Source: http://thefederalregister.com/2011/09/09/2011-21725.html
Timestamp: 2019-06-24 21:28:24
Document Index: 637186196

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 82', '§ 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 981', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98', 'art 98']

Federal Register | Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Technical Revisions
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512; FRL-9456-4]
RIN 2060-AR09
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Technical Revisions to the Electronics Manufacturing and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Categories of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule
SUMMARY: This action proposes technical revisions to the electronics manufacturing and the petroleum and natural gas systems source categories of the greenhouse gas reporting rule. Proposed changes include providing clarification on existing requirements, increasing flexibility for certain calculation methods, amending data reporting requirements clarifying terms and definitions, and technical corrections. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to amend the definition of heat transfer fluids in subpart I to include more fluorocarbons used as heat transfer fluids in the electronics manufacturing industry.
DATES: Comments.Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2011, unless a public hearing is held, in which case comments must be received on or before October 24, 2011.
Public Hearing.A public hearing will be held if requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the followingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection by September 16, 2011. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on September 26, 2011, in the Washington, DC area. EPA will publish further information about the hearing in theFederal Registerif a hearing is requested.
E-mail: GHG_Reporting_Rule_Oil_And_Natural_Gas@epa.gov.Include Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512in the subject line of the message.
*Mail:Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
*Hand/Courier Delivery:EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions:Direct your comments to Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online athttp://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected throughhttp://www.regulations.govor e-mail. Thehttp://www.regulations.govWeb site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going throughhttp://www.regulations.govyour e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
Docket:All documents in the docket are listed in thehttp://www.regulations.gov index.Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available,e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available for viewing at the EPA Docket Center. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically inhttp://www.regulations.govor in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;telephone number:(202) 343-9263;fax number:(202) 343-2342;e-mail address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.For technical questions, please see the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web sitehttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.To submit a question, selectRule Help Center, followed byContact Us. To obtain information about the public hearing or to register to speak at the public hearing, please go tohttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.Alternatively, you may contact Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
Worldwide Web (WWW).In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site athttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.
Additional information on submitting comments.To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263,e-mail address: GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.
Regulated Entities.The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). If finalized, these amended regulations could affect owners or operators of petroleum and natural gas systems and certain electronic manufacturers. Regulated categories and entities may include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:
Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category Source category NAICS Examples of affected facilities Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems 486210 Pipeline transportation of natural gas. 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities. 211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas. 211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities. Electronics Manufacturing 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. 334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. 334419 Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) unit screens manufacturing facilities. 334419 Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) manufacturing facilities.
Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Although Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of facilities of which EPA is aware that could be potentially affected by this action, other types of facilities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98 subpart A, 40 CFR part 98 subpart I and 40 CFR part 98 subpart W. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the precedingFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACTsection.
Acronyms and Abbreviations.The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.
AGAAmerican Gas Association APIAmerican Petroleum Institute AXPCAmerican Exploration and Production Council BAMMBest Available Monitoring Methods BOEMREBureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement CAAClean Air Act CBIconfidential business information CECChesapeake Energy Corporation CEMScontinuous emission monitoring systems cfdcubic feet per day CFRCode of Federal Regulations CH4methane CO2carbon dioxide CO2eCO2-equivalent CORcertificate of representation e-GGRTelectronic greenhouse gas reporting tool EIAEconomic Impact Analysis EORenhanced oil recovery EPAU.S. Environmental Protection Agency FCMLField Code Master List FERCFederal Energy Regulatory Commission FRFederal Register GHGgreenhouse gas GPAGas Processors Association GORgas to oil ratio GRIGas Research Institute Hphorsepower GWPglobal warming potential HHVhigh heat value HTFheat transfer fluid IBRincorporation by reference ICRinformation collection request LDCLocal Distribution Company ISOInternational Organization for Standardization kgkilograms LDCslocal natural gas distribution companies LNGliquefied natural gas M&Rmeters and regulators mmBtumillion British thermal units mmHgmillimeters of Mercury MMscfdmillion standard cubic feet per day mTCO2emillion metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent MRRmandatory GHG reporting rule N2Onitrous oxide NAICSNorth American Industry Classification System NF3nitrogen trifluoride NGLsnatural gas liquids NPSnominal pipe size NTTAANational Technology Transfer and Advancement Act OAQPSOffice of Air Quality, Planning and Standards OMBOffice of Management and Budget PHMSAPipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration QA/QCquality assurance/quality control RFARegulatory Flexibility Act SBASmall Business Administration SBREFASmall Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act SF6sulfur hexafluoride T-D Transmission Distribution TSDtechnical support document U.S.United States UMRAUnfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 USCUnited States Code Table of Contents I. Background A. How is this preamble organized? B. Background on the Proposed Action C. Legal Authority D. How would these amendments apply to 2012 reports? II. Technical Corrections and Other Amendments A. Subpart A—General Provisions B. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing C. Subpart W—Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background A. How is this preamble organized?
The first section of this preamble contains the basic background information about the origin of these proposed rule amendments and request for public comment. This section also discusses EPA's use of legal authority under the CAA to collect data on GHGs.
The second section of this preamble describes in detail the changes that are being proposed to correct technical errors or to address implementation issues identified by EPA and others. This section also presents EPA's rationale for the proposed changes and identifies issues on which EPA is particularly interested in receiving public comments.
Finally, the last (third) section discusses the various statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking.
EPA published subpart I: Electronics Manufacturing of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774) subpart I of the GHGRP requires monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing. Electronics manufacturing facilities covered by subpart I are those that have emissions equal to or greater than 25,000 mtCO2e.
Following the publication of subpart I in theFederal Register, 3M Company(3M) sought reconsideration of the final rule requirements for reporting fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs). In this action EPA, is proposing amendments to the provisions in subpart I related to calculating and reporting fluorinated HTFs to reflect the Agency's intent to cover all fluorocarbons (except for ozone depleting substances regulated under EPA's Stratospheric Protection Regulations at 40 CFR part 82) that can enter the atmosphere under the conditions in which HTFs are used in the electronics manufacturing industry.
EPA published Subpart W:Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule on November 30, 2010(75 FR 74458). Subpart W of the GHGRP, which applies to facilities in specific segments of the petroleum and natural gas industry that emit GHGs greater than or equal to 25,000 mtCO2e per year, covers approximately 85 percent of GHG emissions—including vented, equipment leak, and combustion emissions—from facilities in specific segments of the petroleum and natural gas industry.
Following the publication of subpart W in theFederal Register, several industry groups requested reconsideration of several provisions in the final rule. Part of the proposed amendments in this action are in response to those requests for reconsideration. Today we are granting reconsideration of, and requesting comment on, those issues raised in the petitions listed in Table 2 where indicated in such Table that the issue is addressed in this action. While we do not necessarily agree that each of those identified issues meet the criteria for reconsideration, we nonetheless believe that they do raise important implementation issues and are thus granting reconsideration of those issues and proposing concomitant revisions to the rule. At this time we are not granting reconsideration of other issues raised in those petitions where indicated in the following table that they are not being addressed in this action but will consider those issues at a later time.
Table 2—Petitions for Reconsideration Petitioner and date of letter Issue raised for reconsideration Is this issue addressed in this action? American Gas Association by letter dated March 2, 2011 Non custody transfer city gate station terminology. AGA asserted that “[s]everal provisions in the Subpart W rule and preamble seem to imply that a `non-custody-transfer city gate station' will always have a meter” Yes. Custody transfer city gate station terminology. AGA asserted that the term “custody transfer city gate station” in subpart W was unclear and needed clarification Yes. Use of GTI emission factors. AGA requested reconsideration of the emissions factors for Local Distribution Companies in the final rule Partially. New emission factor formulas are confusing or contain math errors that vastly inflate emission estimates. AGA asserted that the “[t]he new emissions factor equations W-30, W-31 and W-32 in the final rule are confusing. Since these formulas were not included in the proposed rule, AGA did not have an opportunity to comment on them” Yes. New electronic reporting form is not yet available for comment or testing. AGA asserted that “[s]takeholders should be given the opportunity to comment and to have access to the reporting software to perform trial runs No. This is being addressed in a separate package. EPA should exclude small internal combustion sources, not just external combustion. AGA asserted that “EPA should revise the final rule to provide a de minimis exemption for small internal and external combustion sources at underground storage facilities.” Also “AGA request reconsideration of this new exclusion for small combustion sources and revision to include both small internal and external combustion sources * * *” Yes. AGA asserted that “[t]he rule contains conflicting provisions regarding whether emissions from dehydrator units at underground storage facilities should or should not be reported” No. AGA asserted that “EPA did not provide rational explanation for using outdated inaccurate emission factors rather than modern updated emission factors” Yes. AGA asserted that “[d]efinition of `facility' is overbroad and confusing.” The facility definition referred to here is found in 40 CFR 98.238 No. AGA asserted that “It was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to create a subpart W reporting regulation for a null set—LNG storage facilities will not exceed the 25,000 ton per year threshold” No. AGA asserted that “It was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to create a subpart W reporting regulation for LNG import and export facilities—which have only minimal methane leaks” No. Chesapeake Energy/American Exploration and Production Council by Letter Dated January 31, 2011 Measurement of Emissions. CEC/AXPC asserted that “EPA proposed to require costly measurement and reporting of emissions from hundreds of thousands of sources. Commenters asked EPA to adopt a reasonable threshold for measurement, so that emissions could still be accounted for, but in a cost-effective way. Commenters recommended using the API Compendium for that purpose” No. De minimis emissions from portable equipment. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]he final rule likewise fails to adequately support requiring the reporting of de minimis emissions from portable equipment as EPA proposedEPA asserts a truism that all emissions contribute to sector emissions overall” Yes. Designated Representative. CEC/AXPC requested reconsideration of the designated representative provisions in the final rule Yes. Dump Valves. CEC/AXPC asserts that “[t]he requirement to measure and report emissions from dump valves associated with onshore production storage tanks * * * is a new and unreasonable ongoing monitoring and record keeping burden * * *” No. Best Available Monitoring Methods. No. This is being addressed in a separate action (76 FR 37300). Emissions Manifolded to Common Vents. CEC/AXPC asserted that the final provisions for centrifugal compressor monitoring “[n]ot only expands the rule to cover equipment that was not identified in the proposed rule, but it is also inconsistent and creates ambiguity for covered sources regarding what is required” No. Compressor Monitoring. CEC/AXPC asserts that “[t]he final rule imposes a new obligation to monitor and report that would require major piping modifications and that would unduly threaten worker safety” No. Excluding Boosting Stations. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]he final rule fails to distinguish between a boosting station, which is exempt, and an `onshore natural gas transmission compression facility' which must report under the rule” Yes. Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Compression Industry Segment Definition. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[a]s presently drafted, the unclear and inconsistent final provisions render the rule arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.” And “The term `onshore natural gas transmission compression' means a stationary combination of compressors that move natural gas at elevated pressure from production fields or natural gas processing facilities in transmission pipelines or into storage. 40 CFR § 98.230(a)(4). A transmission compressor station can include equipment to separate liquids or dehydrate natural gasId.However, according to the final rule this source category does not include gathering lines and boosting stations” Yes. Onshore Natural Gas Processing Industry Segment Definition. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[a]s presently drafted, the unclear and inconsistent final provisions render the rule arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.” CEC/AXPC further stated concerns with the definition for onshore natural gas processing industry segment definition and where the segment differs from onshore natural gas transmission industry segment, and from gathering lines and boosting stations Yes. Gathering Lines and Boosting Stations. CEC/AXPC asserted that “EPA noted that the `final rule does not require reporting of emissions from [the] gathering and boosting segment of the industry.' Thisis not helpful and gives industry no clarity regarding which compressor stations are required to report” Yes. Mapping Wells to Fields. CEC/AXPC asserted that “EPA has not clarified how reporting entities are supposed to map wells to a particular `field.' ” Also, CEC/AXPC asserted that “[w]ithout sufficient clarity regarding what wells are in a particular field, it is difficult for covered sources to know with certainty what gas composition is considered representative for each well” Yes. Definition of Facility for Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production. CEC/AXPC asserted that the “EPA has not provided a reasoned explanation for why a term other than `facility' cannot be adopted for Subpart w (such as `Reporting Area') in order to avoid unintended confusion and inaccuracies in reporting” No. Pipeline Quality Natural Gas. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]here is not a clear and unambiguous definition in the final rule for `pipeline quality' natural gas” Yes. Producing Horizon/formation definition. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]here is not a clear and unambiguous definition provided in the final rule for the term `producing horizon/formation' ” Yes. Well testing venting and flaring clarification. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]he final rule is unclear regarding the requirement to report emissions from well testing venting and flaring” Yes. Associated Gas Venting and Flaring. CEC/AXPC asserted that “40 CFR 98.233(m) imposes a requirement to report emissions from associated gas venting and flaring not in conjunction with well testing. While this regulation references 40 CFR 98.233(l), that definition is unclear. Therefore industry is left without clarity regarding what emissions are included in `associated gas venting and flaring not in conjunction with well testing' ” No. Pneumatic Devices. CEC/AXPC asserted that “EPA has not given sufficient consideration to the burden imposed by requiring that the bleed rate of each device be determined in order to count and classify the devices” Yes. Blowdown Vent Stacks. CEC/AXPC asserted that “[t]he sources that are required to report emissions from blowdown vent stacks are not clear” Yes. American Petroleum Institute by Letter Dated January 31, 2011. Best Available Monitoring Methods No. This is being addressed in a separate action (76 FR 37300). Exclusion for ‘small’ internal combustion sources is needed. API asserted that “EPA should extend the exclusion for small external combustion sources to small internal combustion sources” Yes. Stuck dump valves to separators/tanks in onshore production operations. API asserted that “[t]he new requirement to report emissions from stuck dump valves requires reporters to check all dump valves on a well site * * * These requirements represent an administrative burden for reports that was not contemplated in the proposed rule” No. Reporting requirements for centrifugal and reciprocating compressor venting at onshore natural gas processing facilities. API requested EPA to reconsider an asserted expansion of reporting requirements for centrifugal and reciprocating compressor venting at onshore natural gas processing facilities No. Requirements for flare stack emission associated with onshore oil and gas production. API asserted that “[e]missions from flare stacks associated with onshore oil and gas production were not included in the Petroleum and Natural Gas production industry segment in the proposed rule * * * the inclusion of emissions from flare stacks associated with onshore oil and gas production is duplicative, burdensome, and a potential source of reporting inaccuracies” Yes. Reporting requirements for all venting and flaring activities in the production source category. API asserts that “EPA's expansion of the reporting obligations in 98.233(m) to include upset or maintenance gas from producing wells imposes additional and extensive burdens on regulated parties which was not included in the proposal” No. Use of gas composition based on available sample analysis for reporters without continuous gas composition analyzer. API asserts that “EPA should resolve the ambiguity created by the current language” Yes. Portable combustion equipment that cannot move on roadways under its own power and drive train that is stationed at a wellhead for less than 30 days in a reporting year. API asserts that “[t]he final rule requires reporters to account for this equipment, despite the fact that it is on site for an extremely short period of time * * * it is unrealistic to expect reporters to measure emissions from every piece of portable combustion equipment that is only onsite for a matter of days” Yes. Separate calculations for subsonic and supersonic flow when both happen during a single completion. API asserted that “[t]he proposed rule did not include a requirement that well completions have separate calculations for subsonic and supersonic flow when both occur during a single completion. The final rule adds this requirement, which is not technically possible” Yes. Flow meter requirements. API asserts that “[t]he final rule adds a requirement at 40 CFR 98.234(b) that all flow meters, composition analyzers and pressure gauges be operated and calibrated according to the procedures in Section 98.3(i) of the MRR * * * API is concerned about the potential unintended consequence following the addition of stationary source combustion equipment at a well pad at new 40 CFR 98.232(C)(22), which required compliance with 40 CFR 98.233(z)(2)(1)” Yes.
Emission factors for continuous high-bleed, continuous low-bleed, and intermittent bleed pneumatic devices. API asserted that “[a]lthough EPA has provided emission factors in Table W-1A that apply to continuous high-bleed, continuous low-bleed, and intermittent bleed pneumatic devices, EPA has not provided guidance on how to classify pneumatic devices according to these three categories” Yes. Definitions to Industry Categories. API asserted that the “[a]ltered final rule creates ambiguity as to whether certain facilities are included in the production category, excluded as gathering or booster stations, or included under the gas processing category” Yes. Number of plunger lifts and average casing diameter in inches. API asserted that “[t]he final rule adds 40 CFR 98.236(c)(5) requirements to report the number of plunger lifts and average casing diameter in inches by field. The difficulty with these additions is not with the requirement for counting plunger lifts and noting casing diameter, but that reporting must take place at the field level” Yes. Floating Production Storage and Offloading Equipment. API asserted that “[t]he proposed rule did not include floating production storage and offloading equipment in the definition of offshore petroleum and natural gas production. API questions the need for this addition at 40 CFR 98.230(a)(1)” No. Basin level reporting for onshore petroleum and natural gas production. API asserted that “[t]his broad definition of onshore production facility is impractical. Subpart W imposes reporting requirements on over 22,000 entities operating hundreds of thousands of wells and millions of pieces of equipment scattered over hundreds of thousands of square miles” Yes. Field level reporting for onshore petroleum and natural gas production. API asserts that “[t]his level of reporting is problematic when applied to new requirements of the final rule. For the same reasons, it remains problematic when applied to those requirements in the proposed rule that remain in the final rule” Yes. Designated Representative of Subpart W Facility. API asserted that “[t]he new basin-level facility definition for onshore petroleum and natural gas production systems adopted in Subpart W adds unreasonable complexity to several of the existing administrative requirements for the designated representative set forth in 40 CFR 98.4” Yes. Reporting of GHG emissions from leased, rented, or contracted activities. API asserts that “[t]hese requirements create significant complications. A single well pad may be owned by one entity, operated by another entity, lease portable equipment from a third entity, and have that portable equipment operated by yet another entity. The rule places the burden of reporting entirely on the owner of the well or the holders of the operating permit and makes the designated representatives legally responsible for the accuracy of the emissions data provided by third parties” Partially. Threshold for “small” size units that are exempt from consideration. API asserts that “[t]he final rule's threshold of 0.4 MMscf per day for dehydrator calculations using software and individual reporting is too low” No. Gas Processors Association by Letter Dates February 11, 2011 Best Available Monitoring Methods. GPA asserted that “[s]ubpart W's best available monitoring method provisions do not provide reporting entities with adequate time to ensure compliance with the final rule” No. This is being addressed in a separate action (76 FR 37300). Compressor venting monitoring requirements. GPA asserted that “[c]urrent compressor venting monitoring requirements are overly burdensome and present significant safety and operational process concerns to reporting entities” No. Use of the terms “gathering lines” and “booster stations” not being defined in final rule. GPA asserted that “[t]he terms `gathering lines' and `booster stations' are not defined in the final rule, nor is sufficient detail provided regarding the definition of `gas processing facility.' ” GPA further asserted that “[a]bsent such definitions and clarifications, there will be substantial confusion as to which facilities are required to report emissions data” Yes. Facility definition for onshore petroleum and natural gas production. GPA asserted “[t]he definition of a facility in Subpart W differs from the definition of a facility provided in all other applicable regulations under the Clean Air Act. This inconsistency will create unnecessary confusion among related programs and is not necessary or justified” No. Southwest Gas Corporation by Letter Dated January 31, 2011 Terms in Subpart W. Southwest Gas Corporation asserted that “[t]he USEPA's final rule fails to provide clear definitions that can be used uniformly throughout the natural gas distribution industry” Yes. Errors in Calculations. Southwest Gas Corporation asserted that the USEPA published errors in equations in 40 CFR 98.233, namely equation W-32 Yes. Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Best Available Monitoring Methods No. This is being addressed in a separate action (76 FR 37300). Technical Provisions in Subpart W. INGAA asserted that “[n]umerous technical elements of Subpart W remain unclear, confusing, overly complicated or conflicting” Partially. INGAA petitioned EPA to reconsider the default gas compositions and requested the use of separate default gas compositions for methane and CO2for vented and fugitive emissions for the natural gas transmission compression and storage segments Yes. INGAA petitioned EPA to reconsider minor clarifications to 40 CFR 98.233(t), (u), and (v) for clarity Yes. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider the provisions in the final rule for determining the type of pneumatic device at a facility. INGAA requested EPA to consider the option of using engineering estimates to determine the type of pneumatic devices Yes. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider the provisions in the rule related to blowdown vent stacks and requested a reconsideration of those provisions Yes. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider the provisions in the rule for emissions from blowdown vent stacks and to include an additional equation to allow facilities who currently track emissions by equipment type to submit emission to EPA in that manner Yes. INGAA requested that EPA to reconsider provisions related to flaring Yes. INGAA requested that EPA reconsider provisions for monitoring emissions from centrifugal and reciprocating compressors and to consider including clarifications to rule text No. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider provisions related to monitoring and QA/QC requirements including provisions for the alternative work practice Yes. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider missing data provisions and broaden access No. INGAA requested EPA to reconsider provisions as stated in 40 CFR 98.236 and requested several clarifications to final text Partially.
The proposed amendments in this action include technical corrections and clarifications to ensure that the 2010 final rule is implemented as intended. Amendments to subparts I and W are also being proposed in other actions. Please see 76 FR 47392 (Herein referred to as the “technical corrections rule”) and 76 FR 37300. This proposal complements these proposed rules and is not intended to duplicate or replace those proposed amendments. In limited cases, an amendment to subpart W was proposed in the technical corrections rule and we are proposing to amend it further in this action. Additional proposed amendments were determined to be necessary to address questions and issues raised by stakeholders since development of the proposal of the technical corrections rule. Where amendments have been made to the same paragraph in this action and in the technical corrections rule, the proposal below provides the complete proposed amendatory language for how EPA proposes to amend the provision. We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically identified in this proposal for the identified subparts. We will not respond to any comments addressing other aspects of part 98 or any other related rulemakings.
EPA promulgated confidentiality determinations for certain data elements required to be reported under part 98 and finalized amendments to the Special Rules Governing Certain Information Obtained Under the CleanAir Act, which authorizes EPA to release or withhold as confidential reported data according to the confidentiality determinations for such data without taking further procedural steps (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011 hereinafter referred to as the “May 26, 2011 Final CBI Rule”). That notice addressed reporting of data elements in 34 subparts that were determined not to be inputs to emission equations and therefore were not proposed to have their reporting deadline deferred. That rule did not make confidentiality determinations for eight subparts, including subpart W, for which reporting requirements were finalized after publication of the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal and July 20, 2010 supplemental CBI proposal.
EPA is planning to address the confidentiality determinations for the data elements in subpart W in a separate action. EPA plans to issue and finalize the confidentiality determinations for subpart W prior to the 2012 reporting deadline.
EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority, specifically authorities provided in section 114 of the CAA.
As stated in the preamble to the 2009 Final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (part 98) (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114 provides EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial proposed rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), section 114(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of control or process equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA. For further information about EPA's legal authority, see the preambles to the proposed and 2009 final part 981.1
174 FR 16448 (April 10, 2009) and 74 FR 56260 (October 30, 2009).
EPA is planning to address the comments on these proposed amendments and publish the final amendments before the end of 2011. Therefore, for subpart W, reporters would be expected to calculate emissions and other relevant data for the reports that are submitted in 2012 using part 98, as amended by this rule, as finalized. We have determined that it is feasible for the sources to implement these changes for the 2011 reporting year since the proposed revisions primarily provide additional clarifications or flexibility regarding the existing regulatory requirements, generally do not affect the type of information that must be collected, and do not substantially affect how emissions are calculated.
For amendments being proposed today to subpart I, EPA is requesting comment on whether to require electronics manufacturing facilities to estimate and report 2011 emissions in 2012 for HTFs that would be newly included in the scope of subpart I if today's proposed rule amendments were finalized.
For facilities subject to the provisions in 40 CFR part 98—subpart W, many proposed revisions simply provide additional information and clarity on existing requirements. For instance, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.1(c)(1) to clarify that for onshore petroleum and natural gas facilities, the references in 40 CFR 98.4 that apply to owner(s) and operator(s) refer to the onshore petroleum and natural gas production owner or operator, as defined in 40 CFR 98.238. Therefore, we are proposing to explicitly make this clarification in 40 CFR 98.1 (Purpose and Scope). The proposed amendment does not change the burden of the 2010 final rule, and in fact, EPA believes that it alleviates concerns expressed by industry that the designated representative provisions are overly burdensome.
Some of the proposed amendments for subpart W provide greater flexibility or simplified calculation methods for certain facilities. For example, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.233(i) to provide an additional option to calculate GHG emissions from blowdown vent stacks. Specifically, we are proposing to allow reporters the option of tracking blowdowns by each occurrence for the same blowdown volume, consistent with current practice at some facilities, whereas in the final rule, reporters were required to track total blowdown vent emissions from all occurrences for the same blowdown volume in a year.
Further, some proposed amendments for subpart W are to the data reporting requirements to provide additional clarity on which GHG emissions have to be reported and at which level of aggregation. For example, in 40 CFR 98.236 EPA is proposing to clarify where “vented” emissions should be reported separately from “flared” emissions and that reporting of CH4, CO2, and N2O emissions should be reported individually for each source type in CO2e. We have concluded that amendments such as these could be implemented for the reports submitted to EPA in 2012 because the proposed changes are, with one exception, consistent with the calculation methodologies already in part 98 and the owners or operators are not required to actually report until March 2012,2 several months after we expect this proposal to be finalized.
2EPA has proposed to extend the 2012 reporting deadline for source categories first required to begin data collection in 2011 from March 31, 2012 to September 28, 2012. Please see the technical corrections rule previously referenced.
The one exception where both the underlying calculation requirements and reporting requirements in subpart W are proposed to be changed is related to the requirements for field level reporting for four emissions sources in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production segment. As described further in Section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing to amend the calculation and reporting requirements for well completions and well workovers, well venting for liquids unloading, and storage tanks to require calculations and reporting to be undertaken at the county level and by geologic formation (by formation type).
EPA believes that the proposed amendments for subpart W can still be implemented for the 2011 reporting year for a couple of reasons. First, these amendments are being proposed based on industry concern about associating wells with a particular “field” given possible ambiguity surrounding EIA field designations. While EPA maintains its belief that reporting by the field is a viable and workable option, however, EPA does acknowledge that counties are readily identifiable, and provide clear geographic boundaries. AS a result, implementation of this alternative method should be straightforward for facilities. Second, if facilities are concerned about their ability to implement these provisions for the 2011 reporting year, they may use best available monitoring methods (BAMM) pursuant to 40 CFR 98.234(f). In the event that facilities have already taken a measurement at the field level, they could still use those same measurements for the 2011 reporting year, but apply them to the sub-basin categories based on BAMM.
Other amendments to subpart W are proposed to address issues identified as a result of working with the affected facilities during rule implementation. These proposed revisions provide additional flexibility to the sources, or reduce the reporting burden. For example, the 2010 final rule required leak detection for emissions from dump valves in transportation storage tanks, and if a leak is detected, measurement of the quantity of emissions would be required. However, industry raised questions as to whether a facility could forgo leak detection and directly measure the emissions from leaking dump valves under the natural gas transmission industry segment. This action provides this additional flexibility, because it reduces burden without compromising the quality of the data reported to EPA.
We are also proposing corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations in subpart W. For example, we are proposing to amend the calculation for estimating CO2emissions from acid gas removal vents in Equation W-4. Although the existing equation is appropriate when the amount of CO2in gas is relatively low, such as 1 percent, the error rate in the estimate increases significantly as the amount of CO2in gas increases. Therefore, EPA is proposing a new equation, which uses the exact same input parameters and thus will not result in any additional burden to reporters, but will improve the quality of the information submitted to EPA. These clarifications do not result in additional requirements; therefore, we have concluded that reporters can follow part 98, as amended, in submitting their first reports to EPA in 2012.
Finally, we are proposing other technical corrections in subpart W that have no impact on a facility's data collection efforts in 2011. For example, we are proposing to correct cross references in equations and change incorrect use of the term “facility” in the definition of the source category.
In summary, these proposed amendments to subpart W generally would not require any additional monitoring or information collection above what is already included in part 98. Therefore, we expect that sources can use the same information that they have been collecting under the current version of part 98 to calculate and report GHG emissions for 2011 and submit reports in 2012 under Part 98, as amended by this action.
We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to implement these amendments and incorporate the requirements in the data reported to EPA by March 31, 2012. Further, we seek comment on whether there are specific provisions in subpart W for which this timeline may not be feasible or appropriate due to the nature of the proposed changes or the way in which data have been collected thus far in 2011. We request that commenters provide specific examples of how the proposed implementation schedule would or would not work.
Following promulgation of the 2010 final subpart I and subpart W, EPA has identified errors in the regulatory language that we are now proposing to correct. These issues were identified as a result of working with affected industries to implement rules. We have also identified certain rule provisions that should be amended to provide greater clarity. For additional background information on the questions raised, please refer to the Technical Support Document for this proposed rulemaking available in the docket to this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0512).
The amendments we are now proposing include the following types of changes:
• Changes to correct cross references within the subparts.
• Additional information to allow reporters to better or more fully understand compliance obligations in a specific provision.
We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically identified in this notice for the identified subparts. We will not respond to any comments addressing other aspects of part 98 or any other related rulemakings.
Designated Representative.Two industry associations raised concerns about the provisions related to determination of the designated representative in the context of how the subpart A definition would affect subpart W reporters. Through a letter dated January 31, 2011, the American Petroleum Institute (API) encouraged EPA to reconsider the implications on owners and operators in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production segment in the context of the provisions in 40 CFR 98.4. Specifically, API was concerned that given the definition of “facility” for onshore petroleum and natural gas production, coupled with the relatively complex ownership structures in the industry (as compared to other subparts covered under part 98), EPA should modify several requirements in 40 CFR 98.4 (authorization and responsibilities of the designated representative). API encouraged EPA to eliminate the requirement of notifying co-owners of the designated representative selection (40 CFR 98.4(i)(4)(iv)), eliminate the requirement for listing of co-owners as part of the certificate of representation (40 CFR 98.4(i)(3), and eliminate the requirement for new certificates of representation following ownership changes (40 CFR 98.4(h)).
Similar concerns were expressed in a letter from Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CEC) and the American Exploration & Production Council (AXPC) dated January 31, 2011. CEC/AXPC was also concerned that the current operational reality in the onshore petroleum and natural gas industry would make it difficult for a designated representative to make the certifications required in 40 CFR 98.4(i)(4). Specifically, CEC/AXPC was concerned about attesting to the fact that the designated representative was selected by an agreement binding on the owners and operators of the facility, that all owners and operators are fully bound by representations of the designated representative, that the owners and operators of the facility would be bound by any order issued to the designated representative by the administrator or a court, and that the designated representative has given written notice of their selection and of the agreement by which the designated was selected by the owner and operator of the facility.
EPA maintains, as described in the October 2009 final rule (74 FR 56357), that the high level of public interest in the data collected under this rule, as well as its importance to future policy, warrants establishment, by rule pursuant to CAA sections 114, 208, and 301(a)(1), of a high standard for data quality and consistency and a high level of accountability for reported data, which will help ensure that the data quality and consistency standard is met. The designated representative is the primary point of contact between the owner or operator and the EPA. Therefore, it is important that EPA knows who the designated representative is, and that the designated representative has made the necessary certification statements.
EPA recognizes that the onshore petroleum and natural gas industry has a different organizational structure and operational realities than other industries subject to part 98. As such, in the 2010 final rule for subpart W (75 FR 74512), EPA specifically defined who is an onshore petroleum and natural gas production owner or operator. Under 40 CFR 98.238, onshore petroleum and natural gas production owner or operator means “the person or entity who holds the permit to operate petroleum and natural gas wells on the drilling permit or an operating permit where no drilling permit is issued, which operates an onshore petroleum and/or natural gas production facility (as described in 40 CFR 98.230(a)(2). Where petroleum and natural gas wells operate without a drilling or operating permit, the person or entity that pays the state or federal business income taxes is considered the owner or operator.” It was EPA's intent that this definition of owner and operator apply not only in subpart W, but also in subpart A for the obligations of Subpart W “owners and operators” (e.g., those related to identifying the designated representative and requirement for who must be included on the Certificate of Representation (COR)).
EPA acknowledges that the final subpart W rule is not clear, and it could be interpreted that all “owners” and all “operators”, as defined in 40 CFR 98.6, are required to identify the designated representative for the facility and be held accountable for all requirements under 40 CFR 98.4. EPA never intended that 4,000 owners and operators,e.g., would have to be listed on the COR, an example provided by API in their Petition for Reconsideration. Rather, EPA intended that for onshore petroleum and natural gas facilities, the references in 40 CFR 98.4 that apply to owner(s) and operator(s) refer to the onshore petroleum and natural gas production operator, as defined in 40 CFR 98.238. Therefore, we are proposing to explicitly make this clarification in 40 CFR 98.1 (Purpose and Scope).
Definitions:We are proposing amendments to the definition of continuous bleed pneumatic device in 40 CFR 98.6 to clarify that continuous bleed devices supply gas to process control devices; these are not necessarily measurement devices, as suggested by the 2010 final rule.
Similarly, we are proposing to amend the definition of an intermittent bleed pneumatic device to clarify that these devices automatically maintain the process conditions and that the devices discharge all or a portion of the full volume of the actuator intermittently.
Incorporation by Reference (IBR). Finally we are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (What standardized methods are incorporated by reference into this part?) to remove paragraph 40 CFR 98.7(q). As elaborated further below, we are proposing to change the calculation and reporting requirements for specific equipment in the onshore petroleum and natural gas production segment from a “field” level, to a sub-basin category. Consistent with this proposed amendment, there is no longer a need to incorporate the Energy Information Administration (EIA) Oil and Gas Field Code Master List, 2008.
B. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing
In this action, EPA is proposing to amend the provisions contained within subpart I to calculate and report emissions from fluorinated GHGs used as HTFs. First, EPA is proposing to amend the definition of HTFs in 40 CFR 98.98, to include all fluorocarbons used as HTFs in the electronics manufacturing industry. The definition of HTFs incorporates the term “fluorinated GHGs” as defined in the general provisions of the greenhouse gas reporting rule (subpart A) at 40 CFR 98.6. The definition of “fluorinated greenhouse gas” in subpart A excludes “substances with vapor pressures of less than 1 mm of Hg absolute at 25 degrees C.” EPA is proposing to specify that the vapor pressure cutoff clause in the subpart A definition of fluorinated GHGs does not apply to fluorinated HTFs in subpart I. As a result, emissions of fluorinated HTFs with vapor pressures of less than 1 mm of Hg absolute at 25 degrees C would no longer be excluded from reporting under subpart I. Second, also in the definition of HTFs, EPA is proposing to add the phrase “but not limited to” before listing examples of fluorinated HTFs to ensure that potential future alternatives are covered. Third, EPA is proposing to remove the last sentence in the definition (“Electronics manufacturers may also use these same fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate surfaces or other parts”) and move the concept of using HTFs to clean substrate surfaces or other parts to the first sentence. Fourth, EPA is proposing minor revisions throughout the subpart I regulatory text to clarify the use of the terms fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs (e.g., referring to fluorinated HTFs rather than fluorinated GHGs used as HTFs). And last, in 40 CFR 98.92(a)(5), under GHGs to report, EPA is proposing to revise the clause “fluorinated GHG emitted from heat transfer use” to read “emissions of fluorinated heat transfer fluids.”
EPA published Subpart I:Electronics Manufacturing of part 98 on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). This subpart requires monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions from electronics manufacturing. Included in the December 1, 2010 final rule are provisions that require electronics manufacturing facilities to calculate and report emissions from the use of fluorinated HTFs. Pursuant to 40 CFR 98.93(h), electronics manufacturing facilities must calculate HTF emissions using a mass balance approach based on: the beginning and end of year inventories; acquisitions and disbursements of HTFs; and the nameplate capacities of newly installed and removed equipment containing HTFs. For purposes of subpart I, HTFs are defined as the following: “fluorinated GHGs used for temperature control, device testing, and soldering in certain types of electronic manufacturing production processes. HTFs used in the electronics sector include perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Electronics manufacturers may also use these same fluorinated chemicals to clean substrate surfaces and other parts” (40 CFR 98.98).
The definition of HTFs in subpart I includes the term “fluorinated greenhouse gases” (fluorinated GHGs), which is defined in subpart A: General Provisions (40 CFR 98.6). EPA initially proposed a definition