anticipates considerable engineering analyses for when states chose to
leverage their existing state programs and determine that their
existing state program meets the criteria to conduct a source-by-source
stringency comparison. The engineering analysis can become more complex
should a state chooses to utilize a different design, equipment, work
practice, and/or operational standard than the EG because a qualitative
assessment will have a number of metrics that require evaluation. The
EPA also anticipates states will need to conduct considerable
engineering and economic analysis should a state invoke RULOF. As
discussed in section V.C., when invoking RULOF, the plan submission
must identify all control technologies available for the source and
evaluate the BSER factors for each technology, using the same metrics
and evaluating them in the same manner as the EPA did in developing the
EG. For example, if the EPA considered capital cost as part of the BSER
analysis, the state will also need to consider the same.
    The EPA has long recognized the unique nature of the Crude Oil and
Natural Gas source category because, in comparison to other EG, it is
geographically spread out covering multiple industry segments.
Specifically, the EPA defines the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
category to mean: (1) Crude oil production, which includes the well and
extends to the point of custody transfer to the crude oil transmission
pipeline or any other forms of transportation; and (2) natural gas
production, processing, transmission, and storage, which include the
well and extend to, but do not include, the local distribution company
custody transfer station.\301\ The Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
category impacts a great number of states, tribes, and U.S. territories
in some capacity. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
production data shows thirty-four states that have crude oil and or
natural gas production.\302\ Except for Vermont and Hawaii, the states
not producing crude oil and or natural gas have compressor stations in
the transmission and storage segment. The EPA understands that EG OOOOc
for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category will apply to an
extraordinary number of designated facilities and for many designated
facilities the standards are complex compared to other EG. For example,
in the U.S., the EPA has identified over 15,000 oil and gas owners and
operators, around 1 million producing onshore oil and gas wells, about
5,000 gathering and boosting facilities, over 650 natural gas
processing facilities, and about 1,400 transmission compression
facilities. States will need to develop and draft plans covering these
designated facilities that include the required components, such as
standards of performance and implementation measures for such
standards, and adopt the plans through their required administrative
processes before submitting them to the EPA. EG OOOOc covers numerous
designated facilities with corresponding presumptive standards. By
comparison, the EPA's EG for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills included
one designated facility type, affecting approximately 1,000 landfills.
81 FR 59313 (August 29, 2016). Of these 1,000 landfills, approximately
731 will be affected by the collection and control standard laid out in
the rule, approximately 93 more landfills than the 1996 Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills EG. 61 FR 9919 (March 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \301\ For purposes of the November 2021 proposal and this
supplemental proposed rulemaking, for crude oil, the EPA's focus is
on operations from the well to the point of custody transfer at a
petroleum refinery, while for natural gas, the focus is on all
operations from the well to the local distribution company custody
transfer station commonly referred to as the ``city-gate''.
    \302\ See https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm and https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_a_EPG0_FGW_mmcf_a.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA also recognizes the need to address potential health and
welfare impacts of methane emissions from this source category. The EPA
discusses extensively in section III of the November 2021 proposal
\303\ titled, ``Air Emissions from the Crude Oil and Natural Gas Sector
and Public Health and Welfare,'' and in section VI of the November 2021
proposal titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations, Implications,
and Stakeholder Outreach,'' the urgent need to mitigate climate-
destabilizing pollution and protecting human health by reducing GHG
emissions from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry,\304\ specifically, the
Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category.\305\

The Oil and Natural Gas Industry is the United States' largest
industrial emitter of methane, a highly potent GHG. Human activity-
related emissions of methane are responsible for about one third of the
warming due to well-mixed GHGs and constitute the second most important
warming agent arising from human activity after carbon dioxide (a well-
mixed gas is one with an atmospheric lifetime longer than a year or
two, which allows the gas to be mixed around the world, meaning that
the location of emission of the gas has little importance in terms of
its impacts). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), strong, rapid, and sustained methane reductions are
critical to reducing near-term disruption of the climate system and are
a vital complement to reductions in other GHGs that are needed to limit
the long-term extent of climate change and its destructive impacts. The
need to balance the complexity of EG OOOOc and the need to mitigate
climate change and protecting human health further suggest that a
timeline of 18 months is more appropriate for development of state
plans submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ See 86 FR 63110 (November 15, 2021).
    \304\ The EPA characterizes the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
operations as being generally composed of four segments: (1)
Extraction and production of crude oil and natural gas (``oil and
natural gas production''), (2) natural gas processing, (3) natural
gas transmission and storage, and (4) natural gas distribution.
    \305\ The EPA defines the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source
category to mean: (1) Crude oil production, which includes the well
and extends to the point of custody transfer to the crude oil
transmission pipeline or any other forms of transportation; and (2)
natural gas production, processing, transmission, and storage, which
include the well and extend to, but do not include, the local
distribution company custody transfer station. For purposes of this
proposed rulemaking, for crude oil, the EPA's focus is on operations
from the well to the point of custody transfer at a petroleum
refinery, while for natural gas, the focus is on all operations from
the well to the local distribution company custody transfer station
commonly referred to as the ``city-gate''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, based on the EPA's evaluation of states' responsiveness to
previous CAA section 111(d) EGs, the contrast between the development
of CAA section 111(d) plans and CAA section 129 plans, the complexity
of the source category and designated facilities, and the need to
quickly take action to address critical climate and health and welfare
impacts, the EPA is proposing to require that state plans under EG
OOOOc be due 18 months after publication of the final EG. This proposed
timeframe is substantially shorter than the 3-year deadline vacated by
the D.C. Circuit; however, it should give states adequate time to adopt
and submit approvable plans without extending the timing such that
significant adverse impacts to health and welfare are likely to occur
from the foregone emission reductions during the state planning
process. Allowing states sufficient time to develop feasible
implementation plans for their designated facilities that adequately
address public health and environmental objectives will ultimately help
ensure timelier implementation of EG OOOOc, and therefore achievement
in actual emission reductions, than would an unattainable deadline that
may result in the failure of states to submit plans and require the
development and implementation of a Federal plan.
    The EPA recognizes that the court, in ALA, faulted the Agency for
failing to consider the potential impacts to public health and welfare
associated with extending planning deadlines. The EPA does not
interpret the court's direction to require a quantitative measure of
impact, but rather consideration of the importance of the public health
and welfare goals when determining appropriate deadlines for
implementation of regulations under CAA section 111(d). Because 18
months is the minimum period of time in which the EPA finds that most
states can expeditiously create and submit a plan that meets applicable
requirements for EG OOOOc, it follows that the EPA has appropriately
considered the potential impacts to public health and welfare
associated with this extension of time by providing no more time than
the states reasonably need to ensure a plan is comprehensive and
timely. The EPA is soliciting comment on the proposed 18-month state
plan submission deadline upon publication of the final EG OOOOc, and
the analysis supporting the EPA's proposed determination regarding the
amount of time reasonably necessary for plan development and
submission. The EPA is also soliciting comment on whether the EPA
should consider any other factors in setting this deadline.
    As discussed in section V.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing
to include a requirement for states to undertake outreach and
meaningful engagement with pertinent stakeholders as part of the state
plan development process. The EPA solicits comment on how much, if any,
time this additional engagement will take in the state plan development
process.
    In section V.B of this preamble, the EPA is also proposing
revisions to the RULOF provision. These proposed revisions would
clarify the procedures for considering RULOF by establishing a robust
analytical framework that would require a state to provide a sufficient
justification when applying a standard of performance that is less
stringent than the EPA's presumptive level of stringency, thereby
allowing the EPA to readily determine if the state's plan is
satisfactory and therefore approvable. The proposed state plan
submission timeline of 18 months should adequately provide time for
states to conduct the analyses required by this provision; however, the
EPA is soliciting comment on whether states will need additional time
in the plan development to account for instances where RULOF is
considered. The EPA is specifically requesting comment on how much
additional time might be required for this consideration and how that
additional time fits within the entire process of state plan
development.
    The proposed state plan submission timeline should be generally
achievable by states. The EPA notes it is obligated to promulgate a
Federal plan for states that have not submitted a plan by the
submission deadline. Once the obligation to promulgate a Federal plan
is triggered, it can only be tolled by the EPA's approval of a state
plan. If a Federal plan is promulgated, a state may still submit a plan
to replace the Federal plan. A Federal plan under CAA section 111(d) is
a means to ensure timely implementation of EGs, and a state may choose
to accept a Federal plan for their sources rather than submit a state
plan. While the EPA encourages states to timely submit plans, there are
no mandatory sanctions associated with submitting a late plan or
accepting the implementation of a Federal plan.
    Timeline for State Plan Compliance Schedule. Under 40 CFR
60.22a(b)(5), the EPA in an EG is required to provide, among other
things, ``the time within which compliance with standards of
performance can be achieved''. Each state plan must then include
compliance schedules that, subject to certain exception, require
compliance as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the
compliance times included in the relevant EG. Id. at 60.24a(a) and (c).
States are free to include compliance times in their plans that are
earlier than those included in the final EG. Id. at 40 CFR
60.24a(f)(2). If a state chooses to include a compliance schedule in
its plan that extends for a certain period beyond the date required for
submittal of the plan, then ``the plan must include legally enforceable
increments of progress to achieve compliance for each designated
facility.'' 341 Id. at 40 CFR 60.24a(d). To the extent a state accounts
for remaining useful life and other factors in applying a less
stringent standard of performance than required by the EPA in the final
EG, the state must also include a compliance deadline that it can
demonstrate appropriately correlates with that standard.
    The November 2021 proposal proposed requiring that state plans
impose a compliance timeline on

designated facilities to require final compliance with the standards of
performance as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than 2 years
following the state plan submittal deadline. 86 FR 63256 (November 15,
2021). Commenters on the proposal indicated that more than 2 years
after the submittal of a state plan was needed to come into compliance
for existing sources. Given the number of designated facilities that
would need to come into compliance, commenters explained that requiring
existing sources to upgrade at the same time would place a substantial
burden on the supply chain (all orders at the same time) and vendors
(all install at the same time). Commenters stated that, if compliance
timelines are too short, there will be significant economic disruptions
for both the companies operating these facilities as well as the
manufacturers who support them. Commenters also stated that there would
be a need to train a tremendous number of staff on the regulatory
requirements and actions needed to comply. A few of the commenters
representing states also noted that 2 years from state plan submittal
would not allow sufficient time for states to issue the air quality
permits in advance of the compliance date for the sources to have
regulatory requirements with which to demonstrate compliance.
Environmental commenters supported the EPA's proposed requirement that
state plans include a compliance timeline within no more than 2 years
of plan submission and urged the Agency to consider whether a more
abbreviated compliance timeline is warranted.\306\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In evaluating whether to revise the November 2021 proposed two-year
final compliance deadline, the EPA considered several factors that
could impact the ability of a designated facility to come into
compliance with the proposed presumptive standards. These factors are
presented in Table 38.

    TABLE 38--Factors Considered When Determining Compliance Timeline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Factor                            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design/Purchase Equipment..............  Equipment must be purchased and
                                          installed to comply. This
                                          could be control equipment or
                                          specific equipment to meet an
                                          equipment standard (e.g.,
                                          solar powered pneumatic
                                          controller). This would also
                                          typically involve design
                                          considerations.
Availability of Equipment (Supply Chain  This factor is related to the
 Issues).                                 potential shortage of
                                          available equipment. Note that
                                          this could have an impact on
                                          small businesses as the
                                          assumption is that larger
                                          businesses would be supplied
                                          first.
Cost of Equipment (Individual            The cost of equipment for an
 Designated Facility).                    individual designated
                                          facility. This cost may
                                          disproportionally impact small
                                          businesses.
Performance Testing....................  The requirement for a
                                          performance testing requires
                                          securing the services of a
                                          testing contractor, scheduling
                                          and planning the test, and
                                          notifying/coordinating with
                                          the state agency. In addition
                                          to control device performance
                                          testing, this would also
                                          include monitoring (e.g.,
                                          fugitive component
                                          monitoring).
Complexity of Requirements.............  More complex requirements may
                                          need more time for owners and
                                          operators to understand the
                                          requirements and develop
                                          procedures upfront to ensure
                                          initial and continuing
                                          compliance.
Availability of Specialized Services     This is related to the
 (Monitoring).                            potential shortage of
                                          available specialized services
                                          (e.g., OGI contractors). Note
                                          that this could have an impact
                                          on small businesses as the
                                          assumption is that contractors
                                          could prioritize larger
                                          businesses.
Number of Designated Facilities........  The sheer number of designated
                                          facilities may have an impact
                                          on the ability to comply
                                          within a specified timeline,
                                          which assumes that it will
                                          potentially be more
                                          problematic for companies
                                          owning many designated
                                          facilities to comply in a
                                          shorter time frame.
Existing Sources Covered by State        If the designated facility is
 Regulation.                              covered by state regulations
                                          that cover existing sources to
                                          a degree equivalent to the EG,
                                          the number of designated
                                          facilities needing to comply
                                          with be less.
Emissions Reduced/Total Designated       The overall methane emissions
 Facility.                                reduction that will result
                                          from control of existing
                                          sources under the EG. EPA
                                          could prioritize designated
                                          facilities to achieve emission
                                          reductions sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some of the factors presented in Table 38 would impact the ability
of an owner or operator of a designated facility to comply within two
years more than others. For example, factors that are beyond an owner
or operator's control, such as the availability of specialized services
and availability of equipment, can be compounded by the fact that there
are a large number of designated facilities where owners or operators
are dependent on the availability of equipment and services. Other
factors, such as the cost of equipment necessary for a designated
facility to come into compliance, will impact some owners and operators
more than others. Small businesses have often reported that large
businesses generally have an advantage over small businesses in such
cases. Presumptive standards that include a higher reliance on factors
that would impact the ability of a designated facility to come into
compliance, such as those proposed for pneumatic controllers, were
considered to require more time (i.e., greater than the November 2021
proposed 2-year time frame). For example, to meet the proposed
presumptive standards for pneumatic controllers, it is expected that
more time may be needed due to the anticipated high demand for
specialized equipment to meet the proposed EG standards and the
increased reliance on ``design/purchase equipment'', ``availability of
equipment'', ``cost of equipment,'' and ``number of designated
facilities.'' Other

designated facility presumptive standards that are less dependent on
the need for specialized equipment or services (e.g., fugitive
emissions work practice standards) might require less time to come into
compliance than pneumatic controllers but would still require
considerable upfront planning based on the number of designated
facilities.
    After consideration of comments received on the November 2021
proposal and consideration of the factors that could impact the ability
of a designated facility to come into compliance with the proposed
presumptive standards, the EPA is proposing to require that state plans
impose a compliance timeline on designated facilities to require final
compliance with the standards of performance as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 36 months following the state plan
submittal deadline. The EPA considered requiring differing compliance
timelines for the differing designated facilities depending on the
requirements of the proposed presumptive standards and the factors
presented in Table 38 but chose to include a uniform compliance
timeframe for all of the designated facilities. The EPA believes that
establishing a uniform compliance timeline of no later than 36 months
following the state plan submittal deadline simplifies compliance and
eases the burden on large and small business owners and operators that
need to develop and implement plans to meet their compliance
obligations for a large number of designated facilities. The required
state plan compliance elements for owners and operators to come into
compliance include the need to: (1) Become familiar with state plan
requirements for the nine different types of designated facilities, (2)
assess all existing sites and operations owned by the company to
determine the universe of designated facilities that are subject to
requirements, (3) prepare an increment of progress final control
compliance plan for meeting standards of performance for all of the
hundreds, potentially thousands, of designated facilities owned by the
company, (4) implement a compliance plan for each designated facility,
(5) ensure standards of performance for designated facility are met by
required compliance dates, and (6) plan and implement initial
compliance performance testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting. Each of the nine types of designated facilities include
various compliance element needs (e.g., engineering assessments,
requirements to purchase equipment, contract services for modifying
existing equipment to include add-on control equipment, contract
services to perform monitoring and/or performance testing, contract
services to perform maintenance and repair services to ensure
compliance).
    The level of planning and implementation of a plan to come into
compliance will differ by each type of designated facility. Further,
site-specific conditions may require different compliance paths even
for the same type of designated facility. Another factor to consider is
the ability of an owner or operator to meet the initial capital and
labor expenditures needed to develop and implement a compliance plan
will vary based on the numbers of each of the designated facilities and
available capital and in-house expertise/labor. Small businesses often
need more time to absorb the associated capital and labor expenditure
needs to develop and implement compliance plans. By allowing a uniform
compliance deadline of 36 months from the time of submittal of the
state plan to come into compliance, owners and operators are able to
take into consideration all of the differing designated facilities,
sites and expenditures that will be needed to comply when they develop
their compliance plans. This will also reduce any potential confusion
that could occur with varied compliance deadlines for designated
facilities that are covered under the proposed EG.
    As previously described, EPA is proposing to require that states
submit their state plan within 18 months of publication of the EGs.
Accordingly, linking a 36-month compliance deadline to the state plan
submittal deadline for purposes of this EG would give sources ample
time to plan for compliance with an approved state plan. The EPA also
notes that publication of a final EG will also give sources meaningful
information as to their potential compliance obligations, such as the
presumptive standards, in advance of the state plan submittal deadline.
Though EPA has not yet proposed a timeline for its action on state
plans in response to the ALA vacatur, and intends to do so in an
upcoming rulemaking, such timeline cannot be so lengthy as to
contravene the court's direction to consider potential health and
welfare impacts of an extended deadline. The EPA believes that a
compliance deadline 36 months from the state plan submittal deadline is
an appropriate amount of time for designated facilities to ensure
compliance based on the EPA's general understanding of the industry and
the proposed presumptive standards and accounts for retrofit
considerations and potential supply chain issues that owners and
operators may encounter. The EPA considered whether to link the
compliance deadline to its approval of a state plan, however, requiring
compliance with state plans based on the state plan submittal deadline
rather than the state plan approval date standardizes when designated
facilities must come into compliance across states.
    Subpart Ba requires that standards of performance are implemented
in a timely manner through provisions that require legally enforceable
increments of progress if the compliance schedule extends beyond 24
months after the state plan submission deadline.\307\ However, the 24-
month timeline for triggering increments of progress was vacated by the
D.C. Circuit in the ALA decision. Petitioners did not challenge, and
the court did not vacate, the substantive requirement for increments of
progress. The EPA intends to address the vacated timeline for
increments of progress for purposes of the implementing regulations in
an upcoming rulemaking. For EG OOOOc, because the EPA is proposing a
final compliance deadline of 36 months after publication of the EG, the
EPA is proposing to require that state plans must include legally
enforceable increments of progress in order to better assure compliance
by each designated facility or category of facilities. While the EPA is
proposing 36 months after the state plan submission deadline for final
compliance based on the considerations described above, increments of
progress will help assure that designated facilities are on track to
actually achieve compliance by undertaking certain concrete interim
steps. Taking into consideration the large numbers of designated
facilities that regulated entities would need to evaluate and plan for
to come into compliance, we are proposing that state plans require
owners and operators of designated facilities address two of the five
incremental of progress steps identified in the definition of
increments of progress subpart Ba: (1) A final control plan and (2)
final compliance. The EPA is proposing that the final control plan
include a compliance plan for each designated facility, but a company
would be allowed to submit one plan that covers all of the company's
designated facilities in the state in lieu of submitting a plan for
each designated facility. The final control plan would be

required to include an identification of their designated facilities
and how they are planning to comply with the EGs for each of their
designated facilities (e.g., air pollution control devices/measures to
be used to comply with the emission limits, standards and other
requirements). The final control plan would also be required to include
all instances where a designated facility is complying with an
alternative standard (e.g., routing centrifugal compressor wet seal
emissions to a control device to achieve a 95 percent reduction in
methane instead of complying with the 3 scfm volumetric flow rate
standard) or when the owner or operator is planning to claim technical
infeasibility to allow compliance with an alternative standard (e.g., a
pneumatic pump that demonstrates it is technically infeasible to use a
pump that is not driven by natural gas and that is technically
infeasible to route to control). We are proposing that the final
control plan be required to be submitted within two years after the
deadline for the state plan submittals. This timeline allows sufficient
time for regulated entities to develop their compliance plan for each
of their designated facilities to meet their compliance obligations.
The EPA solicits comment on the timing and requirements of this final
control plan proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \307\ 40 CFR 60.24a(a) and 60.24a(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the final control plan, we evaluated whether to
require a report that demonstrates final compliance as an increment of
progress report. We are proposing that state plans include a
requirement for owners and operators of designated facilities to submit
a notification of final compliance report for each designated facility
on or before 60 days after the compliance date of the state plan. Under
this proposal, a company would be allowed to submit one notification
that covers all of the company's designated facilities in a state in
lieu of submitting a notification for each designated facility. As an
alternative, we evaluated not including a specific requirement for a
notification of final compliance report. Without a requirement for a
notification of final compliance report, confirmation that designated
facilities are complying with a state plan would not occur until the
first annual report. The EPA determined that requiring a notification
of final compliance report that was submitted before the first annual
report was more closely aligned with the intent of a final compliance
increment of progress step. The EPA solicits comment on this proposed
notification of final compliance report.

VI. Use of Optical Gas Imaging in Leak Detection (Appendix K)

A. Overview of the November 2021 Proposal

    In the November 2021 proposal, the EPA proposed a protocol for the
use of OGI in the determination of leaks as Appendix K. The protocol
was proposed for use in the oil and gas sector but was proposed to have
broader applicability to surveys of process equipment using OGI cameras
throughout the entire oil and gas upstream and downstream sectors from
production through refining to distribution where a subpart in those
sectors references its use.
    The proposed appendix K was based on extensive literature review on
the technology development, as well as observations on current
applications of OGI technology, multiple empirical laboratory studies
and OGI technology evaluations commissioned by the EPA, and a virtual
stakeholder workshop hosted by the EPA to gather input on development
of a protocol for the use of OGI. The proposed appendix K outlined the
procedures that camera operators would be required to follow to
identify leaks or fugitive emissions using a field portable infrared
camera. Additionally, the proposed appendix K contained specifications
relating to the required performance of OGI cameras, required operator
training and verification, determination of an operating window for
performing surveys, and requirements for a monitoring plan and
recordkeeping.

B. Significant Changes Since Proposal

1. Scope
    The EPA proposed that appendix K would have broad applicability
across the oil and gas upstream and downstream sectors, but that it
must be referenced by an applicable subpart before it would apply. This
would potentially include well sites, compressor stations, boosting
stations, petroleum refineries, gas processing plants, and gasoline
distribution facilities. Chemical plants and other facilities outside
of the oil and gas upstream and downstream sectors were specifically
excluded in the applicability section.
    Commenters stated that appendix K applicability should not be
restricted to the oil and gas upstream and downstream sectors.\308\
While the EPA originally excluded the chemical sector because there are
issues with seeing some of the compounds that could be released as
emissions in some of the chemical sector sources, there are some
chemical sector sources where most of the emissions are made up of
compounds that can be imagined by an OGI camera. As such, the EPA is
proposing to revise the scope and applicability for appendix K to
remove the sector applicability and to base the applicability on being
able to image most of the compounds in the gaseous emissions from the
process equipment. The EPA is retaining the requirement that appendix K
does not on its own apply to anyone but must be referenced by a subpart
before it would apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \308\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0604, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0748, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Operator Training
    The EPA proposed a multi-layered training requirement for OGI
camera operators because operator training is critical in developing
the ability to see leaks with an OGI camera. The proposed training
consisted of both an initial and annual classroom training on the
fundamental concepts of OGI, basic operation of the camera, best
practices for finding leaks, and the site's monitoring plan. appendix K
also contained initial field training consisting of 100 site surveys
with a senior OGI camera operator, where initially the trainee observes
the senior OGI camera operator and then eventually is observed by the
senior OGI camera operator, and a final site survey test with zero
missed persistent leaks. Additionally, the EPA proposed quarterly
performance audits for OGI camera operators either by comparative
monitoring or a review of video footage by a senior OGI camera
operator, where the auditee must have zero missed persistent leaks and
a technique that aligns with the site's monitoring plan. Auditees not
meeting these criteria must be retrained. The EPA also proposed that
operators would be required to repeat initial training after 12 months
of inactivity.
    The EPA received numerous comments on all aspects of the proposed
training requirements. Commenters stated that online training should be
allowed for classroom training, and they recommended that periodic
classroom training should be extended to every 2 or 3 years.\309\
Commenters also provided a broad range of recommendations on what the
initial field training should

look like.\310\ The recommendations for initial training hours ranged
from around 5 to 80 hours. Additionally, some commenters said the
determination of suitability for independent monitoring should be based
on observations and comparative monitoring, not on a set number of
hours of training.\311\ Some commenters suggested reducing the final
survey test to 1 hour.\312\ Commenters also suggested that requiring
zero missed leaks during the final survey test was too stringent.\313\
Some commenters thought the OGI camera operator audits were
unnecessary, while others thought they were too frequent or too long.
There was a range of recommendations on what the audit frequency should
be, including annual or a stepped up and down frequency based on
performance.\314\ Additionally, commenters stated that requiring zero
missed leaks during the audit was too stringent and that instead of a
failed audit triggering automatic retraining, there should be an
opportunity to counsel the auditee and let them try again.\315\
Commenters thought returning operators should only be required to take
refresher level training, pass a performance audit, or pass the final
survey test.\316\ Commenters also thought there should be some
grandfathering of current OGI camera operators.\317\ Finally,
commenters stated that there should be different performance audit and
retraining requirements for small businesses and the Alaska North
Slope.\318\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0793, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0814, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0831, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0954, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-1373.
    \310\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0463, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0749, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0793, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0816, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0831, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0934.
    \311\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0608 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0718.
    \312\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0831.
    \313\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0750, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0782, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0793, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0817, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0831.
    \314\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0463, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0749, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0782, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0831, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0916.
    \315\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0599, EEPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0749, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0808, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0831.
    \316\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0463, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0816, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0831.
    \317\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0831.
    \318\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0814, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0916, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-1373.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these comments, the EPA is proposing specific revisions or
clarifications related to the operator training requirements. In this
action, the EPA is clarifying our intent to allow classroom training to
be online or in-person and revising the classroom refresher training
frequency to biennial (i.e., every 2 years). For the initial field
training, the EPA is proposing 30 survey hours with a senior OGI camera
operator and changing the final field test from one site to two survey
hours. The EPA is also proposing to allow up to 10 percent missed leaks
on the final survey test if there are more than 10 leaks found by the
senior OGI camera operator during the final field test and is providing
clarification on what happens if a trainee doesn't pass the final field
test. In this instance, the senior OGI camera operator would discuss
the failure with the trainee and provide instruction on improving
performance, then allow the trainee to repeat the test. While the EPA
is retaining quarterly operator audits, we are proposing to reduce the
audit from four hours to two hours and allow up to 10 percent missed
leaks if there are more than 10 leaks found by the senior OGI camera
operator during the audit. While an auditee would still need to retrain
following a failed audit, the EPA is proposing to reduce the amount of
retraining from 25 site surveys to 16 survey hours and adding a
requirement that the senior OGI camera operator counsel the auditee on
the reasons for the failure and how to improve surveying techniques.
However, if an auditee fails two consecutive audits, the auditee will
have to complete the initial training again. The EPA is also proposing
to reduce the amount of training required for OGI operators who have
been inoperative for an extended period from the initial training
requirements to the retraining requirements.
    Finally, the EPA is proposing to allow previous OGI experience to
substitute for some of the initial training requirements within
appendix K in order to recognize the experience of current OGI camera
operators. Specifically, OGI camera operators with previous classroom
training (either at a physical location or online) that covers the
majority of the elements required by the initial classroom training
required in appendix K prior to the finalization of appendix K will not
need to complete the initial classroom training, but if the date of
training is more than 2 years before the date that the appendix is
finalized, the OGI camera operator will need to complete the biennial
classroom training in lieu of the initial classroom training. Also, OGI
camera operators who have 40 hours of experience over the 12 calendar
months prior to the date that appendix K is finalized may substitute
the retraining requirements, including the final monitoring survey
test, for the initial field training requirements.
3. Senior OGI Camera Operator
    The EPA proposed that a senior OGI camera operator is a camera
operator who has conducted a minimum of 500 site surveys over their
career, including at least 20 site surveys in the past year, and who
has taken or developed the initial classroom training. Commenters were
concerned that there may be a lack of available senior OGI camera
operators, especially in the period right after finalization of
appendix K.\319\ Commenters also stated that the definition is too
restrictive, and some were concerned there is no certification
program.\320\ Some commenters also recommended that senior OGI
operators should be removed from the auditing process since they are
auditing and training others.\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \319\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0750, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0782, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0831.
    \320\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0750, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0802, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808.
    \321\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0749, and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to change the definition of senior OGI camera
operator to someone with 1400 survey hours over their career, including
40 hours in the past year. The 1400 survey hours is consistent with the
level that experienced operators had during the studies on operator
experience performed at the Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation
Center (METEC) test site.\322\ The study clearly showed a delineation
of the detection capabilities of high experienced operators, with the
high experienced operators detecting about 67 percent more leaks than
other operators. The experience of the group of operators considered to
be high experienced operators began at around 700 sites surveyed. The
background

document for the METEC study estimated experience at about four sites
per day, which equates to about two hours per site. Therefore, based on
the data used in the study, 700 sites should equate to about 1400 hours
on average. Additionally, the EPA is clarifying that the hours spent by
the senior OGI camera operator performing comparative monitoring,
either as part of initial training, retraining, or auditing other OGI
camera operators, can be included when determining the senior OGI
camera operator's experience both over their career and the past 12
months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \322\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0076.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Dwell Time
    The EPA proposed that during a survey, OGI camera operators should
view equipment from multiple angles. For each angle, the dwell time,
the active time the operator is looking for potential leaks when the
scene is in focus and steady, would need to be a minimum of 5 seconds
per component in the field of view. Some commenters stated that there
is no need to specify a dwell time, while other commenters said that
the dwell time should be shorter.\323\ Still other commenters stated
that the dwell time requirement should be based on the scene and not on
a per component basis.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \323\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0570, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0463, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0782, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0816, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0831, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0916, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0954.
    \324\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0816, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to change the dwell time per angle to two
seconds per component in the field of view. This aligns closely with
the estimated time to complete a monitoring survey in the analysis
performed for onshore natural gas processing plants for the proposed
NSPS OOOOb.\325\ The EPA based that analysis on data provided by OGI
camera operators. The EPA believes that two seconds per component would
provide enough time to determine whether a leak is present, and it is
expected that a trained OGI camera operator would be aware of
situations that necessitate dwelling longer than the minimum required
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \325\ See Chapter 10 of the November 2021 TSD at Document ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Other Changes
    The EPA proposed that OGI camera operators must take 5-minute rest
breaks after 20 minutes of continuous surveying. This proposed
requirement is the same as the requirement for opacity observations in
EPA Method 9 of 40 CFR part 60 appendix A-4. Commenters were divided
over this requirement. Some commenters agreed with the principal of
rest breaks while requesting additional flexibility or longer surveying
times between breaks. Others felt it was unnecessary to mandate rest
breaks.\326\ Rest breaks are an appropriate requirement for OGI camera
operators because physical, mental, and eye fatigue are concerns with
continuous field operation of OGI cameras. The EPA is proposing to
update the requirement for rest breaks to once every 30 minutes, as one
commenter \327\ noted that this makes tracking breaks easier. The EPA
does not believe that changing the continuous survey period from 20
minutes to 30 minutes will have a detrimental effect on an operator's
ability to see leaks, and as such, is proposing to update the
requirement to ease the burden on operators performing surveys. The EPA
is not proposing a change in the length of the rest break. No comments
were received on the specific length of the rest break. The EPA also
notes that operators may perform tasks related to the survey, such as
documentation, during rest breaks; the rest break is solely a break
from actively imaging components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0608, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0718, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0749, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0750, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0782, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0793, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0814, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0816, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0954, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-1373.
    \327\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that OGI cameras must be capable of imaging
methane emissions of 17 grams per hour(g/hr) and butane emissions of
18.5 g/hr at a viewing distance of 2 meters and a delta-T of 5 [deg]C
in an environment of calm wind conditions. Commenters stated that gases
other than butane should be used for certification of cameras.\328\
Additionally, some commenters stated that the emission rates in the
camera certification should be the same as in NSPS OOOOa.\329\ While
the EPA does not agree that the camera certification should be the same
as what is in NSPS OOOOa because we have learned more about the
detection capabilities of OGI cameras since that time, we are proposing
to change the butane requirement to a choice between propane or butane
and noting that referencing subparts may provide specifications for
other gases. The EPA is also clarifying that the initial certification
testing, as well as the operating window development testing, can be
performed by the owner or operator, the camera manufacturer, or a third
party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0599 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0808.
    \329\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0782 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0808.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that the response factors used when determining
whether an OGI camera would be able to image the components in gaseous
emissions would need to come from peer reviewed publications.
Commenters requested that the EPA develop guidance on how to develop
response factors and stated that the response factors should be able to
be developed by manufacturers without the requirement for peer reviewed
publication.\330\ The EPA agrees with these comments, and as such, is
proposing to remove the requirement for peer reviewed publications.
Guidance for developing response factors is being provided as annex 1
to appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0831.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA proposed that when a leak is found with OGI, the OGI camera
operator must take a video clip of the leak. As requested by
commenters, this requirement is being updated to allow a photograph of
leaks as an option in lieu of video clips.\331\ Additionally, as
requested by a commenter, the EPA is proposing to allow the option for
full videos of the surveys to be retained in lieu of video clips of
leaks.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \331\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0463, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0599, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0808, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-
0814 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-1373.
    \332\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to add a definition of monitoring survey,
which means imaging equipment with an OGI camera at one site on one
day. Changing site location or changing the day of imaging would
constitute a new monitoring survey. This definition is needed to help
clarify some of the requirements related to recordkeeping for
monitoring surveys.
    Finally, the EPA is also making a number of other clarifications
and minor edits based on comments received during the November 2021
proposal.

C. Summary of Proposed Requirements

    In this action, the EPA is proposing a protocol for the use of OGI
as appendix K. As part of the development of appendix K, the EPA
conducted an extensive literature review on the technology development
as well as

observations on current application of OGI technology. Approximately
150 references identify the technology, applications, and limitations
of OGI. The EPA also commissioned multiple laboratory studies and OGI
technology evaluations. Additionally, on November 9 and 10, 2020, the
EPA held a virtual stakeholder workshop to gather input on development
of a protocol for the use of OGI. The information obtained from these
efforts was used to develop the TSD for appendix K, which provides
technical analyses, experimental results, and other supplemental
information used to evaluate and develop standardized procedures for
the use of OGI technology in monitoring for fugitive emissions of VOCs,
HAP, and methane from industrial environments.\333\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0079.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that while this protocol is being proposed for use at
onshore natural gas processing plants in this action at the proposed 40
CFR 60.5400b and 40 CFR 60.5400c, the applicability of the protocol is
broader. The protocol is applicable to facilities when specified in a
referencing subpart to help determine the presence and location of
leaks; it is not currently applicable for use in direct emission rate
measurements from sources. The protocol may be applied, when
referenced, to surveys of process equipment using OGI cameras where the
majority of compounds (>75 percent by weight) in the emissions streams
have a response factor of at least 0.25 when compared to the response
factor of propane. The OGI camera must also be capable of detecting (or
producing a detectable image of) methane emissions of 17 g/hr and
either butane emissions of 5.0 g/hr or propane emissions of 18 g/hr at
a viewing distance of 2 meters and a delta-T of 5 [deg]C in an
environment of calm wind conditions around 1 meter per second or less.
Verification that the OGI camera meets these criteria may be performed
by the owner or operator, the camera manufacturer, or a third party.
The supplies necessary for conducting the verification are described in
section 6.2 of the proposed appendix.
    Field conditions, such as the viewing distance to the component to
be monitored, wind speed, ambient air temperature, and the background
temperature, have the potential to impact the ability of the OGI camera
operator to detect a leak. Because it is important that the OGI camera
has been tested under the full range of expected field conditions in
which the OGI camera will be used, an operating envelope must be
established for field use of the OGI camera. Imaging must not be
performed when the conditions are outside of the developed operating
envelope. Operating envelopes are specific to each model of OGI camera
and can be developed by the owner or operator, the camera manufacturer,
or a third party. To develop the operating envelope, methane gas is
released at a set mass rate and wind speed, viewing distance, and
delta-T (the temperature differential of the background and the
released gas) are all varied to determine the conditions under which a
leak can be imaged. For purposes of developing the operating envelope,
a leak is considered able to be imaged if three out of four observers
can see the leak. Once the operating envelope is developed using
methane, the testing is repeated with either butane or propane gas. The
operating envelope for the OGI camera is the more restrictive operating
envelope developed between the different test gases.
    The operating envelope must be confirmed for all potential
configurations that could impact the detection limit of the OGI camera.
In response to the November 2021 proposal, several commenters suggested
that the operating envelope determination requirements should be
streamlined. For example, if a configuration is established and
confirmed, another configuration that is inherently more sensitive
should be allowed without additional testing. Commenters also requested
a more defined and acceptable list of configurations be provided based
on the technology's capabilities, not user preferences.\334\ The EPA
does not currently have enough data or empirical evidence to provide a
complete list of possible configurations for all the available
commercial OGI cameras (taking into account future possible
configurations) or a definitive ranking of which configurations are
more stringent than other. The EPA is requesting comment on this topic
and seeking any empirical data that could be used to create such a
defined ranking of configurations. Additionally, one commenter
suggested that instead of having different operating envelopes for
different situations and having to decide which envelope to use, the
OGI camera operator should conduct a daily camera demonstration each
day prior to imaging to determine the maximum distance at which the OGI
camera operator should image for that day.\335\ The EPA believes that
this type of determination would be more difficult and costly than
creating an operating envelope, as it would require OGI camera
operators to have necessary gas supplies on hand and take time to do
this determination daily, or potentially multiple times a day.
Nevertheless, the EPA is requesting comment on this suggestion, as well
as how such a demonstration could be used if conditions on the site
change throughout the day, at what point would the changed conditions
necessitate repeating the demonstration, and how changes in the
background in different areas of the site (such as to affect the delta-
T) would be factored into such a demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0604 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0954.
    \335\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing that each site would have a monitoring plan
that describes the procedures for conducting a monitoring survey. One
monitoring plan can be used for multiple sites, as long as the plan
contains the relevant information for each site. The monitoring plan
must contain procedures for a daily verification check, ensuring that
the monitoring survey is performed only when conditions in the field
are within the operating envelope, monitoring all the components
regulated by the referencing subpart within the unit or area, viewing
the components with the camera, operator rest breaks, documenting
surveys, and quality assurance.
    Delta-T is a crucial variable in determining whether it is possible
to see a leak. Without an adequate delta-T, it will be difficult, or
even impossible to see a leak, no matter how big the leak is. The EPA
is proposing that the monitoring plan must describe how the operator
will ensure an adequate delta-T is present in order to view potential
gaseous emissions, e.g., using a delta-T check function built into the
features of the OGI camera or using a background temperature reading in
the OGI camera field of view. In response to the November 2021
proposal, a commenter stated guidance should be added for operators who
are using a background temperature reading in the OGI camera field of
view.\336\ The EPA is requesting comment on ways that an OGI camera
operator can ensure an adequate delta-T exists during monitoring
surveys for cameras that do not have a built-in delta-T check function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \336\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing that a component must be imaged from at least

two different angles, and the OGI camera operator must dwell on each
angle for a minimum of 2 seconds per component in the field of view,
where dwell time is defined as the time the scene is steady and in
focus and the operator is actively viewing the scene. The operator may
reduce the dwell time for complex scenes based on the monitoring area
and number of components in the subsection as prescribed in Table 14-1
of the appendix; use of this table is only required when an operator
wants to reduce the dwell time from the minimum 2 second per component
dwell time. In response to the November 2021 proposal, commenters
suggested that dwell time should be based on the scene, not on a per
component basis. Additionally, commenters suggested further defining
the scene as ``simple'' or ``complex'' with a greater dwell time for
``complex'' scenes.\337\ The EPA is concerned with creating blanket
dwell times for scenes, as scenes can vary in complexity within these
categories, and an operator would need to look at scenes with more
components longer than a scene with fewer components. Additionally, the
EPA does not believe it is possible to describe every possible scene in
order to create bins for ``simple'' and ``complex'' scenes that would
be inclusive of all scenes an OGI camera operator might encounter in
the field. However, the EPA is soliciting comment on how dwell time
could be based on the scene while still accounting for the differences
in the complexity of scenes or ways to create bins for ``simple'' and
``complex'' scenes. The EPA is also soliciting comment on ways to
similarly achieve the goal of ensuring that OGI camera operators survey
a scene for an adequate amount of time to ensure there are no leaks
from any components in the field of view without specifying a dwell
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \337\ See Document ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0561, EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0317-0604, EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0816, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317-0954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Physical, mental, and eye fatigue are concerns with continuous
field operation of OGI cameras. The EPA is proposing that OGI camera
operators must take a rest break after surveying continuously for a
period of 30 minutes. In response to the November 2021 proposal,
commenters suggested that this was an unnecessary requirement. The EPA
is aware that continuously surveying for long periods can lead to
decreased detection of leaks. However, the EPA has heard anecdotally
that this may have more to do with the number of hours the OGI camera
operator has surveyed during the day, such that it is more appropriate
to limit the hours of surveying per day than it is to mandate rest
breaks at a set frequency. The EPA is seeking any empirical data on the
topic of the necessity of rest breaks when conducting OGI surveys or
the link between operator performance and length of survey period.
    The EPA is proposing that the facility or company performing the
OGI surveys must have a training plan which ensures and monitors the
proficiency of the OGI camera operators. If the facility does not
perform its own OGI monitoring, the facility must ensure that the
training plan for the company performing the OGI surveys adheres to
this requirement. The proposed appendix K prescribes a multi-faceted
approach to training. Training includes classroom instruction (either
online or at a physical location) both initially and biennially on the
OGI camera and external devices, monitoring techniques, best practices,
process knowledge, and other regulatory requirements related to leak
detection that are relevant to the facility's OGI monitoring efforts.
Prior to conducting monitoring surveys, camera operators must
demonstrate proficiency with the OGI camera. The initial field training
includes a minimum of 30 survey hours with OGI where trainees first
observe the techniques and methods of a senior OGI camera operator and
then eventually perform monitoring surveys independently with a senior
OGI camera operator present to provide oversight. The trainee must then
pass a final monitoring survey test of at least two hours. If there are
10 or more leaks identified by the senior OGI operator, the trainee
must achieve less than 10 percent missed persistent leaks relative to
the senior OGI camera operator to be considered authorized for
independent survey execution. If there are less than 10 leaks
identified by the senior OGI operator, the trainee must achieve zero
missed persistent leaks relative to the senior OGI camera operator to
be considered authorized for independent survey execution. If the
trainee doesn't pass the monitoring survey test, the senior OGI camera
operator must discuss the reasons for the failure with the trainee and
provide instruction/correction on improving the trainee's performance,
following which the trainee may repeat the final test.
    The EPA is proposing that performance audits for all OGI camera
operators must occur on a quarterly basis and can be conducted either
by comparative monitoring or video review by a senior OGI camera
operator. If the senior OGI camera operator finds that the survey
techniques during the video review do not match those described in the
monitoring plan, then the camera operator being audited will need to be
retrained. Additionally, if there are 10 or more leaks identified by
the senior OGI operator, the camera operator being audited must achieve
less than 10 percent missed persistent leaks relative to the senior OGI
camera operator. If there are less than 10 leaks identified by the
senior OGI operator, the camera operator being audited must achieve
zero missed persistent leaks relative to the senior OGI camera
operator. Retraining consists of a discussion of the reasons for the
failure with the OGI operator being audited and techniques to improve
performance; a minimum of 16 survey training hours; and a final
monitoring survey test. If an OGI operator requires retraining in two
consecutive quarterly audits, the OGI operator must repeat the initial
training requirements. In response to the November 2021 proposal,
commenters stated that there should be no performance audit
requirements for senior OGI camera operators because senior OGI camera
operators are responsible for training and auditing other OGI camera
operators. The EPA believes that it is important to verify the
performance of all OGI camera operators, even the most experienced
operators, on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, the EPA is requesting
comment on whether there should be a reduced performance audit
frequency for certain OGI camera operators, and if so, who should
qualify for a reduced frequency, what the reduced frequency should be,
and the basis for the reduced frequency.
    Previous experience with OGI camera operation can be substituted
for some of the initial training requirements. OGI camera operators
with previous classroom training (either at a physical location or
online) that covers the majority of the elements required by the
initial classroom training required in appendix K prior to the
finalization of appendix K do not need to complete the initial
classroom training, but if the date of certification is more than 2
years before the publication date of the final rule, the biennial
classroom training must be completed in lieu of the initial classroom
training. OGI camera operators who have 40 hours of experience over the
12 calendar months prior to the date of publication of the final rule
may substitute the retraining requirements, including the final
monitoring survey test, for the initial field training requirements.
    Recordkeeping is an important compliance assurance measure. The
proposed appendix K requires records

to be retained in hard copy or electronic form. Records include the
site monitoring plan, operating envelope limitations, data supporting
the initial OGI camera performance verification and development of the
operating envelope, the training plan for OGI camera operators, OGI
camera operator training and auditing records, records necessary to
verify senior OGI camera operator status, monitoring survey records,
quality assurance verification videos for each operator, and
maintenance and calibration records. Some of the records required by
the proposed appendix K are not required to be kept onsite as long as
the owner or operator can easily access these records and can make the
records available for review if requested by the Administrator.

VII. Impacts of This Proposed Rule

A. What are the air impacts?

    The EPA projected that, from 2023 to 2035, relative to the
baseline, the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc will reduce about 36
million short tons of methane emissions (810 million tons
CO2 Eq.), 9.7 million short tons of VOC emissions, and 390
thousand short tons of HAP emission from facilities that are
potentially affected by this proposal. The EPA projected regulatory
impacts beginning in 2023 as that year represents the first full year
of implementation of the proposed NSPS OOOOb. The EPA assumes that
emissions impacts of the proposed EG OOOOc will begin in 2026. The EPA
projected impacts through 2035 to illustrate the accumulating effects
of this rule over a longer period. The EPA did not estimate impacts
after 2035 for reasons including limited information, as explained in
the RIA, though the EPA is soliciting comment on whether information
exists to better characterize the likely effects beyond 2035.
    As noted in section I of this preamble, the updated analysis not
only incorporates the new provisions put forth in the supplemental
proposal (in addition to the elements of the November 2021 proposal
that are unchanged), but also includes key updates to assumptions and
methodologies that impact both the baseline and policy scenarios.
Accordingly, these estimates of air impacts are not directly comparable
to corresponding estimates presented in the November 2021 proposal.

B. What are the energy impacts?

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

C. What are the compliance costs?

    The equivalent annualized value, or EAV, of the regulatory
compliance cost associated with the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc
over the 2023 to 2035 period was estimated to be $1.4 billion per year
using a 3-percent discount rate and $1.4 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate. The corresponding estimates of the present value (PV) of
compliance costs were $14 billion (in 2019 dollars) using a 3-percent
discount rate and $12 billion using a 7-percent discount rate. These
estimates include the producer revenues associated with the projected
increase in the recovery of saleable natural gas, using the 2022 Annual
Energy Outlook (AEO) projection of natural gas prices to estimate the
value of the change in the recovered gas at the wellhead projected to
result from the proposed action. Estimates of the value of the
recovered product have been included in previous regulatory analyses as
offsetting compliance costs and are appropriate to include when
assessing the societal cost of a regulation. If the recovery of
saleable natural gas is not accounted for, the EAV of the regulatory
compliance costs of the proposed rule over the 2023 to 2035 period were
estimated to be $1.8 billion per year using a 3-percent discount rate
and $1.8 billion per year using a 7-percent discount rate. The PV of
these costs were estimated to be $19 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate and $15 billion using a 7-percent discount rate.

D. What are the economic and employment impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact and distributional analysis
for this proposal, as detailed in section 4 of the RIA for this
supplemental proposal. To provide a partial measure of the economic
consequences of the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, the EPA developed
a pair of single-market, static partial-equilibrium analyses of
national crude oil and natural gas markets. We implemented the pair of
single-market analyses instead of a coupled market or general
equilibrium approach to provide broad insights into potential national-
level market impacts while providing maximum analytical transparency.
We estimated the price and quantity impacts of the proposed NSPS OOOOb
and EG OOOOc on crude oil and natural gas markets for a subset of years
within the time horizon analyzed in the RIA. The models are
parameterized using production and price data from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration and supply and demand elasticity estimates
from the economics literature.
    The RIA projects that regulatory costs are at their highest in
2026, the first year the requirements of both the proposed NSPS OOOOb
and EG OOOOc are assumed to be in effect and will represent the year
with the largest market impacts based upon the partial equilibrium
modeling. We estimated that the proposed rule could result in a maximum
decrease in annual natural gas production of about 358 million Mcf in
2026 (or about 1.00 percent of natural gas production) with a maximum
price increase of $0.07 per Mcf (or about 2.35 percent). We estimated
the maximum annual reduction in crude oil production would be about 21
million barrels (or about 0.52 percent of crude oil production) with a
maximum price increase of about $0.10 per barrel (or less than 0.16
percent).
    Before 2026, the modeled market impacts are much smaller than the
2026 impacts as only the incremental requirements under the proposed
NSPS OOOOb are assumed to be in effect. As regulatory costs are
projected to decline after 2026, the modelled market impacts for years
after 2026 are smaller than the peaks estimated for 2026. Please see
section 4.1 of the RIA for more detail on the formulation and
implementation of the model as well as a discussion of several
important caveats and limitations associated with the approach.
    As discussed in the RIA for this proposal, employment impacts of
environmental regulations are generally composed of a mix of potential
declines and gains in different areas of the economy over time.
Regulatory employment impacts can vary across occupations, regions, and
industries; by labor and product demand and supply elasticities; and in
response to other labor market conditions. Isolating such impacts is a
challenge, as they are difficult to disentangle from employment impacts
caused by a wide variety of ongoing, concurrent economic changes.
    The oil and natural gas industry directly employs approximately
140,000 people in oil and natural gas extraction, a figure which varies
with market prices

and technological change and employs a large number of workers in
related sectors that provide materials and services.\338\ As indicated
above, the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc are projected to cause
small changes in oil and natural gas production and prices. As a
result, demand for labor employed in oil and natural gas-related
activities and associated industries might experience adjustments as
there may be increases in compliance-related labor requirements as well
as changes in employment due to quantity effects in directly regulated
sectors and sectors that consume oil and natural gas products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \338\ Employment figure drawn from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics Current Employment Statistics for NAICS code 211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?

    To satisfy the requirement of E.O. 12866 and to inform the public,
the EPA estimated the climate and health benefits due to the emissions
reductions projected under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc. The
EPA expects climate and health benefits due to the emissions reductions
projected under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc. The EPA estimated
the climate benefits of CH4 emission reductions expected
from this proposed rule using the SC-CH4 estimates presented
in the ``Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane,
and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under E.O. 13990 (IWG 2021)''
published in February 2021 by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG). The SC-CH4 is the
monetary value of the net harm to society associated with a marginal
increase in emissions in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that
increase. In principle, SC-CH4 includes the value of all
climate change impacts, including (but not limited to) changes in net
agricultural productivity, human health effects, property damage from
increased flood risk and natural disasters, disruption of energy
systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the value of
ecosystem services. The SC-CH4 therefore, reflects the
societal value of reducing emissions of the gas in question by one
metric ton and is the theoretically appropriate value to use in
conducting benefit-cost analyses of policies that affect CH4
emissions.
    The interim estimates of the social cost of methane and other
greenhouse gases (collectively referred to as the social cost of
greenhouse gases (SC-GHG)) presented in the February 2021 Technical
Support Document (TSD) (IWG 2021) were developed over many years, using
a transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best science
available at the time of that process, and with input from the public.
As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 2021
TSD, the EPA agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates continue to
represent at this time the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG
until revised estimates have been developed reflecting the latest,
peer-reviewed science. However, while the IWG's SC-GHG work under E.O.
13990 continues, the RIA accompanying this proposal the EPA presents a
sensitivity analysis of the monetized climate benefits using a set of
SC-CH4 estimates that incorporates recent research
addressing recommendations of the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (2017).
    We invite the public to comment on both the sensitivity analysis of
the monetized climate benefits and the accompanying external review
draft technical report that the EPA has prepared that explains the
methodology underlying the newer set of SC-CH4 estimates.
This report is also included as supporting material for the RIA in the
docket.\339\ However, we emphasize that the monetized benefits analysis
is entirely distinct from the statutory BSER determinations proposed
herein and is presented solely for the purposes of complying with E.O.
12866. As discussed in more detail in the November 2021 proposal and
earlier in this notice, the EPA weighed the relevant statutory factors
to determine the appropriate proposed standards and did not rely on the
monetized benefits analysis for purposes of determining the standards.
E.O. 12866 separately requires the EPA to perform a benefit-cost
analysis, including monetizing costs and benefits where practicable,
and the EPA has conducted such an analysis. The monetized climate
benefits calculated using the SC-CH4 are included in the
benefit-cost analysis, and thus, as is generally the case with any
analytical methods, data, or results associated with RIAs, the EPA
welcomes the opportunity to continually improve its understanding
through public input on these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ For more information about the development of these
estimates, see www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimated the PV of the climate benefits over the 2023 to
2035 period to be $48 billion at a 3-percent discount rate. The EAV of
these benefits is estimated to be $4.5 billion per year at a 3-percent
discount rate. These values represent only a partial accounting of
climate impacts from methane emissions and do not account for health
effects of ozone exposure from the increase in methane emissions.
    Under the proposed NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc, the EPA expects that
VOC emission reductions will improve air quality and are likely to
improve health and welfare associated with exposure to ozone,
PM2.5, and HAP. Calculating ozone impacts from VOC emissions
changes requires information about the spatial patterns in those
emissions changes. In addition, the ozone health effects from the
proposed rule will depend on the relative proximity of expected VOC and
ozone changes to population. In this analysis, we have not
characterized VOC emissions changes at a finer spatial resolution than
the national total. In light of these uncertainties, we present an
illustrative screening analysis in Appendix C of the RIA based on
modeled oil and natural gas VOC contributions to ozone concentrations
as they occurred in 2017 and do not include the results of this
analysis in the estimate of benefits and net benefits projected from
this proposal.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This proposed action is an economically significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the OMB for review. Any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with this action. This analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Supplemental Proposal for the Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review'', is
available in the docket and describes in detail the EPA's assumptions
and characterizes the various sources of uncertainties affecting the
estimates.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in the proposed amendments
for 40 CFR part 60, subparts OOOOb and OOOOc,

have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The ICR
document that the EPA prepared has been assigned OMB Control No. 2060-
0721 and EPA ICR number 2523.05. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. As noted in
section IV.N of this supplemental preamble, draft versions of the
proposed templates for the semiannual and annual reports for these
subparts are included in the docket for this action,\340\ and the EPA
specifically requests comment on the content, layout, and overall
design of the templates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \340\ See Part_60_Subpart_OOOOb_60.5420b(b)_Annual_Report.xlsm
and Part_60_Subpart_OOOOb_60.5422b(b)_Semiannual_Report.xlsx,
available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 60, Subpart OOOOb

    This ICR reflects the EPA's proposed NSPS OOOOb for a wide range of
emissions sources in the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category. The
information collected will be used by the EPA and delegated state and
local agencies to determine the compliance status of affected
facilities subject to the rule.
    Respondents/affected entities: Oil and natural gas operators and
owners; approved third-party notifiers.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,849.
    Frequency of response: Varies depending on affected facility.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ The specific frequency for each information collection
activity within this request is shown in Tables 1a through 1d of the
Supporting Statement in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total estimated burden: 883,625 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $58,535,262($2019) (per year), which includes
$12,182,846 in capital costs.

40 CFR Part 60, subpart OOOOc

    This rule does not directly impose specific requirements on oil and
natural gas facilities located in states or areas of Indian country.
The rule also does not impose specific requirements on tribal
governments that have affected facilities located in their area of
Indian country. This rule does impose specific requirements on state
governments with affected oil and natural gas facilities. The
information collection requirements are based on the recordkeeping and
reporting burden associated with developing, implementing, and
enforcing a plan to limit GHG emissions from existing sources in the
oil and natural gas sector. These recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C.
7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this collection of information for the states
(averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated
to range from 55,467 to 69,333 hours at a total annual labor cost of
between $7 to $8.8 million. The annual burden for the Federal
government associated with the state collection of information
(averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated
to be 22,520 hours at a total annual labor cost of $1,399,930. The
annual burden for industry (averaged over the first 3 years following
promulgation) is estimated to be 2.2 million hours at a total annual
labor cost of $166 million. We realize, however, that some facilities
may not incur these costs within the first 3 years and may incur them
during the fourth or fifth year instead. Therefore, this ICR presents a
conservatively high burden estimate for the initial 3 years following
promulgation of the proposed emission guidelines. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Respondents/affected entities: States with one or more designated
facilities covered under subpart OOOOc.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 50.
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 69,333 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $8,822,020 (per year), which includes $36,750
in capital costs.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your
comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the
beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. Written comments and recommendations for
the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of
publication of this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find
this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under
30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than January 5, 2023.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examined the impact of the
proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory alternatives that
could minimize that impact. The complete IRFA is available for review
in the RIA (see Section 4.3) and the EPA is soliciting comment on the
presentation of its analysis of the impacts on small entities,
particularly if there is value in presenting more granular information
beyond a focus on entities above and below the SBA size
classifications.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA also convened a
Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations from small entity representatives that potentially
would be subject to the rule's requirements. The SBAR Panel evaluated
the assembled materials and small-entity comments on issues related to
elements of an IRFA. A copy of the full SBAR Panel Report is available
in the rulemaking docket.
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA will prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action as part of the
final rule. The FRFA will address the issues raised by public comments
on the IRFA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    The NSPS contains a federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538,
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state,
tribal, and local governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector
in any one year. Accordingly, the EPA has prepared under section 202 of
the UMRA a written statement of the benefit-cost analysis, which can be
found in Section VII of this preamble, and in Chapter 1 of the RIA.
    Consistent with section 205, the EPA has identified and considered
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives. These alternatives are
described in Section IV of this preamble.
    The EG is proposed under CAA section 111(d) and does not impose any
direct compliance requirements on designated facilities, apart from the

requirement for states to develop state plans. As explained in section
XIV.G. of the November 2021 proposal \342\ and section V of this
supplemental proposal, the EG also does not impose specific
requirements on tribal governments that have designated facilities
located in their area of Indian country. The burden for states to
develop state plans following promulgation of the rule is estimated to
be below $100 million in any one year. Thus, the EG is not subject to
the requirements of section 203 or section 205 of the UMRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ See 86 FR 63256 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NSPS and EG are also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because, as described in 2 U.S.C. 1531-38, they contain no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. Specifically, for the EG the state governments to
which rule requirements apply are not considered small governments. In
light of the interest among governmental entities, the EPA conducted
pre-proposal outreach with national organizations representing states
and tribal governmental entities while formulating the proposed rule as
discussed in section VII of the November 2021 proposal.\343\ The EPA
considered the stakeholders' experiences and lessons learned to help
inform how to better structure this proposal and consider ongoing
challenges that will require continued collaboration with stakeholders.
With this proposal, the EPA seeks further input from states and tribes.
For public input to be considered during the formal rulemaking, please
submit comments on this proposed action to the formal regulatory docket
at EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317 so that the EPA may consider
those comments during the development of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \343\ See 86 FR 63145 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue an action that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by state and local governments, or the EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed action.
    The proposed NSPS OOOOb and proposed EG OOOOc do not have
federalism implications. These actions will not have substantial direct
effects on the states as defined in the Executive Order, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Federally recognized
Tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law, and does not have
substantial direct effects on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, as
specified in E.O. 13175. See 65 FR 67249 (November 9, 2000). As stated
in the November 2021 proposal, the EPA found that 112 unique tribal
lands are located within 50 miles of an affected oil and natural gas
source, and 32 tribes have one or more oil or natural gas sources on
their lands.\344\ The majority of the designated facilities impacted by
proposed NSPS and EG on Tribal lands are owned by private entities, and
tribes will not be directly impacted by the compliance costs associated
with this rulemaking. There would only be tribal implications
associated with this rulemaking in the case where a unit is owned by a
Tribal government or in the case of the NSPS, a Tribal government is
given delegated authority to enforce the rulemaking. Tribes are not
required to develop plans to implement the EG under CAA section 111(d)
for designated existing sources. The EPA notes that this supplemental
proposal does not directly impose specific requirements on designated
facilities, including those located in Indian country. Before
developing any standards for sources on Tribal land, the EPA would
consult with leaders from affected tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ 86 FR 63143 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the November 2021 proposal, the EPA held consultation with
the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (January 24, 2022), the
Northern Arapaho Tribe (January 24, 2022), and the Eastern Shoshone
Tribe (January 25, 2022).\345\ Consistent with previous actions
affecting the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, the EPA
understands there is continued significant tribal interest because of
the growth of the oil and natural gas production in Indian country. In
accordance with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, the EPA will continue to engage in consultation with
tribal officials during the development of this supplemental proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ See memorandums located at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-
0317.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is subject to E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997)
because it is an economically significant regulatory action as defined
by E.O. 12866, and the EPA believes that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. Accordingly, the Agency has evaluated the environmental
health and welfare effects of climate change on children. GHGs,
including methane, contribute to climate change and are emitted in
significant quantities by the oil and gas industry. The EPA believes
that the GHG emission reductions resulting from implementation of these
proposed standards and guidelines, if finalized will further improve
children's health. The assessment literature cited in the EPA's 2009
Endangerment Findings concluded that certain populations and life
stages, including children, the elderly, and the poor, are most
vulnerable to climate-related health effects (74 FR 66524). The
assessment literature since 2009 strengthens these conclusions by
providing more detailed findings regarding these groups'
vulnerabilities and the projected impacts they may experience (e.g.,
the 2016 Climate and Health Assessment).\346\ These assessments
describe how children's unique physiological and developmental factors
contribute to making them particularly vulnerable to climate change.
Impacts to children are expected from heat waves, air pollution,
infectious and waterborne illnesses, and mental health effects
resulting from extreme weather events. In addition, children are among
those especially susceptible to most allergic diseases, as well as
health effects associated with heat waves, storms, and floods.
Additional health concerns may arise in low-income households,
especially those with children, if climate change reduces food
availability and increases prices, leading to food insecurity within
households. More

detailed information on the impacts of climate change to human health
and welfare is provided in sections III and VI of the November 2021
proposal \347\ and section VII of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ USGCRP, 2016: The Impacts of Climate Change on Human
Health in the United States: A Scientific Assessment. Crimmins, A.,
J. Balbus, J.L. Gamble, C.B. Beard, J.E. Bell, D. Dodgen, R.J.
Eisen, N. Fann, M.D. Hawkins, S.C. Herring, L. Jantarasami, D.M.
Mills, S. Saha, M.C. Sarofim, J. Trtanj, and L. Ziska, Eds. U.S.
Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 312 pp. http://dx.doi.org/10.7930/J0R49NQX.
    \347\ See 86 FR 63124 and 86 FR 63139 (November 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action, which is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, has a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The documentation for this decision is
contained in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Standards
of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and
Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Climate Review prepared for the November 2021 proposal and the
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Supplemental Proposal for the
Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources
and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas
Sector Climate Review for this action \348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This proposed action for NSPS OOOOb and EG OOOOc involves technical
standards. Therefore, the EPA conducted searches for the Standards of
Performance for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN)
Database managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
Searches were conducted for EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 3A, 3B,
3C, 4, 6, 10, 15, 16, 16A, 18, 21, 22, and 25A of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A. No applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified
for EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 21, and 22 and none were brought to its
attention in comments. All potential standards were reviewed to
determine the practicality of the voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
for this rule. Two VCS were identified as an acceptable alternative to
EPA test methods for the purpose of this proposed rule. First, ANSI/
ASME PTC 19-10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses (Part 10) (manual
portions only and not the instrumental portion) was identified to be
used in lieu of EPA Methods 3B, 6, 6A, 6B, 15A and 16A. This standard
includes manual and instrumental methods of analysis for carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen,
and sulfur dioxide. Second, ASTM D6420-99 (2010), ``Test Method for
Determination of Gaseous Organic Compounds by Direct Interface Gas
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 18 with the following caveats, only use when the target
compounds are all known and the target compounds are all listed in ASTM
D6420 as measurable. ASTM D6420 should never be specified as a total
VOC Method. (ASTM D6420-99 (2010) is not incorporated by reference in
40 CFR part 60.) The search identified 19 VCS that were potentially
applicable for this proposed rule in lieu of EPA reference methods.
However, these have been determined to not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, documentation, validation of data and other important
technical and policy considerations. For additional information, please
see the September 10, 2021, memo titled, ``Voluntary Consensus Standard
Results for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate
Review.'' \349\ In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a
final rule regulatory text for 40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOOb and OOOOc
that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR part 51, the EPA is proposing to incorporate the
following ten standards by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \349\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0072.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ASTM D86-96, Distillation of Petroleum Products (Approved
April 10, 1996) covers the distillation of natural gasolines, motor
gasolines, aviation gasolines, aviation turbine fuels, special boiling
point spirits, naphthas, white spirit, kerosenes, gas oils, distillate
fuel oils, and similar petroleum products, utilizing either manual or
automated equipment.
     ASTM D1945-03 (Reapproved 2010), Standard Test Method for
Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography covers the determination
of the chemical composition of natural gases and similar gaseous
mixtures within a certain range of composition. This test method may be
abbreviated for the analysis of lean natural gases containing
negligible amounts of hexanes and higher hydrocarbons, or for the
determination of one or more components.
     ASTM D3588-98 (Reapproved 2003), Standard Practice for
Calculating Heat Value, Compressibility Factor, and Relative Density of
Gaseous Fuel covers procedures for calculating heating value, relative
density, and compressibility factor at base conditions for natural gas
mixtures from compositional analysis. It applies to all common types of
utility gaseous fuels.
     ASTM D4891-89 (Reapproved 2006), Standard Test Method for
Heating Value of Gases in Natural Gas Range by Stoichiometric
Combustion covers the determination of the heating value of natural
gases and similar gaseous mixtures within a certain range of
composition.
     ASTM D6522-00 (Reapproved December 2005), Standard Test
Method for Determination of Nitrogen Oxides, Carbon Monoxide, and
Oxygen Concentrations in Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Reciprocating
Engines, Combustion Turbines, Boilers, and Process Heaters Using
Portable Analyzers covers the determination of nitrogen oxides, carbon
monoxide, and oxygen concentrations in controlled and uncontrolled
emissions from natural gas-fired reciprocating engines, combustion
turbines, boilers, and process heaters.
     ASTM E168-92, General Techniques of Infrared Quantitative
Analysis covers the techniques most often used in infrared quantitative
analysis. Practices associated with the collection and analysis of data
on a computer are included as well as practices that do not use a
computer.
     ASTM E169-93, General Techniques of Ultraviolet
Quantitative Analysis (Approved May 15, 1993) provide general
information on the techniques most often used in ultraviolet and
visible quantitative analysis. The purpose is to render unnecessary the
repetition of these descriptions of techniques in individual methods
for quantitative analysis.
     ASTM E260-96, General Gas Chromatography Procedures
(Approved April 10, 1996) is a general guide to the application of gas
chromatography with packed columns for the separation and analysis of
vaporizable or gaseous organic and inorganic mixtures and as a
reference for the writing and reporting of gas chromatography methods.
     ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses
[Part 10, Instruments and Apparatus] (Issued August 31, 1981) covers
measuring the oxygen or carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas.
     EPA-600/R-12/531, EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and
Certification of Gaseous Calibration

Standards (Issued May 2012) is mandatory for certifying the calibration
gases being used for the calibration and audit of ambient air quality
analyzers and continuous emission monitors that are required by
numerous parts of the CFR.
    The EPA determined that the ASTM and ASME/ANSI standards,
notwithstanding the age of the standards, are reasonably available
because it they are available for purchase from the following
addresses: ASTM International (ASTM), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, Post
Office Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959; or ProQuest, 300
North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-
5990. The EPA determined that the EPA standard is reasonably available
because it is publicly available through the EPA's website: https://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100EKJR.pdf.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be used in this
regulation.

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

    This action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994). The documentation for this
assessment is contained in section 4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Proposed Standards of Performance for New, Reconstructed, and
Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Oil and
Natural Gas Sector Climate Review prepared for the November 2021
proposal and in section 4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Supplemental Proposal for the Standards of Performance for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emissions Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review prepared
for this action.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \350\ See Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0173.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference; Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-24675 Filed 12-5-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P