for centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic
controllers, pneumatic pumps, storage vessels, and the collection of
fugitive emissions components at a well site's affected
facilities.\118\ Unlike the FBIR FIP and NSPS OOOOa, the final U&O FIP
does not cover well completion operations. As the primary goal is to
reduce existing source emissions to improve air quality in the Uinta
Basin, the U&O FIP covers ongoing production operations at existing,
new, and modified oil and natural gas sources that are not already
subject to federal standards, including NSPS OOOO and OOOOa and NESHAP
HH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See 40 CFR 49.4164(b) through (e) and 49.4165(d)(2)(ii).
    \118\ See 40 CFR 60.5380a, 60.5385a, 60.5393a, 60.5395a,
60.5397a, 60.5410a, and 60.5411a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comment that the EPA must only permit the use of VOC
emissions control devices designed to reduce VOC emissions by 98
percent and require annual control efficiency performance testing for
those devices, we disagree. As explained earlier,\119\ we are
reiterating our position in the proposed FIP that even devices that are
designed to achieve at least 98 percent VOC control efficiency and able
to demonstrate that control efficiency in controlled testing
environments may not reliably achieve 98 percent control efficiency in
the field on a continuous basis without stronger flare performance
requirements than are currently in effect today in EPA's federal
regulations that apply nationally. We believe that 95.0 percent
continuous control efficiency is achievable when supplemented by the
design, operational and parameter monitoring requirements in the final
FIP. We expect that requirements for robust design of combustion
devices, initial and subsequent performance testing (every 5 years) of
enclosed combustors according to the procedures in NSPS OOOO and OOOOa
(adopted by reference in the proposed FIP), and continuous monitoring
of manufacturer-specified parameters that indicate optimal operation of
a control device, including combustion temperature and a continuous
pilot flame while emissions are routed to a device, are effective at
indicating proper operation of a control device and more affordable and
flexible than requiring annual performance testing of thousands of
control devices or requiring exclusive use of particular devices.
Requiring 95.0 percent continuous control efficiency also provides
consistency with the EPA's federal regulations that apply nationally
and consistency across all areas in the Uinta Basin, which operators
are accustomed to complying with in the Uinta Basin already. Imposing
more stringent control requirements on Indian country lands within the
U& Reservation than are imposed in areas where the EPA has approved the
UDEQ to implement the CAA may also unnecessarily create a competitive
disadvantage to developing on the Indian country lands within the U&O
Reservation, causing economic impacts to the Ute Indian Tribe and its
citizens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ See Section IV.F.3 of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Industry asserted that the definition of ``fugitive
emissions component'' and the repair timeline and inspection frequency
should be consistent with those in NSPS OOOOa, to avoid divergent
requirements for operators with sources subject to LDAR under the NSPS
and sources subject to LDAR under the FIP. Environmental organization
commenters asserted that the FIP applicability to the requirement to
implement an LDAR program should not be limited to the minimum
threshold for sources with total emissions from the collection of all

storage vessel, glycol dehydrator and pneumatic pump emissions equal to
or greater than 4 tpy VOC, because there is no inherent relationship
between the quantity of vented emissions from tanks, dehydrators and
pneumatic pumps (intended) and the source's fugitive emissions
(unintended), and because the proposed LDAR requirements apply to
components, such as compressors, that are categorically different than
storage tanks, dehydrators and pneumatic pumps. These commenters
asserted that all oil and natural gas sources should be required to
implement an LDAR program, based on the results of recent studies
indicating pneumatic devices often emit at higher rates than they are
designed. The same commenters also asserted that the definition of
``fugitive emissions component'' should not exclude natural gas-driven
pneumatic controllers and pumps that are designed to vent as part of
normal operations.
    Response: We agree with comments that the definition of ``fugitive
emissions component'' should be consistent with that in NSPS OOOOa and
we have revised the definition accordingly in the final FIP. We
disagree with comments that the definition should not exclude pneumatic
devices. The EPA has already codified that exclusion in NSPS OOOOa.
Additionally, pneumatic devices are also subject to specific control
requirements in the FIP, namely the requirements to control VOC
emissions from pneumatic pumps at certain sources and to ensure that
pneumatic controllers have a bleed rate of 6 scf/hr or less (i.e.,
``low-bleed''). We are aware of the studies regarding malfunctioning
pneumatic controllers and refer the reader to the previous summaries of
comments and our responses in this section regarding the applicability
of pneumatic controllers. We agree with comments that the repair
timeline should be consistent with those in NSPS OOOOa. We have not
revised the LDAR inspection frequency of the proposed FIP to be
entirely consistent with the frequency that is in NSPS OOOOa. The
majority of the oil and natural gas sources that are subject to the FIP
are existing sources that are not subject to NSPS OOOOa. The final
semiannual inspection frequency for affected well sites is consistent
with what is in the Utah Oil and Gas Rules, the CTG and NSPS OOOOa. For
affected gathering and boosting compressor stations and natural gas
processing plants, it is less frequent than the CTG and NSPS OOOOa in
part.\120\ The Utah Oil and Gas Rules do not cover gathering and
boosting compressor stations or natural gas processing plants and the
Utah Permit Requirements require varying inspection frequencies ranging
from semiannual to monthly. There are far fewer existing gathering and
boosting compressor stations, and even less existing natural gas
processing plants, on the Indian country lands within the U&O
Reservation than there are well sites. Because the CTG VOC guidelines
and the NSPS OOOOa methane standards require at least quarterly
inspections for existing, new, and modified compressor stations and
natural gas processing plants, but the NSPS OOOOa VOC standards for new
and modified compressor stations and natural gas processing plants and
the Utah Permit Requirements for existing compressor stations and
natural gas processing plants mandate LDAR inspection frequencies
widely ranging from semi-annual to monthly, we determined that it is
reasonable to simplify compliance with the final FIP by requiring a
consistent semi-annual inspection frequency for all types of oil and
natural gas sources. We note that the gathering and boosting compressor
stations and natural gas processing plants subject to NSPS OOOOa would
be required to comply with those fugitive emissions inspection
requirements, rather than the FIP. We have, however, revised the
procedural LDAR requirements of the proposed FIP to maximize
consistency with the equivalent requirements of NSPS OOOOa, which
addresses the concern that operators would be subject to divergent
procedural requirements for sources subject to LDAR under the NSPS and
sources subject to LDAR under the FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ As discussed earlier in Section V.D. of this preamble, we
acknowledge that NSPS OOOOa currently contains two different LDAR
inspection standards for well sites and gathering and boosting
compressor stations controlling methane emissions and those
controlling VOC emissions and that the EPA has published a proposed
national rule to reduce methane and other pollutants from existing,
new, and modified sources in the oil and natural gas industry that
proposes to align those standards to require semiannual LDAR
inspections for all well sites (no exemption for low-production
wells) and quarterly LDAR inspections for all compressor stations
(see 86 FR 63110, Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the comment criticizing our proposal to apply LDAR
requirements to sources that are required to control facility-wide VOC
emissions from the collection of all storage vessels, glycol
dehydrators and pneumatic pumps (i.e., emissions from those equipment
are greater than or equal to 4 tpy), we do agree that there is not
strong evidence of a direct inherent relationship between the quantity
of vented emissions from the collection of all storage vessels,
dehydrators and pneumatic pumps (intended) and a source's fugitive
emissions (unintended). We also agree that the proposed LDAR
requirements apply to components, such as compressors, that are
categorically different than storage vessels, dehydrators and pneumatic
pumps. But we disagree that these observations compel the conclusion
that the FIP should apply LDAR requirements to all sources, for the
reasons explained below. Applying LDAR requirements to all existing,
new, and modified oil and natural gas sources would be significantly
more stringent than the Utah Oil and Gas Rules given the total number
of existing oil and natural gas sources on the Reservation (6,870),
versus the number of sources we estimate will be required to implement
LDAR under this final rule (3,100). An even broader LDAR applicability
than what is being finalized today, which itself is already broader
than that in the Utah Oil and Gas Rules, would create inconsistency
across all areas of the Basin that may prompt operators to shift
development and associated emissions to areas of the Basin where the
EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA or to cease existing
production on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation, both of
which could have economic disbenefits for the Ute Indian Tribe. We
evaluated whether there was a more appropriate measure to limit
applicability to a required LDAR program in the final FIP. We evaluated
exempting ``low-production'' well sites, or those with total daily
production less than or equal to 15 boe, similar to the CTG. We also
evaluated applying LDAR requirements to all oil and natural gas sources
that meet either criterion: (1) VOC emissions from the collection of
all storage vessels, glycol dehydrators and pneumatic pumps that are
greater than or equal to 4 tpy; or (2) well sites with production
greater than 15 boe per day. Applying LDAR to all oil and natural gas
sources was analyzed as part of regulatory Option 3. In the final FIP
we are applying LDAR requirements to all oil and natural gas sources
that meet either criterion: (1) VOC emissions from the collection of
all storage vessels, glycol dehydrators and pneumatic pumps that are
greater than or equal to 4 tpy; or (2) well sites with production
greater than 15 boe per day. We determined this approach would address
the comment that there is not strong evidence of a direct inherent
relationship between the quantity of vented emissions from storage
vessels, dehydrators and pneumatic pumps

(intended) and a source's fugitive emissions (unintended). This
approach is a middle ground that provides some consistency with both
the LDAR applicability of the Utah Oil and Gas Rules and that of the
CTG for existing sources. Additionally, from an air quality protection
perspective, it is reasonable to make a change from what was proposed
that would maximize VOC emissions reduced without requiring all
existing oil and natural gas sources to implement an LDAR program. We
acknowledge some recent studies indicating that leaks have consistently
been observed at certain well sites with less than 15 boe per day.\121\
We also acknowledge that the EPA has published a proposed national rule
to reduce methane and other pollutants from existing, new, and modified
sources in the oil and natural gas industry that proposes to repeal
amendments in the 2020 Technical Rule that exempted low-production well
sites from monitoring fugitive emission.\122\ We may revisit this final
action in the future based on any final action we take under CAA
section 111 with the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
rulemaking to address application of LDAR at sources covered by this
FIP in a manner similar to the final national rule's provisions for
sources that it covers. Also, if the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment
Area's Marginal classification is reclassified (``bumped up'') to a
Moderate nonattainment classification, or if air quality concerns
otherwise warrant, we may conclude that further rulemaking is necessary
or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ A study by the Boulder County Health Department, ``Leak
Inspection and Repair at Oil and Gas Well Sites
    Boulder County Public Health Voluntary Inspection Program
Results 2014-2018,'' tracked leaks at well pads in Boulder County
over a five-year period using OGI. The program resulted in 1,022
inspections at 147 well pad sites across the county from 2014
through 2018. Cumulatively, gas leaks were detected at 86 percent
[i.e., 126/147] of inspected sites, with the percentage each year
ranging from 38 percent to 49 percent. 64 percent of the sites with
leaks experienced them in multiple calendar years. An earlier
version of the study (2014-2016) was referenced via comments on the
proposed NSPS OOOOa technical revisions, available in the docket for
that rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2010-0483-0748). Since then, two additional study years
through 2018 were added. The report is available in the docket for
this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709). We conducted
an analysis showing that of the average BOED per well ranged from
1.6 to 2.3 from 2014-2018, indicated in the November 18, 2019, email
from Cindy Beeler, EPA, available in the docket for this rulemaking
at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-
0709); and Deighton, J. A., Townsend-Small, A., Sturmer, S. J.,
Hoschouer, J., & Heldman, L. (2020). Measurements show that marginal
wells are a disproportionate source of methane relative to
production. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association,
available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10962247.2020.1808115, accessed Mar. 14, 2022.
    \122\ See 86 FR 63110 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted that the
proposed FIP requirement that all pneumatic controllers be continuous
low-bleed controllers, consistent with NSPS OOOO and OOOOa, is
insufficient, adding that while continuous low-bleed controllers are
superior to high-bleed controllers, they are documented in recent
studies to emit significant VOC emissions both from normal operations
(i.e., by design) and often due to equipment malfunctions. The
commenters asserted that recent evidence indicates zero-emissions
controllers (e.g., electric valve, instrument air-actuated, and solar
power valve actuated) are cost-effective, widely used, and
environmentally necessary.
    Response: We disagree that the EPA mandating zero-emissions
controllers is necessary or required here and provided reasoning in the
proposed FIP for requiring low-bleed pneumatic controllers rather than
zero-emissions pneumatic controllers. The EPA believes that, within the
context of this rulemaking and the specific purposes it is intended to
accomplish, we do not have sufficient information to finalize such a
requirement for the Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation at
this time. Further, including such a requirement in the final FIP would
not serve to further the EPA's goal of providing regulatory consistency
at this time. In the interest of improving air quality by achieving
emissions reductions as soon as possible and in a manner that promotes
regulatory consistency across all areas in the Uinta Basin, we are
finalizing the FIP with the requirement that pneumatic controllers be
at least low-bleed. Although zero-bleed controllers are not
specifically required, the regulatory text of the final U&O FIP does
not prohibit operators from using zero-bleed controllers to comply with
the rule, as it incorporates by reference the pneumatic controller
requirements of NSPS OOOOa at 40 CFR 60.5390a, which specify at 40 CFR
60.5390a(c)(1) that ``Each pneumatic controller affected facility at a
location other than at a natural gas processing plant must have a bleed
rate less than or equal to 6 standard cubic feet per hour.'' (emphasis
added). We acknowledge that the EPA's Oil and Gas Sector Climate Review
Proposed Rule proposes to require pneumatic controllers to have zero
emissions, subject to limited exceptions.\123\ However, that proposed
requirement is not yet final and the EPA did not include a similar
requirement as part of the proposal for this rulemaking. We may revisit
this final action in the future based on any final action we take under
CAA section 111 with the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
rulemaking to address pneumatic controllers at sources covered by this
FIP in a manner similar to the final national rule's provisions for
sources that it covers. Also, if the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment
Area's Marginal classification is reclassified (``bumped up'') to a
Moderate nonattainment classification, or if air quality concerns
otherwise warrant, we may conclude that further rulemaking is necessary
or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ See 86 FR 63110, Nov. 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted that the
proposed FIP should require capture and control of VOC emissions during
truck loading and unloading. The commenters claimed that the EPA failed
to take into account that truck loading and unloading is an activity
that occurs repeatedly and provides an opportunity for emissions
reductions and the EPA failed to provide calculations to support the
cost-prohibitiveness of requiring such controls.
    Response: We disagree. In developing the proposed rule, we found
that the estimated annual share of VOC emissions from truck loading and
unloading in the UBEI2014 was only 2 percent of the VOC emissions
inventory and such a requirement would not be expected to contribute to
meaningful VOC reductions compared to submerged fill and bottom loading
requirements. The UBEI2017-Update indicates that truck loading and
unloading represents an even smaller portion of the VOC emissions
inventory at 1 percent. We did not receive new information during the
public comment period on the cost of capture and control of emissions
from truck loading and unloading to compel us to change the proposed
requirement. Therefore, we are finalizing truck loading and unloading
requirements as proposed. We may consider such a requirement in a
future rulemaking if additional action is required to address air
quality impacts from ozone pollution, or we may consider it as a
creditable emissions reduction to offset permitting of a new or
modified major source or demonstrating general conformity. We
acknowledge that the EPA's Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review
Proposed Rule solicits comment on whether the EPA should propose to
require capture and control

of VOC and methane emissions from truck loading and unloading.\124\ We
may revisit this final action in the future based on any proposal and
subsequent final action we take under CAA section 111 for the Oil and
Natural Gas Sector to address truck loading and unloading at sources
covered by this FIP in a manner similar to a final national rule's
provisions for sources that it covers. Also, if the Uinta Basin Ozone
Nonattainment Area's Marginal classification is reclassified (``bumped
up'') to a Moderate nonattainment classification, or if air quality
concerns otherwise warrant, we may conclude that further rulemaking is
necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See 86 FR 63110, Nov. 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters claimed the EPA should regulate VOC
emissions from additional equipment or activities as part of the final
FIP, including oil and natural gas wastewater pond evaporation
facilities, intermittent bleed pneumatic devices, well production
associated gas and small two-stroked rich-burn engines. Commenters also
asserted that the EPA should regulate sources of NOX
emissions as part of the final FIP, as it is an ozone precursor and
some studies have indicated the NOX reductions in the Uinta
Basin may result in meaningful reductions in the formation of ozone.
NOX emissions sources that commenters asserted should be
covered by the FIP include engines, turbines, boilers, heaters, flares
and thermal incinerators.
    Response: Regarding the comments that the FIP should cover
additional VOC emissions sources, we are not finalizing emissions
control requirements for any sources in addition to what was proposed.
The primary reason is that we proposed to act on the sources as to
which we had sufficient cost and emissions reduction information
specific to the Uinta Basin and from which we expected that significant
emissions reductions could be achieved in a manner that maximizes
regulatory consistency across all areas in the Basin. We are finalizing
this rule as applicable to those sources in order to achieve emissions
reductions quickly and improve air quality and public health within the
U&O Reservation as soon as possible. It may be possible in the future
to achieve further reductions by regulating additional sources, and if
we conclude that such further regulation is appropriate, we will
propose action on it in a future U&O Reservation rulemaking in order to
receive public comment. The EPA is actively participating in ongoing
research to better understand emissions from all of the aforementioned
VOC emissions sources in the Uinta Basin. We acknowledge that the EPA's
Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review Proposed Rule has presented
new information and analysis that will likely be relevant for reducing
emissions on the U&O Reservation and solicits additional information on
evaluating and potentially covering at least some of these sources on a
national basis.\125\ Our assessment of new, potentially relevant
information will continue in the context of the Climate Review Rule
still being developed. If we finalize a national Climate Review Rule in
the future, its requirements will apply directly to covered sources. As
to sources not covered by a final national rule, we may find it
necessary or appropriate to revisit this final action in the future and
revise it through the rulemaking process (including public notice and
comment) based on information evaluated in issuance of that final
national rule. Also, if the Uinta Basin Ozone Nonattainment Area is
reclassified to a Moderate nonattainment classification, or if air
quality concerns otherwise warrant, we may find that further rulemaking
is necessary or appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ See 86 FR 63110 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the comments that the FIP should cover sources of
NOX emissions, we maintain our conclusion from the proposed
rule that most recent studies on winter ozone in the Uinta Basin
indicate that ozone in the Basin is sensitive to changes in VOC
emissions and that the effect of changes in NOX emissions is
less certain, and, therefore, VOC reductions will have the most cost-
effective impact in reducing winter ozone formation in the Basin. We
may consider focusing on NOX emissions reduction in future
rulemakings if additional action is required to address air quality
impacts from ozone pollution and any control technology and cost
information commenters provided may be useful in those cases. We may
also consider future NOX emissions reductions as creditable
to offset permitting of a new or modified major NOX
emissions source or in demonstrating general conformity. We refer the
reader to the Response to Comments document in the docket for this
rulemaking for more details on our consideration comments related to
regulating additional VOC emissions sources and regulating
NOX emissions sources.
    Comment: Industry commenters asserted that the U&O FIP should only
apply to Indian country lands within the Uinta Basin Ozone
Nonattainment Area boundary, rather than all Indian country lands
within the U&O Reservation, as proposed. Environmental organization
commenters asserted that the term ``Uintah and Ouray Reservation'' must
be defined in the regulatory text of the rule and should mean the lands
``within the exterior boundaries of the U&O Reservation.''
    Response: We disagree with the comment that the FIP should only
apply to Indian country lands within the Uinta Basin Ozone
Nonattainment Area boundary. We are finalizing the FIP to impose the
VOC emissions reduction requirements to all Indian country lands within
the U&O Reservation for multiple reasons: (1) Implementing the
requirements only to sources in the nonattainment area would be complex
to implement, because it would present a second layer to already
complex case-specific determinations of CAA jurisdiction and
applicability to the FIP and would result in operators potentially
needing to comply with different regulatory requirements within Indian
country; and (2) Applying the FIP only to the Indian country portions
of the nonattainment area would result in inconsistent requirements
across all areas in the Uinta Basin, as the Utah Oil and Gas Rules
apply to all oil and natural gas sources in areas of the Bain where the
EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA, not just those in the
nonattainment area. We agree with the comment that the term ``U&O
Reservation'' was undefined in the regulatory text of the proposed rule
and have added clarification to the final rule regulatory text in 40
CFR 49.4169 that ``U&O Reservation'' refers to the ``Uintah and Ouray
Indian Reservation.'' We disagree that the rule text should state that
it applies ``within the exterior boundaries of the U&O Reservation.''
The proposed rule stated that it applies to the ``Indian country lands
within the U&O Reservation.'' There are non-Indian country lands within
the exterior boundaries of the U&O Reservation. Therefore, we have
added a definition of ``Indian country'' to 40 CFR 49.4171 that
references the corresponding definition at 18 U.S.C. 1151.

D. Major Comments Concerning Monitoring and Testing Requirements

    Comment: Industry commenters asserted that the proposed requirement
to perform auditory/visual/olfactory (AVO) surveys while crude oil,
condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquids and produced water storage
vessels are being filled is impractical, due to the non-static nature
of separators cycling and liquids transfer

that could result in an operator being on location for a burdensome
period of time to comply. The commenters also asserted that the
proposed required monthly AVO inspections should not be finalized
because they go beyond NSPS OOOOa and the UDEQ requirements and are
duplicative of the proposed monthly inspections required in 40 CFR
49.4183(c) and (e) and the semi-annual monitoring of fugitive emissions
components in 40 CFR 49.4179. The commenters asserted that the final
FIP should provide more flexibility in determining compliance with the
no detectable emissions limit for covers and closed-vent systems by
allowing multiple options to perform inspections, including AVO and
OGI.
    Response: We agree with the commenters that the monitoring
requirements in proposed 40 CFR 49.4183(c), (d) and (e) contained some
redundancy and risk affected sources being subject to duplicative
requirements. We have revised paragraphs (c) through (e) to merge
paragraphs (c) and (d) (now in 40 CFR 49.4182 in the final FIP) for
more consistency with NSPS OOOOa. We have also incorporated more
streamlined language that is still consistent with that section, rather
than incorporate by reference the cover and closed vent system
inspection requirements from 40 CFR 60.5416a(c). Additionally, we agree
with comments that, in addition to AVO inspections, consistent with
NSPS OOOOa, the FIP should provide the option to conduct optical gas
imaging inspections of covers and closed vent systems at the same
frequency as required fugitive emissions inspections and have included
a similar option.
    Regarding the proposed requirement that monthly inspections must be
performed while storage vessels are being filled, we acknowledge that
storage vessel filling at certain well sites may occur less frequently
than at other sites, due to the non-static nature of separator cycling
and liquids transfer. We have removed the portion of the requirement
that inspections must be performed while storage vessels are being
filled. Because one cannot always hear or smell emissions from the
collection of all storage vessels, we continue to hold the view that
inspections conducted during filling events can be valuable for
identifying storage vessel and closed vent system integrity defects, as
filling events generate the largest flashing emissions. To maintain the
effectiveness of visual inspections in identifying defects, in light of
removal of the requirement that they be conducted during filling
events, we have added language to 40 CFR 49.4182(c) that inspectors
should note whether there are signs of oil releases around storage
vessel thief hatches, seals and pressure relief valves (i.e., staining
on the storage vessel), which may indicate over-pressure events that
have occurred when the storage vessel was being filled. We emphasize
that final 40 CFR 49.4173(c)(1) requires that all flashing, working,
standing and breathing losses from storage vessels must be routed
through a closed-vent system. This includes flashing losses during
filling events.
    Comment: Industry commenters suggested that the FIP should include
language consistent with the provisions of NSPS OOOOa for unsafe and
difficult to monitor fugitive emissions components and delay of repair
if repair or replacement is technically infeasible, would require a
vent blowdown, compressor station shutdown, well shutdown or shut-in,
or would be unsafe to repair during operation of the unit.
    Response: We agree and have revised the language of the proposed
FIP to include language more consistent with the difficult-to-monitor
and unsafe-to-monitor provisions of the NSPS, including exceptions for
the timelines to inspect and repair such fugitive emissions components
and requirements that the fugitive emissions plan include the
specialized timelines.
    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted that, given
the urgent need to reduce ozone pollution in the Uinta Basin and the
high cost-effectiveness of LDAR, the FIP must require quarterly or
monthly LDAR surveys instead of the proposed semi-annual surveys, and
must require leaking equipment repair more quickly than 30 days after
discovering the leak. While the proposed requirements are consistent
with NSPS OOOOa, the commenters referenced that EPA either contemplated
during proposal or had required such provisions in previous versions of
NSPS OOOOa and that other oil and gas producing states impose such
requirements.
    Response: Regarding LDAR survey frequency, we direct the reader to
our response to comments on LDAR applicability. We disagree with
commenters suggesting the final FIP should contain stricter procedural
LDAR requirements than are effective in NSPS OOOOa, including repair of
leaking equipment more quickly than 30 days after discovering the leak.
We determined that finalizing procedural LDAR requirements that are
consistent with NSPS OOOOa (and by extension, UDEQ oil and gas rules)
addresses the concern expressed by other commenters that affected
operators would have to comply with different fugitive emissions
monitoring programs than they are required to implement for sources in
the same area that are subject to NSPS OOOOa or the UDEQ Oil and Gas
Rules and will allow for more straightforward compliance throughout the
Basin. Implementing LDAR requirements in the final FIP that are
procedurally different than the requirements in NSPS OOOOa or the Utah
Oil and Gas rules may also potentially create disincentives for
development on the Reservation and of Tribally owned resources, leading
to economic disadvantages for the Ute Indian Tribe and its members.
While we appreciate the alternative cost information and comparison of
state oil and gas LDAR requirements provided by commenters, we do not
agree that the information provided is relevant to establishing
requirements for monitoring in the Uinta Basin for the purposes and
goals of this rulemaking. We determined that the LDAR procedural
requirements will still result in meaningful VOC emissions reductions
from LDAR on the Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation, while
avoiding a complex regulatory scheme for entities that operate some
sources subject to the FIP requirements and other sources subject to
NSPS OOOOa or requirements in areas where the EPA has approved the UDEQ
to implement the CAA.

E. Major Comments Concerning Recordkeeping and Reporting

    Comment: Industry commenters suggested that the recordkeeping and
reporting requirements should align with those in the UDEQ regulations,
saying that the proposed FIP requirements were in many cases more
detailed, prescriptive and stringent than those in UDEQ regulations and
could result in discouraging oil and gas development on the U&O
Reservation. Examples provided of discrepancies in recordkeeping
requirements included that the UDEQ does not require annual compliance
reports or that records be kept of all required monitoring of
operations every time an operator is on site. The commenters referenced
other examples where the UDEQ requires certain records that were not
proposed in the U&O FIP. The commenters suggested recordkeeping and
reporting requirements should be limited to those that help demonstrate
compliance with the VOC emission reduction requirements, such as
records of instances when closed-vent-systems conveying emissions to a
control device bypass the device, records of observed

instances when the combustor or flare is inoperable or not operating
properly, as well as information on actual emissions. The commenters
encouraged the EPA to increase the number of recordkeeping requirements
in alignment with the UDEQ requirements in exchange for removing the
annual compliance reporting requirement.
    Response: We agree with commenters that required elements of
recordkeeping and reporting in the final FIP should be limited to the
most relevant information to assure compliance with the emissions
control requirements of the FIP. We have revised the list of required
records accordingly and streamlined the required annual report content
to only include summaries of the records of the most relevant
information to demonstrate compliance. We disagree with commenters that
the U&O FIP should not require compliance reporting. Reporting at
regular intervals is an important mechanism to ensure that regulations
are enforceable as a practical matter. We recognize that the UDEQ
regulations do not require annual compliance reporting and are not
commenting on the efficacy of the UDEQ's regulations with this
response. It is not reasonable for the EPA to rely only on records to
assure compliance, particularly in an area with thousands of affected
facilities, as we do not have the resource capacity to visit every
facility to access them and it would be inefficient to use CAA section
114 authority on a case-by-case basis to obtain them. It is common for
the EPA to require both recordkeeping and reporting in CAA regulations,
using the broad authority of section 114, sufficient for practical
enforceability of the requirements and so that the public has
transparent access to records demonstrating compliance.
    Comment: Commenters requested the proposed requirement to keep
records of the inspector signature be removed from the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements, because many operators have moved to
digital recordkeeping systems and physical signatures are not feasible
with those systems. Commenters instead requested that it would be
sufficient to just require inspector IDs be maintained and reported.
    Response: We agree that recordkeeping and reporting requirements
should facilitate the increasing use of digital recordkeeping and have
finalized regulatory text in 40 CFR 49.4184(a)(1)(v)(D) accordingly to
require the inspector's name or identification number.

F. Major Comments Concerning Cost-Benefit Analysis

    Comment: Industry commenters asserted that the cost benefit
analysis completed by the EPA for the proposed FIP lacked transparency
and relied on information collected over 5 years ago for the CTG,
failing to check the accuracy of the cost information included for that
action and disregarding information previously submitted for the
proposed CTG specific to VOC emissions control and storage vessel
retrofit costs. Commenters incorporated those comments by reference in
their comments to the proposed U&O FIP. The commenters also claimed
that the EPA did not account for all burdens and costs associated with
compliance with the VOC emissions control requirements, particularly
higher costs for retrofitting existing storage vessels with controls,
monthly storage vessel inspections and associated recordkeeping and
reporting costs.
    Response: The EPA responded to the referenced comments submitted
for the draft CTG and we are, therefore, not including new responses to
those comments here.\126\ We note that in response to those comments,
the EPA did make small changes to the cost elements included in the
cost analysis for existing storage vessels that did not result in any
change to the EPA's recommended applicability threshold for storage
vessels in the final CTG. We based costs for retrofitting existing
storage vessels on those costs in the final CTG that included those
minor revisions. The costs recognize that it is more expensive to
retrofit existing storage vessels for emissions control than to install
controlled equipment upon construction. We did not update any of those
costs for the final FIP, as we did not receive any new cost information
on retrofitting storage vessels during the comment period for the
proposed FIP. We acknowledge that the EPA's Oil and Natural Gas Sector
Climate Review Proposed Rule \127\ uses updated costs and emissions
reduction estimates, including for fugitive emissions monitoring,
retrofitting of existing storage vessels, storage vessel monthly
inspections, installing zero emissions pneumatic devices, and
associated recordkeeping and reporting costs.128 129 In
order to achieve emissions reductions quickly and improve air quality
and public health within the U&O Reservation as soon as possible, we
have not updated our costs and emissions reductions estimates for the
final FIP using those proposed estimates. If we conclude that further
regulation is necessary or appropriate in the future, we will propose
action on it in a future U&O Reservation rulemaking in order to receive
public comment and would analyze any such rulemaking using the best
available costs and emissions reductions estimates at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Control
Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry. Final
Document. October 2016. Available in https://www.regulations.gov,
Document ID No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0216-0235, accessed Mar. 14, 2022.The
Response to Comments Document for the U&O FIP summarizes the
comments and the EPA's responses to those comments on the proposed
CTG, as they relate to various provisions of the proposed U&O FIP.
    \127\ See 86 FR 63110, Nov. 15, 2021.
    \128\ 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. Nov. 14, 2021, available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0173,
accessed Mar. 14, 2022.
    \129\ Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New,
Reconstructed, and Modified Sources and Emission Guidelines for
Existing Sources: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Climate Review. October
2021, available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0317-0166. In general, many of the cost factors used
were taken from technical support documents for earlier rulemakings,
such as the 2012 NSPS OOOO, the 2016 CTG and NSPS OOOOa, and the
2020 Technical Rule, and were only updated to reflect 2019$. Most of
the cost and emission reduction factors that were reevaluated for
the 2021 proposed rule evaluated alternative compliance options,
rather than significantly updating costs for control measures. Cost
factor changes were characterized as minor. For example, see Tables
12-8a and 12-8b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Industry commenters also incorporated by reference
portions of the comments they submitted for the draft CTG in their
comments on the proposed FIP with regard to LDAR costs being
underestimated.
    Response: Again, the EPA previously responded to the referenced
comments in issuing the final CTG and, therefore, we are not including
new responses to those comments here. While we based the costs of
implementing an LDAR program at existing oil and natural gas sources
for the proposed FIP on those equivalent costs used for the final CTG,
since the proposed FIP was issued the EPA has issued final technical
revisions to NSPS OOOOa that included changes to fugitive emissions
monitoring costs and emissions reduction estimates.\130\ We have
updated our costs and emissions reductions estimates for the final U&O
FIP, relying in part on the updated fugitive emissions monitoring costs
and emissions reduction estimates

used for the final NSPS OOOOa revisions. We also acknowledge that the
EPA has published a proposed national rule to reduce methane and other
pollutants from existing, new, and modified sources in the oil and
natural gas industry \131\ that uses further updated fugitive emissions
monitoring costs and emissions reduction estimates. In order to achieve
emissions reductions quickly and improve air quality and public health
within the U&O Reservation as soon as possible, we have not updated our
costs and emissions reductions estimate for the final FIP using those
proposed estimates. If we conclude that further regulation is necessary
or appropriate in the future, we will propose action on it in a future
U&O Reservation rulemaking in order to receive public comment and would
analyze any such rulemaking using the best available costs and
emissions reductions estimates at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ The Federal Register document for the rulemaking, known as
the technical amendments to the 2016 NSPS (85 FR 57398, Sept. 15,
2020), is available at https://www.regulations.gov, Document ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0483 2247, accessed Mar. 14, 2022.
    \131\ See 86 FR 63110, Nov. 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted several
flaws in the EPA's cost-benefit analysis regarding the societal
benefits that will result from the avoided methane emissions due to VOC
emissions reductions under the FIP. The most prominent flaw the
commenters noted is the use of an interim value for the social cost of
methane (SC-CH4) that arbitrarily accounts only for domestic
benefits of reduced methane emissions, which diverted from previously
long-established and scientifically supported factors recognizing that
methane emissions reductions have global benefits. The commenters also
noted that the EPA arbitrarily discounted future climate effects at a 7
percent discount rate in addition to a 3 percent discount rate, which
is inconsistent with Circular A-4's requirements to distinguish social
discount rates from rates based on private returns to capital; to make
plausible assumptions; to adequately address uncertainty, especially
over long-time horizons; and to rely on the best available economic
data and literature.
    Response: We acknowledge these comments and that EPA policies have
changed since we developed and analyzed the benefits of the proposed
U&O FIP. The SC-CH4 estimates presented in the RIA for the
final U&O FIP are the SC-CH4 estimates presented in the
Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous
Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021)
(hereafter, ``February 2021 TSD''). EPA has evaluated the SC-
CH4 estimates in the February 2021 TSD and has determined
that these estimates are appropriate for use in estimating the social
benefits of CH4 emission reductions expected to result from
this final rule.\132\ These SC-CH4 estimates are interim
values developed for use in benefit-cost analyses until updated
estimates of the impacts of climate change can be developed based on
the best available science and economics. After considering the TSD,
and the issues and studies discussed therein, EPA concludes that it
agrees with the rationale for these estimates presented in the TSD and
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ We note that the monetized climate benefits presented in
the RIA analysis and discussed here are not a part of the technical
or legal basis of this action but are instead presented as part of
the RIA analysis as required pursuant to Executive Orders, including
E.O. 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the IWG concluded that the SC-GHG estimates
developed under E.O. 13783, and used in the RIA of the proposed rule,
fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in multiple ways.
First, the IWG concluded that those estimates fail to capture many
climate impacts that can directly and indirectly affect the welfare of
U.S. citizens and residents. Examples of affected interests include
direct effects on U.S. citizens and assets located abroad,
international trade, U.S. military assets and interests abroad, and
tourism, and spillover pathways such as economic and political
destabilization and global migration that can lead to adverse impacts
on U.S. national security, public health, and humanitarian concerns.
Those impacts are better captured within global measures of the social
cost of greenhouse gases.
    In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG mitigation
activities requires consideration of how those actions may affect
mitigation activities by other countries, as those international
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global
damages of GHG emissions. Using a global estimate of damages in U.S.
analyses of regulatory actions allows the U.S. to continue to actively
encourage other nations, including emerging major economies, to take
significant steps to reduce emissions. The only way to achieve an
efficient allocation of resources for emissions reduction on a global
basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--is for all countries
to base their policies on global estimates of damages.
    Therefore, for purposes of the RIA for this final rule EPA centers
attention on a global measure of SC-CH4. This approach is
the same as that taken in EPA regulatory analyses over 2009 through
2016, as well as in more recent regulatory analyses, including for the
Final Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS.\133\ The present value of net benefits is estimated
as the difference in the present values of monetized benefits and costs
calculated at the 3 percent percent discount rates. We do not discount
future climate effects at a 7 percent discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Revised Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
(EPA-452/R-21-002) (EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Mar. 2021); available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/documents/revised_csapr_update_ria_final.pdf,
accessed July 30, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, a comprehensive estimate of climate damages to U.S.
citizens and residents does not currently exist in the literature.
Existing estimates are both incomplete and an underestimate of total
damages that accrue to the citizens and residents of the U.S. because
they do not fully capture the regional interactions and spillovers
discussed above, nor do they include all of the important physical,
ecological, and economic impacts of climate change recognized in the
climate change literature, as discussed further below. EPA, as a member
of the IWG, will continue to review developments in the literature,
including more robust methodologies for estimating the magnitude of the
various direct and indirect damages to U.S. populations from climate
impacts and reciprocal international mitigation activities, and explore
ways to better inform the public of the full range of carbon impacts.
While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the latest, peer
reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG estimates, it
recommended the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates
developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The
estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are
calculated using a range of discount rates.
    The response to comments document and the RIA for the final FIP
provide more detailed discussion of the revised approach to estimating
climate benefits from reducing methane as a benefit to reducing VOC.

G. Other Comments of Significant Interest

Comments Concerning CAA Nonattainment Requirements
    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted that CAA
general conformity requirements apply to the EPA's issuance of this
FIP, requiring a conformity analysis and a conformity determination.
    Response: We disagree with these comments because under 40 CFR
93.153(a), the final action will not cause emissions increases above
the threshold required to trigger conformity requirements (i.e., no or
de minimis emissions increase, see 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)).
    Comment: Industry commenters asserted that the EPA should preserve
maximum flexibility for federal agencies to determine that their
actions conform and take steps to streamline conformity demonstrations,
such as including a statement that implementation of this FIP satisfies
federal agency general conformity obligations or a clarification that
all legal options for demonstrating conformity are available, including
those listed at 40 CFR 93.153(f), 93.158(a)(1), 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A),
93.158(a)(5)(i)(B), and 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(iv). One commenter asserted
that the EPA should clarify that the FIP is not a ``relevant''
implementation plan within the meaning of 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(iv) and
that approval of the final FIP will not limit federal agencies' ability
to rely on 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(iv) when demonstrating conformity.
    Response: We disagree with these comments. We concluded that this
FIP is exempt from the general conformity requirements in 40 CFR part
93, subpart B (see 40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)). As such, the FIP does not
otherwise address general conformity or the responsibilities for the
EPA or other federal agencies and federal agencies authorizing new
emissions of NOX and VOC that are from sources not covered
by this FIP must conduct an applicability analysis, and must, if
project emissions are above the applicable de minimis thresholds, make
a conformity determination in accordance with 40 CFR part 93, subpart
B. This review would also consider whether any activities are on a
federal agency's Presumed to Conform List (PTC). (Individual federal
agencies can develop their own list of activities that are presumed to
conform (40 CFR 93.153(f) through (j)); to date, however, neither the
Ute Indian Tribe, BLM, the EPA, nor the state of Utah have developed a
PTC list for the Uinta Basin ozone nonattainment area.) Federal
agencies needing to make a general conformity determination have an
option available for the Indian country lands within the U&O
Reservation: Demonstrate that the emissions from the federal action are
fully offset within the nonattainment area through a revision to the
applicable SIP (or TIP or FIP) or an equally enforceable measure that
effects emissions reductions equal to or greater than the total of
direct and indirect emissions from the action so that there is no net
increase in emissions of that pollutant. 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(iii).
    Comment: Environmental organization commenters asserted that the
EPA is required to directly address the ways in which this FIP will
have environmental justice implications and ensure that any final
action puts into practice environmental justice principles. The
commenters claimed that the EPA's environmental justice analysis for
the proposed FIP was insufficient in focusing only on demographic
information and concluding that the impacts would be positive for all
populations and failing to address whether the FIP will sufficiently
ameliorate the disproportionate public health impacts caused by high
ozone levels in the region.
    Response: We agree that environmental justice implications are
required to be evaluated for any final U&O FIP action to improve the
degraded air quality in the Basin--the primary purpose for this
rulemaking. We expect this rulemaking to result in reductions of 23,000
tpy of VOC ozone precursor emissions on the Indian country lands within
the U&O Reservation and subsequent reductions in ground level ozone
formation in the Basin, which will reduce the adverse health impacts
caused by ozone for any population residing in the Basin, on and off
the Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation. We acknowledged in
the proposal that this FIP is an important initial step in bringing the
area back into attainment with the ozone NAAQS, but it is not expected
to meet the requirements of an attainment FIP that we may prepare per
the CAA if the area is bumped up to a Moderate nonattainment
classification or higher in the future. We anticipate that the effects
of this rulemaking will help demonstrate compliance in such future
actions, while allowing more time to improve our understanding of
emissions and our ability to model the full suite of actions necessary
to achieve NAAQS attainment. We made improvements in the environmental
justice analysis, contained in the RIA for this final rule, compared to
that for the proposed FIP, including incorporating data on potential
existing disproportionate impacts related to environmental burden,
socio-economic vulnerability, and health. Evaluation of the additional
data did not result in finalizing a substantially different rule than
was proposed and follows existing EPA guidance \134\ on environmental
justice in rulemaking per the directives to federal agencies in the
February 11, 1994, Presidential E.O. 12898 \135\ and the January 20,
2021, Presidential E.O. 13985.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ According to the EPA's June 2016 Technical Guidance for
Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis, page 66 and
Section 2.1, the term ``disproportionate impacts'' refers to
differences in impacts or risks that are extensive enough that they
may merit Agency action. The determination of whether there is a
disproportionate impact that may merit Agency action is a policy
judgment informed by analysis of any discernable differences in
anticipated impacts from the rulemaking on population groups of
concern compared to all other population groups.
    \135\ E.O. 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Feb. 11,
1994.
    \136\ EPA expressed a commitment to conducting environmental
justice analysis for rulemakings based on a framework described in
the final revisions to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (86 FR
23054, 23162, Apr. 30, 2021). And E.O. 13895, Advancing Racial
Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal
Government, Jan. 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Impacts of This Final FIP

A. Air Emissions Impacts

    The EPA projects that from 2023 to 2032, relative to the baseline,
the final rule will result in about 23,000 tons of VOC emissions
reductions, 59,000 tons of methane emissions reductions, and 3,100 tons
of HAP emission reductions from affected oil and natural gas sources
annually. We have estimated regulatory impacts beginning in 2023 as it
is the first full year of implementation of this rule and have
estimated impacts through 2032 to illustrate the accumulating effects
of this rule over a longer period. The EPA did not estimate impacts
after 2032 for reasons including limited information, as explained in
the RIA.

B. Energy Impacts

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

Potential impacts on the national energy economy of the rule are
discussed in the economic impacts section.

C. Compliance Costs

    The EPA estimates the total capital cost of the final FIP to be
$280 million for affected sources. We looked at the effect of recovered
methane as a cost saving measure. The value of recovered methane
amounted to $2.1 million per year. The net PV of the regulatory
compliance costs associated with this final rule over the 2023 to 2032
period when accounting for additional revenue from product recovery was
estimated to be $560 million (in 2016 dollars) using a 7 percent
discount rate and $610 million using a 3 percent discount rate. The net
EAV of these costs when accounting for additional revenue from product
recovery is estimated to be $81 million per year using a 7 percent
discount rate and $72 million using a 3 percent discount rate.

D. Economic and Employment Impacts

    Executive Order 13563 directs Federal agencies to consider the
effect of regulation on job creation and employment. According to the
Executive order, ``our regulatory system must protect public health,
welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth,
innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the
best available science.'' (Executive Order 13563, 2011). While a
standalone analysis of employment impacts is not included in a standard
benefit-cost analysis, such an analysis is of concern in the current
economic climate given continued interest in the employment impact of
regulations such as this final rule.
    With respect to energy markets, the EPA has concluded that, while
this action may affect the supply, distribution or use of energy, it is
not likely to have significant energy market effects. For small
entities, we conducted a screening analysis. Based on the results of
this screening analysis, which is presented in the RIA for the final
FIP, the EPA concluded that that the rule will not have a Significant
Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities (SISNOSE). For
employment impacts, we did not perform a quantitative analysis on all
categories of employment changes as a result of the rule. This rule is
expected to result in little change in oil and natural gas exploration
and production and is not expected to result in significant changes to
employment dedicated to these tasks. The EPA did, however, in its cost
analysis for the rule, estimate changes in labor due to compliance
activities. As presented in the RIA for this action, the EPA projected
there will be increases in the labor required for compliance-related
activities associated with this final rule. As the rule imposes VOC
emission control requirements that are consistent with federal
standards for the oil and natural gas industry that apply nation-wide
or rules for similar sources that apply in areas of the Basin where the
EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA, we expect that many
operators of affected oil and natural gas sources may already have
sufficient systems established for complying with the federal standards
for other sources they operate in the Basin, and therefore labor
impacts may be overstated in our estimates.

E. Benefits

    The EPA expects climate and health benefits due to the VOC
emissions reductions projected under this final rule, as well as
climate benefits from methane emissions reductions. Climate benefits
from reducing emissions of CH4 can be estimated and
monetized using interim estimates of the social cost of methane (SC-
CH4). The SC-CH4 estimates used here are the SC-
CH4 estimates presented in the Technical Support Document:
Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates
under Executive Order 13990 (IWG 2021) (hereafter, ``February 2021
TSD''). EPA has evaluated the SC-CH4 estimates in the
February 2021 TSD and has determined that these estimates are
appropriate for use in estimating the social benefits of CH4
emission reductions expected to result from this final rule. These SC-
CH4 estimates are interim values developed for use in
benefit-cost analyses until updated estimates of the impacts of climate
change can be developed based on the best available science and
economics. EPA and other agencies intend to undertake a fuller update
of the SC-GHG estimates that takes into consideration the advice of the
National Academies and other recent scientific literature.
    We note that the methodology underlying the SC-CH4 estimates used
in this RIA been subject to public comment in the context of dozens of
proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public comment period in
2013. Further, the monetized climate benefits presented in this
analysis are not a part of the technical or legal basis of the proposed
action for which the RIA was prepared. Rather, the monetized benefits
associated with projected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that
may result from the final rule are presented solely for purposes of
compliance with E.O. 12866 and to present the public with information
regarding the full scope of potential benefits of the final rule. We
note that there is an ongoing interagency process to update the SC-GHG
estimates, including the SC-CH4 estimates used in this analysis, and
there will be further opportunity to provide public input on the SC-GHG
methodology through that process.\137\ The RIA for the final FIP
provides a more detailed discussion of the approach to estimating
climate benefits from reducing methane as a benefit to reducing VOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ For example, EPA, on behalf of the IWG, published a
Federal Register document on January 25, 2022, to solicit public
nominations of scientific experts for the upcoming peer review the
forthcoming update. See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/25/2022-01387/request-for-nominations-of-experts-for-the-review-of-technical-support-document-for-the-social-cost. EPA has a
web page where additional information regarding the peer review
process will be posted as it becomes available: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg-tsd-peer-review. There will be a
separate Federal Register document for the public comment period on
the forthcoming SC-GHG technical support document once it is
released.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimated the PV of monetized climate benefits over the
2023 to 2032 period to be $1 billion using a 3 percent discount rate
and estimated the PV of monetized net benefits to be $390 million using
a 3 percent discount rate and $440 million using a 7 percent discount
rate for costs and a 3 percent discount rate for benefits. We estimate
the EAV of monetized climate benefits over the 2023 to 2032 period to
be $120 million using a 3 percent discount rate. We estimated the EAV
of net benefits to be $48 million using a 3 percent discount rate for
both benefits and costs. We estimated the EAV of net benefits to be $39
million using a 3 percent discount rate for benefits and a 7 percent
discount rate for costs.\138\ These values do not account for health
effects of ozone exposure from the decrease in methane emissions. Under
the final rule, the EPA expects that VOC emissions reductions will
improve air quality and are likely to result in health and welfare
benefits associated with reduced exposure to ozone, PM2.5,
and HAP, but we did not quantify these effects at this time due to the
data limitations described below. This omission should not imply that
these benefits may not exist; rather, it reflects

the inherent difficulties in accurately modeling the direct and
indirect impacts of the projected VOC emissions reductions for the oil
and natural gas industry in the Uinta Basin. To the extent that the EPA
were to quantify these ozone and PM impacts, it would estimate the
number and value of avoided premature deaths and illnesses using an
approach detailed in the Particulate Matter NAAQS and Ozone NAAQS
RIAs.\139\ This approach relies on full-form air quality modeling for
the oil and natural gas source category that would be suitable for use
in regulatory analysis in the context of NSPS, including ways to
address the uncertainties regarding the scope and magnitude of VOC
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ As explained in the RIA, For the presentational purposes,
we discuss the benefits associated with the average SC-
CH4 at a 3 percent discount rate, but the Agency does not
have a single central SC-CH4 point estimate. The EAV of
benefits at a 3 percent discount rate is used to estimate the net
benefits at a 7 percent discount rate for costs.
    \139\ U.S. EPA. December 2012. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for
the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter.'' EPA-452/R-12-005. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division,
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0709).
    U.S. EPA. September 2015. ``Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ground-Level Ozone.'' EPA-452/R-15-007. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division,
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When quantifying the incidence and economic value of human health
impacts of air quality changes, the Agency sometimes relies upon
alternative approaches to using full-form air quality modeling, called
reduced-form techniques, often reported as ``benefit-per-ton'' values
that relate air pollution impacts to changes in air pollutant precursor
emissions.\140\ Several studies have discussed the air quality and
health impacts from the oil and natural gas industry.\141\ The Agency
believes more work needs to be done to vet the analysis and
methodologies for all potential approaches to valuing the health
effects of VOC emissions changes in areas experiencing elevated winter
ozone before they are used in regulatory analysis, but is committed to
continuing this work. Recently, the EPA systematically compared the
changes in benefits, and concentrations where available, from its
benefit-per-ton technique and other reduced-form techniques to the
changes in benefits and concentrations derived from full-form
photochemical model representation of a few different specific
emissions scenarios.\142\ The Agency's goal was to create a methodology
by which investigators could better understand the suitability of
alternative reduced-form air quality modeling techniques for estimating
the health impacts of criteria pollutant emissions changes in the EPA's
benefit-cost analysis, including the extent to which reduced form
models may over-or-under-estimate benefits (compared to full-scale
modeling) under different scenarios and air quality concentrations. The
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) recently convened a panel to review
this report.\143\ In particular, the SAB will assess the techniques the
Agency used to appraise these tools; the Agency's approach for
depicting the results of reduced-form tools; and steps the Agency might
take for improving the reliability of reduced-form techniques for use
in future RIAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ U.S. EPA. 2018. ``Technical Support Document: Estimating
the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from 17
Sectors.'' February, available in the docket for this rulemaking
(Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
    \141\ Fann, N., K.R. Baker, E.A.W. Chan, A. Eyth, A. Macpherson,
E. Miller, and J. Snyder. 2018. ``Assessing Human Health
PM2.5 and Ozone Impacts from U.S. Oil and Natural Gas
Sector Emissions in 2025.'' Environmental Science and Technology
52(15):8095-8103.
    Litovitz, A., A. Curtright, S. Abramzon, N. Burger, and C.
Samaras. 2013. ``Estimation of Regional Air-Quality Damages from
Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction in Pennsylvania.''
Environmental Research Letters 8(1), 014017.
    Loomis, J. and M. Haefele. 2017. ``Quantifying Market and Non-
market Benefits and Costs of Hydraulic Fracturing in the United
States: A Summary of the Literature.'' Ecological Economics 138:160-
167.
    \142\ This analysis compared the benefits estimated using full-
form photochemical air quality modeling simulations (CMAQ and CAMx)
against four reduced-form tools: InMAP, AP2/3 EASIUR, and the EPA's
benefit-per-ton.
    \143\ 85 FR 23823 (Apr. 29, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action is an economically significant regulatory action that
was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (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 Final Federal Implementation Plan
for Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Sources on Indian
Country Lands Within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah''
(Ref. EPA-908/Z-16-001), is available in the docket, and is summarized
in Section VII. Impacts of this Final FIP.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that
the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2539.02. You can find
a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here. The information collection requirements are not
enforceable until OMB approves them.
    This final action imposes a new information collection burden under
the PRA. The ICR covers information collection necessary to meet the
requirements in this U&O FIP. In general, owners or operators are
required to maintain records of required monitoring and other rule
compliance. This U&O FIP also requires annual reports containing
information for each oil and natural gas source, including a summary of
certain required records during the reporting period, and a summary of
certain instances where operation was not performed in compliance with
the requirements of this U&O FIP during the reporting period.
Additionally, a summary emissions inventory is required for each source
covered under this rulemaking once every three years. These reports and
records are essential in determining compliance and are required of all
sources subject to this U&O FIP. The information collected will be used
by the EPA or the Ute Indian Tribe to determine the compliance status
of sources subject to the rule.
    The EPA received one comment letter specifically on the ICR for the
proposed U&O FIP, as well as several other comments related to the
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting in the proposed rule. The EPA
responded to these comments, as summarized in Sections VI.E and F. of
this preamble and in the response to comments document in the docket
for this rulemaking.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Response to Public Comments, Proposed Federal
Implementation Plan: Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas
Sources on Indian Country Lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation in Utah, April 2022, available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents/affected entities: The potential respondents are owners
or operators of existing, new, and modified oil and natural gas sources
on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory. The EPA is charged
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA to promulgate
regulations as necessary

to protect tribal air resources. Promulgating this U&O FIP will address
winter ozone air quality concentrations that exceed the NAAQS, and
given the 2015 ozone NAAQS marginal nonattainment designation, when
combined with the National O&NG FIP amendments, would provide
justification to allow continued streamlined construction authorization
of new or modified true minor oil and natural gas sources, all in a
manner that seeks to provide regulatory consistency between state and
federal requirements with regard to controlling VOC emissions from
existing, new, and modified oil and natural gas operations on the
Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation. There is no other
federal rule, including the recently finalized NSPS and NESHAP for the
Oil and Natural Gas Sector (NSPS OOOO, NSPS OOOOa, and NESHAP HH), that
establishes air pollution control regulations for the particular oil
and natural gas operations that exist on the Indian country lands
within the U&O Reservation that are appropriate to address the issues
identified for this area. This is in contrast to oil and natural gas
operations in areas where the EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement
the CAA, which are governed by the UDEQ regulations and Utah Division
of Oil, Gas, and Mining regulations. Consistent with the regulatory
structure that exists in those areas, this U&O FIP has requirements for
VOC emissions control and reductions, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting.
    In addition, section 114(a) states that the Administrator may
require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act
to:
     Establish and maintain such records;
     Make such reports;
     Install, use, and maintain such monitoring equipment, and
use such audit procedures, or methods;
     Sample such emissions (in accordance with such procedures
or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods,
and in such manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);
     Keep records on control equipment parameters, production
variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is
impractical;
     Submit compliance certifications in accordance with
section 114(a)(3); and
     Provide such other information as the Administrator may
reasonably require.
    Estimated number of respondents: We estimate that an average of
6,870 oil and natural gas sources will be subject to one or more
requirements in this U&O FIP over the next three years (including the
requirement to report triennial emissions inventories as one
requirement).
    Frequency of response: Annual reports are required. Respondents
must monitor all specified criteria at each affected source and
maintain these records for five years.
    Total estimated burden: 154,630 hours per year (3-year average),
for all operators subject to this U&O FIP.
    Total estimated cost: $26.2 million per year (3-year average);
includes labor cost of $9.6 million, annualized capital cost of $10.4
million, and $6.1 million in operation and maintenance costs for all of
the operators that would subject to this U&O FIP.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are owners/
operators of oil and natural gas sources on the Indian country lands
within the U&O Reservation. They were identified through a screening
analysis of existing oil and natural gas sources and emissions
submitted by owners/operators on the Indian country lands within the
U&O Reservation under UBEI2017-Update. The Agency has determined that
only two out of 14 total small entities, or 14 percent, may experience
an annualized cost impact of 1 percent to 3 percent of annual revenues,
and thus may potentially incur significant economic impact. It was
determined that the other 12 small entities would incur annualized
costs less than 1 percent of annual sales, and therefore, are not
expected to incur significant economic impacts from this rule. Details
of this analysis are presented in the RIA and can be viewed in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This final action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million of more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.
1. Statutory Authority
    The legal authority for this rule stems from sections 301(a) and
301(d)(4) of the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). See section III.B of this
preamble for more information.
2. Costs and Benefits
    As discussed in Section VII. Impacts of this Final FIP, the
estimated equivalent annualized costs of this rule in 2023, accounting
for additional revenue from recovered natural gas, are $81 million in
2016 dollars using a 7 percent discount rate and $72 million in 2016
dollars using a 3 percent discount rate.\145\ EPA estimates that the
rule will lead to equivalent annual monetized benefits of about $120
million using a 3 percent discount rate. The quantified equivalent
annualized net benefits of the regulation (the difference between the
equivalent annualized monetized benefits and net equivalent annualized
compliance costs) are estimated to be $39 million in 2016 dollars using
a 7 percent discount rate and $48 million using a 3 percent discount
rate.\146\ More in-depth information on costs and benefits of the final
regulation can be found in the RIA, including certain climate benefits
and other benefits that were not quantified or monetized.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ The recordkeeping and reporting costs calculated for the
ICR analysis, discussed earlier, are imbedded in the total
annualized engineering costs included here.
    \146\ Benefits (methane reductions) were only calculated at a 3
percent discount rate, as that is the only rate that both cost and
benefit analyses have in common. Therefore, the net benefits for the
7 percent discount rate were compared to benefits at a 3 percent
discount rate to calculate the annualized net benefits of the final
rule. The RIA in the docket for this rulemaking discusses this
calculation in detail.
    \147\ The RIA includes a more detailed discussion of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this rule. It can be
viewed in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Effects on National Economy
    The EPA estimated the labor impacts due to compliance with the
final rule for affected entities within the oil and natural gas
industry, including the installation, operation, and maintenance of
control equipment and control activities, as well as the labor
associated

with new reporting and recordkeeping requirements. We did not estimate
any potential changes in labor outside of the affected industry, and
due to data and methodology limitations we did not estimate net
employment impacts for the affected industry, apart from the partial
estimate of the labor requirements related to control strategies. The
labor requirements analysis used a bottom-up engineering-based
methodology to estimate employment impacts. The engineering cost
analysis of the RIA includes estimates of the labor requirement costs
associated with implementing the regulations. Each of these labor
changes may be required as part of an initial effort to comply with the
new regulation.
4. Regulatory Alternatives
    Alternate regulatory options examined in the RIA include a low-
impact option (Option 1) and a high-impact option (Option 3). Option 1
would not include control of emissions from glycol dehydrators. This is
in contrast to preferred Option 2, which requires control of emissions
from glycol dehydrators where the source-wide VOC emissions from the
collection of all storage vessels, glycol dehydrators and pneumatic
pumps is equal to or greater than 4 tpy per 40 CFR 49.4173 through
49.4177. The EPA could have considered a range of even less stringent
regulatory options than Option 1 to evaluate and propose, including an
option that would not require retrofit of existing storage vessels with
controls or require controls less broadly. Retrofitting existing
storage vessels with controls is one of the higher costs evaluated in
this rulemaking. Such an option, however, would lead to even greater
disparity with the requirements for similar sources in in areas of the
Basin where the EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA than
Option 1. Option 3 (high impact) would require implementation of an
LDAR program at all existing oil and natural gas sources, regardless of
daily production, or storage vessel, dehydrator, and pneumatic pump
annual VOC emissions. We sought comment on the proposed FIP for whether
it was appropriate to consider less or more stringent regulatory
options, for example, an option that does not include retrofitting
existing storage vessels for controls. We acknowledged that if comments
supported finalizing less or more stringent regulatory options as
viable and if the agency decided to adopt an option that was not
offered in the proposal, the EPA may be required to hold an additional
public comment period on this rulemaking. We did receive comments
asserting both that less stringent and more stringent options were
appropriate for this rulemaking. We summarized our responses to
comments related to the regulatory options evaluated in the response to
comments document in the docket for this rulemaking.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Response to Public Comments, Proposed Federal
Implementation Plan: Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas
Sources on Indian Country Lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian
Reservation in Utah, March 2022, available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA estimates the equivalent annualized costs of the preferred
option in 2023 in 2016 dollars using a 7 percent discount rate when
accounting for additional revenue from product recovery are $81 million
($3,500 per ton of VOC reduced). When using a 3 percent discount rate,
the estimates of total equivalent annualized costs of the final FIP
when accounting for additional revenue from product recovery are $72
million when accounting for additional revenue from product recovery
($3,200 per ton of VOC reduced).
    The equivalent annualized costs of the less stringent option
(Option 1) when accounting for additional revenue from product recovery
would be $77 million in 2023 in 2016 dollars using a 7 percent discount
rate, resulting in a cost of control of $4,100 per ton of the estimated
19,000 tons of VOC reduced, and $69 million in 2023 using a 3 percent
discount rate, resulting in a cost of control of $3,600 per ton of VOC
reduced. Option 1 was analyzed to reduce burden on small entities,
while still achieving meaningful VOC emissions reductions. Although
this option would cost less overall than preferred Option 2, it would
achieve less benefits in the form of VOC emissions reductions (19,000
tons versus 23,000 tons for final Option 2), as emissions from glycol
dehydrators would not be controlled and a smaller number of oil and
natural gas sources would be required to control storage vessels and
pneumatic pumps, because a larger amount of VOC emissions would be
required from the collection of all storage vessels and pneumatic pumps
at sources that also have glycol dehydrators in order to trigger the
control applicability threshold than under Option 2.\149\ Additionally,
by not controlling glycol dehydrator emissions in Option 1, there would
also be significantly less benefits from the associated reductions in
HAP emissions that are more reactive in forming ozone than the lighter-
end VOC emissions resulting from storage vessels, pneumatic pumps and
fugitive emissions. Implementation of Option 1 would also result in
regulatory requirements that are inconsistent with the requirements for
equivalent sources in areas of the Basin where the EPA has approved the
UDEQ to implement the CAA, thus not meeting our goal of regulatory
consistency across the Uinta Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Under Option 1, the EPA would determine the 4 tpy
threshold triggering control with source-wide potential VOC
emissions from the collection of all storage vessels and pneumatic
pumps only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The equivalent annualized costs of the most stringent option
(Option 3) when accounting for additional revenue from product recovery
would be $88 million in 2023 in 2016 dollars using a 7 percent discount
rate, resulting in a cost of control of $3,500 per ton of the estimated
25,000 tons of VOC reduced, and $79 million in 2023 using a 3 percent
discount rate, resulting in a cost of control of $3,100 per ton of VOC
reduced. Option 3 was analyzed to achieve a greater level of VOC
emissions reductions. Although this option would achieve about 3,000
more tons of VOC emissions reductions than preferred Option 2 (25,000
tons versus 23,000 tons for final Option 2), it would also result in
increased costs (though the cost of control per ton of VOC reduced
would be about the same as Option 2). Additionally, Option 3 would
result in regulatory requirements that are inconsistent with the
requirements for equivalent sources in areas of the Basin where the EPA
has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA, thus not meeting our goal
of regulatory consistency across the Uinta Basin.
    For a more in-depth analysis of these options, see the RIA for this
final U&O FIP.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This final action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship
between the national government and the states, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This final action has tribal implications, because it establishes
rules affecting a substantial number of industrial operations in Indian
country within the U&O Reservation. The emissions improvement measures
required by this rule will benefit the health and welfare of members of
the Tribe. In addition, some of these

operations provide revenue to the Ute Indian Tribe, directly or
indirectly. For example, the Tribe benefits from royalties paid by
companies developing oil and natural gas resources on the Indian
country lands within the U&O Reservation, which are administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. However, this rule will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal
governments, nor preempt tribal law.
    The EPA consulted with tribal officials under the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes early in the process
of developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and
timely input on its development. A summary of that consultation and
other communications with the Ute Indian Tribe follows. The EPA has
conducted outreach on this final rule consistent with the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 2011) via
ongoing monthly meetings with tribal environmental professionals \150\
before and during the development of this final action, and further as
follows: (1) via formal Tribal consultation and informal informational
meetings with the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee regarding options
that the EPA could consider to address the Uinta Basin air quality
concerns; (2) via stakeholder meetings where the Tribe was included and
participated in emissions contributions discussions specific to the
EPA's strategy for addressing the Uinta Basin air quality concerns; and
(3) via ongoing stakeholder working group meetings convened by the Ute
Indian Tribe Business Committee where the EPA participated in
discussions with the Tribe and industrial operators on strategies to
reduce existing ozone-related emissions and provide a streamlined
construction authorization mechanism for new and modified minor oil and
natural gas sources given the recent nonattainment designation for the
2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ These monthly meetings are general in nature, dealing with
many air-related topics, and are not specific to this proposed U&O
FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA held consultations with elected officials of the Ute Indian
Tribe Business Committee on the following dates: July 22, 2015;
December 17, 2016; November 13, 2017; March 22, 2018, August 17, 2018;
November 14, 2018; February 28, 2019; April 2, 2019; February 5, 2020;
and August 2, 2022. The EPA has also participated in tribally convened
stakeholder meetings on March 22, 2017, and June 1-2, 2017, as well as
many informal informational meetings with tribal elected officials and
air quality staff.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ The records of communication for all formal consultations
and other discussions with the Ute Indian Tribe are included in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the consultations and other discussions on this U&O FIP, the
Tribe expressed concerns regarding their economic needs to develop and
generate revenue from Tribal oil and natural gas resources; to consider
air quality effects on the health, safety, and welfare concerns of
their tribal membership living within the exterior boundaries of the
U&O Reservation and the Uinta Basin; and to reconcile regulatory
requirements for an even economic and regulatory playing field. We
addressed questions the Tribe had regarding the controls being
considered, the ability for owners or operators to take credit for the
controls for purposes such as permitting and NAAQS attainment, the
estimated costs of proposed controls, the characterization of Indian
country, and the breadth of oil and natural gas source category types
proposed to be regulated. The Ute-Tribe-convened stakeholder meetings
involved discussions on appropriate ways to expedite nonattainment
permitting for new and modified minor oil and natural gas sources on
the Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation. Ute Indian Tribe
and industry participants recognized that existing source emissions
reductions would likely be necessary in order for the EPA to
demonstrate that construction authorization for new and modified
sources would not cause or contribute to NAAQS violations in the
nonattainment area.
    Enacting a FIP for Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation
is directly responsive to the Ute Indian Tribe's air quality concerns
in that we are implementing our CAA authority to protect air quality on
and surrounding Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation in a
manner that provides regulatory consistency with respect to
requirements for oil and natural gas sources in areas of the Basin
where the EPA has approved the UDEQ to implement the CAA. We are
committed to supporting tribes' right to self-governance and to
protecting their inherent sovereignty. Throughout development of this
final action, we continued to provide outreach to tribal environmental
professionals and continued consultation with tribal leadership.
    As required by section 7(a), the EPA's Tribal Consultation Official
has certified that the requirements of the executive order have been
met in a meaningful and timely manner. A copy of the certification is
included in the docket for this action.

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

    This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is an
economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive
Order 12866 and the EPA has concluded that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this final action has a disproportionate
effect on children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the environmental
health or safety effects of exposure to elevated ozone concentrations
on children. This action's health and risk assessments are contained in
the Impacts of this Final FIP and Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations sections in this preamble (sections VII. and
VIII.K., respectively), with more detailed information contained in the
RIA for this rulemaking.\152\ This final U&O FIP should have a positive
effect on the health of the residents of the Indian country lands
within the U&O Reservation, including children, as it is expected to
result in a reduction in ambient ozone concentrations, which
disproportionately impact children, elderly, and those with respiratory
ailments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ The RIA includes more detailed discussions of the health
and risk assessments for this rule and can be viewed in the docket
for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'', because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The basis for these determinations
follows.
    The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action, which is included in the RIA,\153\ and is
summarized in Section VII. Impacts of this Final FIP. Based on this
analysis, we have concluded that, while this action may have some
effects on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, it is not likely
to have significant adverse energy

effects. Most owners/operators of existing oil and natural gas
production sources on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation
also operate sources on non-Indian country lands within and outside of
the U&O Reservation, where they are already required to employ the
emissions control technologies required by this U&O FIP. Additionally,
we expect that these owners/operators will also operate new and
modified sources in the Uinta Basin that are subject to similar NSPS
OOOO and OOOOa, NESHAP HH, and other oil and natural gas source
category-related control requirements within the Uinta Basin.
Therefore, it is expected that the owners/operators will continue to
procure necessary control equipment and supplies from the same
suppliers they currently use for non-Indian country existing, new or
modified sources. Further, only the higher-producing sources are
expected to be subject to the more substantive emission control
requirements in this U&O FIP, and those sources are more likely to be
able to accommodate the additional costs, so it is not expected that
the new requirements alone would factor significantly into decisions to
slow or halt production and thereby cause a shortfall in supply.
Rather, the prices of oil and natural gas are likely to be a more
significant factor in decisions on reducing production from existing
sources.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ The RIA includes a more detailed discussion of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this rule. It can be
viewed in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2015-0709).
    \154\ The RIA includes more detailed information on oil and
natural gas prices. It can be viewed in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, this U&O FIP establishes several emissions control
standards that give regulated entities flexibility in determining how
to best comply with the regulation. Even within the geographically and
economically homogeneous affected area within the Uinta Basin, this
flexibility is an important factor in reducing regulatory burden. For
more information on the estimated energy effects of the rule, please
see the RIA, which is in the docket for this rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs the EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless
to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. VCS are technical standards, which include materials
specifications, test methods, sampling protocols, business practices
and management systems developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies (VCSB), both domestic and international. These bodies
plan, develop, establish or coordinate voluntary consensus standards
using agreed-upon procedures.
    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted a search to identify potentially applicable VCS. However, the
Agency identified no such standards and none were brought to its
attention in comments. \155\ Therefore, the EPA has decided to use EPA
Methods 21 and 22 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7 and part 63, appendix
A.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \155\ ``Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for Federal
Implementation Plan for Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas
Sources on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah,''
Memorandum from Steffan Johnson, Group Leader, U.S. EPA, Measurement
Technology Group, to Deirdre Rothery, Unit Chief Air Permitting and
Monitoring Unit, U.S. EPA Region 8 Air Program, dated Dec. 22, 2017,
available in the Docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0709).
    \156\ The EPA Reference Methods 21 and 22 can be accessed at
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/ECFR?page=browse (Search Title 40, Part
60 and Part 63), accessed Mar. 14, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    While the EPA finds that communities in the Uinta Basin with higher
proportions of low-income populations and people of color rank in the
90th percentile for ozone concentrations in the baseline based on
EJSCREEN, the EPA concludes that this action does not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or
indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ See 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The documentation for this decision is contained in the RIA \158\
for this final rule. Our objective in developing this rule is to
improve air quality and thereby protect the communities in the Uinta
Basin, including those in and near Indian country lands within the U&O
Reservation, where existing oil and natural gas operations have been
shown to contribute to exceedances of the ozone NAAQS. The impacts of
this final rule are expected to be beneficial, rather than adverse, and
its benefits are expected to accrue to communities in and near Indian
country lands within the U&O Reservation. As explained in Section
VII.A. of this preamble, the EPA has quantified the expected emissions
impacts from this final action and found that the action will result in
large reductions of VOC emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ The RIA includes a more detailed discussion of the
environmental justice analysis for this rule. It can be viewed in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2015-
0709).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final action will also provide regulatory certainty to owners/
operators, by imposing, to the extent appropriate, requirements that
are the same as or consistent with those applicable to such existing
sources that in areas of the Basin where the EPA has approved the UDEQ
to implement the CAA because they are not on Indian country lands
within the Reservation. This will ensure that economic impacts are
consistent and air quality is protected consistently across the Uinta
Basin. Our Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis that can be found in the
RIA for this rulemaking supports the conclusion that this action is not
expected to result in disproportionate impacts.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Indians-law, Indians-tribal government,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For reasons set forth in the preamble, part 49 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Add the undesignated center heading ``Federal Implementation Plan
for Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Sources on the Indian
Country Lands Within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah''
immediately following Sec.  49.4168 and add Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through
49.4184 to subpart K to read as follows:

Subpart K-Implementation Plans for Tribes-Region VIII

* * * * *

Federal Implementation Plan for Managing Emissions From Oil and Natural
Gas Sources on the Indian Country Lands Within the Uintah and Ouray
Indian Reservation in Utah

Sec.
49.4169 Introduction.
49.4170 Delegation of authority of administration to the Tribe.
49.4171 General provisions.
49.4172 Emissions inventory.
49.4173 VOC emissions control requirements for storage vessels.
49.4174 VOC emissions control requirements for dehydrators.
49.4175 VOC emissions control requirements for pneumatic pumps.
49.4176 VOC emissions control requirements for covers and closed-
vent systems.
49.4177 VOC emissions control devices.
49.4178 VOC emissions control requirements for fugitive emissions.
49.4179 VOC emissions control requirements for tank truck loading.
49.4180 VOC emissions control requirements for pneumatic
controllers.
49.4181 Other combustion devices.
49.4182 Monitoring and testing requirements.
49.4183 Recordkeeping requirements.
49.4184 Notification and reporting requirements.

Sec.  49.4169   Introduction.

    (a) What is the purpose of Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4184?
Sections 49.4169 through 49.4184 establish legally and practicably
enforceable requirements for oil and natural gas sources on Indian
country lands within the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation (U&O
Reservation) to address ozone air quality. Section 49.4170 establishes
provisions for delegation of authority to allow the Ute Indian Tribe to
assist the EPA with administration of this Federal Implementation Plan
(U&O FIP). Section 49.4171 contains general provisions and definitions
applicable to oil and natural gas sources. Sections 49.4173 through
49.4184 establish legally and practicably enforceable requirements to
control and reduce VOC emissions from oil and natural gas well
production and storage operations, natural gas processing, and
gathering and boosting operations at oil and natural gas sources that
are located on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation.
    (b) Am I subject to Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4184? Sections
49.4169 through 49.4184, as appropriate, apply to each owner or
operator of an oil and natural gas source (as defined at 40 CFR 49.102)
located on Indian country lands within the U&O Reservation that has
equipment or activities that meet the applicability thresholds
specified in each section. Generally, the equipment and activities at
oil and natural gas sources that are already subject to and in
compliance with VOC emission control requirements under another EPA
standard or other federally enforceable requirement, as specified in
each appropriate subsection later, are considered to be in compliance
with the requirements to control VOC emissions from that same equipment
under this U&O FIP.
    (c) When must I comply with Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4184? For
oil and natural gas sources that commence construction before February
6, 2023, compliance with Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4171 and
Sec. Sec.  49.4173 through 49.4184, as applicable, is required no later
than February 6, 2024. You may submit a written request to the EPA for
an extension of the compliance date for existing sources. The extension
request must be submitted to the EPA at least 60 days before the
compliance deadline, must identify the specific provision(s) for which
you seek an extension, must include an alternative compliance
deadline(s), and must provide the rationale for the requested extension
with supporting information explaining how you will effectively meet
all applicable requirements after the requested alternative compliance
deadline. Any decision to approve or deny a request, including the
length of time of an approved request, will be based on the merits of
case-specific circumstances. For oil and natural gas sources that
commence construction on or after February 6, 2023, compliance with
Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4171 and Sec. Sec.  49.4173 through
49.4184, as applicable, is required upon startup.

Sec.  49.4170   Delegation of authority of administration to the Tribe.

    (a) What is the purpose of this section? The purpose of this
section is to establish the process by which the Regional Administrator
may delegate to the Ute Indian Tribe the authority to assist the EPA
with administration of this U&O FIP. This section provides for
administrative delegation and does not affect the eligibility criteria
under Sec.  49.6 for treatment in the same manner as a state.
    (b) How does the Ute Indian Tribe request delegation? To be
delegated authority to assist the EPA with administration of this U&O
FIP, the authorized representative of the Ute Indian Tribe must submit
a written request to the Regional Administrator that:
    (1) Identifies the specific provisions for which delegation is
requested;
    (2) Includes a statement by the Ute Indian Tribe's legal counsel
(or equivalent official) with the following information:
    (i) A statement that the Ute Indian Tribe is an Indian tribe
recognized by the Secretary of the Interior;
    (ii) A descriptive statement that meets the requirements of Sec.
49.7(a)(2) and demonstrates that the Ute Indian Tribe is currently
carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers over a defined
area;
    (iii) A description of the laws of the Ute Indian Tribe that
provide adequate authority to carry out the aspects of the rule for
which delegation is requested; and
    (3) Demonstrates that the Ute Indian Tribe has, or will have,
adequate resources to carry out the aspects of the rule for which
delegation is requested.
    (c) How is the delegation of administration accomplished? (1) A
Delegation of Authority Agreement setting forth the terms and
conditions of the delegation and specifying the provisions of this rule
that the Ute Indian Tribe will be authorized to implement on behalf of
the EPA will be entered into by the Regional Administrator and the Ute
Indian Tribe. The Agreement will become effective on the date that both
the Regional Administrator and the authorized representative of the Ute
Indian Tribe have signed the Agreement. Once the delegation becomes
effective, the Ute Indian Tribe will be responsible, to the extent
specified in the Agreement, for assisting the EPA with administration
of the FIP and will act as the Regional Administrator as that term is
used in these regulations. Any Delegation of Authority Agreement will
clarify the circumstances in which the term ``Regional Administrator''
found throughout the FIP is to remain the EPA Regional Administrator
and when it is intended to refer to the ``Ute Indian Tribe,'' instead.
    (2) A Delegation of Authority Agreement may be modified, amended,
or revoked, in part or in whole, by the Regional Administrator after
consultation with the Ute Indian Tribe.
    (d) How will any Delegation of Authority Agreement be publicized?
The Agency will publish a document in the Federal Register informing
the public of any Delegation of Authority Agreement with the Ute Indian
Tribe to assist the EPA with administration of all or a portion of the
FIP and identifying such delegation in the FIP. The EPA will also
publish an announcement of the Delegation of Authority Agreement in
local newspapers.

Sec.  49.4171   General provisions.

    (a) At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and
malfunction, each owner or operator must, to the extent practicable,
design, operate, and maintain all equipment used for crude oil,
condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon liquid, or produced water, and gas
collection, storage, processing, and handling operations covered under
Sec. Sec.  49.4171 and 49.4173 through 49.4184, regardless of emissions
rate and including associated air pollution control equipment, in a
manner that is consistent with good air pollution control practices and
that minimizes leakage of VOC emissions to the atmosphere.
Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance
procedures are being used will be based on information available to the
Administrator, including monitoring results, review of operating and
maintenance procedures, and inspection of the source.
    (b) Definitions. As used in Sec. Sec.  49.4169 through 49.4184, all
terms not defined have the meaning given them in the Act, in 40 CFR
parts 60 and 63, in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21, in the Federal Minor New Source Review
Program in Indian Country at Sec.  49.151, or in the Federal
Implementation Plan for Managing Air Emissions from True Minor Sources
in Indian Country in the Oil and Natural Gas Production and Natural Gas
Processing Segments of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector at Sec.  49.102.
The following terms are defined here:
    Bottom filling means the filling of a storage vessel through an
inlet at or near the bottom of the storage vessel designed to have the
opening covered by the liquid after the pipe normally used to withdraw
liquid can no longer withdraw any liquid.
    Condensate means hydrocarbon liquid separated from produced natural
gas that condenses due to changes in temperature, pressure, or both,
and that remains liquid at standard conditions.
    Crude oil means hydrocarbon liquids that are separated from well-
extracted reservoir fluids during oil and natural gas production
operations, and that are stored or injected to pipelines as a saleable
product. Condensate is not considered crude oil.
    Electronically controlled automatic ignition device means an
electronic device which generates sparks across an electrode and
reaches into a combustible gas stream traveling up a flare stack or
entering an enclosed combustor, at the point of the pilot tip, equipped
with a temperature monitor that signals the device to attempt to re-
light an extinguished pilot flame.
    Enclosed combustor means a thermal oxidation system with an
enclosed combustion chamber that maintains a limited constant
temperature by controlling fuel and combustion air.
    Flare means a thermal oxidation system using an open (without
enclosure) flame that is designed and operated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR 60.18(b). An enclosed combustor is not
considered a flare. A combustion device is not considered a flare when
installed horizontally or vertically within an open pit and used to
combust produced natural gas during initial well completion or
temporarily during emergencies when enclosed combustors or flares
installed at a source are not operational or injection of recovered
produced natural gas is unavailable.
    Flashing losses means natural gas emissions resulting from the
presence of dissolved natural gas in the crude oil, condensate,
intermediate hydrocarbon liquids or produced water, which are under
high pressure that occurs as the liquids are transferred to storage
vessels that are at atmospheric pressure.
    Fugitive emissions component means any component that has the
potential to emit fugitive emissions of VOC at an oil and natural gas
source, such as valves, connectors, pressure relief devices, open-ended
lines, flanges, covers and closed vent systems not subject to Sec.
49.4176, thief hatches or other openings on a controlled storage vessel
not subject to Sec.  49.4173, compressors, instruments, and meters.
Devices that vent as part of normal operations, such as natural gas-
driven pneumatic controllers or natural gas-driven pneumatic pumps, are
not fugitive emissions components, insofar as the natural gas
discharged from the device's vent is not considered a fugitive
emission. Emissions originating from locations other than the device's
vent, such as the thief hatch on a controlled storage vessel, would be
considered fugitive emissions.
    Glycol dehydration unit process vent emissions means VOC-containing
emissions from the glycol dehydration unit regenerator or still vent
and the vent from the dehydration unit flash tank (if present).
    Indian country is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 and means.
    (i) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through
the reservation,
    (ii) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the
United States whether within the original or subsequently acquired
territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits of a state,
and
    (iii) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not
been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.
    Intermediate hydrocarbon liquids means any naturally occurring,
unrefined petroleum liquid.
    Malfunction alarm and remote notification system means a system
connected to an electronically controlled automatic ignition device
that sends an alarm through a remote notification system to an owner or
operator's central control center, if an attempt to relight the pilot
flame is unsuccessful.
    Pneumatic controller means a natural gas-driven pneumatic
controller as defined at 40 CFR 60.5430 and 60.5430a.
    Pneumatic pump means a natural gas-driven diaphragm pump as defined
at 40 CFR 60.5430a.
    Pneumatic pump emissions means the VOC-containing emissions from
pneumatic pumps.
    Produced natural gas means natural gas that is separated from
extracted reservoir fluids during oil and natural gas production
operations.
    Produced water means water that is extracted from the earth from an
oil or natural gas production well, or that is separated from crude
oil, condensate, or natural gas after extraction.
    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 8 or an authorized representative of the Regional Administrator
of EPA Region 8, except to the extent otherwise specifically specified
in a Delegation of Authority Agreement between the Regional
Administrator and the Ute Indian Tribe.
    Repaired means, for the purposes of fugitive emissions components,
that fugitive emissions components are adjusted, replaced, or otherwise
altered in order to eliminate fugitive emissions as defined in Sec.
49.4178(d)(1)(iii), and subsequently monitored as specified in Sec.
49.4178(d)(1)(ii), and that it is verified that emissions from the
fugitive emissions components are below the applicable fugitive
emissions definition.
    Standing and breathing losses means VOC emissions from fixed-roof
storage vessels as a result of evaporative losses during storage.
    Storage vessel means a tank or other vessel that contains an
accumulation of crude oil, condensate, intermediate hydrocarbon
liquids, or produced water, and that is constructed primarily of non-
earthen materials (such as wood,

concrete, steel, fiberglass, or plastic), which provide structural
support. A well completion vessel that receives recovered liquids from
a well after startup of production following flowback for a period
which exceeds 60 days is considered a storage vessel under this
subpart. A tank or other vessel will not be considered a storage vessel
if it has been removed from service in accordance with the requirements
of Sec.  49.4173(a)(3), until that tank or other vessel has been
returned to service. For the purposes of this subpart, the following
are not considered storage vessels:
    (i) Vessels that are skid-mounted or permanently attached to
something that is mobile (such as trucks, railcars, barges or ships),
and are intended to be located at a site for less than 180 consecutive
days. If you do not keep or are not able to produce records, as
required by Sec.  49.4183(a)(1)(iv), showing that the vessel has been
located at a site for less than 180 consecutive days, the vessel is
considered to be a storage vessel from the date it was first located at
the site. This exclusion does not apply to a well completion vessel as
described above.
    (ii) Process vessels such as surge control vessels, bottoms
receivers, and knockout vessels.
    (iii) Pressure vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9
kilopascals and without emissions to the atmosphere.
    Submerged fill pipe means any fill pipe with a discharge opening
that is entirely submerged when the liquid level is six inches above
the bottom of the storage vessel and the pipe normally used to withdraw
liquid from the storage vessel can no longer withdraw any liquid.
    Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system generally
refers to industrial control computer systems that monitor and control
industrial infrastructure or source-based processes.
    Unsafe to repair means (in the context of fugitive emissions
monitoring) that operator personnel would be exposed to an imminent or
potential danger as a consequence of the attempt to repair the leak
during normal operation of the source.
    Visible smoke emissions means air pollution generated by thermal
oxidation in a flare or enclosed combustor and occurring immediately
downstream of the flame present in those units. Visible smoke occurring
within, but not downstream of, the flame, does not constitute visible
smoke emissions.
    Working losses means natural gas emissions from fixed roof storage
vessels resulting from evaporative losses during filling and emptying
operations.

Sec.  49.4172   Emissions inventory.

    (a) Applicability. The emissions inventory requirements of this
section apply to each oil and natural gas source, as identified in
Sec.  49.4169(b), that has actual emissions of any pollutant identified
in paragraph (c) of this section greater than or equal to one ton in
any consecutive 12-month period.
    (b) Each oil and natural gas source must submit an inventory for
every third year, beginning with the 2023 calendar year, for all
emission units at a source.
    (c) The inventory must include the total emissions for
PM10, PM2.5, oxides of sulfur, nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds, as defined at 40 CFR
51.50, for each emissions unit at the source. Emissions for each
emissions unit at the source must be calculated using the emissions
unit's actual operating hours, appropriate emissions rates, the use of
performance test results where applicable, product rates and types of
materials processed, stored, or combusted during the calendar year of
the reporting period.
    (d) The inventory must include the type and efficiency, for each
pollutant controlled, of any air pollution control equipment present at
the reporting source. The detail of the emissions inventory must be
consistent with the detail and data elements required by 40 CFR part
51, subpart A.
    (e) The inventory must be submitted to the EPA no later than April
15th of the year following each inventory year.
    (f) The inventory must be submitted in an electronic format
specific to this source category, as instructed on the EPA Region 8
website at https://www.epa.gov/air-quality-implementation-plans/approved-air-quality-implementation-plans-region-8.

Sec.  49.4173  VOC emissions control requirements for storage vessels.

    (a) Applicability. The VOC emissions control requirements of this
section apply to storage vessels at an oil and natural gas source (as
specified in Sec.  49.4169(b)) as follows:
    (1) For oil and natural gas sources that began operations before
February 6, 2023, the VOC emissions control requirements of this
section apply when the source-wide potential for VOC emissions from the
collection of all storage vessels, glycol dehydrators, and pneumatic
pumps is equal to or greater than 4 tpy, as determined according to
this section. The potential for VOC emissions must be calculated using
a generally accepted model or calculation methodology, based on the
maximum average daily throughput determined for a 30-day period of