[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59533-59541]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24362]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0417; FRL-9469-4]
RIN 2060-AP99


Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural 
Gas Systems: Revisions to Best Available Monitoring Method Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments to certain provisions related to 
the use of best available monitoring methods for the Petroleum and 
Natural Gas Systems source category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Rule. Specifically, EPA is extending the time period during which 
owners and operators of facilities would be permitted to use best 
available monitoring methods in 2011, without submitting a request to 
the Administrator for approval. EPA is also expanding the list of types 
of emissions sources for which owners and operators are not required to 
submit a request to the Administrator to use best available monitoring 
methods during 2011 and extending the deadline by which owners and 
operators of facilities can request use of best available monitoring 
methods for beyond 2011.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0417. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
http://www.regulations.gov index.
    Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly 
available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and is publicly available in hard copy only. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA's 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 information and implementation 
materials, please go to the Web site http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/subpart/w.html. To submit a question, select Rule Help 
Center, followed by ``Contact Us.''
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0417, following the Administrator's signature, an 
electronic copy of this final rule will also be available through the 
WWW on EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Web site at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The Administrator 
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air 
Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions 
of section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator 
may determine''). This final rule affects owners or operators of 
petroleum and natural gas systems. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of 
facilities of which EPA is aware could be potentially affected by the 
reporting requirements. 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 W or the relevant criteria in the 
sections related to petroleum and natural gas systems. If you have 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    What is the effective date? The final rule is effective on 
September 30, 2011. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act 
(APA), 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take 
effect earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal 
Register. EPA is issuing this final rule under section CAA 307(d)(1), 
which states: ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of 
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply 
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of 
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting 
consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making 
this rule effective on September 30, 2011. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) 
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as 
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published 
with the rule.'' As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause 
for this rule to become effective on or before September 30, 2011, even 
though this will result in an effective date fewer than 30 days from 
the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their 
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. That purpose, 
to provide affected parties a reasonable time to adjust to the rule

[[Page 59534]]

before it comes into effect, is not necessary in this case, as this 
final rule avoids the need for affected parties to take action.
    Currently, according to the provisions in 76 FR 22825 (April 25, 
2011), owners and operators subject to 40 CFR part 98 may take 
advantage of automatic use of best available monitoring methods (BAMM) 
for parameters that cannot reasonably be measured according to the 
monitoring requirements in the rule through September 30, 2011. After 
September 30, 2011, owners and operators must follow all monitoring and 
quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures in the rule 
unless the Administrator has approved using BAMM beyond that date. 
Finalizing this rule by September 30, 2011 enables owners and operators 
to automatically use BAMM through the end of 2011, without the need to 
request approval from the Administrator. If EPA were not to finalize 
this rule by September 30, 2011, owners and operators would have to 
comply with all monitoring and QA/QC requirements as of October 1, 
2011, which is the precise situation that this final rule is trying to 
avoid. Accordingly, EPA finds good cause exists to make this rule 
effective on September 30, 2011, consistent with the purposes of 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of 
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the 
Court) by November 28, 2011. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an 
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA also provides a 
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f 
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to 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, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a 
copy to the person 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), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the 
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

    The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

BAMM best available monitoring methods.
CAA Clean Air Act.
CBI confidential business information.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations.
EO Executive Order.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FR Federal Register.
GHG greenhouse gas.
ICR Information Collection Request.
ISO International Organization for Standardization.
INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA).
OMB Office of Management and Budget.
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act.
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis.
SBA Small Business Administration.
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement and Fairness Act.
U.S. United States.
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
USC United States Code.
WWW World Wide Web.

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of This Preamble
    B. Background on the Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
II. Use of BAMM Under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Source 
Category
    A. Summary of BAMM Provisions Under the Petroleum and Natural 
Gas Systems Source Category
    B. Summary of Major Changes and Clarifications Since Proposal
    C. Summary of Comments and Responses
III. Economic Impacts of the Rule
IV. 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
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    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
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble consists of four sections. The first section provides 
a brief history of 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (``subpart W'').
    The second section of this preamble summarizes the revisions made 
to specific requirements for subpart W being incorporated into 40 CFR 
part 98 by this action. It also describes the major changes made to 
this source category since proposal and provides a brief summary of 
significant public comments and EPA's responses. Additional responses 
to significant comments can be located in the document ``Mandatory 
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems, 
Revisions to Best Available Monitoring Methods: EPA's Response to 
Public Comments''.
    The third section of this preamble provides a statement regarding 
the economic impacts of the final rule.
    Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and 
executive order requirements applicable to this rulemaking.

B. Background on the Final Rule

    This action finalizes amendments to best available monitoring 
method (BAMM) provisions in 40 CFR part 98, subpart W. EPA published 
Subpart W--Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems of the Greenhouse Gas 
Reporting Rule on November 30, 2010, 40 CFR part 98, subpart W (75 FR 
74458). Included in the final rule were new provisions that were added 
in response to comments on the proposal (75 FR 18608, April 12, 2010) 
allowing owners and operators the option of using BAMM for specified 
parameters in 40 CFR 98.233.
Calculating GHG emissions
    Following the publication of subpart W in the Federal Register, 
several industry groups sought reconsideration of several provisions in 
the final rule, including the provisions allowing BAMM. In a follow up 
action, EPA granted reconsideration and extended specific BAMM 
deadlines for 90 days in a rule that was signed on April 20, 2011 (76 
FR 22825).
    EPA then published a notice of proposed rulemaking to propose 
extending the time period for which owners and operators of facilities 
could use BAMM during 2011 without submitting a request to the

[[Page 59535]]

Administrator for approval, as well as broadening the emissions sources 
for which BAMM could be used. EPA also proposed extending the deadline 
for requesting BAMM for beyond 2011. The proposal was published on June 
27, 2011 (76 FR 37300). The public comment period for the proposed rule 
amendments ended on July 27, 2011. EPA did not receive any requests to 
hold a public hearing.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is promulgating these rule amendments under its existing CAA 
authority, specifically authorities provided in CAA section 114.
    As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final rule (74 FR 56260, 
October 30, 2009), CAA section 114 provides EPA broad authority to 
require the information mandated by Part 98 because such data would 
inform and are relevant to EPA's obligation to carry out a wide variety 
of CAA provisions. As discussed in the preamble to the initial proposal 
(74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the 
Administrator to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, 
manufacturers of process or control equipment, and 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 final rule, and Response to Comments Documents.

II. Use of BAMM Under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems Source 
Category

A. Summary of BAMM Provisions Under the Petroleum and Natural Gas 
Systems Source Category

    Subpart W of 40 CFR part 98 includes provisions allowing owners and 
operators of facilities to use BAMM in lieu of specified data input 
requirements for determining GHG emissions in certain circumstances for 
specified emissions sources. Methods that constitute BAMM are: supplier 
data; monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not 
meet the specifications of a relevant subpart; engineering 
calculations; and/or other company records. When using BAMM, the owner 
or operator must use the equations and calculation methods set forth in 
40 CFR 98.233, but may use BAMM to estimate the parameters in the 
equations as specified in the rule. Any obligation to report under 30 
CFR 250.302 through 304 as applicable by owners or operators of 
facilities reporting under the offshore petroleum and natural gas 
production industry segment of subpart W is not affected if such owners 
or operators choose to use BAMM.
    Well-related emissions (40 CFR 98.234(f)(2)). This group of 
emissions sources includes those well-related data that cannot 
reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC 
requirements of subpart W, such as well testing, venting, and flaring. 
Sources that fall in this category may automatically use BAMM for 
calendar year 2011 without requesting approval from the Administrator.
    Specified activity data (40 CFR 98.234(f)(3)). This group includes 
those activity data that cannot reasonably be obtained according to the 
monitoring and QA/QC requirements specified in subpart W, such as 
cumulative hours of venting, days, or times of operation. Sources that 
fall in this category may automatically use BAMM for calendar year 2011 
without requesting approval from the Administrator.
    Leak Detection and Measurement (40 CFR 98.234(f)(4)). This group 
includes those emissions sources that require leak detection and/or 
measurement such as the measurement of equipment leaks from valves and 
connectors that cannot reasonably be obtained. Sources that fall in 
this category may automatically use BAMM for calendar year 2011 without 
requesting approval from the Administrator.
    Additional Sources under 40 CFR 98.234(f)(5)(iv). This category is 
applicable to emission sources not covered under the previous three 
categories and includes instances in which the facility owner or 
operator is facing unique or unusual circumstances, such as data 
collection methods that do not meet safety regulations, technical 
infeasibility such as a compressor that would not normally be shut down 
for maintenance during that calendar year rendering the installation of 
a port or meter difficult, or requirements that are counter to specific 
laws or regulations that render owners or operators of the facility 
unable to meet the requirements of subpart W. These examples are 
illustrative only; there could be additional circumstances which are 
unique or unusual under which the source could legitimately use BAMM. 
Sources that fall in this category may automatically use BAMM for 
calendar year 2011 without requesting approval from the Administrator.
    Best available monitoring methods for use beyond December 31, 2011 
for sources in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5)(iv). 
Owners and operators of emission sources covered in 40 CFR 
98.234(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5)(iv) may submit a notice of 
intent to EPA by December 31, 2011 indicating an intent to request BAMM 
for beyond 2011. Owners and operators who submit a BAMM request 
consistent with 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8)(ii) by March 30, 2012 who have also 
submitted a notice of intent by December 31, 2011 will automatically be 
granted BAMM through June 30, 2012, during which time EPA will review 
the BAMM request. If the BAMM request is for use of BAMM beyond June 
30, 2012 and is approved by the Administrator, owners and operators 
would be allowed to use BAMM for the time period indicated in the EPA 
approval letter, but not beyond December 31, 2012 without submitting 
and obtaining the Administrator's approval of a subsequent request for 
additional time.
    Owners and operators who submit such a notice of intent but do not 
follow up with a BAMM request by March 30, 2012 are not allowed to use 
BAMM for 2012. They will have been expected to follow all monitoring 
and QA/QC requirements in the rule as of January 1, 2012. Although EPA 
expects that it will be unlikely to be necessary, these owners and 
operators could still request BAMM for 2013 and beyond according to the 
procedures outlined in this preamble and rule.
    To use BAMM beyond December 31, 2012 (or such other shorter period 
as provided in an approval letter), or any year thereafter, owners and 
operators must submit a new request to use BAMM by September 30th of 
the preceding year or such other time as indicated by an approval 
letter. The request will be reviewed according to the criteria outlined 
in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8), and if the information provided is to the 
Administrator's satisfaction, approved.

B. Summary of Major Changes and Clarifications Since Proposal

    The major changes and clarifications in 40 CFR 98.234(f) since the 
June 2011 proposal are identified in the following list. For a full 
description of the rationale for these and any other significant 
changes to 40 CFR 98.234(f) of subpart W, please see below, as well as 
the ``Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Petroleum and Natural 
Gas Systems, Revisions to Best Available Monitoring Method Provisions: 
EPA's Response to Public Comments''. The changes are organized 
following the different sections of the subpart W regulatory text.

[[Page 59536]]

1. Emission Sources Covered by Best Available Monitoring Method 
Provisions
     EPA clarified the sources covered by BAMM for Leak 
Detection and Measurement in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(4) by including the 
statement that emission sources that can use BAMM are those for which 
leak detection/or measurement cannot reasonably be obtained.
     EPA clarified availability of BAMM for sources not listed 
in paragraph 40 CFR 92.234 (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) by including the 
statement in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(5)(iv) that such emission sources are 
those for which data cannot reasonably be obtained.
2. Best Available Monitoring Methods Beyond 2011 for Sources Listed in 
40 CFR 98.234(f)(2), (f)(3), (f)(4), and (f)(5)(iv)
     EPA revised the provisions for the use of BAMM beyond 2011 
by stating that EPA will approve BAMM for use for a maximum of one 
year. For subsequent years, owners and operators must again request to 
use BAMM.
     EPA clarified provisions for the use of BAMM beyond 2011 
by replacing the term ``facilities'' with ``owners and operators''.
     EPA clarified that the BAMM request must include a 
description of the associated unique or unusual circumstances (rather 
than extreme) for each emissions source for which the request has been 
submitted.
     EPA revised the approval criteria for the use of BAMM 
beyond December 31, 2011 to clarify that BAMM requests must clearly 
demonstrate why BAMM is needed, and must also include justifications 
for why the owner or operator cannot conform to requirements in subpart 
W.
3. Handling Best Available Monitoring Method Late Submissions Requests
     EPA revised the language in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(1) to clarify 
that owners and operators who submit a BAMM request after the deadlines 
finalized in this action must demonstrate unique or unusual 
circumstances unforeseen at the time of the associated BAMM deadline 
specified in the rule.

C. Summary of Comments and Responses

    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and 
responses. EPA received seven sets of comments in response to the 
proposed revisions to the BAMM provisions. EPA's responses to 
additional comments can be found in the comment response document, 
``Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases--Petroleum and Natural Gas 
Systems, Revisions to Best Available Monitoring Method Provisions: 
EPA's Response to Public Comment''.
1. Emission Sources Covered by BAMM
    Comment: EPA received mixed comments on the expansion of the 
automatic BAMM coverage beyond the sources listed in 40 CFR 
98.234(f)(2) and (f)(3), to sources listed in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(4) (Leak 
Detection and Measurement), as well as other sources under 40 CFR 
98.234(f)(5)(iv). Most commenters supported the expansion, stating that 
the extension of automatic use of BAMM to sources for which leak 
detection and measurement are required as well as other sources subject 
to subpart W for 2011 would provide reporting entities time to fully 
implement the requirements of subpart W. A few commenters argued 
against expanding the use of automatic BAMM to all subpart W emissions 
sources in 2011 by stating that the extension was not appropriate for 
leak detection, because accurate information on leaking equipment lies 
at the core of subpart W and allowing BAMM for these measurements would 
undermine the utility of these data and obscure opportunities for 
facilities to both reduce emissions and save money. Further, commenters 
noted that the extension was not warranted because EPA did not provide 
a sufficient technical basis for such an extension.
    Response: In this action, EPA is extending the automatic use of 
BAMM to the emission sources covered in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(2) through (4) 
and those covered in 98.234(f)(5)(iv) based on EPA's determination that 
this extension would assist reporters in the necessary preparations to 
come into full compliance with the rule. In a previous action (76 FR 
22825, April 25, 2011), EPA amended the dates by which requests to use 
BAMM were to be submitted to the Agency. Based on the dates in that 
action, BAMM requests were to be submitted to the agency by July 31, 
2011 for use of BAMM in calendar year 2011. To date, EPA has received 
over 200 submissions from owners and operators of facilities either 
notifying EPA of the intent to submit a BAMM request or providing EPA 
with the full BAMM request. Most of these 200 submissions contain 
information for more than one facility subject to the rule. In some 
cases, for example, a single submission of a notice of intent received 
by EPA covered over 75 facilities. All together, the submissions 
reflected either notifications of intent (NOIs) or requests for BAMM 
from over 1,900 facilities. This is over half of the 2,800 facilities 
that EPA originally expected to report under subpart W. The sheer 
number of requests received indicates that there is a significant need 
for BAMM for the 2011 reporting year.
    Regarding commenters concern that there was no technical basis to 
allow use of BAMM for sources beyond 40 CFR 98(f)(2), (f)(3) and 
(f)(4), a memo to the docket entitled ``Supplemental Data Submitted on 
BAMM'' demonstrates by specific examples justification for the 
extension to additional emissions sources, at least for the 2011 
reporting year.
    Commenters also were concerned that by allowing the use of BAMM, 
EPA would ``undermine the utility of these data and obscure 
opportunities for facilities to both reduce emissions and save money.'' 
EPA recognizes that use of BAMM could result in some inconsistencies in 
how owners and operators calculate emissions for a specific facility. 
However, regulations for facility level monitoring for the petroleum 
and natural gas industry are a new and significant undertaking and will 
greatly improve the emissions estimates for this industry. For 
instance, although they are required to follow the calculation 
equations in the rule, owners and operators will have some flexibility 
in how they estimate the inputs to those equations. Nevertheless, 
although the input parameters are calculated using BAMM, the data 
obtained would be a significant improvement over current emissions 
estimation methods.
    For example, current source-level emissions estimates for the 
petroleum and natural gas industry are primarily available through the 
Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions. Although the national level GHG 
Inventory and the GHG Reporting Program are very different and the 
programs have different goals and different levels of coverage of 
industry emissions, an understanding of the quality and availability of 
source-specific data in the national GHG inventory is germane to the 
comments raised. The national GHG Inventory provides national level 
estimates and does not provide the level of granularity that will be 
available from the facility level GHG reports which will be available 
under the GHG Reporting Program. So, although facilities will be able 
to use BAMM, reporting facility-level data provides significant 
additional information on emissions in the industry above and beyond 
what is currently available.
    Second, the methods used to estimate facility-level emissions are 
an improvement over the national-level methods. In the national GHG

[[Page 59537]]

Inventory, EPA relies on predominantly national level statistics and 
default emissions factors from a 1996 study titled ``Methane Emissions 
from the Natural Gas Industry'' \1\. For example, in the national GHG 
Inventory, emissions from tanks are estimated using an emission factor 
per barrel of crude oil/condensate produced multiplied by the national 
volumes of crude oil/condensate produced. This emission factor was 
developed using outputs from 101 simulation runs of the API Tank model 
for certain types of crude/condensate input and separator pressure. 
However, this is not representative of the variation in crude oil/
condensate qualities and separator pressure at oil and gas operations 
across the nation. Hence, although facilities may be able to use BAMM 
to estimate emissions from tanks, the emissions estimates reported 
using BAMM will nonetheless be an improvement over existing methods by 
providing additional information on the varying characteristics of oil 
and gas operations across the country, which is not available through 
the national inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA/GRI (1996) Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas 
Industry. Prepared by Harrison, M., T. Shires, J. Wessels, and R. 
Cowgill, eds., Radian International LLC for National Risk Management 
Research Laboratory, Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division, 
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-600/R-96-080a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA has concluded that granting automatic use of BAMM 
without approval for 2011 will still provide EPA with improved data 
from the industry, while providing owners and operators sufficient time 
to perform the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with subpart 
W.
2. Use of BAMM Beyond 2011
    Comment: Several commenters argued against EPA's proposal to extend 
the deadline for requesting use of BAMM beyond December 31, 2011 
stating that the proposed provisions would greatly undermine the data 
reported under subpart W. Further, commenters stated that the reporting 
community did not push for this revision and it is therefore 
unwarranted.
    Response: In this action, EPA is finalizing, as proposed, the two-
phase approach that results in an initial six-month extension of the 
date for requesting BAMM for 2012. The two-phase approach is similar to 
the process used under 40 CFR part 98 for subparts P, X, and Y. As 
indicated at proposal, this automatic extension would be necessary 
because under the rule, facilities are only granted automatic BAMM 
through December 31, 2011. For facilities that are requesting BAMM for 
beyond 2011, BAMM must be extended automatically to provide EPA the 
time to review thoroughly the BAMM requests submitted for a period 
beyond 2011, while ensuring that the requesting facilities are not out 
of compliance with the rule during that review process.
    First and foremost, EPA notes that the 2010 final rule for subpart 
W allows requests for BAMM beyond 2011. 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8) provides 
for BAMM post-2011 if those requests were submitted by September 30, 
2011. The extension of the deadline for BAMM beyond 2011 was necessary 
for the same reasons that extension of automatic BAMM was necessary for 
2011; the substantial number of owners and operators requesting BAMM 
would require significant resources by reporters that EPA has concluded 
would be better applied to concentration on coming into compliance with 
the rule.
    In addition, it is not accurate to say that industry did not 
request use of BAMM past 2011. For example, in its Petition for 
Reconsideration, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America 
(INGAA) stated, ``[t]here is no reasonable basis for * * * denying BAMM 
to a facility already subject to reporting, that confronts an 
unpredictable facility or operational issue (e.g., low utilization) 
that precludes measurement, just because these events occur after 
September 30, 2011. These and other situations should be eligible for 
BAMM, and INGAA seeks reconsideration so EPA can offer BAMM to these 
otherwise stranded facilities and unaddressed future events.'' 
Similarly, in its petition for reconsideration, the American Petroleum 
Institute (API) indicated that EPA should remove the September 30, 2011 
deadline for requesting BAMM post-2011, relaying that BAMM should be 
considered for such time as there is a reasonable need for use of BAMM. 
Chesapeake Energy Corporation and the American Exploration and 
Production Council echoed similar needs to have BAMM beyond 2011 (and 
2012). They indicated in their comments on this proposed rule that 
``EPA should anticipate that there may be some situations that are 
beyond companies' control, which would require additional BAMM beyond 
June 2012. For example, if there is insufficient supply of necessary 
monitoring equipment or if there are unexpected equipment manufacturing 
delays that prevent a company from installing that necessary monitoring 
equipment until late 2012, EPA should allow that company to use BAMM 
until the equipment can be delivered and installed.''
    EPA has concluded that an initial six month extension of the 
September 30, 2011 deadline is necessary. Further, commenters did not 
provide any specific examples of how such an extension could undermine 
data quality. In fact, EPA has concluded that the additional six months 
will provide owners and operators additional time to visit their 
facilities and determine whether or not they actually need BAMM. EPA 
does not believe that all of the 1,900 plus facilities that have 
currently requested BAMM or filed notices of intent to apply for BAMM 
actually need BAMM, but rather they have submitted a request (or notice 
of intent) because they have not had sufficient time to fully evaluate 
their BAMM needs. A six-month extension of the deadline provides 
sufficient time for facilities to fully evaluate their needs and only 
submit genuine BAMM requests based on that need. Therefore, EPA has 
determined that this extension of the deadline for BAMM beyond 2011 is 
appropriate and will only approve BAMM requests that fulfill the 
requirements outlined in the content of request section of 40 CFR 
98.234(f)(8).
    Comment: Some commenters argued against the removal of the term 
``extreme'' from 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8) and replacing it with ``unique or 
unusual,'' as was proposed, stating that this change would result in a 
wide expansion of the number of facilities that would request use of 
BAMM that were unwarranted. In contrast, several commenters argued 
against the inclusion of the terms ``unique or unusual'' and requested 
that EPA remove the terms from 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8) altogether. One 
commenter suggested replacing terms like ``extreme'' and ``unique'' 
with ``good cause'' because the complexity of the rule and the breadth 
of its application justify broader discretion in allowing BAMM than 
this text would appear to provide.
    Response: EPA carefully evaluated the introductory text in 40 CFR 
98.234(f)(8) and in this action has removed the term ``extreme,'' as 
proposed, in order to more fully clarify its intent of the types of 
circumstances for which BAMM could be used beyond 2011. EPA intended 
that use of BAMM post 2011 should only be allowed in limited and 
exceptional circumstances. As described in the 2010 final preamble, 
inasmuch as approximately fourteen months will have passed between 
signature of the final rule and January 1, 2012 (75 FR 74471, November 
30, 2010). However the examples provided, ``safety, a requirement being 
technically infeasible, or counter to other local,

[[Page 59538]]

State or Federal regulations'' are not ``extreme'' circumstances. 
Rather, we would consider BAMM for circumstances that were unexpected 
by EPA at the time of drafting the final rule, but which might not 
necessarily be ``extreme'' in practice. The Miriam Webster dictionary 
defines ``extreme'' as exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected. 
Synonyms for extreme are ``remotest'', ``ultimate'', ``outermost.'' 
According to the Miriam Webster dictionary, the term ``unique'' can 
refer to distinctively characteristic, with synonyms such as 
individual, particular, and personalized. Unusual refers to 
circumstances that are ``rare'' or ``uncommon.'' The point of post-2011 
BAMM was to target circumstances that are unique or unusual and 
something less than extreme.
    EPA disagrees with the commenters who argued that we should remove 
the terms ``unique or unusual''. EPA believes that the use of BAMM 
beyond December 31, 2011 should be limited to only unique or unusual 
circumstances because, as described above, by this time facilities will 
have had adequate time to take the necessary steps to bring their 
facilities into compliance with the rule, save for the few site-
specific circumstances that are truly unique or unusual.
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA should only allow the use of 
BAMM beyond 2011 in one-year increments. The commenter was concerned 
that the proposed amendments relaxed the BAMM provisions and that if 
EPA were to amend the timelines for beyond 2011 BAMM, EPA should only 
permit alternative methods where facilities experience real, exigent 
circumstances. To this extent, they recommended that approval for BAMM 
be expressly time-limited.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that use of BAMM beyond 
December 31, 2011 should be for a limited period of time. As described 
above, EPA intends to approve the use of BAMM beyond 2011 only in cases 
that are unique or unusual. EPA agrees with the comments expressed by 
the commenter; a time limit for approving each BAMM ensures that the 
``unique or unusual'' criteria continue to be met in subsequent years. 
Limiting approval to one year is consistent with the original purpose 
of BAMM, which was to provide a reasonable period of time during the 
period after subpart W came into effect to allow facilities to 
reasonably come into compliance with the rule. It is also important to 
be aware that EPA always had the right within the 2010 final rule to 
approve BAMM for only one year.
    At the same time, the time limitation on BAMM approvals adds 
minimal burden for facilities requesting BAMM. If a facility already 
has received an approval for a BAMM request post-2011, then that the 
facility successfully demonstrated ``unique or unusual'' circumstances. 
If those same circumstances do not change, for example, the monitoring 
requirements in subpart W continue to lead to safety concerns for 
facility operators, the facility can reasonably expect that their 
future submissions would also be approved. It is also possible that EPA 
could learn from the BAMM requests received that a particular rule 
provision results in safety concerns for multiple facilities. In these 
circumstances, EPA may choose to provide an additional method(s) to 
estimate emissions from that emissions source in order to avoid the 
safety issues. Any additional methods would only be finalized after 
notice and comment. Approving BAMM for a limited time provides 
sufficient certainty for owners and operators, while ensuring that only 
those BAMM requests that reflect unique or unusual circumstances are 
approved.
3. Use of BAMM for Special Circumstances
    Comment: Several commenters requested that EPA include a provision 
by which owners and operators who acquire new operations would be given 
automatic approval to use BAMM for a specified period of time after 
acquiring the new operations.
    Response: EPA generally agrees that some facilities that acquire 
new operations may, for a limited period of time, need to use BAMM in 
order to fully comply with the rule. However, EPA does not agree that 
this would apply to all facilities that acquire new operations. Thus, 
there are no specific provisions in this action that would allow for 
owners or operators of facilities acquiring new operations to 
automatically be approved to use BAMM. EPA has concluded that the 
provisions outlined in the 2010 final rule, as amended by this action, 
allow facilities sufficient flexibility to be apply for the use of BAMM 
should the need arise.
    For example, in some cases, if a facility acquires new operations 
that were already subject to subpart W, there would be no need to allow 
for use of BAMM for any period of time as a result of that acquisition. 
All operations would have been subject to subpart W from the beginning 
of the calendar year.
    If a facility acquires new operations that were not previously 
subject to the GHG Reporting Program, there are options within the 2010 
final rule that facilities may use to meet the requirements of the 
rule. In some cases, the facility will be able to estimate emissions 
per the calculation equations in the rule, and therefore no other 
provisions are required. If the facility cannot estimate emissions, the 
missing data procedures in 40 CFR 98.235 might be applicable. This 
approach would be reasonable because the data from the acquired 
operations could be considered missing, in that they had not been 
retained by the plant not subject to the rule in the beginning of the 
year. In this case, if the calculations can be undertaken in the 
current reporting year, or in the following year, but before the March 
31st deadline, then missing data procedures might be used. Finally, if 
none of these existing rule options are viable, facilities can request 
BAMM under 40 CFR 98.234(f)(1). Such an example could be ``unique or 
unusual'' and therefore meet the requirements of 40 CFR 98.234(f)(1).
    Comment: Two commenters requested that EPA amend the approval 
criteria for BAMM beyond 2011 to allow the use of BAMM until the next 
scheduled shutdown for circumstances where compliance would require 
shutdown of facilities or units that operate continuously.
    Response: EPA agrees that the final rule did not intend for owners 
and operators to have to shut down facilities in order to install the 
necessary equipment and we have clarified in this action that the need 
to shutdown to install necessary equipment would be a valid reason for 
BAMM. As described in the preamble to the 2010 final rule, ``[i]f a 
reporter requests an extension because equipment cannot be installed 
without a process unit shutdown, EPA is likely to approve such a 
request if the documentation clearly demonstrates why it is not 
feasible to install the equipment without a process unit shutdown * * 
*'' EPA also noted that ``[t]here are many locations where monitors can 
be installed without a process unit shutdown, because there is often 
some redundancy in process or combustion equipment or in the piping 
that conveys fuels, raw materials and products. For example, many 
facilities have multiple combustion units and fuel feed lines such that 
when one combustion unit is not operating they can obtain the needed 
steam, heat, or emissions destruction by using other combustion 
devices. Some facilities have multiple process lines that can operate 
independently, so one line can

[[Page 59539]]

be temporarily shut down to install monitors while the facility 
continues to make the same product in other process lines to maintain 
production goals. If a monitor needs to be installed in a section of 
piping or ductwork, it can be possible in some cases to isolate a line 
without shutting down the process unit (depending on the process 
configuration, mode of operation, storage capacity, etc.). If the line 
or equipment location where a monitor needs to be installed can be 
temporarily isolated and the monitor can be installed without a full 
process unit shutdown, it is less likely EPA will approve an extension 
request.'' So, if owners and operators can sufficiently demonstrate 
that installation of required equipment would require a shutdown, that 
could also be a valid reason for BAMM post 2011.

III. Economic Impacts of the Rule

    Under this provision, owners and operators are not required to use 
BAMM. Rather, this provision provides an alternative means of 
compliance in lieu of providing specified data input requirements for 
determining GHG emissions. Consequently, this provision is not expected 
to have a significant effect on the economy and an economic impact 
analysis is not required.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden. 
These amendments affect provisions in the rule related to BAMM. The 
final amendments reduce the administrative burden on industry by 
extending the time period by which owners and operators of facilities 
subject to subpart W may use BAMM without having to submit an 
application to EPA for approval to use BAMM in 2011. The Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information 
collection requirements contained in the existing regulations, 40 CFR 
part 98 subpart W (75 FR 74458, November 30, 2010), under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0651. The OMB control numbers for 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of 
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, 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, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    As part of the process for finalization of the subpart W rule (75 
FR 74458), EPA undertook specific steps to evaluate the effect of that 
final rule on small entities. Under that final rule for subpart W (75 
FR 74458) EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing compliance 
costs to onshore petroleum and natural gas industry specific receipts 
data for establishments owned by small businesses. The results of that 
screening analysis, as detailed in the preamble to the final rule for 
subpart W (75 FR 74482), demonstrated that the cost-to-sales ratios 
were less than one percent for establishments owned by small businesses 
that EPA considered most likely to be covered by the reporting program. 
The results of that analysis can be found in the preamble to the final 
rule (75 FR 74485).
    Based on this final action, owners and operators of certain 
facilities for which BAMM requests have been made according to the 
requirements in 40 CFR 98.234(f), are granted additional time to use 
BAMM during 2011 without being required to submit an application for 
approval to the Administrator. In addition, the final amendments in 
this action broaden the types of emission sources that owners and 
operators of affected facilities may use BAMM without being required to 
submit an application for approval from the Administrator. Finally, 
based on the amendments in this action, owners and operators who 
request use of BAMM for 2012 and beyond are granted additional time by 
which they would be required to submit their application to the 
Administrator for approval. We have therefore concluded that this 
action will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 
U.S.C. 1531-1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise 
prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on 
State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Federal 
agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small 
governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any 
regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small 
governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The final rule amendments do not contain a Federal mandate that may 
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one 
year. Thus, the final rule amendments are not subject to the 
requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is also not 
subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains 
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments.

[[Page 59540]]

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as 
specified in Executive Order 13132.
    These amendments apply to an optional provision in the final rule 
for subpart W, which applies to petroleum and natural gas facilities 
that emit greenhouse gases. Few, if any, State or local government 
facilities would be affected. This regulation also does not limit the 
power of States or localities to collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 
emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The fine rule 
amendments in this action do not result in any changes to the current 
requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart W. The amendments proposed in 
this rule only apply to optional provisions in 40 CFR part 98 subpart 
W. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action, EPA 
sought opportunities to provide information to Tribal governments and 
representatives during the development of the rule for subpart W 
promulgated on November 30, 2010. A summary of the EPA's consultations 
with Tribal officials is provided in Sections VIII.D and VIII.F of the 
preamble to the 2009 final rule and Section IV.F of the preamble to the 
2010 final rule for subpart W (75 FR 74485).

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of 
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not 
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or 
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to 
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA 
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not 
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the 
environment because it is a rule addressing information collection and 
reporting procedures.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the U.S. A major 
rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the 
Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on September 30, 2011.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Greenhouse gases, Air pollution control, Monitoring, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 16, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 
CFR part 98 as follows:

PART 98 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart W [Amended]

0
2. Section 98.234 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text.
0
b. By revising paragraph (f)(2) introductory text.
0
c. By revising paragraph (f)(3) introductory text.
0
d. By revising paragraph (f)(4) introductory text.
0
e. By revising paragraph (f)(5).
0
f. By removing and reserving paragraph (f)(6).
0
g. By removing and reserving paragraph (f)(7).
0
h. By revising paragraph (f)(8).


Sec.  98.234  Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) Best available monitoring methods. EPA will allow owners or 
operators to use best available monitoring methods for parameters in 
Sec.  98.233 Calculating GHG Emissions as specified in paragraphs 
(f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this section. If the reporter anticipates 
the potential need for best available monitoring for sources for

[[Page 59541]]

which they need to petition EPA and the situation is unresolved at the 
time of the deadline, reporters should submit written notice of this 
potential situation to EPA by the specified deadline for requests to be 
considered. EPA reserves the right to review best available monitoring 
method requests submitted after the deadlines specified in this 
section, and will consider requests which demonstrate unique or unusual 
circumstances unforeseen at the time of the applicable best available 
monitoring method deadline. The Administrator reserves the right to 
request further information in regard to all petition requests. The 
owner or operator must use the calculation methodologies and equations 
in Sec.  98.233 Calculating GHG Emissions. Best available monitoring 
methods means any of the following methods specified in paragraph 
(f)(1) of this section:
* * * * *
    (2) Best available monitoring methods for well-related emissions. 
During January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, owners and operators 
may use best available monitoring methods for any well-related data 
that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/
QC requirements of this subpart. These well-related sources are:
* * * * *
    (3) Best available monitoring methods for specified activity data. 
During January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, owners or operators 
may use best available monitoring methods for activity data as listed 
below that cannot reasonably be obtained according to the monitoring 
and QA/QC requirements of this subpart. These sources are:
* * * * *
    (4) Best available monitoring methods for leak detection and 
measurement. During January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2011, owners 
or operators may use best available monitoring methods for sources 
requiring leak detection and/or measurement that cannot reasonably be 
obtained according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of this 
part. These sources include:
* * * * *
    (5) Requests for the use of best available monitoring methods.
    (i) No request or approval by the Administrator is necessary to use 
best available monitoring methods between January 1, 2011 and December 
31, 2011 for the sources specified in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
    (ii) No request or approval by the Administrator is necessary to 
use best available monitoring methods between January 1, 2011 and 
December 31, 2011 for sources specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this 
section.
    (iii) No request or approval by the Administrator is necessary to 
use best available monitoring methods between January 1, 2011 and 
December 31, 2011 for sources specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this 
section.
    (iv) No request or approval by the Administrator is necessary to 
use best available monitoring methods for data that cannot reasonably 
be obtained between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011 for sources 
not listed in paragraph (f)(2), (f)(3), and (f)(4) of this section.
    (6) [Reserved]
    (7) [Reserved]
    (8) Requests for extension of the use of best available monitoring 
methods beyond 2011 for sources listed in paragraphs (f)(2), (f)(3), 
(f)(4), and (f)(5)(iv) of this section.
    (i) Timing of Request. EPA does not anticipate a need for best 
available monitoring methods beyond 2011, but for all reporting years 
after 2011, best available monitoring methods will be considered for 
unique or unusual circumstances which include data collection methods 
that do not meet safety regulations, technical infeasibility, or 
counter to other local, State, or Federal regulations. For use of best 
available monitoring methods in 2012, an initial notice of intent to 
request best available monitoring methods must be submitted by December 
31, 2011. Any notice of intent submitted prior to the effective date of 
this rule cannot be used to meet this December 31, 2011 deadline; a new 
notice of intent must be signed and submitted by the designated 
representative. In addition to the initial notification of intent, 
owners or operators must also submit an extension request containing 
the information specified in 98.234(f)(8)(ii) by March 30, 2012. Any 
best available monitoring methods request submitted prior to the 
effective date of this rule cannot be used to meet the March 30, 2012 
deadline; a new best available monitoring methods request must be 
signed and submitted by the designated representative. Owners or 
operators that submit both a timely notice of intent and extension 
request consistent with 98.234(f)(8)(ii) can automatically use BAMM 
through June 30, 2012, for the specific parameters identified in their 
notification of intent and best available monitoring methods request 
regardless of whether the best available monitoring methods request is 
ultimately approved. Owners or operators that submit a notice of intent 
but do not follow up with a best available monitoring methods request 
by March 30, 2012 cannot use best available monitoring methods in 2012. 
For 2012, when an owner or operator has submitted a notice of intent 
and a subsequent best available monitoring method extension request, 
use of best available monitoring methods will be valid, upon approval 
by the Administrator, until the date indicated in the approval or until 
December 31, 2012, whichever is earlier. For reporting years after 2012 
a new request to use best available monitoring methods must be 
submitted by September 30th of the year prior to the reporting year for 
which use of best available monitoring methods is sought.
    (ii) Content of request. Requests must contain the following 
information:
    (A) A list of specific source categories and parameters for which 
the owner or operator is seeking use of best available monitoring 
methods.
    (B) For each specific source for which an owner or operator is 
requesting use of best available monitoring methods, a description of 
the unique or unusual circumstances, such as data collection methods 
that do not meet safety regulations, technical infeasibility, or 
specific laws or regulations that are counter to data collection 
methods that conflict with each specific source.
    (C) A detailed explanation and supporting documentation of how and 
when the owner or operator will comply with all of the subpart W 
reporting requirements for which use of best available monitoring 
methods are sought.
    (iii) Approval criteria. To obtain approval to use best available 
monitoring methods after December 31, 2011, the owner or operator must 
submit a request demonstrating to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
the owner or operator faces unique or unusual circumstances which 
include, by way of example and not in limitation, clearly demonstrated 
data collection methods that do not meet safety regulations, technical 
infeasibility, or counter to other local, State, or Federal 
regulations, along with the reasons the owner or operator cannot 
otherwise address the unique or unusual circumstances as required to be 
demonstrated in this paragraph.

[FR Doc. 2011-24362 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P