Section 60.5400a is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5400a  What equipment leak VOC standards apply to affected 
facilities at an onshore natural gas processing plant?

    This section applies to the group of all equipment, except 
compressors, within a process unit located at an onshore natural gas 
processing plant.
    (a) You must comply with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.482-
1a(a), (b), (d), and (e), 60.482-2a, and 60.482-4a through 60.482-11a, 
except as provided in Sec.  60.5401a, as soon as practicable but no 
later than 180 days after the initial startup of the process unit.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 60.5401a is amended by revising paragraphs (e) and (g) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  60.5401a  What are the exceptions to the equipment leak VOC 
standards for affected facilities at onshore natural gas processing 
plants?

* * * * *
    (e) Pumps in light liquid service, valves in gas/vapor and light 
liquid service, pressure relief devices in gas/vapor service, and 
connectors in gas/vapor service and in light liquid service within a 
process unit that is located in the Alaskan North Slope are exempt from 
the monitoring requirements of Sec. Sec.  60.482-2a(a)(1), 60.482-
7a(a), and 60.482-11a(a) and paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
* * * * *
    (g) An owner or operator may use the following provisions instead 
of Sec.  60.485a(b)(2): A calibration drift assessment shall be 
performed, at a minimum, at the end of each monitoring day. Check the 
instrument using the same calibration gas(es) that were used to 
calibrate the instrument before use. Follow the procedures specified in 
Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part, Section 10.1, except do not 
adjust the meter readout to correspond to the calibration gas value. 
Record the instrument reading for each scale used as specified in Sec.  
60.486a(e)(8). For each scale, divide the arithmetic difference of the 
most recent calibration and the post-test calibration response by the 
corresponding calibration gas value, and multiply by 100 to express the 
calibration drift as a percentage. If any calibration drift assessment 
shows a negative drift of more than 10 percent from the most recent 
calibration response, then all equipment monitored since the last 
calibration with instrument readings below the appropriate leak 
definition and above the leak definition multiplied by (100 minus the 
percent of negative drift/divided by 100) must be re-monitored. If any 
calibration drift assessment shows a positive drift of more than 10 
percent from the most recent calibration response, then, at the owner/
operator's discretion, all equipment since the last calibration with 
instrument readings above the appropriate leak definition and below the 
leak definition multiplied by (100 plus the percent of positive drift/
divided by 100) may be re-monitored.

0
13. Section 60.5405a is amended by revising the section heading to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.5405a  What standards apply to sweetening unit affected 
facilities?

* * * * *

0
14. Section 60.5406a is amended by revising the section heading to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.5406a  What test methods and procedures must I use for my 
sweetening unit affected facilities?

* * * * *

0
15. Section 60.5407a is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5407a  What are the requirements for monitoring of emissions 
and operations from my sweetening unit affected facilities?

    (a) If your sweetening unit affected facility is subject to the 
provisions of Sec.  60.5405a(a) or (b) you must install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate monitoring devices or perform measurements to 
determine the following operations information on a daily basis:
* * * * *

0
16. Section 60.5410a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading, introductory text, and paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (e)(2) through (5);
0
b. Removing paragraph (e)(8);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (g) introductory text, (g)(3), (h), (j) 
introductory text, and (j)(1); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (k).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  60.5410a  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating 
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel, 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, collection 
of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station, and equipment 
leaks at onshore natural gas processing plants and sweetening unit 
affected facilities?

    You must determine initial compliance with the standards for each 
affected facility using the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (k) 
of this section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the 
initial compliance period begins on August 2, 2016, or upon initial 
startup, whichever is later, and ends no later than 1 year after the 
initial startup date for your affected facility or no later than 1 year 
after August 2, 2016. The initial compliance period may be less than 1 
full year.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) If complying with Sec.  60.5385a(a)(1) or (2), during the 
initial compliance period, you must continuously monitor the number of 
hours of operation or track the number of months since initial startup, 
since August 2, 2016, or since the last rod packing replacement, 
whichever is latest.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) If you own or operate a pneumatic pump affected facility 
located at a well site, you must reduce emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  60.5393a(b)(1) or (2), and you must collect the pneumatic pump 
emissions through a closed vent system that meets the requirements of 
Sec.  60.5411a(d) and (e).
    (3) If you own or operate a pneumatic pump affected facility 
located at a well site and there is no control device or process 
available on site, you must submit the certification in Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(8)(i)(A).
    (4) If you own or operate a pneumatic pump affected facility 
located at a well

[[Page 57446]]

site, and you are unable to route to an existing control device or to a 
process due to technical infeasibility, you must submit the 
certification in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(8)(i)(B).
    (5) If you own or operate a pneumatic pump affected facility 
located at a well site and you reduce emissions in accordance with 
Sec.  60.5393a(b)(4), you must collect the pneumatic pump emissions 
through a closed vent system that meets the requirements of Sec.  
60.5411a(d) and (e).
* * * * *
    (g) For sweetening unit affected facilities, initial compliance is 
demonstrated according to paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (3) You must submit the results of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of 
this section in the initial annual report submitted for your sweetening 
unit affected facilities.
    (h) For each storage vessel affected facility you must comply with 
paragraphs (h)(1) through (6) of this section. Except as otherwise 
provided in this paragraph (h), you must demonstrate initial compliance 
by August 2, 2016, or within 60 days after startup, whichever is later.
    (1) You must determine the potential VOC emission rate as specified 
in Sec.  60.5365a(e).
    (2) You must reduce VOC emissions in accordance with Sec.  
60.5395a(a).
    (3) If you use a control device to reduce emissions, you must equip 
the storage vessel with a cover that meets the requirements of Sec.  
60.5411a(b) and is connected through a closed vent system that meets 
the requirements of Sec.  60.5411a(c) and (d) to a control device that 
meets the conditions specified in Sec.  60.5412a(d) within 60 days 
after startup for storage vessels constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed at well sites with no other wells in production, or upon 
startup for storage vessels constructed, modified, or reconstructed at 
well sites with one or more wells already in production.
    (4) You must conduct an initial performance test as required in 
Sec.  60.5413a within 180 days after initial startup or within 180 days 
of August 2, 2016, whichever is later, and you must comply with the 
continuous compliance requirements in Sec.  60.5415a(e).
    (5) You must submit the information required for your storage 
vessel affected facility in your initial annual report as specified in 
Sec.  60.5420a(b)(1) and (6).
    (6) You must maintain the records required for your storage vessel 
affected facility, as specified in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(5) through (8), 
(12) through (14), and (17), as applicable, for each storage vessel 
affected facility.
* * * * *
    (j) To achieve initial compliance with the fugitive emission 
standards for each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
well site and each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station you must comply with paragraphs (j)(1) through (5) 
of this section.
    (1) You must develop a fugitive emissions monitoring plan as 
required in Sec.  60.5397a(b), (c), and (d).
* * * * *
    (k) To demonstrate initial compliance with the requirement to 
maintain the total well site production at or below 15 boe per day 
based on a rolling 12-month average, as specified in Sec.  
60.5397a(a)(2), you must comply with paragraphs (k)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) You must demonstrate that the total daily combined oil and 
natural gas production for all wells at the well site is at or below 15 
boe per day, based on a 12-month average from the previous 12 months of 
operation, according to paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section within 45 days of the end of each month. The rolling 12-month 
average of the total well site production determined according to 
paragraph (k)(1)(iii) of this section must be at or below 15 boe per 
day.
    (i) Determine the daily combined oil and natural gas production for 
each individual well at the well site for the month. To convert gas 
production to equivalent barrels of oil, divide the cubic feet of gas 
produced by 6,000.
    (ii) Sum the daily production for each individual well at the well 
site to determine the total well site production and divide by the 
number of days in the month. This is the average daily total well site 
production for the month.
    (iii) Use the result determined in paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of this 
section and average with the daily total well site production values 
determined for each of the preceding 11 months to calculate the rolling 
12-month average of the total well site production.
    (2) You must maintain records as specified in Sec.  
60.5420a(c)(15)(ii).
    (3) You must submit compliance information in the initial and 
subsequent annual reports as specified in Sec.  60.5420a(b)(7)(i)(C) 
and (b)(7)(iv).

0
17. Section 60.5411a is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (c)(1) and (2), (d)(1), and 
(e) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5411a  What additional requirements must I meet to determine 
initial compliance for my covers and closed vent systems routing 
emissions from centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid degassing systems, 
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps and storage vessels?

    You must meet the applicable requirements of this section for each 
cover and closed vent system used to comply with the emission standards 
for your centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems, 
reciprocating compressors, pneumatic pumps, and storage vessels.
    (a) Closed vent system requirements for reciprocating compressors 
and centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing systems.
    (1) You must design the closed vent system to route all gases, 
vapors, and fumes emitted from the reciprocating compressor rod packing 
emissions collection system to a process. You must design the closed 
vent system to route all gases, vapors, and fumes emitted from the 
centrifugal compressor wet seal fluid degassing system to a process or 
a control device that meets the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5412a(a) through (c).
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) You must design the closed vent system to route all gases, 
vapors, and fumes emitted from the material in the storage vessel 
affected facility to a control device that meets the requirements 
specified in Sec.  60.5412a(c) and (d), or to a process.
    (2) You must design and operate a closed vent system with no 
detectable emissions, as determined using olfactory, visual, and 
auditory inspections or optical gas imaging inspections as specified in 
Sec.  60.5416a(c).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) You must conduct an assessment that the closed vent system is 
of sufficient design and capacity to ensure that all emissions from the 
affected facility are routed to the control device and that the control 
device is of sufficient design and capacity to accommodate all 
emissions from the affected facility, and have it certified by a 
qualified professional engineer or an in-house engineer with expertise 
on the design and operation of the closed vent system in accordance 
with paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) You must provide the following certification, signed and dated 
by a qualified professional engineer or an in-house engineer: ``I 
certify that the closed vent system design and capacity assessment was 
prepared under my

[[Page 57447]]

direction or supervision. I further certify that the closed vent system 
design and capacity assessment was conducted and this report was 
prepared pursuant to the requirements of subpart OOOOa of 40 CFR part 
60. Based on my professional knowledge and experience, and inquiry of 
personnel involved in the assessment, the certification submitted 
herein is true, accurate, and complete.''
    (ii) The assessment shall be prepared under the direction or 
supervision of a qualified professional engineer or an in-house 
engineer who signs the certification in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (e) Closed vent system requirements for pneumatic pump affected 
facilities using a control device or routing emissions to a process.
    (1) You must design the closed vent system to route all gases, 
vapors, and fumes emitted from the pneumatic pump to a control device 
or a process.
    (2) You must design and operate a closed vent system with no 
detectable emissions, as demonstrated by Sec.  60.5416a(b), olfactory, 
visual, and auditory inspections or optical gas imaging inspections as 
specified in Sec.  60.5416a(d).
    (3) You must meet the requirements specified in paragraphs 
(e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section if the closed vent system contains 
one or more bypass devices that could be used to divert all or a 
portion of the gases, vapors, or fumes from entering the control device 
or to a process.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3)(ii) of this section, you 
must comply with either paragraph (e)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this section 
for each bypass device.
    (A) You must properly install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
flow indicator at the inlet to the bypass device that could divert the 
stream away from the control device or process to the atmosphere that 
sounds an alarm, or initiates notification via remote alarm to the 
nearest field office, when the bypass device is open such that the 
stream is being, or could be, diverted away from the control device or 
process to the atmosphere. You must maintain records of each time the 
alarm is activated according to Sec.  60.5420a(c)(8).
    (B) You must secure the bypass device valve installed at the inlet 
to the bypass device in the non-diverting position using a car-seal or 
a lock-and-key type configuration.
    (ii) Low leg drains, high point bleeds, analyzer vents, open-ended 
valves or lines, and safety devices are not subject to the requirements 
of paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section.

0
18. Section 60.5412a is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) 
introductory text, (a)(1)(iv), (c) introductory text, (d)(1)(iv) 
introductory text, and (d)(1)(iv)(D) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5412a   What additional requirements must I meet for 
determining initial compliance with control devices used to comply with 
the emission standards for my centrifugal compressor, and storage 
vessel affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) Each combustion device (e.g., thermal vapor incinerator, 
catalytic vapor incinerator, boiler, or process heater) must be 
designed and operated in accordance with one of the performance 
requirements specified in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this 
section. If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, 
then you must introduce the vent stream into the flame zone of the 
boiler or process heater.
* * * * *
    (iv) You must introduce the vent stream with the primary fuel or 
use the vent stream as the primary fuel in a boiler or process heater.
* * * * *
    (c) For each carbon adsorption system used as a control device to 
meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(2) or (d)(2) of this section, 
you must manage the carbon in accordance with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Each enclosed combustion control device (e.g., thermal vapor 
incinerator, catalytic vapor incinerator, boiler, or process heater) 
must be designed and operated in accordance with one of the performance 
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv)(A) through (D) of this 
section. If a boiler or process heater is used as the control device, 
then you must introduce the vent stream into the flame zone of the 
boiler or process heater.
* * * * *
    (D) You must introduce the vent stream with the primary fuel or use 
the vent stream as the primary fuel in a boiler or process heater.
* * * * *

0
19. Section 60.5413a is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5)(i) 
introductory text, (d)(9)(iii), and (d)(12) introductory text to read 
as follows:

Sec.  60.5413a   What are the performance testing procedures for 
control devices used to demonstrate compliance at my centrifugal 
compressor and storage vessel affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) At the inlet gas sampling location, securely connect a fused 
silica-coated stainless steel evacuated canister fitted with a flow 
controller sufficient to fill the canister over a 3-hour period. 
Filling must be conducted as specified in paragraphs (d)(5)(i)(A) 
through (C) of this section.
* * * * *
    (9) * * *
    (iii) A 0-10 parts per million by volume-wet (ppmvw) (as propane) 
measurement range is preferred; as an alternative a 0-30 ppmvw (as 
propane) measurement range may be used.
* * * * *
    (12) The owner or operator of a combustion control device model 
tested under this paragraph (d)(12) must submit the information listed 
in paragraphs (d)(12)(i) through (vi) of this section for each test run 
in the test report required by this section in accordance with Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(10). Owners or operators who claim that any of the 
performance test information being submitted is confidential business 
information (CBI) must submit a complete file including information 
claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other commonly 
used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media must be 
clearly marked as CBI and mailed to Attn: CBI Document Control Officer; 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Room 521; 109 
T.W. Alexander Drive; Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. The same file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to Oil_and_Gas_PT@EPA.GOV.
* * * * *

0
20. Section 60.5415a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the section heading and paragraphs (b) introductory text 
and (b)(3);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(1), (g) introductory text, (h) introductory 
text, and (h)(2); and
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 57448]]

Sec.  60.5415a   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
standards for my well, centrifugal compressor, reciprocating 
compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel, 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, and 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station 
affected facilities, equipment leaks at onshore natural gas processing 
plants and sweetening unit affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (b) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility and each 
pneumatic pump affected facility, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance according to paragraph (b)(3) of this section. For each 
centrifugal compressor affected facility, you also must demonstrate 
continuous compliance according to paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
* * * * *
    (3) You must submit the annual reports required by Sec.  
60.5420a(b)(1), (3), and (8) and maintain the records as specified in 
Sec.  60.5420a(c)(2), (6) through (11), (16), and (17), as applicable.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) You must continuously monitor the number of hours of operation 
for each reciprocating compressor affected facility or track the number 
of months since initial startup, since August 2, 2016, or since the 
date of the most recent reciprocating compressor rod packing 
replacement, whichever is latest.
* * * * *
    (g) For each sweetening unit affected facility, you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the standards for SO2 
specified in Sec.  60.5405a(b) according to paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
* * * * *
    (h) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site and each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station, you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
fugitive emission standards specified in Sec.  60.5397a(a)(1) according 
to paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (2) You must repair each identified source of fugitive emissions as 
required in Sec.  60.5397a(h).
* * * * *
    (i) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site complying with Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance according to paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of 
this section. You must perform the calculations shown in paragraphs 
(i)(1) through (4) of this section within 45 days of the end of each 
month. The rolling 12-month average of the total well site production 
determined according to paragraph (i)(4) of this section must be at or 
below 15 boe per day.
    (1) Begin with the most recent 12-month average.
    (2) Determine the daily combined oil and natural gas production of 
each individual well at the well site for the month. To convert gas 
production to equivalent barrels of oil, divide the cubic feet of gas 
produced by 6,000.
    (3) Sum the daily production for each individual well at the well 
site and divide by the number of days in the month. This is the average 
daily total well site production for the month.
    (4) Use the result determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this section 
and average with the daily total well site production values determined 
for each of the preceding 11 months to calculate the rolling 12-month 
average of the total well site production.
    (j) To demonstrate that the well site produced at or below 15 boe 
per day for the first 30 days after startup of production as specified 
in Sec.  60.5397a(3), you must calculate the daily production for each 
individual well at the well site during the first 30 days of production 
after completing any action listed in Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2)(i) through 
(v) and sum the individual well production values to obtain the total 
well site production. The calculation must be performed within 45 days 
of the end of the first 30 days of production after completing any 
action listed in Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2)(i) through (v). To convert gas 
production to equivalent barrels of oil, divide cubic feet of gas 
produced by 6,000.

0
21. Section 60.5416a is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(4) introductory text, (b) 
introductory text, (c) introductory text, (c)(1), and (c)(2) 
introductory text, adding paragraph (c)(2)(iv), and revising paragraph 
(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5416a   What are the initial and continuous cover and closed 
vent system inspection and monitoring requirements for my centrifugal 
compressor, reciprocating compressor, pneumatic pump, and storage 
vessel affected facilities?

    For each closed vent system or cover at your centrifugal 
compressor, reciprocating compressor, pneumatic pump, and storage 
vessel affected facilities, you must comply with the applicable 
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section.
    (a) Inspections for closed vent systems and covers installed on 
each centrifugal compressor or reciprocating compressor affected 
facility. Except as provided in paragraphs (b)(11) and (12) of this 
section, you must inspect each closed vent system according to the 
procedures and schedule specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this 
section, inspect each cover according to the procedures and schedule 
specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and inspect each bypass 
device according to the procedures of paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) For each bypass device, except as provided for in Sec.  
60.5411a(a)(3)(ii), you must meet the requirements of paragraph 
(a)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section.
* * * * *
    (b) No detectable emissions test methods and procedures. If you are 
required to conduct an inspection of a closed vent system or cover at 
your centrifugal compressor or reciprocating compressor affected 
facility as specified in paragraph (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section, 
you must meet the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (13) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (c) Cover and closed vent system inspections for storage vessel 
affected facilities. If you install a control device or route emissions 
to a process, you must comply with the inspection and recordkeeping 
requirements for each closed vent system and cover as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section. You must also comply with 
the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) of this section.
    (1) Closed vent system inspections. For each closed vent system, 
you must conduct an inspection as specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) 
through (iii) or paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (i) You must maintain records of the inspection results as 
specified in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(6).
    (ii) Conduct olfactory, visual, and auditory inspections at least 
once every calendar month for defects that could result in air 
emissions. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible cracks, 
holes, or gaps in piping; loose connections; liquid leaks; or broken or 
missing caps or other closure devices.
    (iii) Monthly inspections must be separated by at least 14 calendar 
days.
    (iv) Conduct optical gas imaging inspections for any visible 
emissions at the same frequency as the frequency for the collection of 
fugitive emissions components located at the same type of site, as 
specified in Sec.  60.5397a(g)(1).

[[Page 57449]]

    (2) Cover inspections. For each cover, you must conduct inspections 
as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) or paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) of this section.
* * * * *
    (iv) Conduct optical gas imaging inspections for any visible 
emissions at the same frequency as the frequency for the collection of 
fugitive emissions components located at the same type of site, as 
specified in Sec.  60.5397a(g)(1).
* * * * *
    (d) Closed vent system inspections for pneumatic pump affected 
facilities. If you install a control device or route emissions to a 
process, you must comply with the inspection and recordkeeping 
requirements for each closed vent system as specified in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section. You must also comply with the requirements of 
paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) of this section.
    (1) For each closed vent system, you must conduct an inspection as 
specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(i) through (iii), paragraph (d)(1)(iv), 
or paragraph (d)(1)(v) of this section.
    (i) You must maintain records of the inspection results as 
specified in Sec.  60.5420a(c)(6).
    (ii) Conduct olfactory, visual, and auditory inspections at least 
once every calendar month for defects that could result in air 
emissions. Defects include, but are not limited to, visible cracks, 
holes, or gaps in piping; loose connections; liquid leaks; or broken or 
missing caps or other closure devices.
    (iii) Monthly inspections must be separated by at least 14 calendar 
days.
    (iv) Conduct optical gas imaging inspections for any visible 
emissions at the same frequency as the frequency for the collection of 
fugitive components located at the same type of site, as specified in 
Sec.  60.5397a(g)(1).
    (v) Conduct inspections as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 
of this section.
    (2) [Reserved]

0
22. Section 60.5417a is amended by revising the introductory text and 
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5417a   What are the continuous control device monitoring 
requirements for my centrifugal compressor and storage vessel affected 
facilities?

    You must meet the applicable requirements of this section to 
demonstrate continuous compliance for each control device used to meet 
emission standards for your storage vessel affected facility or 
centrifugal compressor affected facility.
    (a) For each control device used to comply with the emission 
reduction standard for centrifugal compressor affected facilities in 
Sec.  60.5380a(a)(1), you must install and operate a continuous 
parameter monitoring system for each control device as specified in 
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section, except as provided for in 
paragraph (b) of this section. If you install and operate a flare in 
accordance with Sec.  60.5412a(a)(3), you are exempt from the 
requirements of paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. If you install 
and operate an enclosed combustion device or control device which is 
not specifically listed in paragraph (d) of this section, you must 
demonstrate continuous compliance according to paragraphs (h)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
* * * * *

0
23. Revise Sec.  60.5420a to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5420a   What are my notification, reporting, and recordkeeping 
requirements?

    (a) Notifications. You must submit the notifications according to 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section if you own or operate one or 
more of the affected facilities specified in Sec.  60.5365a that was 
constructed, modified, or reconstructed during the reporting period.
    (1) If you own or operate an affected facility that is the group of 
all equipment within a process unit at an onshore natural gas 
processing plant, or a sweetening unit, you must submit the 
notifications required in Sec. Sec.  60.7(a)(1), (3), and (4) and 
60.15(d). If you own or operate a well, centrifugal compressor, 
reciprocating compressor, pneumatic controller, pneumatic pump, storage 
vessel, collection of fugitive emissions components at a well site, or 
collection of fugitive emissions components at a compressor station, 
you are not required to submit the notifications required in Sec. Sec.  
60.7(a)(1), (3), and (4) and 60.15(d).
    (2)(i) If you own or operate a well affected facility, you must 
submit a notification to the Administrator no later than 2 days prior 
to the commencement of each well completion operation listing the 
anticipated date of the well completion operation. The notification 
shall include contact information for the owner or operator; the United 
States Well Number; the latitude and longitude coordinates for each 
well in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) 
decimals of a degree using the North American Datum of 1983; and the 
planned date of the beginning of flowback. You may submit the 
notification in writing or in electronic format.
    (ii) If you are subject to state regulations that require advance 
notification of well completions and you have met those notification 
requirements, then you are considered to have met the advance 
notification requirements of paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) An owner or operator electing to comply with the provisions of 
Sec.  60.5399a shall notify the Administrator of the alternative 
fugitive emissions standard selected within the annual report, as 
specified in paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
    (b) Reporting requirements. You must submit annual reports 
containing the information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) 
and (12) of this section and performance test reports as specified in 
paragraph (b)(9) or (10) of this section, if applicable. You must 
submit annual reports following the procedure specified in paragraph 
(b)(11) of this section. The initial annual report is due no later than 
90 days after the end of the initial compliance period as determined 
according to Sec.  60.5410a. Subsequent annual reports are due no later 
than same date each year as the initial annual report. If you own or 
operate more than one affected facility, you may submit one report for 
multiple affected facilities provided the report contains all of the 
information required as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (8) and 
(12) of this section. Annual reports may coincide with title V reports 
as long as all the required elements of the annual report are included. 
You may arrange with the Administrator a common schedule on which 
reports required by this part may be submitted as long as the schedule 
does not extend the reporting period.
    (1) The general information specified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) 
through (iv) of this section is required for all reports.
    (i) The company name, facility site name associated with the 
affected facility, U.S. Well ID or U.S. Well ID associated with the 
affected facility, if applicable, and address of the affected facility. 
If an address is not available for the site, include a description of 
the site location and provide the latitude and longitude coordinates of 
the site in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) 
decimals of a degree using the North American Datum of 1983.
    (ii) An identification of each affected facility being included in 
the annual report.
    (iii) Beginning and ending dates of the reporting period.
    (iv) A certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy, 
and completeness. This certification shall

[[Page 57450]]

state that, based on information and belief formed after reasonable 
inquiry, the statements and information in the document are true, 
accurate, and complete.
    (2) For each well affected facility that is subject to Sec.  
60.5375a(a) or (f), the records of each well completion operation 
conducted during the reporting period, including the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (xiv) of this section, if 
applicable. In lieu of submitting the records specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (xiv) of this section, the owner or operator may 
submit a list of each well completion with hydraulic fracturing 
completed during the reporting period, and the digital photograph 
required by paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section for each well 
completion. For each well affected facility that routes flowback 
entirely through one or more production separators, only the records 
specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) and (vi) of this section 
are required to be reported. For periods where salable gas is unable to 
be separated, the records specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(iv) and (viii) 
through (xii) of this section must also be reported, as applicable. For 
each well affected facility that is subject to Sec.  60.5375a(g), the 
record specified in paragraph (b)(2)(xv) of this section is required to 
be reported.
    (i) Well Completion ID.
    (ii) Latitude and longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an 
accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using North 
American Datum of 1983.
    (iii) U.S. Well ID.
    (iv) The date and time of the onset of flowback following hydraulic 
fracturing or refracturing or identification that the well immediately 
starts production.
    (v) The date and time of each attempt to direct flowback to a 
separator as required in Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(ii).
    (vi) The date and time that the well was shut in and the flowback 
equipment was permanently disconnected, or the startup of production.
    (vii) The duration (in hours) of flowback.
    (viii) The duration (in hours) of recovery and disposition of 
recovery (i.e., routed to the gas flow line or collection system, re-
injected into the well or another well, used as an onsite fuel source, 
or used for another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw 
material would serve).
    (ix) The duration (in hours) of combustion.
    (x) The duration (in hours) of venting.
    (xi) The specific reasons for venting in lieu of capture or 
combustion.
    (xii) For any deviations recorded as specified in paragraph 
(c)(1)(ii) of this section, the date and time the deviation began, the 
duration of the deviation, and a description of the deviation.
    (xiii) For each well affected facility subject to Sec.  
60.5375a(f), a record of the well type (i.e., wildcat well, delineation 
well, or low pressure well (as defined Sec.  60.5430a)) and supporting 
inputs and calculations, if applicable.
    (xiv) For each well affected facility for which you claim an 
exception under Sec.  60.5375a(a)(3), the specific exception claimed 
and reasons why the well meets the claimed exception.
    (xv) For each well affected facility with less than 300 scf of gas 
per stock tank barrel of oil produced, the supporting analysis that was 
performed in order the make that claim, including but not limited to, 
GOR values for established leases and data from wells in the same basin 
and field.
    (3) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility, the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) An identification of each centrifugal compressor using a wet 
seal system constructed, modified, or reconstructed during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) For each deviation that occurred during the reporting period 
and recorded as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the date 
and time the deviation began, the duration of the deviation, and a 
description of the deviation.
    (iii) If required to comply with Sec.  60.5380a(a)(2), the 
information in paragraphs (b)(3)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Dates of each inspection required under Sec.  60.5416a(a) and 
(b);
    (B) Each defect or leak identified during each inspection, date of 
repair or the date of anticipated repair if the repair is delayed; and
    (C) Date and time of each bypass alarm or each instance the key is 
checked out if you are subject to the bypass requirements of Sec.  
60.5416a(a)(4).
    (iv) If complying with Sec.  60.5380a(a)(1) with a control device 
tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d) which meets the criteria in Sec.  
60.5413a(d)(11) and (e), the information in paragraphs (b)(3)(iv)(A) 
through (D) of this section.
    (A) Identification of the compressor with the control device.
    (B) Make, model, and date of purchase of the control device.
    (C) For each instance where the inlet gas flow rate exceeds the 
manufacturer's listed maximum gas flow rate, where there is no 
indication of the presence of a pilot flame, or where visible emissions 
exceeded 1 minute in any 15-minute period, include the date and time 
the deviation began, the duration of the deviation, and a description 
of the deviation.
    (D) For each visible emissions test following return to operation 
from a maintenance or repair activity, the date of the visible 
emissions test, the length of the test, and the amount of time for 
which visible emissions were present.
    (v) If complying with Sec.  60.5380a(a)(1) with a control device 
not tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d), identification of the compressor 
with the tested control device, the date the performance test was 
conducted, and pollutant(s) tested. Submit the performance test report 
following the procedures specified in paragraph (b)(9) of this section.
    (4) For each reciprocating compressor affected facility, the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) The cumulative number of hours of operation or the number of 
months since initial startup, since August 2, 2016, or since the 
previous reciprocating compressor rod packing replacement, whichever is 
latest. Alternatively, a statement that emissions from the rod packing 
are being routed to a process through a closed vent system under 
negative pressure.
    (ii) If applicable, for each deviation that occurred during the 
reporting period and recorded as specified in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of 
this section, the date and time the deviation began, duration of the 
deviation and a description of the deviation.
    (iii) If required to comply with Sec.  60.5385a(a)(3), the 
information in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Dates of each inspection required under Sec.  60.5416a(a) and 
(b);
    (B) Each defect or leak identified during each inspection, and date 
of repair or date of anticipated repair if repair is delayed; and
    (C) Date and time of each bypass alarm or each instance the key is 
checked out if you are subject to the bypass requirements of Sec.  
60.5416a(a)(4).
    (5) For each pneumatic controller affected facility, the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) An identification of each pneumatic controller constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed during the reporting period, including the 
month and year of installation, reconstruction or modification and 
identification information that allows traceability to the records 
required in paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (iv) of this section.

[[Page 57451]]

    (ii) If applicable, reason why the use of pneumatic controller 
affected facilities with a natural gas bleed rate greater than the 
applicable standard are required.
    (iii) For each instance where the pneumatic controller was not 
operated in compliance with the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5390a, a description of the deviation, the date and time the 
deviation began, and the duration of the deviation.
    (6) For each storage vessel affected facility, the information in 
paragraphs (b)(6)(i) through (ix) of this section.
    (i) An identification, including the location, of each storage 
vessel affected facility for which construction, modification, or 
reconstruction commenced during the reporting period. The location of 
the storage vessel shall be in latitude and longitude coordinates in 
decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a 
degree using the North American Datum of 1983.
    (ii) Documentation of the VOC emission rate determination according 
to Sec.  60.5365a(e)(1) for each storage vessel that became an affected 
facility during the reporting period or is returned to service during 
the reporting period.
    (iii) For each deviation that occurred during the reporting period 
and recorded as specified in paragraph (c)(5) of this section, the date 
and time the deviation began, duration of the deviation and a 
description of the deviation.
    (iv) A statement that you have met the requirements specified in 
Sec.  60.5410a(h)(2) and (3).
    (v) For each storage vessel constructed, modified, reconstructed, 
or returned to service during the reporting period complying with Sec.  
60.5395a(a)(2) with a control device tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d) 
which meets the criteria in Sec.  60.5413a(d)(11) and (e), the 
information in paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (D) of this section.
    (A) Identification of the storage vessel with the control device.
    (B) Make, model, and date of purchase of the control device.
    (C) For each instance where the inlet gas flow rate exceeds the 
manufacturer's listed maximum gas flow rate, where there is no 
indication of the presence of a pilot flame, or where visible emissions 
exceeded 1 minute in any 15-minute period, include the date and time 
the deviation began, the duration of the deviation, and a description 
of the deviation.
    (D) For each visible emissions test following return to operation 
from a maintenance or repair activity, the date of the visible 
emissions test, the length of the test, and the amount of time for 
which visible emissions were present.
    (vi) If complying with Sec.  60.5395a(a)(2) with a control device 
not tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d), identification of the storage 
vessel with the tested control device, the date the performance test 
was conducted, and pollutant(s) tested. Submit the performance test 
report following the procedures specified in paragraph (b)(9) of this 
section.
    (vii) If required to comply with Sec.  60.5395a(b)(1), the 
information in paragraphs (b)(6)(vii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Dates of each inspection required under Sec.  60.5416a(c);
    (B) Each defect or leak identified during each inspection, and date 
of repair or date of anticipated repair if repair is delayed; and
    (C) Date and time of each bypass alarm or each instance the key is 
checked out if you are subject to the bypass requirements of Sec.  
60.5416a(c)(3).
    (viii) You must identify each storage vessel affected facility that 
is removed from service during the reporting period as specified in 
Sec.  60.5395a(c)(1)(ii), including the date the storage vessel 
affected facility was removed from service.
    (ix) You must identify each storage vessel affected facility 
returned to service during the reporting period as specified in Sec.  
60.5395a(c)(3), including the date the storage vessel affected facility 
was returned to service.
    (7) For the collection of fugitive emissions components at each 
well site and the collection of fugitive emissions components at each 
compressor station, report the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section, as applicable.
    (i)(A) Designation of the type of site (i.e., well site or 
compressor station) at which the collection of fugitive emissions 
components is located.
    (B) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site that became an affected facility during the reporting period, you 
must include the date of the startup of production or the date of the 
first day of production after modification. For each collection of 
fugitive emissions components at a compressor station that became an 
affected facility during the reporting period, you must include the 
date of startup or the date of modification.
    (C) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site that meets the conditions specified in either Sec.  
60.5397a(a)(1)(i) or (ii), you must specify the well site is a low 
production well site and submit the total production for the well site.
    (D) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site where during the reporting period you complete the removal of all 
major production and processing equipment such that the well site 
contains only one or more wellheads, you must include the date of the 
change to status as a wellhead only well site.
    (E) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site where you previously reported under paragraph (b)(7)(i)(C) of this 
section the removal of all major production and processing equipment 
and during the reporting period major production and processing 
equipment is added back to the well site, the date that the first piece 
of major production and processing equipment is added back to the well 
site.
    (ii) For each fugitive emissions monitoring survey performed during 
the annual reporting period, the information specified in paragraphs 
(b)(7)(ii)(A) through (G) of this section.
    (A) Date of the survey.
    (B) Monitoring instrument used.
    (C) Any deviations from the monitoring plan elements under Sec.  
60.5397a(c)(1), (2), and (7) and (c)(8)(i) or a statement that there 
were no deviations from these elements of the monitoring plan.
    (D) Number and type of components for which fugitive emissions were 
detected.
    (E) Number and type of fugitive emissions components that were not 
repaired as required in Sec.  60.5397a(h).
    (F) Number and type of fugitive emission components (including 
designation as difficult-to-monitor or unsafe-to-monitor, if 
applicable) on delay of repair and explanation for each delay of 
repair.
    (G) Date of planned shutdown(s) that occurred during the reporting 
period if there are any components that have been placed on delay of 
repair.
    (iii) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
well site or collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station complying with an alternative fugitive emissions 
standard under Sec.  60.5399a, in lieu of the information specified in 
paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section, you must provide the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(iii)(A) through (C) of this 
section.
    (A) The alternative standard with which you are complying.
    (B) The site-specific reports specified by the specific alternative 
fugitive emissions standard, submitted in the format in which they were 
submitted to the state, local, or tribal authority. If the report is in 
hard copy, you must scan

[[Page 57452]]

the document and submit it as an electronic attachment to the annual 
report required in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (C) If the report specified by the specific alternative fugitive 
emissions standard is not site-specific, you must submit the 
information specified in paragraphs (b)(7)(i) and (ii) of this section 
for each individual site complying with the alternative standard.
    (8) For each pneumatic pump affected facility, the information 
specified in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) For each pneumatic pump that is constructed, modified or 
reconstructed during the reporting period, you must provide 
certification that the pneumatic pump meets one of the conditions 
described in paragraph (b)(8)(i)(A), (B), or (C) of this section.
    (A) No control device or process is available on site.
    (B) A control device or process is available on site and the owner 
or operator has determined in accordance with Sec.  60.5393a(b)(5) that 
it is technically infeasible to capture and route the emissions to the 
control device or process.
    (C) Emissions from the pneumatic pump are routed to a control 
device or process. If the control device is designed to achieve less 
than 95 percent emissions reduction, specify the percent emissions 
reductions the control device is designed to achieve.
    (ii) For any pneumatic pump affected facility which has been 
previously reported as required under paragraph (b)(8)(i) of this 
section and for which a change in the reported condition has occurred 
during the reporting period, provide the identification of the 
pneumatic pump affected facility and the date it was previously 
reported and a certification that the pneumatic pump meets one of the 
conditions described in paragraph (b)(8)(ii)(A), (B), (C), or (D) of 
this section.
    (A) A control device has been added to the location and the 
pneumatic pump now reports according to paragraph (b)(8)(i)(C) of this 
section.
    (B) A control device has been added to the location and the 
pneumatic pump affected facility now reports according to paragraph 
(b)(8)(i)(B) of this section.
    (C) A control device or process has been removed from the location 
or otherwise is no longer available and the pneumatic pump affected 
facility now report according to paragraph (b)(8)(i)(A) of this 
section.
    (D) A control device or process has been removed from the location 
or is otherwise no longer available and the owner or operator has 
determined in accordance with Sec.  60.5393a(b)(5) through an 
engineering evaluation that it is technically infeasible to capture and 
route the emissions to another control device or process.
    (iii) For each deviation that occurred during the reporting period 
and recorded as specified in paragraph (c)(16)(ii) of this section, the 
date and time the deviation began, duration of the deviation, and a 
description of the deviation.
    (iv) If required to comply with Sec.  60.5393a(b), the information 
in paragraphs (b)(8)(iv)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) Dates of each inspection required under Sec.  60.5416a(d);
    (B) Each defect or leak identified during each inspection, and date 
of repair or date of anticipated repair if repair is delayed; and
    (C) Date and time of each bypass alarm or each instance the key is 
checked out if you are subject to the bypass requirements of Sec.  
60.5416a(c)(3).
    (9) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance 
test (see Sec.  60.8) required by this subpart, except testing 
conducted by the manufacturer as specified in Sec.  60.5413a(d), you 
must submit the results of the performance test following the procedure 
specified in either paragraph (b)(9)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (i) For data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's 
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website 
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test, you must submit the 
results of the performance test to the EPA via the Compliance and 
Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), except as outlined in this 
paragraph (b)(9)(i). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central 
Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) The EPA will make all the 
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as confidential business information (CBI). Anything submitted using 
CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. Performance test data must be 
submitted in a file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT 
or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible 
markup language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Although 
we do not expect persons to assert a claim of CBI, if you wish to 
assert a CBI claim, you must submit a complete file generated through 
the use of the EPA's ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent 
with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT website, including 
information claimed to be CBI, on a compact disc, flash drive, or other 
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media 
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI 
Office, Attention: Group Leader, Measurement Policy Group, MD C404-02, 
4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT or alternate file 
with the CBI omitted must be submitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as 
described earlier in this paragraph (b)(9)(i). All CBI claims must be 
asserted at the time of submission. Furthermore, under CAA section 
114(c), emissions data is not entitled to confidential treatment, and 
the EPA is required to make emissions data available to the public. 
Thus, emissions data will not be protected as CBI and will be made 
publicly available.
    (ii) For data collected using test methods that are not supported 
by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the 
test, you must submit the results of the performance test to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4.
    (10) For combustion control devices tested by the manufacturer in 
accordance with Sec.  60.5413a(d), an electronic copy of the 
performance test results required by Sec.  60.5413a(d) shall be 
submitted via email to Oil_and_Gas_PT@EPA.GOV unless the test results 
for that model of combustion control device are posted at the following 
website: epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/.
    (11) You must submit reports to the EPA via CEDRI, except as 
outlined in this paragraph (b)(11). (CEDRI can be accessed through the 
EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) The EPA will make all the 
information submitted through CEDRI available to the public without 
further notice to you. Do not use CEDRI to submit information you claim 
as CBI. Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI. You 
must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI for this subpart or 
an alternate electronic file format consistent with the extensible 
markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/cedri/). If the 
reporting form specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at 
the time that the report is due, you must submit the report to the 
Administrator at the appropriate address listed in Sec.  60.4. Once the 
form has been available in CEDRI for at least 90 calendar days, you 
must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI. The reports 
must be submitted by the

[[Page 57453]]

deadlines specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which 
the reports are submitted. Although we do not expect persons to assert 
a claim of CBI, if you wish to assert a CBI claim, submit a complete 
report generated using the appropriate form in CEDRI or an alternate 
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's 
CEDRI website, including information claimed to be CBI, on a compact 
disc, flash drive, or other commonly used electronic storage medium to 
the EPA. The electronic medium shall be clearly marked as CBI and 
mailed to U.S. EPA/OAQPS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: Group Leader, 
Fuels and Incineration Group, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham, NC 
27703. The same file with the CBI omitted shall be submitted to the EPA 
via CEDRI. All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission. 
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled 
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions 
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be 
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
    (12) You must submit the certification signed by the qualified 
professional engineer or in-house engineer according to Sec.  
60.5411a(d) for each closed vent system routing to a control device or 
process.
    (13) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, you may assert a claim of EPA system outage for 
failure to timely comply with the reporting requirement. To assert a 
claim of EPA system outage, you must meet the requirements outlined in 
paragraphs (b)(13)(i) through (vii) of this section.
    (i) You must have been or will be precluded from accessing CEDRI 
and submitting a required report within the time prescribed due to an 
outage of either the EPA's CEDRI or CDX systems.
    (ii) The outage must have occurred within the period of time 
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due.
    (iii) The outage may be planned or unplanned.
    (iv) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in reporting.
    (v) You must provide to the Administrator a written description 
identifying:
    (A) The date(s) and time(s) when CDX or CEDRI was accessed and the 
system was unavailable;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the EPA system outage;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already 
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date 
you reported.
    (vi) The decision to accept the claim of EPA system outage and 
allow an extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the 
discretion of the Administrator.
    (vii) In any circumstance, the report must be submitted 
electronically as soon as possible after the outage is resolved.
    (14) If you are required to electronically submit a report through 
CEDRI in the EPA's CDX, the owner or operator may assert a claim of 
force majeure for failure to timely comply with the reporting 
requirement. To assert a claim of force majeure, you must meet the 
requirements outlined in paragraphs (b)(14)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) You may submit a claim if a force majeure event is about to 
occur, occurs, or has occurred or there are lingering effects from such 
an event within the period of time beginning 5 business days prior to 
the date the submission is due. For the purposes of this section, a 
force majeure event is defined as an event that will be or has been 
caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected facility, 
its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected facility that 
prevents you from complying with the requirement to submit a report 
electronically within the time period prescribed. Examples of such 
events are acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), 
acts of war or terrorism, or equipment failure or safety hazard beyond 
the control of the affected facility (e.g., large scale power outage).
    (ii) You must submit notification to the Administrator in writing 
as soon as possible following the date you first knew, or through due 
diligence should have known, that the event may cause or caused a delay 
in reporting.
    (iii) You must provide to the Administrator:
    (A) A written description of the force majeure event;
    (B) A rationale for attributing the delay in reporting beyond the 
regulatory deadline to the force majeure event;
    (C) Measures taken or to be taken to minimize the delay in 
reporting; and
    (D) The date by which you propose to report, or if you have already 
met the reporting requirement at the time of the notification, the date 
you reported.
    (iv) The decision to accept the claim of force majeure and allow an 
extension to the reporting deadline is solely within the discretion of 
the Administrator.
    (v) In any circumstance, the reporting must occur as soon as 
possible after the force majeure event occurs.
    (c) Recordkeeping requirements. You must maintain the records 
identified as specified in Sec.  60.7(f) and in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (18) of this section. All records required by this subpart must 
be maintained either onsite or at the nearest local field office for at 
least 5 years. Any records required to be maintained by this subpart 
that are submitted electronically via the EPA's CDX may be maintained 
in electronic format.
    (1) The records for each well affected facility as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section, as applicable. For 
each well affected facility for which you make a claim that the well 
affected facility is not subject to the requirements for well 
completions pursuant to Sec.  60.5375a(g), you must maintain the record 
in paragraph (c)(1)(vi) of this section, only. For each well affected 
facility that routes flowback entirely through one or more production 
separators that are designed to accommodate flowback, only records of 
the United States Well Number, the latitude and longitude of the well 
in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of 
a degree using North American Datum of 1983, the Well Completion ID, 
and the date and time of startup of production are required. For 
periods where salable gas is unable to be separated, records of the 
date and time of onset of flowback, the duration and disposition of 
recovery, the duration of combustion and venting (if applicable), 
reasons for venting (if applicable), and deviations are required.
    (i) Records identifying each well completion operation for each 
well affected facility.
    (ii) Records of deviations in cases where well completion 
operations with hydraulic fracturing were not performed in compliance 
with the requirements specified in Sec.  60.5375a, including the date 
and time the deviation began, the duration of the deviation, and a 
description of the deviation.
    (iii) You must maintain the records specified in paragraphs 
(c)(1)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) For each well affected facility required to comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  60.5375a(a), you must record: The latitude and 
longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision 
of five (5) decimals of a

[[Page 57454]]

degree using North American Datum of 1983; the United States Well 
Number; the date and time of the onset of flowback following hydraulic 
fracturing or refracturing; the date and time of each attempt to direct 
flowback to a separator as required in Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(ii); the 
date and time of each occurrence of returning to the initial flowback 
stage under Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(i); and the date and time that the 
well was shut in and the flowback equipment was permanently 
disconnected, or the startup of production; the duration of flowback; 
duration of recovery and disposition of recovery (i.e., routed to the 
gas flow line or collection system, re-injected into the well or 
another well, used as an onsite fuel source, or used for another useful 
purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve); duration of 
combustion; duration of venting; and specific reasons for venting in 
lieu of capture or combustion. The duration must be specified in hours. 
In addition, for wells where it is technically infeasible to route the 
recovered gas as specified in Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(ii), you must record 
the reasons for the claim of technical infeasibility with respect to 
all four options provided in Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(ii).
    (B) For each well affected facility required to comply with the 
requirements of Sec.  60.5375a(f), you must record: Latitude and 
longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision 
of five (5) decimals of a degree using North American Datum of 1983; 
the United States Well Number; the date and time of the onset of 
flowback following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing; the date and 
time that the well was shut in and the flowback equipment was 
permanently disconnected, or the startup of production; the duration of 
flowback; duration of recovery and disposition of recovery (i.e., 
routed to the gas flow line or collection system, re-injected into the 
well or another well, used as an onsite fuel source, or used for 
another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would 
serve); duration of combustion; duration of venting; and specific 
reasons for venting in lieu of capture or combustion. The duration must 
be specified in hours.
    (C) For each well affected facility for which you make a claim that 
it meets the criteria of Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1)(iii)(A), you must 
maintain the following:
    (1) The latitude and longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an 
accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using North 
American Datum of 1983; the United States Well Number; the date and 
time of the onset of flowback following hydraulic fracturing or 
refracturing; the date and time that the well was shut in and the 
flowback equipment was permanently disconnected, or the startup of 
production; the duration of flowback; duration of recovery and 
disposition of recovery (i.e., routed to the gas flow line or 
collection system, re-injected into the well or another well, used as 
an onsite fuel source, or used for another useful purpose that a 
purchased fuel or raw material would serve); duration of combustion; 
duration of venting; and specific reasons for venting in lieu of 
capture or combustion. The duration must be specified in hours.
    (2) If applicable, records that the conditions of Sec.  
60.5375a(a)(1)(iii)(A) are no longer met and that the well completion 
operation has been stopped and a separator installed. The records shall 
include the date and time the well completion operation was stopped and 
the date and time the separator was installed.
    (3) A record of the claim signed by the certifying official that no 
liquids collection is at the well site. The claim must include a 
certification by a certifying official of truth, accuracy, and 
completeness. This certification shall state that, based on information 
and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the statements and 
information in the document are true, accurate, and complete.
    (iv) For each well affected facility for which you claim an 
exception under Sec.  60.5375a(a)(3), you must record: The latitude and 
longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision 
of five (5) decimals of a degree using North American Datum of 1983; 
the United States Well Number; the specific exception claimed; the 
starting date and ending date for the period the well operated under 
the exception; and an explanation of why the well meets the claimed 
exception.
    (v) For each well affected facility required to comply with both 
Sec.  60.5375a(a)(1) and (3), if you are using a digital photograph in 
lieu of the records required in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of 
this section, you must retain the records of the digital photograph as 
specified in Sec.  60.5410a(a)(4).
    (vi) For each well affected facility for which you make a claim 
that the well affected facility is not subject to the well completion 
standards according to Sec.  60.5375a(g), you must maintain:
    (A) A record of the analysis that was performed in order the make 
that claim, including but not limited to, GOR values for established 
leases and data from wells in the same basin and field;
    (B) the latitude and longitude of the well in decimal degrees to an 
accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using North 
American Datum of 1983; the United States Well Number;
    (C) A record of the claim signed by the certifying official. The 
claim must include a certification by a certifying official of truth, 
accuracy, and completeness. This certification shall state that, based 
on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, the 
statements and information in the document are true, accurate, and 
complete.
    (vii) For each well affected facility subject to Sec.  60.5375a(f), 
a record of the well type (i.e., wildcat well, delineation well, or low 
pressure well (as defined Sec.  60.5430a)) and supporting inputs and 
calculations, if applicable.
    (2) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility, you must 
maintain records of deviations in cases where the centrifugal 
compressor was not operated in compliance with the requirements 
specified in Sec.  60.5380a, including a description of each deviation, 
the date and time each deviation began and the duration of each 
deviation. Except as specified in paragraph (c)(2)(viii) of this 
section, you must maintain the records in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through 
(vii) of this section for each control device tested under Sec.  
60.5413a(d) which meets the criteria in Sec.  60.5413a(d)(11) and (e) 
and used to comply with Sec.  60.5380a(a)(1) for each centrifugal 
compressor.
    (i) Make, model, and serial number of purchased device.
    (ii) Date of purchase.
    (iii) Copy of purchase order.
    (iv) Location of the centrifugal compressor and control device in 
latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees to an accuracy 
and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using the North American 
Datum of 1983.
    (v) Inlet gas flow rate.
    (vi) Records of continuous compliance requirements in Sec.  
60.5413a(e) as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(vi)(A) through (E) of 
this section.
    (A) Records that the pilot flame is present at all times of 
operation.
    (B) Records that the device was operated with no visible emissions 
except for periods not to exceed a total of 1 minute during any 15-
minute period.
    (C) Records of the maintenance and repair log.
    (D) Records of the visible emissions test following return to 
operation from a maintenance or repair activity, including the date of 
the visible emissions test, the length of the test, and

[[Page 57455]]

the amount of time for which visible emissions were present.
    (E) Records of the manufacturer's written operating instructions, 
procedures, and maintenance schedule to ensure good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions.
    (vii) Records of deviations for instances where the inlet gas flow 
rate exceeds the manufacturer's listed maximum gas flow rate, where 
there is no indication of the presence of a pilot flame, or where 
visible emissions exceeded 1 minute in any 15-minute period, including 
a description of the deviation, the date and time the deviation began, 
and the duration of the deviation.
    (viii) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(2)(iv) of this section, you may maintain records of one or more 
digital photographs with the date the photograph was taken and the 
latitude and longitude of the centrifugal compressor and control device 
imbedded within or stored with the digital file. As an alternative to 
imbedded latitude and longitude within the digital photograph, the 
digital photograph may consist of a photograph of the centrifugal 
compressor and control device with a photograph of a separately 
operating GPS device within the same digital picture, provided the 
latitude and longitude output of the GPS unit can be clearly read in 
the digital photograph.
    (3) For each reciprocating compressor affected facility, you must 
maintain the records in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) Records of the cumulative number of hours of operation or 
number of months since initial startup, since August 2, 2016, or since 
the previous replacement of the reciprocating compressor rod packing, 
whichever is latest. Alternatively, a statement that emissions from the 
rod packing are being routed to a process through a closed vent system 
under negative pressure.
    (ii) Records of the date and time of each reciprocating compressor 
rod packing replacement, or date of installation of a rod packing 
emissions collection system and closed vent system as specified in 
Sec.  60.5385a(a)(3).
    (iii) Records of deviations in cases where the reciprocating 
compressor was not operated in compliance with the requirements 
specified in Sec.  60.5385a, including the date and time the deviation 
began, duration of the deviation, and a description of the deviation.
    (4) For each pneumatic controller affected facility, you must 
maintain the records identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (v) of 
this section, as applicable.
    (i) Records of the month and year of installation, reconstruction, 
or modification, location in latitude and longitude coordinates in 
decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) decimals of a 
degree using the North American Datum of 1983, identification 
information that allows traceability to the records required in 
paragraph (c)(4)(iii) or (iv) of this section and manufacturer 
specifications for each pneumatic controller constructed, modified, or 
reconstructed.
    (ii) Records of the demonstration that the use of pneumatic 
controller affected facilities with a natural gas bleed rate greater 
than the applicable standard are required and the reasons why.
    (iii) If the pneumatic controller is not located at a natural gas 
processing plant, records of the manufacturer's specifications 
indicating that the controller is designed such that natural gas bleed 
rate is less than or equal to 6 standard cubic feet per hour.
    (iv) If the pneumatic controller is located at a natural gas 
processing plant, records of the documentation that the natural gas 
bleed rate is zero.
    (v) For each instance where the pneumatic controller was not 
operated in compliance with the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5390a, a description of the deviation, the date and time the 
deviation began, and the duration of the deviation.
    (5) For each storage vessel affected facility, you must maintain 
the records identified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (vii) of this 
section.
    (i) If required to reduce emissions by complying with Sec.  
60.5395a(a)(2), the records specified in Sec. Sec.  60.5420a(c)(6) 
through (8) and 60.5416a(c)(6)(ii) and (c)(7)(ii). You must maintain 
the records in paragraph (c)(5)(vi) of this section for each control 
device tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d) which meets the criteria in Sec.  
60.5413a(d)(11) and (e) and used to comply with Sec.  60.5395a(a)(2) 
for each storage vessel.
    (ii) Records of each VOC emissions determination for each storage 
vessel affected facility made under Sec.  60.5365a(e) including 
identification of the model or calculation methodology used to 
calculate the VOC emission rate.
    (iii) For each instance where the storage vessel was not operated 
in compliance with the requirements specified in Sec. Sec.  60.5395a, 
60.5411a, 60.5412a, and 60.5413a, as applicable, a description of the 
deviation, the date and time each deviation began, and the duration of 
the deviation.
    (iv) For storage vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently 
attached to something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges 
or ships), records indicating the number of consecutive days that the 
vessel is located at a site in the crude oil and natural gas production 
source category. If a storage vessel is removed from a site and, within 
30 days, is either returned to the site or replaced by another storage 
vessel at the site to serve the same or similar function, then the 
entire period since the original storage vessel was first located at 
the site, including the days when the storage vessel was removed, will 
be added to the count towards the number of consecutive days.
    (v) You must maintain records of the identification and location in 
latitude and longitude coordinates in decimal degrees to an accuracy 
and precision of five (5) decimals of a degree using the North American 
Datum of 1983 of each storage vessel affected facility.
    (vi) Except as specified in paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(G) of this 
section, you must maintain the records specified in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(vi)(A) through (H) of this section for each control device 
tested under Sec.  60.5413a(d) which meets the criteria in Sec.  
60.5413a(d)(11) and (e) and used to comply with Sec.  60.5395a(a)(2) 
for each storage vessel.
    (A) Make, model, and serial number of purchased device.
    (B) Date of purchase.
    (C) Copy of purchase order.
    (D) Location of the control device in latitude and longitude 
coordinates in decimal degrees to an accuracy and precision of five (5) 
decimals of a degree using the North American Datum of 1983.
    (E) Inlet gas flow rate.
    (F) Records of continuous compliance requirements in Sec.  
60.5413a(e) as specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(vi)(F)(1) through (5) of 
this section.
    (1) Records that the pilot flame is present at all times of 
operation.
    (2) Records that the device was operated with no visible emissions 
except for periods not to exceed a total of 1 minute during any 15-
minute period.
    (3) Records of the maintenance and repair log.
    (4) Records of the visible emissions test following return to 
operation from a maintenance or repair activity, including the date of 
the visible emissions test, the length of the test, and the amount of 
time for which visible emissions were present.
    (5) Records of the manufacturer's written operating instructions, 
procedures, and maintenance schedule to ensure good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions.

[[Page 57456]]

    (G) Records of deviations for instances where the inlet gas flow 
rate exceeds the manufacturer's listed maximum gas flow rate, where 
there is no indication of the presence of a pilot flame, or where 
visible emissions exceeded 1 minute in any 15-minute period, including 
a description of the deviation, the date and time the deviation began, 
and the duration of the deviation.
    (H) As an alternative to the requirements of paragraph 
(c)(5)(vi)(D) of this section, you may maintain records of one or more 
digital photographs with the date the photograph was taken and the 
latitude and longitude of the storage vessel and control device 
imbedded within or stored with the digital file. As an alternative to 
imbedded latitude and longitude within the digital photograph, the 
digital photograph may consist of a photograph of the storage vessel 
and control device with a photograph of a separately operating GPS 
device within the same digital picture, provided the latitude and 
longitude output of the GPS unit can be clearly read in the digital 
photograph.
    (vii) Records of the date that each storage vessel affected 
facility is removed from service and returned to service, as 
applicable.
    (6) Records of each closed vent system inspection required under 
Sec.  60.5416a(a)(1) and (2) and (b) for centrifugal compressors and 
reciprocating compressors, Sec.  60.5416a(c)(1) for storage vessels, or 
Sec.  60.5416a(e) for pneumatic pumps as required in paragraphs 
(c)(6)(i) through (iii) of this section.
    (i) A record of each closed vent system inspection or no detectable 
emissions monitoring survey. You must include an identification number 
for each closed vent system (or other unique identification description 
selected by you) and the date of the inspection.
    (ii) For each defect or leak detected during inspections required 
by Sec.  60.5416a(a)(1) and (2), (b), (c)(1), or (d), you must record 
the location of the defect or leak, a description of the defect or the 
maximum concentration reading obtained if using Method 21 of appendix 
A-7 of this part, the date of detection, and the date the repair to 
correct the defect or leak is completed.
    (iii) If repair of the defect is delayed as described in Sec.  
60.5416a(b)(10), you must record the reason for the delay and the date 
you expect to complete the repair.
    (7) A record of each cover inspection required under Sec.  
60.5416a(a)(3) for centrifugal or reciprocating compressors or Sec.  
60.5416a(c)(2) for storage vessels as required in paragraphs (c)(7)(i) 
through (iii) of this section.
    (i) A record of each cover inspection. You must include an 
identification number for each cover (or other unique identification 
description selected by you) and the date of the inspection.
    (ii) For each defect detected during inspections required by Sec.  
60.5416a(a)(3) or (c)(2), you must record the location of the defect, a 
description of the defect, the date of detection, the corrective action 
taken the repair the defect, and the date the repair to correct the 
defect is completed.
    (iii) If repair of the defect is delayed as described in Sec.  
60.5416a(b)(10) or (c)(5), you must record the reason for the delay and 
the date you expect to complete the repair.
    (8) If you are subject to the bypass requirements of Sec.  
60.5416a(a)(4) for centrifugal compressors or reciprocating 
compressors, or Sec.  60.5416a(c)(3) for storage vessels or pneumatic 
pumps, you must prepare and maintain a record of each inspection or a 
record of each time the key is checked out or a record of each time the 
alarm is sounded.
    (9) [Reserved]
    (10) For each centrifugal compressor or pneumatic pump affected 
facility, records of the schedule for carbon replacement (as determined 
by the design analysis requirements of Sec.  60.5413a(c)(2) or (3)) and 
records of each carbon replacement as specified in Sec.  
60.5412a(c)(1).
    (11) For each centrifugal compressor affected facility subject to 
the control device requirements of Sec.  60.5412a(a), (b), and (c), 
records of minimum and maximum operating parameter values, continuous 
parameter monitoring system data, calculated averages of continuous 
parameter monitoring system data, results of all compliance 
calculations, and results of all inspections.
    (12) For each carbon adsorber installed on storage vessel affected 
facilities, records of the schedule for carbon replacement (as 
determined by the design analysis requirements of Sec.  60.5412a(d)(2)) 
and records of each carbon replacement as specified in Sec.  
60.5412a(c)(1).
    (13) For each storage vessel affected facility subject to the 
control device requirements of Sec.  60.5412a(c) and (d), you must 
maintain records of the inspections, including any corrective actions 
taken, the manufacturers' operating instructions, procedures and 
maintenance schedule as specified in Sec.  60.5417a(h)(3). You must 
maintain records of EPA Method 22 of appendix A-7 of this part, section 
11 results, which include: Company, location, company representative 
(name of the person performing the observation), sky conditions, 
process unit (type of control device), clock start time, observation 
period duration (in minutes and seconds), accumulated emission time (in 
minutes and seconds), and clock end time. You may create your own form 
including the above information or use Figure 22-1 in EPA Method 22 of 
appendix A-7 of this part. Manufacturer's operating instructions, 
procedures and maintenance schedule must be available for inspection.
    (14) A log of records as specified in Sec.  60.5412a(d)(1)(iii), 
for all inspection, repair, and maintenance activities for each control 
device failing the visible emissions test.
    (15) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site and each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station, maintain the records identified in paragraphs 
(c)(15)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) The date of the startup of production or the date of the first 
day of production after modification for each collection of fugitive 
emissions components at a well site and the date of startup or the date 
of modification for each collection of fugitive emissions components at 
a compressor station.
    (ii) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site complying with Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2), you must maintain records of 
the daily production and calculations demonstrating that the rolling 
12-month average is at or below 15 boe per day no later than 12 months 
before complying with Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2).
    (iii) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
well site complying with Sec.  60.5397a(a)(3)(i), you must keep records 
of daily production and calculations for the first 30 days after 
completion of any action listed in Sec.  60.5397a(a)(2)(i) through (v) 
demonstrating that total production from the well site is at or below 
15 boe per day, or maintain records demonstrating the rolling 12-month 
average total production for the well site is at or below 15 boe per 
day.
    (iv) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site complying with Sec.  60.5397a(a)(3)(ii), you must keep the records 
specified in paragraphs (c)(15)(i), (vi), and (vii) of this section.
    (v) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a well 
site where you complete the removal of all major production and 
processing equipment such that the well site contains only one or more 
wellheads, record the date the well site completes

[[Page 57457]]

the removal of all major production and processing equipment from the 
well site, and, if the well site is still producing, record the well ID 
or separate tank battery ID receiving the production from the well 
site. If major production and processing equipment is subsequently 
added back to the well site, record the date that the first piece of 
major production and processing equipment is added back to the well 
site.
    (vi) The fugitive emissions monitoring plan as required in Sec.  
60.5397a(b), (c), and (d).
    (vii) The records of each monitoring survey as specified in 
paragraphs (c)(15)(vii)(A) through (I) of this section.
    (A) Date of the survey.
    (B) Beginning and end time of the survey.
    (C) Name of operator(s), training, and experience of the 
operator(s) performing the survey.
    (D) Monitoring instrument used.
    (E) Fugitive emissions component identification when Method 21 of 
appendix A-7 of this part is used to perform the monitoring survey.
    (F) Ambient temperature, sky conditions, and maximum wind speed at 
the time of the survey. For compressor stations, operating mode of each 
compressor (i.e., operating, standby pressurized, and not operating-
depressurized modes) at the station at the time of the survey.
    (G) Any deviations from the monitoring plan or a statement that 
there were no deviations from the monitoring plan.
    (H) Records of calibrations for the instrument used during the 
monitoring survey.
    (I) Documentation of each fugitive emission detected during the 
monitoring survey, including the information specified in paragraphs 
(c)(15)(vii)(I)(1) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Location of each fugitive emission identified.
    (2) Type of fugitive emissions component, including designation as 
difficult-to-monitor or unsafe-to-monitor, if applicable.
    (3) If Method 21 of appendix A-7 of this part is used for 
detection, record the component ID and instrument reading.
    (4) For each repair that cannot be made during the monitoring 
survey when the fugitive emissions are initially found, a digital 
photograph or video must be taken of that component or the component 
must be tagged for identification purposes. The digital photograph must 
include the date that the photograph was taken and must clearly 
identify the component by location within the site (e.g., the latitude 
and longitude of the component or by other descriptive landmarks 
visible in the picture). The digital photograph or identification 
(e.g., tag) may be removed after the repair is completed, including 
verification of repair with the resurvey.
    (5) The date of first attempt at repair of the fugitive emissions 
component(s).
    (6) The date of successful repair of the fugitive emissions 
component, including the resurvey to verify repair and instrument used 
for the resurvey.
    (7) Identification of each fugitive emission component placed on 
delay of repair and explanation for each delay of repair
    (8) Date of planned shutdowns that occur while there are any 
components that have been placed on delay of repair.
    (viii) For each collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
well site or collection of fugitive emissions components at a 
compressor station complying with an alternative means of emissions 
limitation under Sec.  60.5399a, you must maintain the records 
specified by the specific alternative fugitive emissions standard for a 
period of at least 5 years.
    (16) For each pneumatic pump affected facility, you must maintain 
the records identified in paragraphs (c)(16)(i) through (v) of this 
section.
    (i) Records of the date, location, and manufacturer specifications 
for each pneumatic pump constructed, modified, or reconstructed.
    (ii) Records of deviations in cases where the pneumatic pump was 
not operated in compliance with the requirements specified in Sec.  
60.5393a, including the date and time the deviation began, duration of 
the deviation, and a description of the deviation.
    (iii) Records on the control device used for control of emissions 
from a pneumatic pump including the installation date, and 
manufacturer's specifications. If the control device is designed to 
achieve less than 95-percent emission reduction, maintain records of 
the design evaluation or manufacturer's specifications which indicate 
the percentage reduction the control device is designed to achieve.
    (iv) Records substantiating a claim according to Sec.  
60.5393a(b)(5) that it is technically infeasible to capture and route 
emissions from a pneumatic pump to a control device or process; 
including the certification according to Sec.  60.5393a(b)(5)(ii) and 
the records of the engineering assessment of technical infeasibility 
performed according to Sec.  60.5393a(b)(5)(iii).
    (v) You must retain copies of all certifications, engineering 
assessments, and related records for a period of five years and make 
them available if directed by the implementing agency.
    (17) For each closed vent system routing to a control device or 
process, the records of the assessment conducted according to Sec.  
60.5411a(d):
    (i) A copy of the assessment conducted according to Sec.  
60.5411a(d)(1);
    (ii) A copy of the certification according to Sec.  
60.5411a(d)(1)(i); and
    (iii) The owner or operator shall retain copies of all 
certifications, assessments, and any related records for a period of 5 
years, and make them available if directed by the delegated authority.
    (18) A copy of each performance test submitted under paragraph 
(b)(9) of this section.

0
24. Section 60.5422a is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 
(c) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec.  60.5422a   What are my additional reporting requirements for my 
affected facility subject to VOC requirements for onshore natural gas 
processing plants?

    (a) You must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (c) 
of this section in addition to the requirements of Sec.  60.487a(a), 
(b)(1) through (3) and (5), and (c)(2)(i) through (iv) and (vii) 
through (viii). You must submit semiannual reports to the EPA via the 
Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can 
be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/).) Use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI for this 
subpart or an alternate electronic file format consistent with the 
extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI website 
(https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/cedri/). If the reporting form specific 
to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report 
is due, submit the report to the Administrator at the appropriate 
address listed in Sec.  60.4. Once the form has been available in CEDRI 
for at least 90 days, you must begin submitting all subsequent reports 
via CEDRI. The report must be submitted by the deadline specified in 
this subpart, regardless of the method in which the report is 
submitted.
    (b) An owner or operator must include the following information in 
the initial semiannual report in addition to the information required 
in Sec.  60.487a(b)(1) through (3) and (5): Number of pressure relief 
devices subject to the requirements of Sec.  60.5401a(b) except for 
those pressure relief devices designated for no detectable emissions 
under the provisions of Sec.  60.482-4a(a) and those

[[Page 57458]]

pressure relief devices complying with Sec.  60.482-4a(c).
    (c) An owner or operator must include the information specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section in all semiannual reports in 
addition to the information required in Sec.  60.487a(c)(2)(i) through 
(iv) and (vii) through (viii):
* * * * *

0
25. Section 60.5423a is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (b) introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(3) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.5423a   What additional recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements apply to my sweetening unit affected facilities?

* * * * *
    (b) You must submit a report of excess emissions to the 
Administrator in your annual report if you had excess emissions during 
the reporting period. The procedures for submitting annual reports are 
located in Sec.  60.5420a(b). For the purpose of these reports, excess 
emissions are defined as specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section. The report must contain the information specified in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (3) For each period of excess emissions during the reporting 
period, include the following information in your report:
    (i) The date and time of commencement and completion of each period 
of excess emissions;
    (ii) The required minimum efficiency (Z) and the actual average 
sulfur emissions reduction (R) for periods defined in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section; and
    (iii) The appropriate operating temperature and the actual average 
temperature of the gases leaving the combustion zone for periods 
defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
26. Section 60.5430a is amended by:
0
a. Revising the definitions for ``Capital expenditure'' and 
``Certifying official'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Coil tubing 
cleanout,'' ``Custody meter,'' ``Custody meter assembly,'' and ``First 
attempt at repair'';
0
c. Revising the definitions for ``Flowback'' and ``Fugitive emissions 
component'';
0
d. Removing the definitions for ``Gas processing plant process unit'' 
and ``Greenfield site'';
0
e. Revising the definition of ``Low pressure well'';
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Major production 
and processing equipment'';
0
g. Revising the definition for ``Maximum average daily throughput'';
0
h. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``Plug drill-out,'' 
``Repaired,'' and ``Screenout'';
0
i. Revising the definition for ``Startup of production'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order the definitions for ``UIC Class I 
oilfield disposal well'' and ``UIC Class II oilfield disposal well'';
0
k. Revising the definition for ``Well site''; and
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order the definition for ``Wellhead only well 
site''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  60.5430a   What definitions apply to this subpart?

* * * * *
    Capital expenditure means, in addition to the definition in 40 CFR 
60.2, an expenditure for a physical or operational change to an 
existing facility that:
    (1) Exceeds P, the product of the facility's replacement cost, R, 
and an adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, as 
reflected by the following equation: P = R x A, where:
    (i) The adjusted annual asset guideline repair allowance, A, is the 
product of the percent of the replacement cost, Y, and the applicable 
basic annual asset guideline repair allowance, B, divided by 100 as 
reflected by the following equation: A = Y x (B / 100);
    (ii) The percent Y is determined from the following equation: Y = 
(CPI of date of construction/most recently available CPI of date of 
project), where the ``CPI-U, U.S. city average, all items'' must be 
used for each CPI value; and
    (iii) The applicable basic annual asset guideline repair allowance, 
B, is 4.5.
* * * * *
    Certifying official means one of the following:
    (1) For a corporation: A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-
president of the corporation in charge of a principal business 
function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-
making functions for the corporation, or a duly authorized 
representative of such person if the representative is responsible for 
the overall operation of one or more manufacturing, production, or 
operating facilities with an affected facility subject to this subpart 
and either:
    (i) The facilities employ more than 250 persons or have gross 
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 
1980 dollars); or
    (ii) The Administrator is notified of such delegation of authority 
prior to the exercise of that authority. The Administrator reserves the 
right to evaluate such delegation;
    (2) For a partnership (including but not limited to general 
partnerships, limited partnerships, and limited liability partnerships) 
or sole proprietorship: A general partner or the proprietor, 
respectively. If a general partner is a corporation, the provisions of 
paragraph (1) of this definition apply;
    (3) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: 
Either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. For 
the purposes of this part, a principal executive officer of a Federal 
agency includes the chief executive officer having responsibility for 
the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency 
(e.g., a Regional Administrator of EPA); or
    (4) For affected facilities:
    (i) The designated representative in so far as actions, standards, 
requirements, or prohibitions under title IV of the CAA or the 
regulations promulgated thereunder are concerned; or
    (ii) The designated representative for any other purposes under 
this part.
    Coil tubing cleanout means the process where an operator runs a 
string of coil tubing to the packed proppant within a well and jets the 
well to dislodge the proppant and provide sufficient lift energy to 
flow it to the surface. Coil tubing cleanout includes mechanical 
methods to remove solids and/or debris from a wellbore.
* * * * *
    Custody meter means the meter where natural gas or hydrocarbon 
liquids are measured for sales, transfers, and/or royalty 
determination.
    Custody meter assembly means an assembly of fugitive emissions 
components, including the custody meter, valves, flanges, and 
connectors necessary for the proper operation of the custody meter.
* * * * *
    First attempt at repair means, for the purposes of fugitive 
emissions components, an action taken for the purpose of stopping or 
reducing fugitive emissions to the atmosphere. First attempts at repair 
include, but are not limited to, the following practices where 
practicable and appropriate: Tightening bonnet bolts; replacing bonnet 
bolts; tightening packing gland nuts; or injecting lubricant into 
lubricated packing.
* * * * *
    Flowback means the process of allowing fluids and entrained solids 
to flow from a well following a treatment,

[[Page 57459]]

either in preparation for a subsequent phase of treatment or in 
preparation for cleanup and returning the well to production. The term 
flowback also means the fluids and entrained solids that emerge from a 
well during the flowback process. The flowback period begins when 
material introduced into the well during the treatment returns to the 
surface following hydraulic fracturing or refracturing. The flowback 
period ends when either the well is shut in and permanently 
disconnected from the flowback equipment or at the startup of 
production. The flowback period includes the initial flowback stage and 
the separation flowback stage. Screenouts, coil tubing cleanouts, and 
plug drill-outs are not considered part of the flowback process.
    Fugitive emissions component means any component that has the 
potential to emit fugitive emissions of VOC at a well site or 
compressor station, including valves, connectors, pressure relief 
devices, open-ended lines, flanges, covers and closed vent systems not 
subject to Sec.  60.5411 or Sec.  60.5411a, thief hatches or other 
openings on a controlled storage vessel not subject to Sec.  60.5395 or 
Sec.  60.5395a, compressors, instruments, and meters. Devices that vent 
as part of normal operations, such as natural gas-driven pneumatic 
controllers or natural gas-driven pumps, are not fugitive emissions 
components, insofar as the natural gas discharged from the device's 
vent is not considered a fugitive emission. Emissions originating from 
other than the device's vent, such as the thief hatch on a controlled 
storage vessel, would be considered fugitive emissions.
* * * * *
    Low pressure well means a well that satisfies at least one of the 
following conditions:
    (1) The static pressure at the wellhead following fracturing but 
prior to the onset of flowback is less than the flow line pressure;
    (2) The pressure of flowback fluid immediately before it enters the 
flow line, as determined under Sec.  60.5432a, is less than the flow 
line pressure; or
    (3) Flowback of the fracture fluids will not occur without the use 
of artificial lift equipment.
    Major production and processing equipment means reciprocating or 
centrifugal compressors, glycol dehydrators, heater/treaters, 
separators, and storage vessels collecting crude oil, condensate, 
intermediate hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water, for the purpose of 
determining whether a well site is a wellhead only well site.
    Maximum average daily throughput means the following:
    (1) For storage vessels that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after September 18, 2015, and on and 
before November 16, 2020, maximum average daily throughput means the 
earliest calculation of daily average throughput during the 30-day PTE 
evaluation period employing generally accepted methods.
    (2) For storage vessels that commenced construction, 
reconstruction, or modification after November 16, 2020, maximum 
average daily throughput means the earliest calculation of daily 
average throughput, determined as described in paragraph (3) or (4) of 
this definition, to an individual storage vessel over the days that 
production is routed to that storage vessel during the 30-day PTE 
evaluation period employing generally accepted methods specified in 
Sec.  60.5365a(e)(1).
    (3) If throughput to the individual storage vessel is measured on a 
daily basis (e.g., via level gauge automation or daily manual gauging), 
the maximum average daily throughput is the average of all daily 
throughputs for days on which throughput was routed to that storage 
vessel during the 30-day evaluation period; or
    (4) If throughput to the individual storage vessel is not measured 
on a daily basis (e.g., via manual gauging at the start and end of 
loadouts), the maximum average daily throughput is the highest, of the 
average daily throughputs, determined for any production period to that 
storage vessel during the 30-day evaluation period, as determined by 
averaging total throughput to that storage vessel over each production 
period. A production period begins when production begins to be routed 
to a storage vessel and ends either when throughput is routed away from 
that storage vessel or when a loadout occurs from that storage vessel, 
whichever happens first. Regardless of the determination methodology, 
operators must not include days during which throughput is not routed 
to an individual storage vessel when calculating maximum average daily 
throughput for that storage vessel.
* * * * *
    Plug drill-out means the removal of a plug (or plugs) that was used 
to isolate different sections of the well.
* * * * *
    Repaired means, for the purposes of fugitive emissions components, 
that fugitive emissions components are adjusted, replaced, or otherwise 
altered, in order to eliminate fugitive emissions as defined in Sec.  
60.5397a and resurveyed as specified in Sec.  60.5397a(h)(4) and it is 
verified that emissions from the fugitive emissions components are 
below the applicable fugitive emissions definition.
* * * * *
    Screenout means an attempt to clear proppant from the wellbore to 
dislodge the proppant out of the well.
* * * * *
    Startup of production means the beginning of initial flow following 
the end of flowback when there is continuous recovery of salable 
quality gas and separation and recovery of any crude oil, condensate, 
or produced water, except as otherwise provided in this definition. For 
the purposes of the fugitive monitoring requirements of Sec.  60.5397a, 
startup of production means the beginning of the continuous recovery of 
salable quality gas and separation and recovery of any crude oil, 
condensate, or produced water.
* * * * *
    UIC Class I oilfield disposal well means a well with a UIC Class I 
permit that meets the definition in 40 CFR 144.6(a)(2) and receives 
eligible fluids from oil and natural gas exploration and production 
operations.
    UIC Class II oilfield disposal well means a well with a UIC Class 
II permit where wastewater resulting from oil and natural gas 
production operations is injected into underground porous rock 
formations not productive of oil or gas, and sealed above and below by 
unbroken, impermeable strata.
* * * * *
    Well site means one or more surface sites that are constructed for 
the drilling and subsequent operation of any oil well, natural gas 
well, or injection well. For purposes of the fugitive emissions 
standards at Sec.  60.5397a, well site also means a separate tank 
battery surface site collecting crude oil, condensate, intermediate 
hydrocarbon liquids, or produced water from wells not located at the 
well site (e.g., centralized tank batteries). Also, for the purposes of 
the fugitive emissions standards at Sec.  60.5397a, a well site does 
not include:
    (1) UIC Class II oilfield disposal wells and disposal facilities;
    (2) UIC Class I oilfield disposal wells; and
    (3) The flange immediately upstream of the custody meter assembly 
and equipment, including fugitive emissions components, located 
downstream of this flange.
* * * * *
    Wellhead only well site means, for the purposes of the fugitive 
emissions standards at Sec.  60.5397a, a well site that contains one or 
more wellheads and no

[[Page 57460]]

major production and processing equipment.
* * * * *

0
27. Table 3 to subpart OOOOa of part 60 is amended by revising the 
entries for Sec. Sec.  60.8 and 60.15 to read as follows:

            Table 3 to Subpart OOOOa of Part 60--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart OOOOa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    General provisions
         citation                 Subject of citation           Applies to subpart?           Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   60.8..............  Performance tests................  Yes....................  Except that the format of
                                                                                        performance test reports
                                                                                        is described in Sec.
                                                                                        60.5420a(b). Performance
                                                                                        testing is required for
                                                                                        control devices used on
                                                                                        storage vessels,
                                                                                        centrifugal compressors,
                                                                                        and pneumatic pumps,
                                                                                        except that performance
                                                                                        testing is not required
                                                                                        for a control device
                                                                                        used solely on pneumatic
                                                                                        pump(s).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Sec.   60.15.............  Reconstruction...................  Yes....................  Except that Sec.
                                                                                        60.15(d) does not apply
                                                                                        to wells, pneumatic
                                                                                        controllers, pneumatic
                                                                                        pumps, centrifugal
                                                                                        compressors,
                                                                                        reciprocating
                                                                                        compressors, storage
                                                                                        vessels, or the
                                                                                        collection of fugitive
                                                                                        emissions components at
                                                                                        a well site or the
                                                                                        collection of fugitive
                                                                                        emissions components at
                                                                                        a compressor station.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-18115 Filed 9-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P