original v. - environmental defense fund · v. scott pruitt, administrator, ... environmental...

RECEIVED

CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORK$,ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND,ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITYPROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL, and SIERRACLUB,

V.

SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator,ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY, and UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY,

)))))))

ORIGiNAL

) 17—1145No._____

)))))))))))

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(l), Rule 15 of

the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure, and Circuit Rule 15, Clean Air Council,

Earthworks, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity Project,

Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club hereby petition the Court for

UNITEc (0U111 OEApp

ES COURT OFFOR DISTRICT OFCOL

STATCOLUMBIAJUN 5 ZR THE DISTRICT

Petitioners

)

Respondents.

review of the final action of Respondents Scott Pruitt, Administrator, U.S.

USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1678132 Filed: 06/05/2017 of 15

Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to

administratively stay standards of performance for the oil and gas sector as

published in the Federal Register at $2 Fed. Reg. 25,730 (June 5, 2017) and titled

“Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New, Reconstructed, and

Modified Sources; Grant of Reconsideration and Partial Stay.” (Attach. 1).

DATED: June 5, 2017

Is! Susannah L. WeaverSUSANNAH L. WEAVER

SEAN H. DONAHUE

Donahue & Goldberg, LLP1111 l4thSt.,NW, Ste. 5lOAWashington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) 569-3818Facsimile: (202) [email protected] Petitioner EnvironmentalDefense Fund

PETER ZALZAL

ALICE HENDERSON

VICKIE PATTON

Environmental Defense Fund2060 Broadway, Ste. 300Boulder, CO 80302Telephone: (303) [email protected] CARBONELL

Environmental Defense Fund1875 Connecticut Ave., 6th FloorWashington, D.C., 20009Telephone: (202) [email protected] Petitioner EnvironmentalDefense fund

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID D. DONIGER

Natural Resources Defense Council1152 15th Street NW, Ste. 300Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202)[email protected] GEERTSMA

Natural Resources Defense Council2 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1600Chicago, IL 60606Telephone: (312) [email protected] Petitioner NatutralResources Defense Council

JOANNE MARIE SPALDLNG

Sierra Club2101 Webster St., Ste. 1300Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (415) 997-5725Joanne. SpaIdingsienaclub. orgANDRES RESTREPO

Sierra Club50 F St., NW, Eighth FloorWashington, DC 20001Telephone: (202) 650-6073Andres .Restrepo@sierraclub .orgCounselfor Petitioner Sierra Club

2


Ai BREWSTER WEEKS TIM BALLO

DARIN SCHROEDER EarthjusticeClean Air Task Force 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW,18 Tremont, Ste. 530 Ste. 702Boston, MA 02108 Washington, DC 20036Telephone: (617) 624-0234 Telephone: (202) [email protected] tballo@earthjustice. [email protected] JOEL M11soR

Counselfor Petitioner Earthworks Earthjustice633 17th St., Ste. 1600

ADAM KRON Denver, CO 80202Environmental Integrity Project Telephone: (303) 996-96281000 Vermont Ave. NW, Ste. 1100 jminor(earthjustice.orgWashington, DC 20005 Counselfor Petitioners Sierra ClubTelephone: (202) 263-4451 and Clean Air [email protected] Petitioner EnvironmentalIntegrity Project

3


Attachment 1

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,

Reconstructed, and Modified Sources; Grant of

Reconsideration and Partial Stay,

$2 fed. Reg. 25,730 (June 5, 2017)


25730 Federal Register! Vol. 82, No. 106 ! Monday, June 5, 2017 ! Rules and Regulations

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44U.s.c. 3501—3520).

D. Federalism and Indian TribalGovernments

A rule has implications forFederalism under Executive Order13132 if it has a substantial direct effecton the States, on the relationshipbetween the national government andthe States, or on the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among thevarious levels of government. We haveanalyzed this rule under that Order andhave determined that it is consistentwith the fundamental federalismprinciples and preemption requirementsdescribed in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribalimplications under Executive Order13175, consultation and Coordinationwith Indian Tribal Governments,because it would not have a substantialdirect effect on one or more Indiantribes, on the relationship between theFederal Government and Indian tribes,or on the distribution of power andresponsibilities between the FederalGovernment and Indian tribes. If youbelieve this rule has implications forFederalism or Indian tribes, pleasecontact the person listed in the FORFURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

TheUnfunded Mandates Reform Actof 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531—1538) requiresFederal agencies to assess the effects oftheir discretionary regulatory actions. Inparticular, the Act addresses actionsthat may result in the expenditure by aState, local, or tribal government, in theaggregate, or by the private sector of$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) ormore in any one year. Though this rulewould not result in such anexpenditure, we do discuss the effects ofthis rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule underDepartment of Homeland SecurityManagement Directive 023—01 andCommandant Instruction M16475.1D,which guide the Coast Guard incomplying with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969 (42U.S.C. 4321—4370f), and have made apreliminary determination that thisaction is one of a category of actions thatdo not individually or cumulativelyhave a significant effect on the humanenvironment. This rule involves theestablishment of a permanent safetyzone on the navigable waters of PortValdez, in the vicinity of the ValdezSpit. It is categorically excluded fromfurther review in accordance withparagraph 34(g) of Figure 2—1 of

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D. ARecord of Environmental Consideration(REC) supporting this determination isavailable in the docket where indicatedin the ADDRESSES section of thispreamble.

G. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the FirstAmendment rights of protesters.Protesters are asked to contact theperson listed in the FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT section tocoordinate protest activities so that yourmessage can be received withoutjeopardizing the safety or security ofpeople, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation(water), Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Security measures,Waterways.

For the reasons discussed in thepreamble, the Coast Guard amends 33CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATIONAREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

• 1. The authority citation for part 165continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.s.c 1231; 50 U.s.c. 191;33 CFR 1.05—1, 6.04—1, 6.04—6, and 160.5;Department of Homeland Security DelegationNo. 0170.1.

• 2. Add § 165.1713 to read as follows:

§ 165.171 3 Safety Zone; City of Valdez July4th Fireworks, Port Valdez; Valdez, AK.

(a) Regulated area. The following areais a permanent safety zone: Allnavigable waters of Port Valdez withina 200-yard radius from a position of61°07’22” N. and 146°21’13” W. Thisincludes the entrance to the Valdezsmall boat harbor.

(b) Effective date. This rule will beeffective from 9:30 p.m. until 11:30 p.m.on July 4th of each year, or during thesame time frame on specified rain datesof July 5th through July 8th of each year.

(c) Definitions. The followingdefinitions apply to this section:

(1) The term “designatedrepresentative” means any Coast Guardcommissioned, warrant or petty officerof the U. S. Coast Guard who has beendesignated by the COTP, Prince WilliamSound, to act on his or her behalf.

(2) The term “official patrol vessel”may consist of any Coast Guard, CoastGuard Auxiliary, state, or local lawenforcement vessels assigned orapproved by the COTP, Prince WilliamSound.

(d) Regulations. (1] The generalregulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23,

as well as the following regulations,apply.

(2) The safety zone is closed to allvessel traffic, except as may bepermitted by the COTP or thedesignated representative duringperiods of enforcement.

(3) All persons and vessels shallcomply with the instructions of theCOTP or the designated representative.Upon being hailed by a U.S. CoastGuard vessel or other official patrolvessel by siren, radio, flashing light orother means, the operator of the vesselshall proceed as directed.

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enteror operate within the regulated area mayrequest permission from the COTP viaVHF Channel 16 or (907) 835—7205(Prince William Sound Vessel TrafficCenter) to request permission to do so.

(5) The Coast Guard will issue aBroadcast Notice to Mariners to advisemariners of the safety zone before andduring the event.

(6) The COTP may be aided by otherFederal, state, borough and local lawenforcement officials in the enforcementof this regulation.

Dated: May 16, 2017.

J.T. Lally,Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain ofthe Port, Prince William Sound, Alaska.[FR Doc. 2017—11572 Filed 6—2—17; 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 9110—04—P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA—HQ—OAR—201 0—0505; FRL—9963—40—OAR]

RIN 2060—A163

Oil and Natural Gas Sector: EmissionStandards for New, Reconstructed,and Modified Sources; Grant ofReconsideration and Partial Stay

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Notice of reconsideration andpartial stay.

SUMMARY: By a letter dated April 18,2017, the Administrator announced theconvening of a proceeding forreconsideration of the fugitive emissionrequirements at well sites andcompressor station sites in the finalrule, “Oil and Natural Gas Sector:Emission Standards for New,Reconstructed, and Modified Sources,”published in the Federal Register onJune 3, 2016. In this action, theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)is granting reconsideration of additional


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 106/Monday, June 5, 2017/Rules and Regulations 25731

requirements in that rule, specificallythe well site pneumatic pumpsstandards and the requirements forcertification by professional engineer. Inaddition, the EPA is staying for threemonths these rule requirements pendingreconsideration.DATES: This final rule is effective June2, 2017. The action grantingreconsideration is effective June 2, 2017.The stay of § 60.5393a(b) through (c),60.5397a, 60.5410a(e)(2) through (5) and(j), 60.5411a(d), 60.5415a(h),60.5420a(b)(7), (8), and (12), and (c)(15)through (17) is effective from June 2,2017, until August 31, 2017.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.Peter Tsirigotis, Sector Policies andPrograms Division (D205—01), Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards,Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711; telephone number: (888) 627—7764; email address: [email protected].

Electronic copies of this document areavailable on EPA’s Web site at https://wwi’v.epa.gov/controlling-afr-poflutionoil-and-natural-gas-industiy. Copies ofthis document are also available athttps://www.regulations.gov, at DocketID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 3, 2016, the EPA publisheda final rule titled “Oil and Natural GasSector: Emission Standards for New,Reconstructed, and Modified Sources;Final Rule,” 81 FR 35824 (June 3, 2016)(“2016 Rule”). The 2016 Ruleestablishes new source performancestandards (NSPS) for greenhouse gasemissions and volatile organiccompound (VOC) emissions from the oiland natural gas sector. This ruleaddresses, among other things, fugitiveemissions at well sites and compressorstation sites (“fugitive emissionsrequirements”), and emissions frompneumatic pumps. In addition, for anumber of affected facilities (i.e.,centrifugal compressors, reciprocatingcompressors, pneumatic pumps, andstorage vessels), the rule requirescertification by a professional engineerof the closed vent system design andcapacity, as well as any technicalinfeasibility determination relative tocontrolling pneumatic pumps at wellsites. For further information on the2016 Rule, see 81 FR 35824 (June 3,2016).

On August 2, 2016, a number ofinterested parties submittedadministrative petitions to the EPAseeking reconsideration of variousaspects of the 2016 Rule pursuant tosection 307 (d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7607(d)(7)(B)).1 Thosepetitions include numerous objectionsrelative to the fugitive emissionsrequirements, well site pneumatic pumpstandards, and the requirements forcertification by professional engineer.Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA,the Administrator shall convene areconsideration proceeding if, in theAdministrator’s judgment, the petitionerraises an objection to a rule that wasimpracticable to raise during thecomment period or if the grounds forthe objection arose after the commentperiod but within the period for judicialreview. In either case, the Administratormust also conclude that the objection isof central relevance to the outcome ofthe rule. The Administrator may staythe effectiveness of the rule for up tothree months during suchreconsideration.

In a letter dated April 18, 2017, basedon the criteria in CAA section307(d)(7)(B), the Administratorconvened a proceeding forreconsideration of the followingobjections relative to the fugitiveemissions requirements: (1) Theapplicability of the fugitive emissionsrequirements to low production wellsites, and (2) the process and criteria forrequesting and receiving approval forthe use of an alternative means ofemission limitations (AMEL) forpurposes of compliance with thefugitive emissions requirements in the2016 Rule.

The EPA had proposed to exempt lowproduction well sites from the fugitiveemissions requirements, believing thelower production associated with thesewells would generally result in lowerfugitive emissions. 80 FR 56639.However, the final rule differssignificantly from what was proposed inthat it requires these well sites tocomply with the fugitive emissionsrequirements based on information andrationale not presented for publiccomment during the proposal stage. See81 FR 35856 (“. . . well site fugitiveemissions are not correlated with levelsof production, but rather based on thenumber of pieces of equipment andcomponents”). It was thereforeimpracticable to object to this newrationale during the public commentperiod.

The AMEL process and criteria wereincluded in the 2016 Rule withouthaving been proposed for notice andcomment. The EPA added the AMELprovisions in the final rule with theintent of, among other goals, reducing

1 Copies of these petitions are included in thedocket for the 2016 Rule, Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505.

compliance burdens for those sourcesthat may already be reducing fugitiveemissions in accordance with a staterequirement or other program that isachieving reductions equivalent to thoserequired by the 2016 Rule. These AMELprovisions were also added to encouragethe development and use of innovativetechnology, in particular for fugitiveemissions monitoring. 81 FR 35861.However, issues and questions raised inthe administrative petitions forreconsideration (e.g., who can apply forand who can use an approved AMEL)suggest that sources may have difficultyunderstanding and applying for AMEL.

Both issues described above, whichrelate directly to whether certainsources must implement the fugitiveemissions requirements, are of centralrelevance to the outcome of the 2016Rule for the reasons stated below.Fugitive emissions are a significantsource of emissions for many industries,and the EPA has promulgated numerousNSPS specifically for reducing fugitiveemissions, including 40 CFR part 60,subpart KKK (addressing VOC leaksfrom on-shore natural gas processingplants), as standalone rules. The factthat the EPA chose here to promulgatethe well site and compressor stationfugitive emissions requirements alongwith other standards in the 2016 Ruledoes not make these requirements anyless important than the other fugitiveemissions standards; rather, because oftheir importance, they are a significantcomponent of the 2016 Rule. The issuesdescribed above are important as theydetermine the universe of affectedfacilities that must implement thefugitive emission requirements; as such,they are of central relevance to theoutcome of the 2016 Rule. As stated inthe April 18, 2017, letter, the EPA hasconvened an administrative proceedingfor the reconsideration of the fugitiveemissions requirements in response tothese two objections.

II. Grant of Reconsideration ofAdditional Issues

Since issuing the April 18, 2017,letter, the EPA has identified objectionsto two other aspects of the 2016 Rulethat meet the criteria for reconsiderationunder section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA.These objections relate to (1) therequirements for certification of closedvent system by professional engineer,and (2) the well site pneumatic pumpstandards.

A. Requirements for Certification ofClosed Vent System by ProfessionalEngineer

For closed vent systems used tocomply with the emission standards for


25732 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 106/Monday, June 5, 2017/Rules and Regulations

various equipment used in the oil andnatural gas sector, the 2016 Rulerequires certification by a professionalengineer (PE) that a closed vent systemdesign and capacity assessment wasconducted under his or her direction orsupervision and that the assessment andresulting report were conductedpursuant to the requirements of the2016 Rule (“PE certificationrequirement”). Several petitioners foradministrative reconsideration assertthat the PE certification requirementwas not proposed for notice andcomment.2 One petitioner notes that nocosts associated with obtaining suchcertification were considered orprovided for review during the proposalprocess.3 The petitioner claims thatthere is no quantifiable benefit to theenvironment from this additionalcompliance demonstration requirement,while there is significant expenseinvolved.4

Section 111 of the CAA requires thatthe EPA consider, among other factors,the cost associated with establishing anew source performance standard. See111(a)(1) of the CAA. The statute is thusclear that cost is an importantconsideration in determining whether toimpose a requirement. In finalizing the2016 Rule, the EPA made clear that itviewed the PE certification requirementto be an important aspect of a numberof performance standards in the thatrule. The EPA acknowledges that it hadnot analyzed the costs associated withthe PE certification requirement;therefore, it was impracticable forpetitioners to provide meaningfulcomments during the comment periodon whether the improved environmentalperformance this requirement mayachieve justifies the associated costs andother compliance burden. This issue isof central relevance to the outcome ofthe 2016 Rule because the rule requiresthis PE certification for demonstratingcompliance for a number of differentstandards, including the standards forcentrifugal compressors, reciprocatingcompressors, pneumatic pumps, andstorage vessels. For the reasons statedabove, the EPA is grantingreconsideration of the PE certificationrequirement.

B. Technical Infeasibility Determination(Well Site Pneumatic Pump Standards)

In the 2016 Rule, the EPA exempts apneumatic pump at a well site from theemission reduction requirement if it is

2 Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505—7682 and Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505—7686.

3See Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505—7682.

Id.

technically infeasible to route thepneumatic pump to a control device ora process. 81 FR 35850. However, therule requires that such technicalinfeasibility be determined and certifiedby a “qualified professional engineer”as that term is defined in the final rule.During the proposal stage, the EPA didnot propose or otherwise suggestexempting well site pneumatic pumpsfrom emission control based on suchcertification. In fact, the technicalinfeasibility exemption itself was addedduring the final rule stage. Further, thiscertification requirement differssignificantly from how the EPA haspreviously addressed another “technicalinfeasibility” issue encountered by thisindustry. Specifically, the oil and gasNSPS subpart 0000, which waspromulgated in 2012, exemptshydraulically fractured gas wellcompletions from performing a reducedemission completion (REC) if it is nottechnically feasible to do so, andrequires documentation andrecordkeeping of the technicalinfeasibility. See 40 CFR 60.53 75. The2016 Rule extends the REC requirementand associated technical infeasibilityexemption to hydraulically fractured oilwell completions and requires moredetailed documentation of technicalinfeasibility. Neither subpart 0000 northe 2016 Rule require that REC technicalinfeasibility be certified by a qualifiedprofessional engineer, nor was suchrequirement proposed or otherwiseraised during the public commentperiod for these rules. In light of the factthat the EPA had not proposed suchcertification requirement for pneumaticpumps, and how this requirementdiffers from the EPA’s previoustreatment of a similar issue as describedabove, one could not have anticipatedthat the 2016 Rule would finalize suchcertification requirement for pneumaticpumps in the 2016 Rule. Further,believing that “circumstances that couldotherwise make control of a pneumaticpump technically infeasible at anexisting location can be addressed in thesite’s design and construction,” the EPAdoes not allow such exemption for newdevelopments in the 2016 Rule. 40 CFR60.5393a(b)(5); see also, 81 FR 35849.The 2016 Rule refers to such newdevelopments as “greenfield,” which isdefined as an “entirely newconstruction.” 40 CFR 60.5430a.

The provisions described above wereincluded in the 2016 Rule withouthaving been proposed for notice andcomment, and numerous relatedobjections and issues were raised in thereconsideration petitions. With respectto the requirement that technical

infeasibility be certified by aprofessional engineer, petitioners raisedthe same issues as those for closed ventsystem certification discussed in sectionII.A. In addition, several petitions findthe definition of greenfield unclear. Forexample, one petitioner questionswhether the term “new” as used in thisdefinition is synonymous to how thatterm is defined in section 111 of theCAA. Additional questions includewhether a greenfield remains forever agreenfield, considering that site designsmay change by the time that a newcontrol or pump is installed (which maybe years later). Petitioners also object toEPA’s assumption that the technicalinfeasibility encountered at existingwell sites can be addressed when “new”sites are developed. The issuesdescribed above dictate whether onemust achieve the emission reductionrequired under the well site pneumaticpump standards, which were a majoraddition to the existing oil and gasNSPS regulations through promulgationof the 2016 Rule. Therefore, these issuesare of central relevance to the outcomeof the 2016 Rule.

As announced in the April 18, 2017,letter, and as further announced in thisdocument, the Administrator hasconvened an administrativereconsideration proceeding. As part ofthe proceeding, the EPA will prepare anotice of proposed rulemaking that willprovide the petitioners and the publican opportunity to comment on the rulerequirements and associated issuesidentified above, as well as those forwhich reconsideration was granted inthe April 18, 2017, letter. During thereconsideration proceeding, the EPAintends to look broadly at the entire2016 Rule. For a copy of this letter andthe administrative reconsiderationpetitions, please see Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2010—0505.

III. Stay of Certain Provisions

By this document, in addition to thegrant of reconsideration discussed insection II above, the EPA is staying theeffectiveness of certain aspects of the2016 Rule for three months pursuant tosection 307(d)(7](B) of the CAA pendingreconsideration of the requirements andassociated issues described above and inthe April 18, 2017, letter. Specifically,the EPA is staying the effectiveness ofthe fugitive emissions requirements, thestandards for pneumatic pumps at wellsites, and the certification by aprofessional engineer requirements. Asexplained above, the low productionwell sites and AMEL issues underreconsideration determine the universeof sources that must implement thefugitive emissions requirements. The


Federal Register! Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017 ! Rules and Regulations 25733

2016 Rule requires compliance with theclosed vent system requirements,including certification by a professionalengineer, in order to meet the emissionsstandards for a wide range of equipment(centrifugal compressors, reciprocatingcompressors, pneumatic pumps, andstorage vessels); therefore, the issuesrelative to closed vent certificationaffect the ability of these equipment tocomply with the 2016 Rule. Thetechnical infeasibility exemption andthe associated certification byprofessional engineer requirement, aswell as the “greenfield” issuesdescribed above, dictate whether asource must comply with the emissionreduction requirement for well sitepneumatic pumps. In light of theuncertainties these issues generateregarding the application and/orimplementation of the fugitiveemissions requirements, the well sitepneumatic pumps standards and thecertification by professional engineersrequirements, the EPA believes it isreasonable to stay the effectiveness ofthese requirements in the 2016 Rule,pending reconsideration. Therefore,pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of theCAA, the EPA hereby stays theeffectiveness of these requirements forthree months.

This stay will remain in place untilAugust 31, 2017.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60

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

Dated: May 26, 2017.E. Scott Pruitt,Administrator.• For the reasons cited in the preamble,title 40, chapter I of the Code of FederalRegulations is amended as follows:

PART 60—STANDARDS OFPERFORMANCE FOR NEWSTATIONARY SOURCES

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

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

Subpart 0000a—[Amended]

• 2. Section 60.5393a is amended by:• a. Staying paragraphs (b) and (c) fromJune 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017; and• b. Adding paragraph (f].

The addition reads as follows:

§60.5393a What GHG and VOC standardsapply to pneumatic pump affectedfacilities?* * * * *

(f) Pneumatic pumps at a well site arenot subject to the requirements of

paragraph (d) and (e) of this sectionfrom June 2, 2017, until August 31,2017.

§ 60.5397a [Amended]

• 3. Section 60.5397a is stayed fromJune 2, 2017, until August 31, 2017.• 4. Section 60.54 lOa is amended by:• a. Staying paragraphs (e)(2) through(5) from June 2, 2017, until August 31,2017;• b. Adding paragraph (e)t8); and• c. Staying paragraph (j) from June 2,2017, until August 31, 2017.

The addition reads as follows:

§60.5410a How do I demonstrate initialcompliance with the standards for my well,centrifugal compressor, reciprocatingcompressor, pneumatic controller,pneumatic pump, storage vessel, collectionof fugitive emissions components at a wellsite, collection of fugitive emissionscomponents at a compressor station, andequipment leaks and sweetening unitaffected facilities at onshore natural gasprocessing plants?* * * * *

(e) * * *

(8) Pneumatic pump affected facilitiesat a well are not subject to therequirements of (e)(6) and (7) of thissection from June 2, 2017, until August31, 2017.* * * * *

• 5. Section 60.54 ha is amended by:• a. Revising the introductory text;• b. Staying paragraph (d) from June 2,2017, until August 31, 2017; and• c. Adding paragraph (e).

The revision and addition read asfollows:

§60.5411a What additional requirementsmust I meet to determine initial compliancefor my covers and closed vent systemsrouting emissions from centrifugalcompressor wet seal fluid degassingsystems, reciprocating compressors,pneumatic pumps and storage vessels?

You must meet the applicablerequirements of this section for eachcover and closed vent system used tocomply with the emission standards foryour centrifugal compressor wet sealdegassing systems, reciprocatingcompressors, pneumatic pumps andstorage vessels except as provided inparagraph (e) of this section.* *

(e) Pneumatic pump affected facilitiesat a well site are not subject to therequirements of paragraph (a) of thissection from June 2, 2017, until August31, 2017.• 6. Section 60.54 15a is amended by:• a. Revising paragraph (b) introductorytext and adding paragraph (b)(4); and• b. Staying paragraph (h) from June 2,2017, until August 31, 2017.


§ 60.541 5a How do I demonstratecontinuous compliance with the standardsfor my well, centrifugal compressor,reciprocating compressor, pneumaticcontroller, pneumatic pump, storage vessel,collection of fugitive emissionscomponents at a well site, and collection offugitive emissions components at acompressor station affected facilities, andaffected facilities at onshore natural gasprocessing plants?* * * * *

(b) For each centrifugal compressoraffected facility and each pneumaticpump affected facility, you mustdemonstrate continuous complianceaccording to paragraph (b)(3) of thissection except as provided in paragraph(b)(4) of this section. For eachcentrifugal compressor affected facility,you also must demonstrate continuouscompliance according to paragraphs(b)(i) and (2) of this section.* * * * *

(4) Pneumatic pump affected facilitiesat a well site are not subject to therequirements of paragraphs (b)(3) of thissection from June 2, 2017, until August31, 2017.* * * * *

• 7. Section 60.5416a is amended byrevising the introductory text andadding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§60.5416a What are the initial andcontinuous cover and closed vent systeminspection and monitoring requirements formy centrifugal compressor, reciprocatingcompressor, pneumatic pump, and storagevessel affected facilities?

For each closed vent system or coverat your storage vessel, centrifugalcompressor, reciprocating compressorand pneumatic pump affected facilities,you must comply with the applicablerequirements of paragraphs (a) through(c) of this section, except as provided inparagraph (d) of this section.* * * * *

(d) Pneumatic pump affected facilitiesat a well site are not subject to therequirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) ofthis section from June 2, 2017, untilAugust 31, 2017.• 8. Section 60.5420a is amended by:• a. Revising paragraph (b) introductorytext;• b. Staying paragraphs (b)(7), (8), and(12) from June 2, 2017, until August 31,2017;• c. Adding paragraph (b)(13); and• d. Staying paragraphs (c)(15) through(17) from June 2, 2017, until August 31,2017.



25734 federal Register! Vol. 82, No. 106 / Monday, June 5, 2017/ Rules and Regulations

§ 60.5420a What are my notification,reporting, and recordkeepingrequirements?* * * * *

(b) Reporting requirements. You mustsubmit annual reports containing theinformation specified in paragraphs(b)(1) through (8) and (12) of this sectionand performance test reports asspecified in paragraph (b)(9) or (10) ofthis section, if applicable, except asprovided in paragraph (b)(13) of thissection. You must submit annual reportsfollowing the procedure specified inparagraph (b)(ii) of this section. Theinitial annual report is due no later than90 days after the end of the initialcompliance period as determinedaccording to § 60.54 lOa. Subsequentannual reports are due no later thansame date each year as the initial annualreport. If you own or operate more thanone affected facility, you may submitone report for multiple affected facilitiesprovided the report contains all of theinformation required as specified inparagraphs (b)(1) through (8) of thissection, except as provided in paragraph(b)(13) of this section. Annual reportsmay coincide with title V reports as longas all the required elements of theannual report are included. You mayarrange with the Administrator acommon schedule on which reportsrequired by this part may be submittedas long as the schedule does not extendthe reporting period.* * * * *

(13) The collection of fugitiveemissions components at a well site (asdefined in § 60.5430a), the collection offugitive emissions components at acompressor station (as defined in§ 60.5430a), and pneumatic pumpaffected facilities at a well site (asdefined in § 60.5 365a(h)(2)) are notsubject to the requirements of paragraph(b)(1) of this section from June 2, 2017,until August 31, 2017.* * * * *

[FRDoc. 2017—11457 Filed 6—2—17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560—50—P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA—R08—OAR—201 7—0771; FRL—9963—21—Region 8J

Approval and Promulgation of StatePlans for Designated Facilities andPollutants: Colorado, Montana, NorthDakota, South Dakota, Utah, andWyoming; Negative Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: With this direct final rule, theEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)is taking action to approve the negativedeclarations for several designatedfacility classes in various states ofRegion 8. first, the EPA is taking directfinal action in approving the negativedeclarations for small municipal wastecombustor (MWC) units submitted bythe states of Colorado, Montana, NorthDakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming.Second, the EPA is taking direct finalaction in approving the negativedeclarations for large MWC unitssubmitted by the states of Colorado,Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,Utah, and Wyoming. Third, the EPA istaking direct final action in approvingthe negative declarations for commercialindustrial solid waste incineration(CISWI) units submitted by the states ofMontana, South Dakota, Utah, andWyoming. Fourth, the EPA is takingdirect final action in approving thenegative declarations for other solidwaste incineration (OSWI) unitssubmitted by the states of Montana,North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, andWyoming. Each state included in thisaction has notified the EPA in a letterof negative declaration that there are noexisting designated facilities, of thesource category specified in eachparticular letter of negative declaration,subject to the requirements of sections111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act(CAA or the “Act”) currently operatingwithin the jurisdictional boundaries oftheir state. The EPA is accepting thenegative declarations in accordancewith sections 111(d) and 129(b) of theAct. This is a direct final action withoutprior notice and comment because theaction is deemed noncontroversial.DATES: This direct final rule is effectiveon August 4, 2017 without furthernotice, unless the EPA receives adversewritten comments on or before July 5,2017. If adverse comments are received,the EPA will publish a timelywithdrawal of the direct final rule in theFederal Register informing the publicthat the rule will not take effect.ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,identified by Docket ID No. EPA—R08—OAR—2017—0171 at http://www.regu]utions.gov. follow the onlineinstructions for submitting comments.Once submitted, comments cannot beedited or removed from Regulations.gov.The EPA may publish any commentreceived to its public docket. Do notsubmit electronically any informationyou consider to be ConfidentialBusiness Information (CBI) or otherinformation whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Multimediasubmissions (audio, video, etc.) must beaccompanied by a written comment.The written comment is considered theofficial comment and should includediscussion of all points you wish tomake. The EPA will generally notconsider comments or commentcontents located outside of the primarysubmission (i.e., on the web, cloud, orother file sharing system). Foradditional submission methods, the fullEPA public comment policy,information about CBI or multimediasubmissions, and general guidance onmaking effective comments, please visithttp://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Gregory Lohrke, Air Program, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P—AR,1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado80202—1129, (303) 312—6396,[email protected] INFORMATION:

I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

The EPA is publishing this rulewithout prior proposal because theagency views this as a noncontroversialaction and anticipates no adversecomments. However, in the ProposedRules section of today’s FederalRegister publication, the EPA ispublishing a separate document thatwill serve as the proposal to publish thenegative declarations should relevantadverse comments be filed. This rulewill be effective August 4, 2017 withoutfurther notice unless the agency receivesrelevant adverse comments by July 5,2017.

If the EPA receives adversecomments, the EPA will publish atimely withdrawal in the federalRegister informing the public that thisdirect final rule will not take effect. TheEPA will address all public commentsin a subsequent final rule based on theproposed rule. The EPA will notinstitute a second comment period onthis action. Any parties interested incommenting must do so at this time.Please note that if the EPA receivesadverse comment on an amendment,paragraph, or section of this rule and ifthat provision may be severed from theremainder of the rule, the EPA mayadopt as final those provisions of therule that are not the subject of anadverse comment.

II. Background

The EPA’s statutory authority forregulating new and existing solid wasteincineration units is outlined in CAAsections 111 and 129. Section 129 of the


IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

)CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, EARTHWORK$,)ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, )ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY )PROJECT, NATURAL RESOURCES )DEFENSE COUNCIL, and SIERRA )CLUB, )

))

Petitioners ) No.

______

)v. )

)SCOTT PRUITT, Administrator, )ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )AGENCY, and UNITED STATES )ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION )AGENCY, )

)Respondents. )

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF PETITIONERS

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1 and D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, Petitioners

Clean Air Council, Earthworks, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental

Integrity Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club make the

following disclosures:


Clean Air Council

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Clean Air Council (“CAC”).

Parent Corporations: None.

Publicly Held Company that Owns 10% or More of Party’s Stock: None.

Party’s General Nature and Purpose: CAC is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. CAC is a not-for-profit

organization focused on protection of public health and the environment.

Eartliworks

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Earthworks.



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: Earthworks, a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the District of Columbia, is a national nonprofit

organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from the

impacts of oil, gas, and mineral development while seeking sustainable solutions to

the problems such development can cause.

Environmental Defense Fund

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Environmental Defense fund

(“EDf”).


2



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: EDF, a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of New York, is a national nonprofit organization that

links science, economics, and law to create innovative, equitable, and cost-

effective solutions to society’s most urgent environmental problems.

Environmental Integrity Project

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Environmental Integrity Project

(“EIP”).



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: EIP, a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the District of Columbia, is a national nonprofit organization that

advocates for more effective enforcement of environmental laws.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Natural Resources Defense

Council (“NRDC”).



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: NRDC, a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of the State of New York, is a national nonprofit organization

3


dedicated to improving the quality of the human environment and protecting the

nation’s endangered natural resources.

Sierra Club

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Sierra Club.



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: Sierra Club, a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of California, is a national nonprofit

organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the environment.

Clean Air Council

DATED: June 5, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

Is! Susannah L. WeaverSUSANNAH L. WEAVER DAVID D. DONIGERSEAN H. DONAHUE Natural Resources Defense CouncilDonahue & Goldberg, LLP 1152 15th Street NW, Ste. 3001111 14th St., NW, Ste. 5 1OA Washington, DC 20005

Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202)-289-6868Telephone: (202) 569-3818 [email protected]

facsimile: (202) 289-8009 MELEAH GEERTsMA

susannah1idonahuego1dberg.corn Natural Resources Defense CouncilCounselfor Petitioner Environmental 2 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1600Defense Fund Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 651-7904rngeertsrna(d)nrdc . orgCounselfor Petitioner NaturalResources Defense Council

4


PETER ZALZAL

ALIcE HENDERSON

VICKIE PATTON

Environmental Defense Fund2060 Broadway, Ste. 300Boulder, CO 80302Telephone: (303) [email protected] CARBONELL

Environmental Defense Fund1875 Connecticut Ave., 6th floorWashington, D.C., 20009Telephone: (202) [email protected] Petitioner EnvironmentalDefense Fund

Aim BREWSTER WEEKS

DARIN SCHROEDER

Clean Air Task force18 Tremont, Ste. 530Boston, MA 02108Telephone: (617) [email protected]@catfusCounselfor Petitioner Earthworks

ADAM KRON

Environmental Integrity Project1000 Vermont Ave. NW, Ste. 1100Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) [email protected] Petitioner EnvironmentalIntegrity Project

JOANNE MARIE SPALDING

Sierra Club2101 Webster St., Ste. 1300Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (415) 997-5725Joanne. Spaldingsierraclub.ogANDRES RESTREPO

Sierra Club50 F St., NW, Eighth FloorWashington, DC 20001Telephone: (202) 650-6073Andres .Restrepo(sierraclub.orgCounselfor Petitioner Sierra Club

TIM BALLO

Earthjustice1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW,Ste. 702Washington, DC 20036Telephone: (202) 667-4500tbai1o(i?,earthjustice.orgJOEL MINOR

Earthjustice633 17th St., Ste. 1600Denver, CO 80202Telephone: (303) 996-9628j minor(Zearthjustice.orgCounselfor Petitioners Sierra Cluband Clean Air Council

5


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 5th day of June, 2017, the foregoing Petition for

Review and Rule 26.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement of Petitioners Clean Air

Council, Earthworks, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Integrity

Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club have been served by

hand delivery, on each of the following:

The Honorable Edward Scott PruittAdministratorU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWilliam Jefferson Clinton Building1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20460

The Honorable Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, IIIAttorney General of the United StatesU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20530

Kevin S. MinoliActing General CounselOffice of General CounselU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWilliam Jefferson Clinton Building1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NWWashington, D.C. 20460

Is! Susannah L. Weaver


original v. - environmental defense fund · v. scott pruitt, administrator, ... environmental...

Documents