[Federal Register: December 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 230)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 75059-75089]
[DOCID:fr01de10-21]

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

Part V

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 72, 78, and 98

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 72, 78, and 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926; FRL-9232-6]
RIN 2060-AP88

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating a regulation to require greenhouse gas
monitoring and reporting from facilities that conduct geologic
sequestration of carbon dioxide and all other facilities that conduct
injection of carbon dioxide. This rule does not require control of
greenhouse gases, rather it requires only monitoring and reporting of
greenhouse gases.

DATES: The final rule is effective on December 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. This Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is
(202) 566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information and
implementation materials, please go to the website http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a question,
select Rule Help Center, and then select Contact Us. You may also
contact Mark de Figueiredo, Climate Change Division, Office of
Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9928; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities. The Administrator has
determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air
Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions
of CAA section 307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the
Administrator may determine''). These regulations will affect owners or
operators of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells. Regulated
categories and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this
preamble:

                               Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                                  NAICS                  Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery         211..................................  Oil and gas extraction projects
 Projects.                                                                        using CO2 enhanced oil and gas
                                                                                recovery.
Acid Gas Injection Projects.............  211111 or 211112.....................  Projects that inject acid gas
                                                                                containing CO2 underground.
Geologic Sequestration Projects.........  N/A..................................  CO2 geologic sequestration
                                                                                projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of
facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities not listed in the
table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and the
relevant criteria in the sections related to the injection and geologic
sequestration (GS) of CO2 (i.e., subparts RR and UU). If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular facility, consult the website person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Some facilities that are affected by this final rule are required
to report under multiple source categories. Table 2 of this preamble
has been developed as a guide to help potential CO2
injection and GS reporters subject to the final rule identify the
source categories (by subpart) that they may need to (1) consider in
their facility applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their
reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide. Additional
subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a given reporter.
Similarly, not all listed subparts are relevant for all reporters.

            Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Source category (and main    Other subparts recommended for  review to
     applicable subpart)                determine applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geologic Sequestration of      40 CFR part 98, subpart C.
 Carbon Dioxide (40 CFR part   40 CFR part 98, subpart W.
 98, subpart RR).              40 CFR part 98, subpart PP.
Injection of Carbon Dioxide    40 CFR part 98, subpart C.
 (40 CFR part 98, subpart UU). 40 CFR part 98, subpart W.
                               40 CFR part 98, subpart PP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    What is the effective date? The final rule is effective on December
31, 2010. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. chapter 5, generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
EPA is issuing this final rule under section 307(d)(1) of the Clean Air
Act,

which states: ``The provisions of section 553 through 557 * * * of
Title 5 shall not, except as expressly provided in this section, apply
to actions to which this subsection applies.'' Thus, section 553(d) of
the APA does not apply to this rule. EPA is nevertheless acting
consistently with the purposes underlying APA section 553(d) in making
this rule effective on December 31, 2010. Section 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)
allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication ``as
otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published
with the rule.'' As explained below, EPA finds that there is good cause
for this rule to become effective on or before December 31, 2010, even
if this results in an effective date fewer than 30 days from date of
publication in the Federal Register.
    While this action is being signed prior to December 1, 2010, there
is likely to be a significant delay in the publication of this rule as
it contains equations and charts, and is relatively long in length. As
an example, EPA signed a shorter technical amendments package related
to the same underlying reporting rule on October 7, 2010, and it was
not published until October 28, 2010, 75 FR 66434, three weeks later.
    The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in 5 U.S.C.
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Where, as
here, the final rule will be signed and made available on the EPA Web
site more than 30 days before the effective date, but where the
publication is likely to be delayed due to the complexity and length of
the rule, that purpose is still met. Moreover, EPA determined that
facilities that are subject to this rule already collect data on
CO2 that is received. Facilities may use best available
monitoring methods for calculating the mass of CO2 received
through the first quarter of 2011. Facilities subject to subpart RR
that were issued a final Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit
authorizing the injection of CO2 into the subsurface on or
before December 31, 2010 are required to submit a proposed monitoring,
reporting, and verification (MRV) plan to EPA by June 30, 2011 and are
allowed to request one extension of up to an additional 180 days in
which to submit their proposed MRV plan. This will provide facilities a
substantial additional period to adjust their behavior to the
requirements of the final rule. Accordingly, we find good cause exists
to make this rule effective on or before December 31, 2010, consistent
with the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We recognize that this rule could be published at least 30
days before December 31, 2010, which would negate the need for this
good cause finding, and we plan to request expedited publication of
this rule in order to decrease the likelihood of a printing delay.
However, as we cannot know the date of publication in advance of
signing this rule, we are proceeding with this good cause finding
for an effective date on or before December 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Judicial Review.
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final rule is
available only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 31, 2011. Under
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection to this final rule that was
raised with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment
can be raised during judicial review. This section also provides a
mechanism for EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration, ``[i]f
the person raising an objection can demonstrate to EPA that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period
for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review)
and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of this
rule.'' Any person seeking to make such a demonstration to EPA should
submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004, with a
copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

3-D three-dimensional
AGA American Gas Association
AMA active monitoring area
ANSI American National Standards Institute
API American Petroleum Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CCS carbon dioxide capture and geologic sequestration
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO2 carbon dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
EAB Environmental Appeals Board
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EO Executive Order
ER enhanced oil and gas recovery
GHG greenhouse gas
GS geologic sequestration
ICR Information Collection Request
IRS Internal Revenue Service
MMA maximum monitoring area
MRV monitoring, reporting, and verification
NAESB North American Energy Standards Board
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OW Office of Water
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TSD technical support document
UIC Underground Injection Control
US United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USDW underground source of drinking water
VEF Vulnerability Evaluation Framework

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of this Preamble
    B. Background on the Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
    D. Relationship to Underground Injection Control Regulations
under the Safe Drinking Water Act
    E. Relationship to the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
and Storage and Other Federal Geologic Sequestration Initiatives
    F. Relationship to Other Geologic Sequestration Information
Collection and Reporting Efforts
II. Summary of Final Rule
    A. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
    B. Summary of the Reporting Requirements for Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (Subpart RR)
    C. Summary of the Reporting Requirements for Injection of Carbon
Dioxide (Subpart UU)
    D. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal
    E. Summary of Comments and Responses
III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule
    A. How were compliance costs estimated?
    B. What are the costs of the rule?
    C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
    D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
    E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is divided into four sections, as detailed in the
Table of Contents. This section describes the layout of the preamble
and provides a brief summary of each section.
    The first section of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this rule, including a discussion of
how it relates to the finalized requirements for suppliers of
CO2 under 40 CFR part 98, subpart PP. It also contains
information on EPA's legal authority and how this rule relates to the
UIC program, the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage
and other Federal GS initiatives, as well as other GS information
collection and reporting efforts.
    The second section of this preamble provides an overview of the GHG
Reporting Program and summarizes changes to the general provisions of
the GHG Reporting Program. It also provides a summary of this final
rule on key design elements such as: Source category definition,
reporting threshold, GHGs to report, GHG calculations and monitoring,
data reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. In addition, it
describes the major changes made since the proposal and provides a
brief summary of public comments and EPA's responses thereto.
    The third section of this preamble provides the summary of the cost
impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this rule and discusses
comments on the regulatory impacts analysis.
    Finally, the last section of this preamble discusses the various
statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this final
rulemaking.

B. Background on the Final Rule

    This action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for
injection and geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.
    On April 12, 2010, EPA proposed this rule amending 40 CFR part 98.
40 CFR part 98 provides the regulatory framework for the GHG Reporting
Program. The GHG Reporting Program requires reporting of GHG emissions
and other relevant information from certain source categories in the
United States. The GHG Reporting Program, which became effective on
December 29, 2009, includes reporting requirements for facilities and
suppliers in 34 subparts. For more detailed background information on
the GHG Reporting Program, see the preamble to the final part 98 rule
establishing that program (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009) and the
preamble to the Part 98 rule expanding that program from 30 to 34
subparts (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010).
    Subpart PP of the GHG Reporting Program requires the reporting of
CO2 supplied to the economy. During the public comment
period on the part 98 rule establishing that requirement, EPA received
comments that CO2 geologically sequestered should be
considered in the GHG Reporting Program. (For further information on
relevant comments received in 40 CFR part 98, subpart PP, see
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Subpart PP: Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide'' in Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508.) In the final rule promulgating 40 CFR part 98, subpart
PP, EPA committed to taking action to collect such data in the near
future.
    This final rule amends 40 CFR part 98 to add reporting requirements
covering facilities that conduct geologic sequestration of
CO2 (40 CFR part 98, subpart RR) and all other facilities
that conduct injection of CO2 (40 CFR part 98, subpart
UU).\2\ GS is the long-term containment of a CO2 stream in
subsurface geologic formations. This data will, among other things,
inform Agency decisions under the CAA related to the use of carbon
dioxide capture and geologic sequestration (CCS) for mitigating GHG
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA has moved all definitions, requirements, and procedures
for facilities conducting CO2 injection only (which both
EPA and commenters have referred to as ``Tier 1'' facilities for
simplicity) into a new subpart, 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU, and
retained all definitions, requirements, and procedures related to
facilities conducting GS (which both EPA and commenters have
referred to as ``Tier 2'' facilities for simplicity) in 40 CFR part
98, subpart RR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subpart RR information will enable EPA to monitor the growth and
efficacy of GS (and therefore CCS) as a GHG mitigation technology over
time and to evaluate relevant policy options. Furthermore, where
enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) projects are reporting under 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR, EPA will be able to evaluate ER as a non-emissive
end use. Under 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU, EPA will be able to
reconcile information obtained from this rule with data obtained from
40 CFR part 98, subpart PP on CO2 supplied to the economy.
    This rule was proposed by EPA on April 12, 2010. One public hearing
was held on April 19, 2010, and the 60-day public comment period ended
June 11, 2010. This final rule takes into consideration comments
received during the comment period and finalizes the monitoring and
reporting requirements for facilities conducting GS and all other
facilities conducting CO2 injection.
    This final rule does not address whether data reported under 40 CFR
part 98, subparts RR or UU will be released to the public or will be
treated as CBI. EPA published a proposed rule on confidentiality
determination on July 7, 2010 (75 FR 39094) that addressed this issue.
In that action, EPA proposed which specific data elements may be
released to the public and which would be treated as CBI. EPA received
several comments on that proposal, and is in the process of considering
these comments.

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is promulgating this rule under its existing CAA authority;
specifically, authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed in
detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the final part 98
rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program (74 FR 56260, October 30,
2009), CAA section 114 provides EPA with the authority to require the
information mandated by this rule because such data will inform and are
relevant to EPA's implementation of a wide variety of CAA provisions.
Under CAA section 114(a)(1), the Administrator may require emissions
sources, persons subject to the CAA, manufacturers of emission control
or process equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may
have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide
such other information as the Administrator requests for the purposes
of carrying out any provision of the CAA (except for a

provision of title II with respect to motor vehicles). EPA may gather
information for a variety of purposes, including for the purpose of
assisting in the development of implementation plans or of emissions
standards under CAA section 111, determining compliance with
implementation plans or such standards, or more broadly for ``carrying
out any provision'' of the CAA.

D. Relationship to Underground Injection Control Regulations Under the
Safe Drinking Water Act

    The Agency maintains a high-level of coordination across EPA
offices and regions on GS activities and regulatory development. EPA's
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and Office of Water (OW) work closely
to promote safe and effective implementation of GS technologies while
ensuring protection of human health and the environment. OAR and OW
have closely coordinated this rulemaking under CAA authority and the
rulemaking under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authority establishing
Federal requirements under the UIC program for Class VI wells
(hereafter referred to as the UIC Class VI rule).
    EPA's UIC program was established in the 1970s to prevent
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from
injection of various fluids, including CO2 for ER, oil field
fluids, water stored for drinking water supplies, and municipal and
industrial waste. The UIC program, which is authorized by Part C of
SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.), is designed to prevent the movement of
such fluid into USDWs by addressing the potential pathways through
which injected fluids can migrate and potentially endanger USDWs. In
2008, EPA proposed to amend the UIC program to establish a new class of
injection well--Class VI--to cover the underground injection of
CO2 for the purpose of GS, or long-term storage of
CO2 (73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008). For a summary of the UIC
program and more details on the final UIC Class VI rule, please see the
UIC Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Web site.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_
sequestration.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA designed the reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR with careful consideration of UIC requirements, including
Class VI, to minimize overlap between the two programs. There are two
areas of potential overlap (see Table 3 of this preamble). The first
overlap is the requirement that owners or operators report the quantity
of CO2 injected. The UIC Class VI rule requires owners or
operators to continuously monitor the amount of CO2 injected
and submit semi-annual reports on the monthly amount injected. The UIC
program requires information on the amount injected to ensure
appropriate CO2 injection operations. Subpart RR requires
facilities to collect data on the amount injected over a quarter and
submit annual reports on the annual amount of CO2 injected.
Data on the amount of CO2 injected is a component of the 40
CFR part 98, subpart RR mass balance approach \4\ used to quantify the
amount of CO2 sequestered. EPA determined that quarterly
data collection and annual reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR
was necessary in order to harmonize data with other subparts of the GHG
Reporting Program. Facilities reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart
RR may use flow meters used to comply with the flow monitoring and
reporting provisions in their UIC permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The subpart RR mass balance equation for quantifying the
amount of CO2 that is geologically sequestered includes
variables on injected CO2; equipment leaks and vented
CO2 emissions from surface equipment between the flow
meters and the wellhead; CO2 produced and/or remaining
with produced oil, gas or other fluids; and CO2 leakage
to the surface. For more information, see Section II.B of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second overlap is a monitoring plan for detecting air
emissions. While requirements under the UIC program are focused on
demonstrating that USDWs are not endangered as a result of
CO2 injection into the subsurface, requirements under the
GHG Reporting Program through 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR will enable
EPA to verify the quantity of CO2 that is geologically
sequestered and to assess the efficacy of GS as a mitigation strategy.
Subpart RR achieves this by requiring facilities conducting GS to
develop and implement a MRV plan \5\ to detect and quantify leakage of
injected CO2 to the surface in the event leakage occurs and
to report the amount of CO2 geologically sequestered using a
mass balance approach, regardless of the class of UIC permit that a
facility holds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The subpart RR MRV plan includes delineation of monitoring
areas, identification and assessment of potential surface leakage
pathways, a strategy for detecting and quantifying surface leakage
of CO2 if leakage occurs, an approach for establishing
the expected baselines, and a summary of considerations for
calculating site-specific variables for the mass balance equation,
such as calculating CO2 in produced fluids. For more
information, see Section II.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitoring required by 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR for
quantification purposes is complementary to and builds on UIC permit
requirements. In particular, the UIC Class VI permit requires a
comprehensive site characterization that includes an assessment of the
geologic, hydrogeologic, geochemical, and geomechanical properties of
the proposed GS site to ensure that GS wells are located in suitable
formations. The UIC Class VI permit also requires computational
modeling of the Area of Review, and a periodic re-evaluation of this
Area of Review based on robust modeling and monitoring of the
CO2 stream, injection pressures, integrity of the injection
well, groundwater quality and geochemistry, and the position of the
CO2 plume and pressure front throughout injection. These
requirements can provide the basis for the MRV plan submitted to EPA
for 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR. Therefore, EPA will accept a UIC Class
VI permit to satisfy certain MRV plan requirements; however, the
reporter must include additional information to outline how monitoring
will achieve detection and quantification of CO2 in the
event surface leakage occurs.
    The UIC Class VI rule also allows for surface air and soil gas
monitoring at the discretion of the UIC Director as a means of
identifying CO2 leaks that may pose a risk to USDWs and
informing emergency notification of a Class VI owner or operator and
UIC Director in the event of a USDW endangerment. If the UIC Director
determines that it is appropriate to require surface air or soil gas
monitoring for USDW protection, the UIC Director must approve the use
of monitoring employed under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR so long as the
owner or operator is able to demonstrate USDW protection pursuant to
requirements at 40 CFR 146.90(h)(3).

 Table 3--Comparison of Reporting Requirements Under Subpart RR With UIC
                          Class VI Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reporting requirement          Subpart RR           UIC Class VI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity of CO2 received....  Yes.................  N/A.
Quantity of CO2 injected....  Yes.................  Yes.
Equipment leaks and vented    Yes.................  N/A.
 emissions from surface
 equipment between flow
 meters and the wellhead.

Quantity of CO2 produced      Yes.................  N/A.
 with oil or natural gas
 (ER) or other fluids.
Percentage of CO2 estimated   Yes.................  N/A.
 to remain with oil (ER) or
 other fluids.
Quantity of CO2 emitted from  Yes.................  N/A.
 the subsurface.
Quantity of CO2 sequestered   Yes.................  N/A.
 in the subsurface.
Cumulative mass of CO2        Yes.................  N/A.
 sequestered in the
 subsurface.
Monitoring plan for           Yes.................  Yes.\1\
 detecting air emissions.
Monitoring plan for           Yes.................  N/A.
 quantifying air emissions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UIC Class VI rule allows for surface air/soil gas monitoring for
  USDW protection at the discretion of the UIC Director.

    EPA has determined that the requirements of these two rules
complement one another by concurrently ensuring USDW protection, as
required under SDWA, and requiring reporting of CO2 surface
emissions under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR. EPA is committed to working
closely within the agency to coordinate implementation of the UIC and
GHG Reporting programs, reduce burden on reporters, provide timely
access to verified emissions data, establish mechanisms to efficiently
share data, and harmonize data systems to the extent possible.

E. Relationship to the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and
Storage and Other Federal Geologic Sequestration Initiatives

    On February 3, 2010, President Obama established an Interagency
Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS Task Force). The CCS Task
Force, co-chaired by EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE), developed
a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective
deployment of CCS within ten years, with a goal of bringing five to ten
commercial demonstration projects online by 2016. The CCS Task Force's
plan was delivered to President Obama in August 2010.
    The CCS Task Force explored incentives for commercial CCS adoption
and addressed financial, economic, technological, legal, institutional,
social, or other barriers to deployment. For example, the CCS Task
Force examined Federal regulatory activities that address the safety,
efficacy, and environmental soundness of GS. The CCS Task Force also
considered how best to coordinate existing administrative authorities
and programs, including those involving international collaboration, as
well as identified areas where additional administrative authority may
be necessary. The CCS Task Force recommended that EPA finalize this
rule. For more information, please see EPA's CCS Task Force Web
site.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_
force.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Relationship to Other Geologic Sequestration Information Collection
and Reporting Efforts

    EPA reviewed and took into account several existing domestic and
international reporting and monitoring programs in designing this rule.
For additional information, please see Section I.F of the notice of
proposed rulemaking (75 FR 18581, April 12, 2010).
    Also as discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA notes
that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published IRS Notice 2009-83
\7\ to provide guidance regarding eligibility for the Internal Revenue
Code section 45Q credit for CO2 sequestration, computation
of the section 45Q tax credit, reporting requirements for taxpayers
claiming the section 45Q tax credit, and rules regarding adequate
security measures for secure GS. As clarified in the IRS guidance,
taxpayers claiming the section 45Q tax credit must follow the
appropriate UIC requirements. The guidance also clarifies that
taxpayers claiming section 45Q tax credit must follow the MRV
procedures that are being finalized under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR in
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Available at: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-44_IRB/
ar11.html#d0e1860.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program

    This action amends certain requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart
A (General Provisions).
    Changes to Applicability. In this action, EPA is amending Table A-3
in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1) to include the geologic sequestration of
CO2 and injection of CO2 source categories.

B. Summary of the Reporting Requirements for Geologic Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide (Subpart RR)

    Reporting requirements for facilities conducting GS are found in 40
CFR part 98, subpart RR. These facilities are required to report the
amount of CO2 received, develop and implement an EPA-
approved MRV plan, and report the amount of CO2 sequestered
using a mass balance approach, by subtracting total CO2
emissions from CO2 injected in the reporting year. Other
facilities injecting CO2 underground report under 40 CFR
part 98, subpart UU.
1. Subpart RR Source Category Definition
    The 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR source category consists of any well
or group of wells that inject a CO2 stream for long-term
containment into a subsurface geologic formation.\8\ All wells
permitted as Class VI by the UIC program meet the definition of this
source category. Facilities conducting ER are not subject to 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR unless they choose to opt-in to the requirements of
this subpart or hold a UIC Class VI permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note that R&D projects that are exempted from subpart RR
report under Subpart UU--see discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research and development (R&D) projects are exempt from reporting
requirements under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR provided they meet the
eligibility requirements. A project is eligible for the exemption if it
investigates or will investigate practices, monitoring techniques, or
injection verification, or if it is engaged in other applied research
that focuses on enabling safe and effective long-term containment of a
CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations, including
research and injection tests conducted as a precursor to a larger more
permanent long-term storage operation. Small and large-scale projects
meeting the criteria for an exemption, such as the current Regional
Carbon

Sequestration Partnership projects supported by the Office of Fossil
Energy at the DOE, would be considered R&D for the purposes of this
exemption from reporting for the duration of the R&D activity. Other
DOE supported GS R&D projects may also satisfy the eligibility
requirements for the exemption. In addition, short duration
CO2 injection projects conducted to identify local
amenability to long term storage will be exempted from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR for the duration of such injection testing. This includes
cases where an operator is using a short duration CO2
injection test to assess local geologic conditions and validate the
injectivity potential of a particular site prior to developing that
site for commercial scale geologic storage of carbon dioxide.
Demonstration projects can apply for the exemption, but will be
measured against the same criteria established in 40 CFR 98.440(d).
Projects that are not R&D projects, such as commercial GS operations,
are not eligible for the exemption.
    To receive an R&D exemption, the project representative must submit
to the Administrator information on the planned duration of
CO2 injection for research, the planned annual
CO2 injection volumes during this time period, the purposes
of the project, the source and type of funding for the project, and the
class and duration of UIC permit, or, for an offshore facility not
subject to SDWA, a description of the legal instrument authorizing GS.
    The Administrator will determine if a project meets the definition
of research and development project within 60 days of receipt of the
submission of a request for exemption. In making this determination,
the Administrator will take into account any information that the
reporter submits demonstrating that the planned duration of
CO2 injection for the project and the planned annual
CO2 injection volumes during the duration of the project are
consistent with the purpose of the research and development project.
This rule allows for administrative appeals of the Administrator's R&D
determination, as provided for in 40 CFR part 78.
    Facilities that qualify for a GS R&D exemption from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR are not exempted from any other source category of the GHG
Reporting Program including 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU. For other
source categories of the GHG Reporting Program, R&D is defined at 40
CFR 98.6.
2. Subpart RR Reporting Threshold
    All facilities that meet the 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR source
category definition must report (i.e., there is no reporting
threshold). However, reporters that receive a subpart RR R&D exemption
are no longer subject to subpart RR, but rather report CO2
received under subpart UU. The cease reporting provisions of Sec.
98.2(i) do not apply to subpart RR. Rather, once a facility is subject
to the requirements of this subpart, including facilities that opt-in
to 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, the owner or operator must continue for
each year thereafter to comply with all requirements of this subpart,
including the requirement to submit annual reports, until the
Administrator has issued a final decision on an owner or operator's
request to discontinue reporting. The request to discontinue reporting
must include either a copy of the applicable UIC program Director's
authorization of site closure, or a demonstration that the injected
CO2 stream is not expected to migrate in a manner likely to
result in surface leakage. Before the reporter can discontinue
reporting, but after injection has ceased, EPA expects that in most
cases there will be minimal burden in monitoring and reporting unless a
surface leak is detected.
3. Subpart RR GHGs to Report
    Facilities covered by this source category must report the mass of
CO2 received; the mass of CO2 injected; the mass
of CO2 produced (i.e., mixed with produced oil, gas, or
other fluids); the mass of CO2 emitted from surface leakage;
the mass of CO2 equipment leaks and vented CO2
emissions from sources between the injection flow meter and the
injection wellhead or between the production flow meter and the
production wellhead; and the mass of CO2 sequestered in
subsurface geologic formations (this is calculated from the other
quantities).
4. Subpart RR GHG Calculations and Monitoring
    Facilities covered by this source category must calculate the
annual mass of CO2 received. Starting from the date
specified in the EPA-approved MRV plan, facilities must also use a mass
balance approach to calculate the mass of CO2 geologically
sequestered. First, facilities must calculate the annual mass of
CO2 injected. From the annual mass of CO2
injected, facilities must subtract the mass of CO2 emitted
from surface leakage, using the site-specific procedures in their MRV
plan, and the mass of CO2 emitted as equipment leaks or
vented emissions from applicable surface equipment, using the
procedures specified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart W of the GHG Reporting
Program. All GS projects with equipment leak or vented emissions from
surface equipment applicable to the GS mass balance equation should use
the procedures specified in subpart W, regardless of whether such
projects are associated with the oil and gas industry. Facilities that
are producing, oil, gas, or other fluids must additionally subtract the
mass of CO2 produced. Calculation procedures are provided at
40 CFR 98.443.
5. Subpart RR Geologic Sequestration Monitoring, Reporting, and
Verification (MRV) Plans
    Facilities must develop an MRV plan, submit the MRV plan to EPA,
receive an approved MRV plan from EPA, implement the EPA-approved plan,
and submit annual reports.
    The MRV plan must include five major components:
    X Delineation of the maximum monitoring area (MMA) and the active
monitoring area (AMA).
    X Identification and evaluation of the potential surface leakage
pathways and an assessment of the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of
surface leakage of CO2 through these pathways in the MMA.
    X A strategy for detecting and quantifying any surface leakage of
CO2 in the event leakage occurs.
    X An approach for establishing the expected baselines for
monitoring CO2 surface leakage.
    X A summary of considerations made to calculate site-specific
variables for the mass balance equation.
    First, the MRV plan must include a delineation of the MMA and the
AMA. The MMA includes the extent of the free phase CO2 plume
over the lifetime of the project plus a buffer zone of one-half mile.
Potential surface leakage pathways must be identified and assessed in
the MMA. The AMA is the area that will be monitored over a specified
time interval chosen by the reporter, which must be greater than one
year. All of the area in the MMA will eventually be covered by one or
more AMAs. The first time interval will begin from the date determined
in your MRV plan through the date at which the MRV plan calls for the
first expansion of the AMA. For each subsequent time interval, a new
AMA must be determined. This allows operators to phase in monitoring so
that during any given time interval, only that part of the MMA in which
leakage might occur needs to be monitored. The boundary of the AMA in
each time interval is established by superimposing two areas. The first
is the area projected to contain the free phase CO2 plume at
the end of the specified time interval plus an all around buffer zone
of at least

one-half mile, or greater if known leakage pathways extend laterally
more than one-half mile. The second is the area projected to contain
the free phase CO2 plume five years beyond the specified
time interval.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In some cases, the actual footprint of the free phase
CO2 plume and the area that is projected to contain the
free phase CO2 plume after five years may be the same.
The one-half mile or greater area provides a buffer zone in the case
that upward migration of a CO2 leak moves laterally as it
approaches the surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the MRV plan must include identification and evaluation of
potential surface leakage pathways within the MMA and an assessment of
the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of
CO2 through these pathways. Possible conduits for
CO2 leakage include faults, fractures, and abandoned
wells.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As discussed in Section I.D. of this preamble, UIC
requirements can provide the basis for the MRV plan submitted to EPA
for 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the MRV plan must describe the strategy for detecting and
quantifying surface leakage of CO2 in the event leakage
occurs. It should include a description of the approach for determining
whether surface leakage has occurred, an explanation of how
CO2 surface leaks will be distinguished from the baseline,
and the approach for quantifying detected and verified surface leakage.
The expected performance of the selected leakage detection monitoring
system or technical specifications should also be described in the MRV
plan. If a surface leak is detected, the reporter should have a
strategy in place to verify that a surface leak has occurred, confirm
the location and source of the surface leak, and then apply some
combination of direct measurement and estimation to quantify the
surface leak.
    Fourth, the MRV plan should include an approach for establishing
expected baselines. The primary goal of establishing expected baselines
is so that the Reporter can discern whether the results of monitoring
are attributable to leakage of injected CO2 or from another
cause (e.g. natural variability). The MRV plan leakage detection and
quantification strategy may include monitoring a selection of indicator
parameters to detect potential CO2 leakages. These indicator
parameters may be environmental such as subsurface pressure, soil
CO2 flux rates, etc., or operational, such as the injection
pressure and the annular pressure in the well. To judge whether a set
of measured parameter values obtained during GS operations may indicate
CO2 leakage, reporters should know what those parameter
values would be expected to be in the absence of leaks. The MRV plan
should describe how the baselines will be determined, how they will be
measured or calculated, how they could be used to detect monitoring
anomalies, and the operating conditions and their variability.
    Fifth, the MRV plan should include a description of monitoring and
calculation methodologies to calculate equipment leaks and vented
emissions from surface equipment between the flow meters and either
injection or production wellheads, and the quantity of CO2
that is produced with oil or other fluids.
    EPA will send a notice of receipt to the reporter within 15 days to
acknowledge that EPA has received the MRV plan submission. EPA will
determine if the MRV plan is complete within 45 days of the notice of
receipt and will notify the reporter whether the plan is complete or
incomplete. If incomplete, the reporter must submit an updated MRV plan
within 45 days of EPA notification unless otherwise specified by EPA.
    Once EPA determines that the MRV plan is complete, technical review
will commence. After 60 days of technical review, EPA will send the
reporter a request for additional information including clarifying
technical questions, if necessary. The reporter will be encouraged to
provide a response to this request within 15 days, however EPA
recognizes that there may be circumstances where additional time is
needed for the reporter to collect the information requested.
    Following this iterative process, EPA will issue a final MRV plan
as submitted, or with revisions. EPA will post the approved MRV plan on
a public Web site, subject to any limitations or requirements in its
CBI determination (see Section I.B of this preamble). Any reporter, or
interested person, objecting to EPA's final decision, may appeal it to
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board.
    Facilities must re-submit the MRV plan for EPA approval if a
material change was made to monitoring and/or operational parameters
that was not anticipated in the original plan, if the facility's UIC
permit class changes, or if an EPA review of the annual report
determines that it is necessary. Examples of material changes include
but are not limited to a large change in the volume of CO2
injected; the construction of new injection wells not referred to in
the MRV plan; failures of the monitoring system to perform as expected
due to inadequate monitoring system sensitivity, performance, location,
or baseline; changes to surface land use that affects baseline or
operational conditions; observed plume location that differs
significantly from the predicted plume area used for developing the
monitoring plan; a change in the MMA or AMAs; or a change in monitoring
technology that would result in coverage or detection capability
different from what is specified in the MRV plan. As an example of a
facility's UIC permit class changing, the UIC Class VI rule provides
that UIC Class II ER projects must seek a UIC Class VI permit when
there is an increased risk to USDWs compared to UIC Class II
operations. Please see 40 CFR 144.19 of the UIC Class VI rule for a
list of risk-based criteria that the UIC Director shall use to
determine if the owner or operator of a UIC Class II ER project must
apply for and obtain a UIC Class VI permit. This list of criteria may
also be used by Class II ER project owners and operators to self-
determine if they need to apply for and obtain a UIC Class VI permit.
If a facility's UIC permit were to change from Class II to Class VI, it
would be required to submit a revised MRV plan to EPA for approval.
6. Subpart RR Data Reporting
    In addition to the information summarized at ``Subpart RR GHGs to
Report'' in this section of the preamble, facilities must report the
source of the CO2 received and the cumulative amount of
CO2 geologically sequestered since the facility first
reported under subpart RR. All facilities must also report
concentration, facilities using mass flow meters must report mass flow
information, facilities using volumetric flow meters must report
volumetric flow information, and facilities using containers must
measure the mass or volume of the containers. They are required to
report a description of the monitoring program that was implemented,
including descriptions of monitoring anomalies and surface leakage, if
any. Finally, for EPA verification purposes, they are required to
report for each injection well the class of UIC permit and well
identification number used for the UIC permit.
    Subpart RR requires reporting of CO2 equipment leaks and
vented CO2 emissions to the extent they are a component of
the GS mass balance. Subpart RR does not require reporting of
CO2 equipment leaks and vented CO2 emissions from
all surface equipment located within the facility (e.g., operational
emissions not related to the CO2 being injected); however,
GS projects that produce oil or natural gas may be required to report
CO2 equipment leaks and vented CO2 emissions in
the petroleum and natural

gas system subpart, 40 CFR part 98, subpart W as part of either
offshore or onshore petroleum and natural gas production.
7. Subpart RR Recordkeeping
    Facilities must retain quarterly records of CO2
received; injected CO2; produced CO2;
CO2 emitted by surface leakage; CO2 emitted as
equipment leaks and vented emissions from equipment located on the
surface between the flow meter used to measure the injection quantity
and the injection wellhead and between the flow meter used to measure
the production quantity and the production wellhead; and any other
records as outlined for retention in the facility MRV plan for 3 years
per 40 CFR 98.3(g).
8. Subpart RR Administrative Appeals
    Under this final rule, final decisions of the Administrator under
part 98, subpart RR are appealable to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board
under the regulations that are set forth in part 78 (40 CFR part 78).
Part 78 is revised to accommodate such appeals. Specifically, the list
in 40 CFR 78.1 of the types of final decisions that can be appealed
under 40 CFR part 78 is expanded to cover final decisions of the
Administrator under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR. This list includes, but
is not limited to, the following specific types of decisions under
subpart RR, a determination of eligibility for an R&D exemption under
40 CFR 98.440(d)(4), the approval or disapproval of a request for
discontinuation of reporting under 40 CFR 98.441(b)(2), and the
approval or disapproval of a MRV plan under 40 CFR 98.448(c).
    Further, 40 CFR 78.3 is revised to allow for petitions for
administrative appeal of decisions of the Administrator under 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR. Under the general approach in the existing part
78, an ``interested person'' (in addition to the official
representative of owners and operators involved in a matter) may
petition for an administrative appeal of a final decision of the
Administrator. The ``interested person'' definition, which is located
in part 72 of the Acid Rain Program regulations, is expanded to take
into account final decisions of the Administrator under part 98. In
particular, EPA is revising the ``interested person'' definition by
replacing specific references to the Acid Rain Program and draft
permits with broader references to any decision by the Administrator
and the Administrator's process of making that decision. As a result of
this revision and the revisions of 40 CFR part 78, a person who does
not own or operate a facility covered by a final decision under 40 CFR
part 98, subpart RR will need to submit his or her name to be included
by the Administrator on an ``interested persons list'' in order to be
able to appeal--by filing a petition for an administrative appeal--that
final decision.
    In addition, 40 CFR 78.4 is expanded to state that filings on
behalf of owners and operators of a facility subject to 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR must be signed by the designated representative of the
owners and operators.

C. Summary of the Reporting Requirements for Injection of Carbon
Dioxide (Subpart UU)

    Reporting requirements for all other facilities conducting
CO2 injection are found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU.
Facilities conducting GS and reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR
are not required to report under 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU.
1. Subpart UU Source Category Definition
    The 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU source category consists of any
other well or group of wells that inject a CO2 stream into
the subsurface. This includes any wells used to enhance oil and gas
recovery and GS R&D projects that are exempted from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR monitoring and reporting requirements. If you report under
40 CFR part 98, subpart RR for a well or group of wells, you are not
required to report under 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU for that well or
group of wells.
2. Subpart UU Reporting Threshold
    All facilities that inject CO2 underground must report
under this subpart (except those in subpart RR), regardless of the
amount of emissions from the facility or the amount of CO2
injected. Reporters can cease subpart UU reporting pursuant to the
provisions at 40 CFR 98.2(i) that allow facilities to cease GHG
reporting to EPA; with respect to subpart UU, any reference to
CO2 emissions in 40 CFR 98.2(i) means CO2
received.
3. Subpart UU GHGs to Report
    Facilities covered by this source category must report the annual
mass of CO2 received.
4. Subpart UU GHG Calculations and Monitoring
    Facilities covered by this source category must calculate the
annual mass of CO2 received using the calculation procedures
for either mass or volumetric flow meters. Where CO2 is
received in containers, facilities must use the calculation procedures
for determining the mass or volume of contents in containers.
5. Subpart UU Data Reporting
    In addition to reporting the mass of CO2 received,
facilities must report the source of the CO2. All facilities
must also report concentration, facilities using mass flow meters must
report mass flow information, facilities using volumetric flow meters
must report volumetric flow information, and facilities using
containers must measure the mass or volume of the containers.
6. Subpart UU Recordkeeping
    Facilities must retain quarterly records of CO2 received
for 3 years per 40 CFR 98.3(g).

D. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal

    The major changes in this rule since the original proposal are
identified in the following list. The rationale for these and any other
changes to the rule can be found in this section or in ``Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments,
Subparts RR and UU: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon
Dioxide.''
    X EPA has moved all definitions, requirements, and procedures for
facilities conducting CO2 injection only (which both EPA and
commenters have referred to as ``Tier 1'' facilities for simplicity)
into a new subpart, 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU, and retained all
definitions, requirements, and procedures related to facilities
conducting GS (which both EPA and commenters have referred to as ``Tier
2'' facilities for simplicity) in 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR.
    X EPA has removed the requirement that facilities report the amount
of CO2 injected in 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU (Tier 1) but
retained requirements that facilities subject to this subpart report
the amount of CO2 received and the source of CO2
if known.
    X EPA has established procedures for calculating CO2
received in containers.
    X In 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, EPA has established eligibility
requirements for a GS R&D project to be exempt from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR.
    X In 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, EPA has retained the requirement
that facilities report the equipment leaks and vented emissions for
surface equipment that could be included in the GS mass balance but
removed the requirement for reporting equipment leaks and

vented emissions for all other surface equipment.
    X In 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, EPA has added an MRV plan
requirement for the delineation of the areas that will be monitored.
    X In 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR, EPA has clarified the requirements
for an addendum to the annual report and renamed it the monitoring
report.
    X EPA has amended 40 CFR part 78 to include administrative appeals
procedures for EPA decisions made under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR,
such as decisions relating to eligibility for the R&D exemption under
40 CFR 98.440(d)(4), decisions relating to a request for
discontinuation of reporting under 40 CFR 98.441(b)(2), or MRV plan
decisions under 40 CFR 98.448(c).

E. Summary of Comments and Responses

    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. A large number of comments on CO2 injection and
sequestration were received covering numerous topics. Responses to
significant comments received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subparts RR and
UU: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide.''
1. Legal Authority
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments regarding its legal
authority to require the proposed reporting from facilities conducting
CO2 injection or GS. Some commenters argued that EPA has
over-reached its CAA statutory authority, stating that the CAA
authorizes the regulation of air emissions, not CO2
injection or GS. One commenter asserted that EPA is overstepping its
authority under CAA section 114 by requiring indefinite and broad
monitoring and reporting, and that none of EPA's stated purposes in the
preamble to the proposal provide adequate justification for the
proposed data collection requirements, imposition of new measurement
protocols, or installation of new instrumentation. Some commenters also
asserted that the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act constrains the
scope of EPA's information gathering to GHG emissions, which does not
include CO2 injection or GS. Some commenters asserted that
the proposal was within EPA's authority under the CAA.
    Response: EPA is promulgating this rule under the authority
provided in CAA section 114. We disagree that we do not have statutory
authority to promulgate this rule. The Administrator may gather
information under CAA section 114, as long as that information is for
purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA. The information
submitted to EPA as a result of this rule will, among other things,
inform policy decisions under the CAA related to the use of CCS for
mitigating GHG emissions. This data will prove valuable to the Agency
in several areas, including reconciling 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU data
on CO2 received with CO2 supply data to better
understand the amount of CO2 supply that is used for
CO2 injection and GS, monitoring the growth and efficacy of
GS over time, and evaluating ER as a potentially non-emissive end use.
    EPA is not citing the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations
Act as the statutory basis for this action. Furthermore, we do not
agree that the appropriations language constrains EPA's ability to
collect the information under this action. Please also refer to
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Volume No.: 9, Legal Issues (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508) for similar comments received in developing the rule establishing
the GHG Reporting Program.
2. Definition of Source Category
    Comment: EPA received many comments about the definition of source
category and GS facility. At least one commenter recommended setting a
clearer distinction between CO2 injection without GS (Tier
1) and CO2 injection with GS (Tier 2). This commenter and
others recommended a further distinction within the GS group--GS with
ER and GS without ER. In addition, several commenters either requested
clarification of or demonstrated a misunderstanding of whether
particular provisions of the proposed rule, such as the GS R&D
exemption and proposed discontinuation of reporting provisions, would
apply to all CO2 injection, to CO2 injection with
GS only, or to CO2 injection without GS only.
    Furthermore, several commenters were confused by the definition of
GS facility in the regulatory text and found it to be redundant,
complicated, unclear, or vague. At least two commenters urged EPA not
to change the definition of facility found in 40 CFR 98.6 of the GHG
Reporting Program General Provisions, while other commenters appeared
to support a subpart RR-specific facility definition but raised
questions or provided comment about which structures or equipment would
be within the GS facility. Some commenters requested edits or additions
to the list of activities at 40 CFR 98.440(d) that are not included in
the source category.
    Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the structure of proposed
40 CFR 98.440 could be made clearer. It was never EPA's intention to
override the definition of facility in 40 CFR 98.6; rather EPA intended
to create a defined term ``GS facility'' to provide clarity about which
facilities under the 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR source category would
be subject to both ``Tier 2'' and ``Tier 1'' requirements. To harmonize
40 CFR part 98, subpart RR with the rest of the GHG Reporting Program
as intended and to maximize clarity, the defined term ``GS facility''
is not included in the final rule. In this action, EPA has deleted the
term ``GS facility'' from the regulatory text and has reframed any
necessary information as part of the definition of ``source category.''
The owner or operator of a group of CO2 injection wells will
determine the boundaries of the facility by following the definition in
40 CFR 98.6. EPA has provided several examples in the General Technical
Support Document (TSD)\11\ to illustrate how a facility would be
delineated under various operational configurations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ General Technical Support Document for Injection and
Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Subparts RR and UU (see
docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to effectuate the original intent of the ``GS facility''
term, and in light of comments expressing confusion between the ``Tier
1'' and ``Tier 2'' requirements, EPA is retaining procedures and
requirements for facilities conducting GS (Tier 2) in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR and is moving all procedures and requirements for all other
facilities conducting CO2 injection (Tier 1) into a new 40
CFR part 98, subpart UU in this action. EPA has concluded that this
organizational change allows for two source category definitions while
clearly distinguishing the two sets of provisions and procedures. EPA
notes that this new organizational structure is merely formalizing the
structure that EPA and commenters have been using to date informally.
    EPA considered but did not create a third source category as
proposed in some comments for GS projects with ER. EPA has concluded
that the provisions, procedures, and requirements in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR apply equally to all GS projects--whether they conduct ER or
not. It is most practical to cover both types of projects with one
subpart.
    In this final action, EPA removed from the regulatory text the list
of

activities that are not included in the source category. Based on
experience with implementation questions from reporters to the rest of
the GHG Reporting Program, EPA has concluded that this list does not
provide regulatory clarity and instead creates confusion. Without this
list the regulatory text is clear that the operations covered under 40
CFR part 98, subparts RR and UU are wells that inject CO2
underground. EPA does not need to explicitly provide a list of
operations that do not meet this definition. EPA has found that
operators may mistakenly conclude that they are exempt from 40 CFR part
98, subpart RR or UU reporting requirements if they conduct an activity
on the list, even if they also operate wells that inject CO2
underground. To avoid this confusion, EPA had deleted the list from the
regulatory text and is clarifying here that operators conducting any of
the following activities need not be concerned with these activities
when determining applicability to or reporting under 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR or UU: above ground CO2 storage, CO2
transportation or distribution, CO2 purification,
compression, or processing, CO2 capture, and CO2
end-uses other than underground injection. EPA notes that these
activities may meet the definition of another source category in the
GHG Reporting Program.
3. Geologic Sequestration Research and Development (GS R&D)
    Comment: EPA received a range of comments relating to exempting GS
R&D projects. Some commenters supported the R&D exemption while others
opposed it because they believe these projects can provide valuable
information on the efficacy of GS as a climate mitigation approach.
These commenters also noted that these projects are currently gathering
data which would provide EPA an early opportunity to evaluate the
appropriateness and application of monitoring methods. Some commenters
suggested that GS R&D projects be provided an option to opt-in to GS
reporting requirements. One group of commenters recommended that EPA
exempt GS R&D projects on a case-by-case basis.
    Response: EPA agrees with commenters that collecting data from all
GS projects, including R&D, would provide useful information about the
efficacy of GS and monitoring techniques and approaches to quantify
leakage. However, the Agency recognizes that GS is an emerging climate
mitigation approach and there are likely to be some projects that are
investigating practices, monitoring techniques, injection verification,
or are engaged in other applied research that will facilitate the
development and adoption of GS, and that these projects would benefit
from being exempted from this subpart. Therefore the Agency is
retaining a GS R&D exemption, with some modifications from the proposed
rule. See Section II.B of the preamble for a summary of the R&D
exemption process.
    Comment: Many commenters noted that restricting the proposed
exemption to federally funded projects was too stringent, that R&D can
also be supported by states, academia, or the private sector, and
argued that GS R&D projects should not be defined based on the source
of funding.
    Response: EPA agrees with commenters that there are non-Federal
funding sources that could fund GS R&D projects and that Federal
funding should not be the basis for an R&D exemption. Other sources of
funding for GS R&D include State and academic sources. Funding might
also come from the R&D budget of a private sector entity. However, in
order for EPA to have basic information about projects operating under
an R&D exemption, projects must provide information on the source and
type of funding as part of their submission in support of the
exemption.
    Comment: Many commenters suggested that EPA consider a threshold
for exempting R&D projects. These commenters noted that a threshold
would allow for reduced regulatory burden and that collecting data from
projects below the threshold would yield little value for EPA.
    Response: EPA found that it would be challenging to define a
threshold for GS R&D projects because project size could vary depending
on the R&D goals and other factors such as availability and source of
CO2. As stated above, EPA is establishing an exemption for
R&D projects that are investigating practices, monitoring techniques,
injection verification, or are engaged in other applied research, that
will enable safe and effective long-term containment of a
CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations, including
research conducted as a precursor to long-term storage.
    Comment: Some commenters recommended that GS R&D projects be
required to comply with ``Tier 1'' requirements, while a few commenters
suggested that EPA exempt both Tier 1 and Tier 2 requirements for GS
R&D projects.
    Response: EPA agrees with comments recommending that GS R&D
projects report ``Tier 1'' data. Projects that qualify for a GS R&D
exemption under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR are not required to develop
an MRV plan or report the GS mass balance information required of
facilities conducting GS. However, these projects are required to
report basic information on CO2 received under subpart UU.
EPA determined that GS R&D projects already collect such data and that
the burden of reporting such data would be minimal.
4. Reporting Requirements
    Comment: EPA received many comments about the proposed ``Tier 1''
reporting requirements. Many commenters from the ER industry in
particular urged EPA to remove all ``Tier 1'' reporting requirements
for CO2 injection projects without GS. These commenters
expressed concern that collecting any information from business-as-
usual ER would lead to a misunderstanding of the CO2
material balance at such operations. Many stated that data on total
CO2 injected in particular would have no bearing on future
policy decisions about GHG emissions and should not be collected. Many
commenters conceded that data on the quantity of ``new'' CO2
received could be collected if EPA insisted on collecting some data
from ``Tier 1'' sources, presumably because it could potentially inform
future climate change policy decisions. At least one commenter offered
that by collecting data on the quantity of ``new'' CO2
received, EPA could reasonably estimate the amount of CO2
retained underground.
    On the other end of the spectrum, one set of comments echoed that
the ``Tier 1'' reporting requirements as proposed would be insufficient
for an accurate CO2 material balance, and recommended
expanding ``Tier 1'' reporting requirements rather than narrowing or
removing them. This set of comments recommended that data on
CO2 recycled from each project be collected so that EPA
could get a full understanding of the ER industry. These commenters
advocated for collection of quantity data from ``Tier 1'' reporters,
arguing that ER operations dominate CO2 end-users and the
data will be necessary to understand the disposition of CO2
supply reported under 40 CFR part 98, subpart PP of the GHG Reporting
Program. Meanwhile, at least three commenters offered that the proposed
``Tier 1'' reporting requirements would be adequate to meet EPA's
stated needs and that no additional data reporting should be required
in the final regulation.
    Response: In this final rule, EPA is retaining some of the proposed
``Tier 1''

reporting requirements for CO2 injection facilities. EPA is
requiring reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU (previously
referred to as ``Tier 1'' facilities) of CO2 received (a
term that EPA is defining in this final action for what commenters
described as ``new'' CO2). EPA is not requiring reporting on
total CO2 injection under 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU.
Reporting on total CO2 injection will be required for
facilities conducting GS under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR (previously
referred to as ``Tier 2'' facilities). EPA has concluded that data on
CO2 received is critical for EPA to better understand the
disposition of CO2 supply reported in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart PP. Furthermore, EPA recognizes that the geology of an oil and
gas reservoir can create a barrier to trap CO2 underground
and that many projects in the ER industry could successfully verify and
report the geologic sequestration of CO2 with an EPA-
approved MRV plan. By collecting data on CO2 received at
these facilities, EPA will better understand the scope and size of a
potentially non-emissive end-use.
    Due to the comments received on this issue, EPA considered adding
recycled CO2 to the proposed Tier 1 data requirements.
Ultimately, EPA concluded that a CO2 material balance is
most informative to the Agency from GS projects that verify the
quantity of CO2 geologically sequestered by implementing
their EPA-approved MRV plans. Though the collection of either a partial
or full set of data from 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU facilities would
have given EPA additional data regarding ER operations, it could have
also caused confusion amongst reporters and the public about which
facilities are estimating and reporting geologic sequestration. By
requiring mass balance inputs from GS projects only and by splitting
the proposed rule into two subparts, EPA is making clear in this action
that the quantity of CO2 geologically sequestered can only
be verified and reported to EPA by developing and implementing an EPA-
approved MRV plan and reporting GS under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR.
    For clarification, EPA reworded the proposed term ``CO2
transferred onsite from offsite'' to ``CO2 received''
because EPA identified at least one configuration where CO2
would be supplied to an injection well from an adjacent plant that is
part of the same facility (per the definition of facility in 40 CFR
98.6). CO2 received from a natural source within the same
field or basin in which it is injected is also included as
CO2 received.
5. Reporting Threshold
    Comment: EPA proposed ``all in'' requirements and sought comment on
whether and how to establish a threshold. A few of the comments EPA
received agreed with EPA's all-in reporting approach, noting that data
from all facilities is significant at this early stage in the GS
industry, that at this point there is not enough data to determine a
sensible threshold level, that the amount of CO2 injected in
one year is not a good indicator of the amount of CO2
injected in the following year, and that EPA needs a comprehensive
picture of the industry. One comment characterized no threshold for
``Tier 1'' reporting as reasonable because of the associated low
burden.
    Other comments opposed the all-in reporting threshold stating that
it would burden a higher number of facilities than was necessary. These
comments provided a variety of possible approaches and thresholds for
EPA to consider including a threshold of 100,000 metric tons per year
of ``new'' CO2 received, an injection threshold of 25,000
metric tons per year, an injection threshold of 100,000 metric tons of
CO2 per year, an injection threshold of 2-3 million metric
tons per year, and an emission threshold of 25,000 metric tons of
CO2 per year.
    Response: EPA agreed with commenters who supported an all-in
threshold because it would result in the most comprehensive tracking
and reporting. Collecting information on all projects is important,
especially at this early stage in the GS industry. As demonstrated by
the range of suggested thresholds provided by commenters, there is no
one obvious sensible threshold. The amount of CO2 injected
in one year is not a good indicator of the amount of CO2
injected in the following year and there are no monitoring standards or
data available to determine the amount of CO2 emitted. In
this final rule, EPA is requiring reporting from all facilities that
meet the 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU (previously referred to as ``Tier
1'' facilities) source category definition and from all facilities that
meet the 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR (previously referred to as ``Tier
2'' facilities) source category definition. EPA is not establishing a
reporting threshold for these facilities. Reporters can cease subpart
UU reporting pursuant to the provisions at 40 CFR 98.2(i) that allow
facilities to cease GHG reporting to EPA; with respect to subpart UU,
any reference to CO2 emissions in 40 CFR 98.2(i) means
CO2 received. The cease reporting requirements of Sec.
98.2(i) do not apply to subpart RR; the owner or operator must continue
to comply with all requirements until the Administrator has issued a
final decision on the owner or operator's request to discontinue
reporting.
    As noted in the proposal, an all-in reporting threshold will allow
the Agency to comprehensively track all CO2 supply (as
reported in Suppliers of CO2, 40 CFR part 98, subpart PP)
that is received for injection underground. This approach is consistent
with the all-in requirements in the GHG Reporting Program for some
suppliers of petroleum, natural gas, and coal-to-liquid products (40
CFR part 98, subparts LL, MM, and NN),\12\ producers of industrial
gases (40 CFR part 98, subpart OO), and suppliers of CO2 (40
CFR part 98, subpart PP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In a recently proposed rulemaking (75 FR 48744, August 11,
2010), EPA proposed to establish a threshold for Local Distribution
Companies in subpart NN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to 40 CFR part 98, subpart UU, EPA has estimated the
cost for facilities conducting CO2 injection to comply with
the minimum reporting requirements and has determined that the burden
will be small, given the equipment and data collection efforts already
in place at ER projects. With respect to 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR,
the Agency notes that GS R&D projects are exempt from 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR once EPA confirms their eligibility for the exemption. EPA
has concluded that these two features will ensure that projects
receiving and injecting small amounts of CO2 are not
disproportionately burdened by the reporting requirements in this final
rule.
6. Equipment Leaks and Vented Emissions
    Comment: EPA proposed that all facilities subject to ``Tier 2''
requirements would be required to report fugitive and vented
CO2 emissions from the surface components located within the
facility, unless already reported under 40 CFR part 98, subpart W
(petroleum and natural gas systems). A few commenters were concerned
about overlap in reporting requirements and recommended that EPA
require the reporting of fugitive and vented CO2 emissions
from equipment associated with oil and gas production solely under 40
CFR part 98, subpart W and limit the reporting under 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR to fugitive and vented emissions from equipment associated
with GS operations for which emissions were not already being reported
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart

W. A number of commenters disagreed with EPA's proposed reporting
requirements for fugitive and vented CO2 emissions and
suggested that EPA scale back or eliminate such reporting, while one
commenter supported such reporting requirements. Four commenters stated
that fugitive and vented emissions would be trivial when compared to
the amount of CO2 injected, and three commenters stated that
such reporting would unwarrantedly shift CO2 into a
hazardous air pollutant-like category. One commenter suggested that
reporting of fugitive and vented emissions would be germane where
applicable to the GS mass balance equation. One commenter supported
EPA's proposed requirements for the reporting of fugitive and vented
CO2 emissions.
    Response: EPA proposed to require the reporting of fugitive
CO2 emissions (referred to in this final action as
CO2 equipment leakage) and vented CO2 emissions
in order to better understand the volume of CO2 equipment
leakage and vented CO2 emissions from such facilities as
compared to the amount of CO2 sequestered. However, EPA has
concluded that the information that would be generated from such a
reporting requirement is not necessary for computing the mass balance
of the amount of CO2 sequestered.
    In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed that
CO2 equipment leakage and vented CO2 emissions be
included in the GS mass balance calculation if the emissions occur
downstream of the CO2 injection flow meter or upstream of
the production flow meter. EPA is retaining this reporting requirement
in 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR because such data are important in order
to provide a proper accounting of the amount of CO2 that is
geologically sequestered. In this action, EPA is requiring reporting of
equipment leakage and vented emissions with respect to equipment
located on the surface between the flow meter used to measure injection
quantity and the injection wellhead and between the production wellhead
and the flow meter used to measure production quantity.
    Emissions not related to the mass balance calculation do not need
to be reported under subpart RR. Such emissions may need to be reported
under subpart W if the facility is required to report under this
subpart.
7. MRV Plan Requirements
    Comment: EPA received many comments supporting the Agency's
proposal that reporters develop a site-specific MRV plan, but some
commenters stated that more detail was needed about how MRV plans would
be evaluated by EPA.
    Response: EPA has set out the basic components for MRV plans in
Section II.B of this preamble. EPA has clarified the definition of the
area where potential leakage pathways should be identified and
characterized, and how monitoring could be phased in over time as
CO2 is injected. This is reflected in the regulatory text at
40 CFR 98.448(a). EPA has also refined the requirements for what should
be included in the annual report, and in what cases the reporter would
need to resubmit an MRV plan for EPA approval.
    EPA's approach allows for site-specific flexibility for MRV plans
and does not prescribe particular monitoring technologies. The approach
also allows the owner or operator to leverage the site
characterization, risk assessment, and/or monitoring required by other
authorities as the foundation for demonstrating compliance with the MRV
plan requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR. EPA recognizes the
merit in providing greater clarity on the evaluation criteria, but
notes that the geology and other conditions among facilities conducting
GS vary. EPA has provided information in the General TSD on the
technical evaluation of MRV plans, including illustrative examples
describing the types of information that may be included in the MRV
plan to fulfill the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 98.448. This
includes delineating the monitoring area, both the maximum area that
the CO2 plume is predicted to cover and how monitoring can
be phased in over this area; selecting leakage detection systems that
are suitable for the site; determining and verifying that a leak has
occurred; identifying baseline conditions; and quantifying a
CO2 leak once a leak has been verified.
    Comment: EPA received many comments about the procedural aspects of
MRV plan approval. Some commenters stated that CO2 injection
should not be allowed until MRV plans are approved. Many commenters
urged the Agency to allow for public involvement.
    Response: EPA has set out the general MRV plan approval process in
Section II.B of this preamble. EPA has designed MRV plan requirements
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR so that facilities will not need to
disrupt or delay normal operations. However, EPA clarifies that
facilities will report the amounts of CO2 geologically
sequestered under 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR after they implement an
EPA-approved MRV plan.
    EPA agrees with commenters that there should be a process for
public involvement. Therefore, EPA plans to post approved MRV plans to
a public Web site, to the extent consistent with any confidentiality
determination. ``Interested persons'' can then appeal EPA decisions on
MRV plans to the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) through the appeals
process described in 40 CFR part 78. An ``interested person'' may be
any person who--in connection with the Administrator's process of
making his or her decision--submitted comments, testified at a public
hearing, submitted objections, or otherwise submitted his or her name
to be included by the Administrator in an interested persons list. In
the case of MRV plans, an interested person who wishes to appeal an EPA
decision should submit his or her name to be included in the interested
persons list. EPA will provide the public instruction on joining the
interested persons list for 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR. More
information on the administrative appeals process can be found in
Section II.B of this preamble and in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subparts RR and UU:
Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide.'' Though there
is no formal public comment process prior to approval of individual MRV
plans in today's rule, EPA believes the administrative appeals process
provides an opportunity for involvement by any member of the public who
is concerned about the provisions of an approved plan. Further, if
future GS policies or programs are promulgated as a result of the data
collected through today's rule for which a formal public notice and
comment period would be appropriate, EPA will establish a public notice
and comment period for such a policy or program at that time.
    EPA has provided further information in the General TSD about the
procedural aspects of MRV plan approval.
    Comment: EPA received many comments about the role of a UIC permit
with respect to MRV plan requirements. Most commenters emphasized the
need for coordination between the UIC program and 40 CFR part 98,
subpart RR. Some commenters stated that any class of UIC permit is
enough for purposes of the MRV plan. Others noted that the MRV plan
should build off of the UIC permit and that comprehensive monitoring
for the purposes of verifying quantities of CO2 sequestered
cannot occur under SDWA alone.
    Response: EPA maintains a high-level of coordination across EPA
offices and regions on GS activities and regulatory

development. EPA's OAR and OW work closely to promote safe and
effective implementation of GS technologies while ensuring protection
of human health and the environment. EPA agrees with commenters that
the UIC program provides the foundation for the safe sequestration of
CO2 by helping to ensure that injected fluids remain
isolated in the subsurface and away from underground sources of
drinking water, thereby serving to reduce the risk of CO2
leakage to the atmosphere. A facility's UIC permit may be used to
demonstrate that certain MRV plan requirements have been fulfilled.
However, provisions are needed that go beyond what is required of UIC
permits in order to quantify leakages, if any. See Section I.D of this
preamble for a more detailed discussion of 40 CFR part 98, subpart RR
and UIC Class VI requirements.

III. Economic Impacts of the Final Rule

    This section of the preamble examines the costs and economic
impacts of the final rule for CO2 injection and GS,
including the estimated costs and benefits of the rule, and the
estimated economic impacts of the rule on affected entities, including
estimated impacts on small entities. Complete detail of the economic
impacts of the rule can be found in the text of the Economic Impact
Analysis (EIA) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926). This section also contains a
brief summary of major comments and responses.

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used To Estimate Compliance Costs
    EPA estimated costs of complying with the rule and the total
incremental annual cost of compliance. A base case is created assuming
relevant monitoring costs required under UIC requirements (including
the UIC Class VI rule). Then incremental reporting from geologic
storage sites were evaluated in terms of required technologies,
practices, and costs.
    The estimated costs include capital and operating and maintenance
(O&M), including labor costs. The cost of drilling and equipping wells
represents a large component of sequestration costs. Examples of other
costs include seismic data acquisition, periodic sampling and testing
of the injected CO2.
    The estimated costs are based on hypothetical or pro-forma sites
for various types of projects such as R&D GS projects, commercial
saline formation projects, and ER GS projects. The geologic and
engineering assumptions for these pro-forma projects are the same as
those used by the EPA Office of Water in the UIC Class VI rule. The
costs are presented in 2008 dollars.
    The capital costs are annualized using an interest rate of 7
percent with projects lasting 4 years, 10 years or 40 years. Next,
annual O&M costs are added to the annualized capital costs to determine
total annual direct costs. Finally, a 20 percent overhead and general
and administrative cost factor is added to obtain total annual costs.
These are then divided by the amount assumed to be injected each year
in the pro-forma project to arrive at total costs per metric ton of
CO2 injected. These per-ton costs are then used to estimate
total annual costs for the level of injection expected in the activity
baseline.
2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    Comment: A majority of the comments received on the compliance
costs of the reporting rule focused on facility level costs for
monitoring and reporting. One commenter stated that EPA underestimated
labor costs in the economic analysis of the rule.
    Response: EPA discussed and presented information for the costs and
economic impacts of the proposed rule, including the estimated costs
and benefits of the proposed rule, and the estimated economic impacts
of the proposed rule on affected entities, including estimated impacts
on small entities. Complete detail of the economic impacts of the rule
can be found in Section 4 of the EIA. EPA's cost estimation methods
reflect accepted engineering practices and publicly available cost and
price data. For example, EPA used wage rates and overhead factors from
the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/bls/
wages.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What are the costs of the rule?

1. Summary of Costs
    The total annualized costs incurred under the rule by these
entities will be approximately $1.1 million (2008$), as illustrated in
Table 4 of this preamble. This is based on projects that are currently
injecting or will be injecting CO2 by 2012, and includes
costs for 1 saline GS facility reporting under subpart RR, and 92
CO2 injection facilities reporting under subpart UU. There
are 9 R&D projects that incur costs to apply for a waiver under subpart
RR, these same facilities are assumed to receive a waiver for the
reporting requirements under subpart RR and are included in the subpart
UU baseline of 92 projects. The public sector burden estimate is
$344,000 for program implementation and verification activities. This
may underestimate the total public sector burden depending on the
extent to which DOE R&D projects funded with public dollars transition
to commercial GS and consequently incur costs associated with
monitoring, reporting and verification. Given uncertainties related to
project adoption and the costs of the reporting program, EPA considered
two other cost scenarios (one higher and one lower than the reference
cost scenario) in order to assess a range of potential economic impacts
on affected entities, as illustrated in Table 5 of this preamble. The
three cost scenarios vary in terms of assumptions about which
monitoring devices would be used at a facility conducting GS and how
often sampling and measurement would take place. Because each facility
conducting GS will have unique characteristics that may result in the
selection of different monitoring techniques, a range of assumptions
was used about the percents of sites that would be expected to use each
device or technique. Complete detail on the cost scenarios is provided
in Section 4.5.1 of the final Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0926).

          Table 4--National Annualized Mandatory Reporting Costs Estimates (2008$): Subparts RR and UU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Reference
                                                                    Metric tons  -------------------------------
                      Type                           Number of     CO2 received     First year      Second year
                                                     projects        per year       (thousand,      (thousand,
                                                                                2008$)          2008$)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&D (RR)........................................               9       5,320,000             $36             $36
Facilities Conducting GS (Saline) (RR)..........               1       1,842,885             318             240
Additional Facilities Conducting GS (ER opt in)                0               0               0               0
 (RR) \a\.......................................
Facilities Conducting CO2 Injection (no GS) (UU)              92      48,735,442             410             410
 \b\............................................
Private Sector, Total All Projects..............              93      50,578,327             764             686
Private Sector, Average ($/ton).................  ..............  ..............            0.02            0.01
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Sector, Total........................  ..............  ..............             344             344
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
        National Total..........................  ..............  ..............           1,107           1,030
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Because reporting for ER facilities is optional, EPA has not included projections of ER reporters in the
  primary analysis. In the alternate costs scenarios EPA has analyzed costs assuming either a medium or high
  level of opt-in.
b. Includes UIC Class II ER Facilities.

                   Table 5--Annualized Reporting Costs per Project (2008$): Subparts RR and UU
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reference                     Alternative cost scenarios
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Low                      High
               Type                  First year  Second year ---------------------------------------------------
                                      ($1,000)     ($1,000)    First year  Second year   First year  Second year
                                                                ($1,000)     ($1,000)     ($1,000)     ($1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R&D (RR)..........................           $4           $4           $4           $4           $4           $4
Facilities Conducting GS (Saline)           318          240           96           18          490          413
 (RR).............................
Facilities Conducting GS (ER opt          2,124        2,005        1,893        1,773        2,271        2,151
 in) (RR).........................
Facilities Conducting CO2                     4            4            4            4            4            4
 Injection (No GS) (UU)...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    Comment: EPA received comments on source specific cost data
reflected in the engineering cost analysis presented in the EIA,
Section 4 (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926). Some commenters asked EPA to not
overly burden entities that may be required to report, and questioned
whether the proposed reporting program was duplicative with other EPA
regulations on underground injection.
    Response: EPA considered all relevant comments regarding source
specific cost data developed in the engineering cost analysis and used
in the EIA. In some cases, we revised our cost estimates, and in some
cases we revised monitoring and reporting requirements in ways that
reduced burden. Please see source specific comments and responses in
Section II.E of this preamble and ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subparts RR and UU: Injection
and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide.''
    EPA has determined the selected option for the mandatory GHG
reporting rule strikes a balance between impacts on small entities,
consistency with other programs, costs incurred by the reporting
entities, and emissions coverage. Section 5 of the final EIA (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0926) provides cost comparisons for each alternative
evaluated.

C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?

1. Summary of Economic Impacts
    EPA assessed how the regulatory program may influence the
profitability of companies by comparing the monitoring program costs to
total sales (i.e., a ``sales'' test). Given limited data on commercial
GS operations, EPA restricted the analysis to ER operations
(approximately 90 percent of the fields). To do this, EPA divided the
average annualized mandatory reporting costs per field by the estimated
revenue for a representative field. Sales test ratios are between 3.1
to 4.0 percent for facilities conducting GS (ER opt in). The number of
ER operations that would choose to report as facilities conducting GS
(ER opt in) is unknown and EPA could not identify any information or
analysis to estimate this quantity. As a result, EPA considered two
additional scenarios to represent medium and high levels of ER project
opt ins. Section 5.2.1 of the final Economic Impact Analysis (EIA)
(EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) details the scenario analysis and projected
national cost estimates. In contrast, facilities conducting ER
CO2 injection (no GS) sales test ratios are below 0.01
percent, as illustrated in Table 6 of this preamble.

 Table 6--Sales Test for a Representative Commercial ER Field Operation
                                 [2008$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Cost-to-sales ratios (CSRs)
                                  --------------------------------------
                                                    Alternative cost
                                  -------------         scenarios
                                               -------------------------
                                    Reference       Low          High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Conducting GS (ER opt          3.7%         3.3%         4.0%
 in) (RR)........................
Facilities Conducting CO2                <0.1%        <0.1%        <0.1%
 Injection (No GS) (UU)..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Comments and Responses
    Comment: EPA received a number of comments on the overall economic
impacts of the proposed rule. Some commenters stated that the economic
impacts are understated as total national costs could be significantly
higher if there is large scale deployment of CCS. Other commenters
stated that large increases in operating costs resulting from mandatory
reporting of GHGs could prevent projects from moving forward.
    Response: As described previously, EPA conducted a thorough
analysis of available information and reviewed comments submitted on
this issue, and we have determined that this analysis provides a
reasonable characterization of costs for facilities in each subpart,
under current law, and that the documentation provides adequate
explanation of how the costs were estimated. EPA has estimated the
total national cost of the reporting program based on current laws and
regulations. Accordingly, one would not expect large scale deployment
of CCS in the absence of a comprehensive climate policy that required
or otherwise incentivized GS. In response to comments that total
national costs would be higher given large scale deployment of CCS, EPA
has augmented the scenario analyzing costs assuming future climate
policy in Section 5.2.2 of the final EIA. Given the potential for
future deployment of CCS technologies, EPA considered two additional
scenarios of the number of large scale saline aquifer GS (commercial
saline) project deployment by 2050: low (5 projects), medium (9
projects), and high (54 projects). The low scenario is based on the low
end of the range of deployment targeted by the CCS Task Force. The
medium scenario is based on large scale saline project deployment
projected in the cost analysis prepared for the UIC Class VI final
rule. The high scenario is based on EPA modeling of the projected
deployment of CCS under the American Power Act. The national first year
annual cost estimates increase by $1.3 million under the low outcome;
$2.5 million under the medium outcome, and $16.8 million under the high
outcome. In addition to the scenarios above, EPA also considered
scenarios of the number of ER operations that would choose to report as
facilities conducting GS (ER opt in) in Section 5.2.1 of the final EIA.
In the medium scenario, all anthropogenic CO2 projects (16)
choose to report as facilities conducting GS (ER opt in) (Subpart RR).
In the high scenario, all anthropogenic CO2 projects (16)
and fifty percent of other CO2 projects (32) choose to
report as facilities conducting GS (ER opt in) (Subpart RR). The
national cost estimate is $35 million under the medium ER opt in
outcome (first year) and $33 million in subsequent years. The national
cost estimate is $103 million under the high ER opt in outcome (first
year) and $97 million in subsequent years.
    To understand these numbers in context, EPA used the estimates of
cost by facility type shown in Table 5. The large scale saline aquifer
GS (commercial saline) projects in the American Power Act scenario are
assumed to be facilities that conduct GS, with an estimated cost of
$318,000 for the first year and $240,000 for subsequent years. The ER
opt in scenario used the `Facilities Conducting GS (ER opt in)' project
cost, with an estimated cost of $2.1 million for the first year and
$2.0 million for the subsequent year. The basis for these cost
estimates is explained in detail in Section 4 of the EIA (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0926). The principal driver in the difference in national costs
for these scenarios is the type of project assumed to be reporting.
    EPA used the same first year, subsequent year methodology for these
cost scenarios that was used in the core national cost analysis. This
assumes that the number of projects in a given scenario all opt in or
begin required reporting in year 1. This assumption overestimates the
national cost under these scenarios, as it is more likely that projects
will opt in or begin required reporting over a long period of time.

D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?

1. Summary of Impacts on Small Businesses
    As required by the RFA and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement and Fairness ACT (SBREFA), EPA assessed the potential
impacts of the rule on small entities (small businesses, governments,
and non-profit organizations). (See Section IV.C of this preamble for
definitions of small entities.)
    After considering the economic impact of the rule on small
entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Currently EPA has determined that small ER operations will most likely
be UIC Class II ER projects that do not opt in to subpart RR. As shown
in Table 6 of this preamble, the average ratio of annualized reporting
program costs to revenues of a typical ER operation likely owned by a
representative small enterprise and reporting under subpart UU was less
than 0.1 percent.
    Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless took several
steps to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For example,
EPA's monitoring and reporting requirements are built off of the UIC
program. In addition, EPA is requiring equipment and methods that may
already be in use by a facility for compliance with its UIC permit.
Also, EPA is requiring annual reporting instead of more frequent
reporting.

E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?

    EPA examined the potential benefits of this rule. EPA's previous
analysis of the GHG Reporting Program discussed the benefits of a
reporting system with respect to policy making relevance, transparency
issues, and market efficiency. Instead of a quantitative analysis of
the benefits, EPA conducted a systematic literature review of existing
studies, including government, consulting, and scholarly reports.

    The greatest benefit of mandatory reporting of industry GHG
emissions to government will be realized in developing future GHG
policies.
    Benefits to industry of GHG emissions monitoring include the value
of having independent, verifiable data to present to the public to
demonstrate appropriate environmental stewardship, and a better
understanding of their emission levels and sources to identify
opportunities to reduce emissions. Such monitoring allows for inclusion
of standardized GHG data into environmental management systems,
providing the necessary information to achieve and disseminate their
environmental achievements.
    Standardization will also be a benefit to industry. Once facilities
invest in the institutional knowledge and systems to report emissions,
the cost of monitoring should fall and the accuracy of the accounting
should improve. A standardized reporting program will also allow for
facilities to benchmark themselves against similar facilities to
understand better their relative standing within their industry.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this
action.
    EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action in the EIA (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926). A copy
of the analysis is available in the docket for this action and the
analysis is briefly summarized here. In the EIA, EPA has identified the
regulatory options considered, their costs, and the emissions that
would likely be reported under each option, and explained the selection
of the option chosen for the rule. The costs of the rule are reported
in Section 4 of the EIA, and the economic impacts and qualitative
benefits assessment are reported in Section 5 of the EIA. Overall, EPA
has concluded that the costs of the Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Reporting Rule are justified by the
potential benefits of more comprehensive information about
CO2 injection. In the absence of new climate policy, the
total annualized cost of the rule will be approximately $1.1 million
(in 2008$) during the first year of the program and $1.0 million in
subsequent years (including $344,000 of programmatic costs to the
Agency). The baseline used to calculate these costs assume 1 facility
conducting GS reporting under subpart RR and 92 facilities conducting
CO2 injection reporting under subpart UU. This national cost
estimate is described in detail in Section 5.2 of the final EIA.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
Information Collection Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2372.02.
    EPA has identified the following goals of the GHG reporting system:
    X Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to
analyze and inform the development of a range of future climate change
policies and potential regulations.
    X Create reporting requirements that are, to the extent possible
and appropriate, consistent with existing GHG reporting programs in
order to reduce reporting burden for all parties involved.
    The information from CO2 injection and geologic
sequestration facilities will allow EPA to make well-informed decisions
about whether and how to use the CAA to regulate these facilities and
encourage voluntary reductions. Because EPA does not yet know the
specific policies that will be adopted, the data reported through the
mandatory reporting system should be of sufficient quality to inform
policy and program development. Also, consistent with the
Appropriations Act, the reporting rule covers a broad range of sectors
of the economy including sites that inject and store CO2.
    This information collection is mandatory and will be carried out
under CAA section 114. Information identified and marked as CBI will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. However, emissions information collected under CAA section
114 generally cannot be claimed as CBI and will be made public.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-
case basis, on July 7, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule (75 FR
39094) relating to CBI determinations for the data collected under
the GHG Reporting Program (40 CFR part 98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The projected cost and hour burden for non-Federal respondents is
$7.0 million and 9,416 hours per year. The estimated average burden per
response is 56.6 hours; the frequency of response is annual for all
respondents that must comply with the rule's reporting requirements,
except for electricity-generating units that are already required to
report quarterly under 40 CFR part 75 (acid rain program); and the
estimated average number of likely respondents per year is 93. The cost
burden to respondents resulting from the collection of information
includes the total capital and start-up cost annualized over the
equipment's expected useful life (averaging $717,000 per year) a total
operation and maintenance component (averaging $5.3 million per year),
and a labor cost component (averaging $1.0 million per year). Burden is
defined at 5 CFR part 1320.3(b). Although not included in the primary
economic analysis, the costs and burdens to the ER opt ins were
estimated using an alternate cost scenario and in this section EPA is
giving its best estimates of likely costs and burdens, including to
voluntary reporters, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. These
cost numbers differ from those shown elsewhere in the EIA for this
final rule because ICR costs represent the average cost over the first
three years of the rule, but costs are reported elsewhere in the EIA
for the first year of the rule and for subsequent years of the rule.
Also, the ICR focuses on respondent burden only, while the EIA for this
final rule includes EPA Agency costs as well. 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 EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in
40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will
publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register
to display the OMB control number for the approved information
collection requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Currently EPA has
determined that small ER operations will most likely be facilities
conducting CO2 injection only, including UIC Class II ER
projects, which are only required to report under subpart UU. The
average ratio of annualized reporting program costs to revenues of a
typical ER operation likely owned by representative small enterprises
is less than 1 percent.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless took
several steps to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For
example, monitoring and reporting requirements are built off of the UIC
program. In addition, EPA is requiring equipment and methods that may
already be in use by a facility for compliance with its UIC permit.
Also, EPA is requiring annual reporting instead of more frequent
reporting.
    During rule implementation, EPA will maintain an ``open door''
policy for stakeholders to ask questions about the rule or provide
suggestions to EPA about the types of compliance assistance that will
be useful to small businesses. EPA intends to develop a range of
compliance assistance tools and materials and conduct extensive
outreach for this final rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under CAA section 202 of the UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may
result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one
year.
    This final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
Overall, EPA estimates that the total annualized costs of this final
rule are approximately $1.1 million (in 2008$) during the first year of
the program and $1.0 million in subsequent years (including $344,000 of
programmatic costs to the Agency). Thus, this final rule is not subject
to the requirements of CAA sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of CAA
section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Facilities subject to this final rule include facilities that inject
CO2 for enhanced recovery, and those that sequester
CO2. None of the facilities currently known to undertake
these activities are owned by small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.''
``Policies that have Federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that 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.''
    This final rule does not have Federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in EO 13132.
    This regulation applies to public- or private-sector facilities
that inject CO2 underground. Few government facilities would
be affected. This regulation applies directly to facilities that inject
CO2 underground. It does not apply to governmental entities
unless the government entity owns a facility that injects and/or
sequesters CO2 underground. This regulation also does not
limit the power of States or localities to collect GHG data and/or
regulate GHG emissions. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this final
rule. However, as it is EPA's policy to promote communication between
the Agency and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited
comments on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.''
    This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in EO
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This regulation applies directly
to facilities that inject and/or sequester CO2 underground.
EPA analyzed the facilities expected to be affected by this rule and
did not find that any facilities expected to be affected by the rule
are likely to be owned by tribal governments. In addition, EPA did not
hear from any Tribal governments contradicting this analysis. Thus, EO
13175 does not apply to this final rule.
    Although EO 13175 does not apply to this final rule, EPA sought
opportunities to provide information to Tribal governments and
representatives during development of the GHG reporting rule. In
consultation with EPA's American Indian Environment Office, EPA's
outreach plan included tribes. EPA conducted several conference calls
with Tribal organizations during the proposal phase of the GHG
reporting rule. For example, EPA staff provided information to tribes
through conference calls with multiple Tribal working groups and
organizations at EPA that interact with tribes and through individual
calls with two Tribal board members of the Climate Registry (TCR). In
addition, EPA prepared a short article on the GHG reporting rule that
appeared on the front page of a Tribal newsletter--Tribal Air News--
that was distributed to EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards'
network of Tribal organizations. EPA gave a presentation on various
climate efforts, including the GHG Reporting Program, at the National
Tribal Conference on Environmental Management on June 24-26, 2008. In
addition, EPA had copies of a short information sheet distributed at a
meeting of the National Tribal Caucus.

See the ``Summary of EPA Outreach Activities for Developing the GHG
reporting rule,'' in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-055 for a complete
list of Tribal contacts. EPA participated in a conference call with
Tribal air coordinators in April 2009 and prepared a guidance sheet for
Tribal governments on the proposed GHG reporting rule. It was posted on
the GHG Reporting Program website and published in the Tribal Air
Newsletter.

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

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 because it does not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks, and it is not an economically significant regulatory
action under EO 12866.

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

    This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. Further, EPA has concluded that this rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects. This final rule relates to monitoring,
reporting and recordkeeping at facilities that inject and/or sequester
CO2 underground and does not impact energy supply,
distribution or use. Oil and gas operations that use CO2-ER
are only required to report under subpart UU, unless they opt into
subpart RR to establish that CO2 is being geologically
sequestered. Therefore, we conclude that this rule is not likely to
have any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rulemaking
involves technical standards. EPA developed no new measuring device
standard. Rather we allow the use of an appropriate standard method
published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method
exists; or an industry standard practice.

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

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