Comment:  Since the GWP values published in the reporting rule are also utilized in these important compliance programs, the final rule should provide clear guidance on how some of the issues that arise when the GWPs are changed should be handled. In the case of Title V permitting, if the new GWPs increase the CO2e emissions of a facility such that it becomes a major source the effective date of the rule should be at least one year from the publication date to allow the source to assess the impact and submit a Title V application if one is necessary, or determine how they might take on a synthetic minor limit to avoid Title V. Additionally, if a source has taken a synthetic minor limit on its CO2e emissions to remain below the Title V permit threshold, and is unable to meet the synthetic minor limit with the new GWPs, the one year delay in effective date would allow the source the needed time to determine if the synthetic minor permit is no longer viable using the updated emissions calculations. If it is determined that the synthetic minor is no longer viable, the source should have one year to file for a change in the synthetic minor limit or file a Title V application, if needed. There should be no penalty for non-compliance with the synthetic minor limit or Title V permitting requirements so long as the necessary applications were filed within one year of the change in the GWPs.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  Just as a source can become subject to Title V for the first time, a source can become subject to PSD review for the first time. As with Title V, sources need time to determine if they are now over the PSD applicability threshold and to create a mechanism to evaluate PSD applicability for projects that previously were not subject to a PSD review. A facility in this position should have one year from the date the rule is final to implement the change in the GWPs when conducting PSD applicability determinations. Further, if a synthetic minor source limit has been established for PSD, the same treatment should be given that is proposed above for a synthetic minor limit relative to Title V. That is, the facility should be allowed to use the current GWPs for one year and also have that one year to have the synthetic minor limit removed. For sources that are already subject to PSD review, the outcome of applicability determinations for projects will change. Because of this, EPA must clarify that a facility that is already subject to PSD has one year from the date that the GWPs are adopted to implement the GWP changes and apply them to PSD applicability determinations for specific projects. At the very minimum, any project that is permitted or has begun construction within 90 days after the GWP changes must be excluded from reevaluation with the new GWPs.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. With respect to synthetic minor limits established solely in terms of CO2e, whether the limit was taken to avoid PSD or Title V, as explained in the preamble, the source should analyze any permit and regulatory provisions governing the calculation of CO2e for purposes of compliance with the permit.  Even where the calculation of CO2e under those provisions would change for a source, the EPA believes most sources will still be able to comply with synthetic minor source permits because there is no GWP change for CO2 and the change in GWP for the other GHG compounds is generally small. Thus, we do not expect the GWP revisions to significantly alter CO2e emissions for most types of sources, particularly sources in which most of their GHG emissions result from fuel combustion. However, where a source anticipates difficulty in compliance with its synthetic minor source limit, it should work with its permitting authority to address its specific situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment:  The final area where the GWP changes come into play is compliance with existing CO2e emissions limits. Those limits are in three categories:
PSD avoidance limits (a limit on the CO2e emissions of a project to keep the project out of PSD). These kinds of permit limits should be treated the same as Title V synthetic minor limits, as described above. The source should be able to seek a revision to the limit to be consistent with the new GWPs during the one year period before the new GWPs go into effect. There must also be assurance that past projects will not be subjected to reevaluation under PSD simply because the reporting rule has changed since the project was permitted or started.
BACT limits. The change to the GWPs that apply when determining compliance with a BACT limit that is expressed on a CO2e basis could put a source out of compliance simply due to the GWP change. Sources should be allowed to use  the  old reporting rule GWPs and  methods for a year  after the new GWPs are set  and  also be allowed to  seek a  redetermination of the limit within that year without having to reopen the  PSD  permit and the BACT determination.
PALs. Sources should have one year from the date the new GWPs are set in order to convert to the new emissions tracking method and file a request to recalculate the PAL limit to address the change if that is also needed. If the change in the reporting rule GWPs  presents a problem in meeting the PAL that cannot be fixed by re-determining the PAL itself, an off ramp must be available to remove the PAL without any punitive implications. [Footnote: This situation can arise if the profile of GHGs has changed since the PAL was set such that the PAL was set with one set of gases but compliance reflects another set of gases such that the impact of the GWPs is small on the baseline gases but large on the current gases. In this instance the PAL redetermination will not necessarily mean an increase in the PAL level and a path for compliance under a set of unforeseen circumstances.]
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for additional guidance and the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2, Excerpt 7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  In the case of PSD applicability, setting the effective date of the final rule at one year after publication should help alleviate problems in determining applicability of recent projects. In this case, EPA should make it clear that the new GWPs would only be applied to any new major source or major modification that has not begun actual construction by the effective date of the rule (i.e. one year after publication). Projects that have begun actual construction prior to that effective date should not be subject to a reevaluation of PSD applicability based on the new GWP values.
Baseline actual emissions determinations, and baseline adjustments used to set PAL emission caps, also may rely on past GWPs and reporting protocols. A source should always have the option of making a determination of baseline actual emissions using past reported emissions. For emissions in years that pre-date GHG reporting, a source should be able to use prior reporting methods, if all the data needed to determine baseline actual emissions with the new GHG reporting methods is not available. If updating historical emissions determinations with the new GWPs and the newly added greenhouse gases is not possible, it should be acceptable to use whatever data is available. If changes to calculated PAL levels are needed, sources should have one year to convert to the new GWPs and at their option file a request to recalculate the PAL limit to address the change. Such a calculation should not require reopening the permit, and should instead be handled as a technical correction. When new materials are added to Table A-1, it is possible that the source may be lacking information about the baseline level of emissions of those materials since there was no regulatory requirement to track them prior to their addition. In that instance, Intel believes that the source should be allowed to adjust the baseline upward for those materials based on the current emissions, or at the very least be allowed to use engineering estimates of past emissions based on current knowledge. Otherwise, the source could lose some of its PAL headroom not due to emissions increases, but simply by adding materials that the source was not able to include in its baseline. If the change in the reporting rule GWPs presents a problem in meeting the PAL that cannot be fixed by redetermining the PAL itself, an off ramp must be available to remove the PAL without any punitive implications.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  Until July 2011, when the Indian Country Minor Source Rule was promulgated, the only mechanism for obtaining permits in Indian Country was via the PSD and/or Title V permitting programs. Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country, 76 Fed. Reg. 38748 (July 1, 2011). As such, operators did not have the option to permit their facilities as "synthetic minor" sources based on federally enforceable emission limits. In the absence of a minor source permitting program, facilities were not allowed to account for emission controls when calculating their potential to emit ("PTE") unless the controls were specifically required by a federally enforceable emission standard, such as a new source performance standard or a national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants. With the promulgation of the Indian Country Minor Source Rule EPA introduced a minor source preconstruction permitting program requiring preconstruction permits starting on September 2, 2014.The Indian Country Minor Source Rule also introduced a synthetic minor permitting program allowing sources to apply for federally enforceable emission limits on a voluntary basis starting in August 30,2011.
Due to the historic lack of a minor source permitting program, most minor sources in Indian Country are not permitted at all. Because they lack federally enforceable limits, the Proposed Rule would increase these sources' PTE by four tons CO2e for every ton of potential methane emissions, regardless of whether their methane emissions are effectively controlled. The proposed change to the GWP will likely push many borderline true minor sources above the Title V and PSD GHG major source thresholds. These sources would be heavily impacted by a requirement to obtain a Title V permit and by the fact that they would become subject to PSD. Under the current GWP potential values, these true minor sources in Indian Country are not subject to preconstruction permitting. If they are suddenly subject to regulation as PSD major sources due to an unforeseen change in how EPA calculates CO2e, planned expansions to these facilities will be disrupted by the delays, regulatory burdens, and litigation risks that are inherent in PSD permitting. Being suddenly subjected to PSD would also affect sources by restricting their flexibility to expand in the future. Sources that are currently just below PSD thresholds can be modified without PSD review so long as the modification, by itself, would not increase emissions by more than the PSD threshold for new sources (i.e., 100,000 tpy CO2e). However, if the new GWP values subject the facility to PSD, it loses that flexibility. A future modification would trigger PSD review if it increases emissions of GHGs or any criteria pollutant by more than its significance threshold. The Proposed Rule creates uncertainty for Indian Country sources. This uncertainty is magnified by the fact that EPA is just now rolling out the minor source rule.
Response:  Major sources of emissions locating in Indian Country prior to the effective date of the "Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country" final rule (the Tribal NSR Rule) should have gotten PSD permits or worked with the appropriate EPA regional office to identify a mechanism to effectively limit their emissions to minor source levels prior to construction. The Tribal NSR Rule has greatly simplified the process by providing such major sources with the option to obtain a "synthetic minor" permit with enforceable requirements to limit emissions to below the major source thresholds instead of getting a major source permit. Major sources must obtain either a major source permit or a synthetic minor permit prior to construction or making a major modification. Minor sources  -  those with PTE below the major source threshold but at or above the minor source thresholds in the Tribal NSR Rule  -  that will construct or modify their sources in Indian Country after September 2, 2014 must obtain minor source permits prior to construction. Existing sources were required to register with the appropriate EPA regional office by March 1, 2013, or within 90 days of beginning operation.
      EPA does not intend that existing minor sources would become subject to major NSR permitting requirements just because of the change in the GWP. So, an existing "borderline" minor source in Indian Country would not become subject to the PSD requirements for previously permitted construction, simply because of the GWP change. However, when that existing source is modified in the future, it would be required to use the most current GWPs, which could result in the source being considered major for PSD and being required to obtain a major source (or synthetic minor) permit. In addition, if a previously minor title V source becomes a "major source" under title V by applying the revised GWPs,the source generally would have one year from the effective date of the GWP change to submit an application for a part 71 (title V) permit or to be issued a synthetic minor permit to avoid title V applicability. See also Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for additional explanation of how the revisions in this rule could interact with permitting requirements.

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

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  In its proposal to make the amendments to Table A‐1 effective for existing sources in the 2013 reporting year and for new sources in the 2014 reporting year, EPA considered only the ability of sources to collect and report emissions data. EPA failed to consider the ability of sources and permitting agencies to implement the substantive impacts of an amendment to Table A‐1. QEPFS urges EPA to postpone the effective date of the new GWP factors until at least 2017.
A delayed effective date is particularly important for sources in Indian Country. If the Proposed Rule is finalized in 2013 as proposed, such sources are likely to apply for a large number of voluntary synthetic minor permits as a protective measure. This would create an unnecessary burden on both industry and EPA. A delayed effective date would mitigate this by allowing Indian Country sources an opportunity to voluntarily permit their facilities as synthetic minor sources in an orderly manner. Oil and gas companies like QEPFS have very long business planning cycles. Companies have already committed significant capital to ordering long lead time equipment for planned facilities in Indian Country based on the current permitting thresholds and applicable GWP values. We require a lead time of three to four years to work through those projects that are already underway, reevaluate future projects that are planned, and adjust our business plan. A phase‐in period is particularly important in Indian Country where historically there has been no preconstruction permit program for minor sources.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:  See response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1, Excerpt 6.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, other important regulatory programs utilize the GWP values published in this table, most notably the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. Changes in the GWP values can result in sources being covered by these rules that previously were not, or even alter the determination of whether an individual project triggers permitting requirements. In addition, if a source is operating under a plant-wide applicability limit (PAL) permit, compliance with the permit or the ability to take actions without exceeding the PAL can be impacted every time the GWP values change. Given these potentially significant compliance implications, Intel believes that it is appropriate to publish new values in Table A-1 only when they have been through a level of scientific process and peer review that makes future changes to the values less likely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Regarding the effect of the revisions to the GWP values on the PSD or Title V programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. For the comment regarding EPA's intent to periodically update the GWPs in Table A-1, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Matt Hall
Commenter Affiliation:  Consumers Energy Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0072-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA, via the final Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule), established thresholds for PSD applicability for CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions. In that rulemaking, EPA required that "wherever you perform an emissions calculations involving CO2e for the purposes of determining the applicability of PSD or Title V requirements, you use the GWP values codified in the EPA's mandatory GHG reporting rule." These applicability determinations are the basis for permitting actions which require periodic compliance demonstrations. Often, those compliance measures are memorialized in the permit by referencing the source of emission factors. If the GWP values in Table A-1 are included in a permit, and EPA revises those values, then a previous determination may be called into question.
This is troubling because EPA has not indicated how they intend to reconcile changes to existing applicability determinations in this proposed rulemaking; again, an unnecessary and complex exercise that can and should be avoided by grandfathering previous filings and determinations made under prior EPA-approved GWPs. Instead, the proposed rule states that "(t)o the extent that a Table A - 1 amendment raises permitting implementation questions or concerns, EPA's regional offices and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manage the PSD and title V programs, will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns." It is not in the public interest to create such widespread uncertainty, with likely non-uniform responses by EPA's 10 regions and the 50 states, when all parties acted under the GWP science approved by EPA at the time of submittal. Past actions should not be subject to liability when completed in good faith under an EPA approved program.
Response:
See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  WM is deeply concerned over the lack of clarity provided by EPA with respect to the practical and/or legal effect of the revisions to the GWP values on regulatory programs such as PSD or Title V permitting. As the Agency knows, the GWP values are used by EPA and authorized states to determine the applicability of the PSD and Title V permitting programs. The Agency has made it clear that it is considering applying the revised GWP values to prior reporting years under the GHG Reporting Rule. However, the Agency has provided almost no guidance as to whether the change to the GWP values and previously reported data would also affect prior PSD and Title V determinations. The preamble to the Technical Corrections ambiguously provides that EPA will "work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance" on questions regarding PSD and Title V applicability. 78 Fed. Reg. 19802, 19809. This statement provides no direction to either the states or the regulated public with respect to the legal effect of EPA's rule changes, or EPA's intentions for the manner in which the proposal may affect important regulatory programs.
EPA's vague statements with respect to PSD and Title V permitting create a tremendous amount of uncertainty for the regulated community. By failing to clarify the legal effect of the revisions to the GWP values on the PSD or Title V programs, EPA has created the potential for significant confusion with respect to the status of certain GHG reporters relating to PSD and/or Title V. This concern is substantial for facilities within the municipal waste landfill sector, which will be subject to an approximate 20% increase in GHG emissions as a result of the proposed GWP revision, and is expected to have the most new GHG reporters as a result of the rule. Moreover, EPA's failure to clarify the effect of the proposal on existing facilities may leave open the possibility for agency enforcement action, a citizen suit, and/or the reopening of a previously approved permit.
Response:   Regarding the potential retroactive impact, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of the revisions to the GWP values on permitting under the PSD or Title V programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John L. Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0045-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  SMA is concerned about the impact of the revised GWP values on the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. While the agency appears to recognize the need for guidance on this issue, particularly with respect to permitting applicability determinations, SMA urges the agency to issue uniform guidelines concurrently with the issuance of the final revised GWP values, rather than relying on a potentially piecemeal approach through the EPA's regional offices. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,809. In particular, EPA should issue guidance clarifying that pending permit applications or applicability determinations should be assessed on the basis of the GWP values that are in force as of the date of the permit application or applicability determination. Moreover, the agency should make clear that existing permits, pending permits, and permit applications at the time the revised GWP values are adopted should not be required to be amended to reflect the new GWP values.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  Regardless of whether EPA proceeds with its proposed revisions to the GWPs in Table A-1, the Agency should reconfirm that the GHG emissions reported pursuant to the GHGRP do not figure into determinations as to the applicability of other CAA regulatory programs. Indeed, this position is consistent with EPA statements in the final "Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule," 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010) ("Tailoring Rule). For instance, EPA noted in the Tailoring Rule that the GHGRP requires reporting of actual emissions in metric tons while applicability determinations under the prevention of significant deterioration ("PSD") and Title V permitting programs are based on estimates made in short tons. Id. at 31,532. The Tailoring Rule emphasizes the importance of maintaining the traditional PSD and Title V approaches to determining the applicability of those programs and concludes that consistency of those approaches with the methodology used in the  GHGRP is unnecessary. Id. at 31,532-33. At a minimum, EPA should make clear, if it finalizes its proposed changes to the GHGRP, that those changes have no bearing on other CAA programs like PSD and Title V, and that the positions stated in the Tailoring Rule remain valid.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  More important than the impact on reporting of emissions is the impact that changes to the GWPs has on compliance with EPA permitting requirements under the Tailoring Rule. One of the advantages of the comprehensive GHG reporting system that EPA has created under 40 CFR Part 98 is the ability of government and industry to rely on it when complying with EPA permitting requirements. [Footnote: While emissions quantification needs under the permitting rules (determining applicability or complying with permit limits) will not always match those of the reporting rule, it is critical that parties can rely on the reporting rule for appropriate methods to determine emissions. Some departures are necessary. There is a difference in the gases that are regulated and, in permitting, there is the potential need to track emissions over shorter time periods or for specific uses of gases. Even in those instances where departures are needed, the reporting rule provisions are the appropriate point of departure for emissions tracking under the permitting rules.] Industry needs to be able to rely on the reporting rule for emissions analyses under EPA permitting programs, for consistency between reporting and compliance demonstrations and consistency across facilities. We understand this is EPA's position as well and we ask that this position be affirmed.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c. of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  WM is not aware of any precedent under the Clean Air Act that would require existing facilities to apply new standards or emission factors retroactively, or that would subject existing facilities to regulatory requirements based on such retroactive application. In this context, for example, EPA must clarify that prior permit determinations should not be reopened or collaterally attacked based on revised (increased) GHG emission estimates. If emissions from a non-Title V facility would increase above major source thresholds as a result of the GWP revision, the transition to Title V status may not be deemed to have occurred at any point prior to EPA's promulgation of the proposed rule. Likewise, to the extent that a non-PSD source would exceed PSD major source thresholds as a result of the GWP revision, such status may only be applied prospectively. Most importantly, modification projects undertaken prior to the GWP revision may not be reopened on the basis of changed emission estimates or PSD status, and the Tailoring Rule PSD requirements may only apply to modification projects that occur after the rule revisions. Under no circumstances should any calculated increase in GHG emissions resulting from the proposed GWP revisions be interpreted for regulatory applicability purposes to constitute or relate to a facility modification.
Given the legal precedent regarding retroactive rulemaking, EPA could not have intended that the PSD/Title V implications of the proposed rule would be retroactive. Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently made clear that retroactivity is not favored in the law. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208-209 (1988). Absent an express statutory grant, courts generally will not find that an agency rule has retroactive effect. The general disfavor of retroactivity is based on considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations, all of which are applicable considerations in the current context. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 270 (1994).
In determining whether a regulation has retroactive effect, courts consider "whether it would impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed." Id. at 280. Courts have distinguished between regulations that impose new sanctions on past conduct, which are invalid unless specifically authorized, and regulations that merely "upset expectations," which are invalid only if arbitrary and capricious. Nat'l Petrochemical & Refiners Ass'n v. EPA, 630 F.3d 145, 159 (D.C. Cir. 2010). These two categories are generally referred to as "primary" and "secondary" retroactivity, respectively.
Applying these principles to the Technical Corrections, the retroactive application of PSD or Title V would be considered as having "primary" retroactive effect because it would impose new sanctions on past conduct (e.g., construction/modification without a PSD permit). As such, the rule would likely be challenged and struck down because the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to implement rules with primary retroactive effect. Sierra Club v. Whitman, 285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Because of the lack of clarity, and to avoid legal challenges that will delay and encumber the rulemaking, WM requests that the Agency explicitly provide in the Technical Corrections that the revisions to the GWP values would not retroactively apply to PSD, Title V, or any other regulatory program that relies on the GWP values. By contrast, the GWP revisions may only apply prospectively, in a manner that provides clear notice to affected facilities with respect to the manner in which the revisions will be implemented and the legal effect of the revisions on related regulatory programs.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0073-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  In no circumstances should changes to the GWPs or GHG reporting requirements, if finalized, affect permit applicability determinations under other CAA programs. At a minimum, EPA should make clear that any changes to the GWPs and GHG reporting requirements applied retroactively would have no bearing on any permit applicability determinations pertaining to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), minor source NSR and Title V made prior to the effective date of a final rule.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0053-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  The retroactive revision of GHG emission data will create regulatory uncertainty concerning whether these changes will affect permitting under other EPA regulatory programs (i.e., Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V). EPA's proposal does not provide sufficient guidance to landfills concerning whether the proposed changes to the GWP value of methane would affect prior PSD or Title V determinations. EPA has vaguely stated it will "work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance" on questions regarding PSD and Title V applicability. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,809. This statement does not provide sufficient direction to the states, landfill owners, or others concerning the impact of the proposed retroactive application of the revised GWP value of methane. Importantly, EPA's lack of clarity concerning this issue raises the possibility of reopening a previously approved permit, a citizens lawsuit, and/or an EPA enforcement action. To eliminate these problems, NSWMA urges the Agency to provide explicitly in the Technical Corrections clarification that the revisions to the GWP values would not retroactively apply to PSD, Title V, or any other regulatory program that relies on the GWP values.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services
Commenter Affiliation:  The Dow Chemical Company (Dow)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0044-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A-1 to determine applicability and to set emission levels for CO2 equivalents. Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and changes to emission factors in other subparts may affect permitting program applicability and limits for a source. In order to minimize confusion and re-work, these changes should only apply to projects that occur after the effective date of EPA's amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (40 CFR 98). The changes should have no retroactive impact on: Prior PSD or Title V permit determinations; Calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations; or for pending permit applications that are deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0047-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  On page 78 FR 19808, EPA indicates that amending Table A-1 may affect emissions reported under the PSD or Title V permitting programs. The Preamble states that sources assessing the applicability under the PSD or Title V permitting program should be aware of the proposed changes to Table A-1 that may affect the CO2e emissions of the source once the Table A-1 amendment is promulgated and effective. For example 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) references Table A-1 of 40 CFR 98 to calculate CO2e emissions for the aggregate of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride emissions.
Changes in GWP should have no retroactive impact on prior PSD or Title V applicability determinations or permit applications that were deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of this rule. This includes, but is not limited to, evaluating compliance with permit or regulatory limits or determining whether a source is subject to PSD permitting or NSPS requirements. Such situations should not be affected by the new GWP's and no reanalysis of the prior applicability determination shall be required.
Existing permit conditions with CO2e limitations, based on the prior GWPs, should continue to use the GWPs in effect when the permit was issued. Existing permit conditions expressed in CO2e emissions may be updated in periodic Title V renewals by a simple ratio of the new-GWP/prior-GWP. Such permit condition updating should be considered an Administrative Amendment not requiring EPA notice and comment.
Minor source facilities with existing permits that have a negative GHG permitting applicability (Title V or PSD) based on GWPs in use at the time of permit issuance shall not be required to initiate a permit modification or perform PSD review due strictly to the use of a revised GWP.
In addition, retroactive application of GWP values may interfere with baseline emissions and other data submitted to state programs, such as California.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. Regarding existing title V permits, nothing in this final rule changes the procedural requirements for title V permit amendments.  The permit amendment requirements for any specific circumstance may vary according to the requirements of the state program and the specific relevant facts. EPA expects that permit holders will coordinate with their permitting authorities if permit amendments are necessary and that permitting authorities will continue to provide notice of amendments to EPA, consistent with the requirements of  Part 70.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  If Part 98 revisions are incorporated into the NSR and Title V rules, they must not apply retroactively.
If the Part 98 GWP revisions are also incorporated into the NSR and Title V programs, GPA urges the EPA to clarify that these factors would not be applied retroactively to past applicability determinations and that no reanalysis of the prior applicability determinations should be required.
Existing permit conditions with CO2e limitations, based on the prior GWPs, should continue to use the GWPs in effect when the permit was issued. Existing permit conditions expressed inCO2e emissions may be updated in periodic Title V renewals by a simple ratio of the new GWP/prior-GWP. Such permit condition updating should be considered an Administrative Amendment not requiring EPA notice and comment.
Minor source facilities that were not subject to GHG permitting applicability (Title V or PSD) based on GWPs in use at the time of permit issuance or start of construction (e.g. for facilities located in Indian Country) must not be required to initiate a permit modification or perform PSD review due strictly to the use of a revised GWP.
Response:  For EPA's response to this comment, see Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule and the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0047-A2, Except 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Commenter Affiliation:  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment:  The Proposed Rule indicates that amending Table A-1 affects emissions reported under the PSD and Title V permitting programs [78 FR 19808]. The preamble states that for sources assessing applicability under the PSD or Title V permitting program, the proposed changes to the GWP Table A-1 values could affect the CO2e emissions from sources subject to PSD and Title V permits under the Tailoring Rule. Changes in the GWP should not be retroactively applied to applicability determination for PSD review or Title V operating permits that were submitted and deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of this rule. Compliance under existing permits should be evaluated based upon the GWP that was used to determine CO2e emissions levels in those existing permits. In the final rule, EPA should clearly explain application of revised GWPs for PSD and Title V permitting consistent with these principles.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0060-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  AFPM is concerned about the potential impact on present Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on the previous version of Table A-1. Facility permitting can consume significant resources of affected facilities and state agencies. The revisions create the possibility that facilities whose operations are or were permitted at a certain level may, as a result of the rule, now exceed limits in recently-issued permits based upon EPA's revisions to the global warming potentials (GWPs). The resulting effects could reach much further than individual facilities. As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A-1 to determine applicability and to set emission levels for CO2 equivalents (CO2e). Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and changes to emission factors in other subparts may directly affect permitting program applicability and limits for a source. To minimize confusion and adjustment to previous submissions, these changes should only apply to projects that occur after the EPA's amendments to the GHG Reporting Rule have been promulgated.
The changes should have no retroactive impact on prior PSD or Title V permit determinations, calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations, or pending permit applications that are deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes. AFPM recommends no retroactive adjustments to permits and permit applications that are deemed administratively complete based on previous Table A-1 data.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  EPA's Proposed Changes to the GWP Values and Emission Factors Should Not Have a Retroactive Impact on Prior Permitting Actions.
Beyond the future implications for facilities reporting emissions data, ACC is concerned about the potential impact on present Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on the previous version of Table A-1. The revisions could create the potential for facilities to exceed limits in their recently-issued permits based solely on EPA's revised GWP values. The resulting effects could reach much further than individual facilities. As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA rules and regulations, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A-1 to determine applicability and to set emission levels for CO2 equivalents. Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and changes to emission factors in other subparts may directly affect permitting program applicability and limits for a source. To minimize confusion and avoid placing an unnecessary burden on permitting authorities and permit holders, ACC believes EPA's proposed changes to GWPs and emission factors should apply only to projects that occur after the effective date of EPA's amendments to the GHG Reporting Rule. The changes should have no retroactive impact on prior PSD or Title V permit determinations, calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations, or pending permit applications that are deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes.
ACC recommends that EPA grandfather permits and permit applications, based on previous Table A-1 data, that are administratively complete before the effective date of changes to Table A-1.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist
Commenter Affiliation:  Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0106
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  OCC echoes ACC's concern about the potential implications on PSD and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on earlier Table A-l data. The EPA should grandfather permits and permit applications that are administratively complete based on Table A-l data available on the submittal date of the permit application. Retroactively changing the data during the approval process would cause increased burdens on the Agency. We believe it is important for the Agency to focus its limited resources on meeting the critical time lines of many other important projects.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance,
Commenter Affiliation:  Republic Services, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0057-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  The technical corrections acknowledge permit applicability impacts by the change in GWP under the Federal PSD and Title V program [78 FR 19808-19809]. However,  the proposed rule does not provide a regulatory analysis of how retroactively applying GWP will impact PSD or Title V permitting obligations and any enforcement actions associated with previous determinations. There is a huge concern that such a change will stall current permit projects and possibly reopen existing permits which were previously approved. Landfills rely on these permits to install combustion devices for compliance under New Source Review Performance Standards (NSPS) and for landfill gas renewable energy projects both of which reduce GHG emissions. We strongly suggest that EPA consider language to provide regulatory protection from inadvertent compliance implications resulting from a retroactive change in GWP along with providing clear guidance in the Technical Corrections that the revisions to the GWP values have no retroactive effect on PSD or Title V permitting. Most importantly, new or modification projects undertaken before the GWP revision may not be reopened on the basis of changed emission estimates or PSD status, and the Tailoring Rule PSD requirements may only apply to new or modification projects that occur after the rule revisions take effect. Additionally, when the new GWP is utilized under PSD and Title V permitting, regulated facilities should be allowed to apply the new GWP both to baseline (pre-project) emissions as well as to any emission increases from the modification project. The change in GWP should be treated no differently than a change to an emission factor or quantification method where there is no retroactive liability for emission changes outside of a subsequent facility modification that increases emissions.
Response:  Regarding the inclusion of permit applicability impacts, see Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the retroactive application of the revised GWPs, see Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy, President
Commenter Affiliation:  California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0035-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  Although it is CCEEB's preferred option to make all changes prospectively, now, and into the future, if EPA proceeds with its preferred option we strongly suggest that EPA consider new language that provides regulatory protection (e.g., from Title V or PSD permitting obligations, and any enforcement actions) from inadvertent compliance obligations that result from retroactive changes in an individual facility's previously submitted GHG Mandatory Reports. Any such actions should be accompanied by a thorough regulatory analysis of how language in the Federal Clean Air Act supports such an action.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Commenter Affiliation:  California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0068-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  Potential retroactive triggering of regulatory requirements (e.g., EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule). Retroactively applying the revised GWPs, such as methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, can increase a facility's annual GHG emissions (that previously fell below regulatory thresholds) to now exceed regulatory thresholds and trigger regulatory requirements. In other words, if the EPA requires facility inventories to be revised retroactively, there is the potential for facilities that previously determined that a regulation did not apply (based on the now outdated GWPs), to now reverse that conclusion. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to retroactively comply with the relevant regulation(s), and more importantly, can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perhaps facing legal action or penalties? Conversely, if a GWP is reduced, such as nitrous oxide where the GWP is being decreased from 310 to 298, facilities that have narrowly triggered a regulatory threshold may learn that this regulation no longer applies to their facility.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy, President
Commenter Affiliation:  California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0035-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  Retroactive application of GWPs can trigger regulatory requirements and possibly enforcement action. Increases in GWPs, such as for methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, when applied retroactively, can push borderline facilities with respect to their GHG emissions into regulatory programs, perhaps retroactively. CCEEB's concern is not to focus on the EPA Mandatory Reporting program, but does relate to the implications to the Federal PSD and Title V programs. Taking EPA's preferred approach, previous year facility inventories will be revised and published. When this occurs, there is the potential for facilities that previously made determination that a regulation did not apply, based upon the now outdated technical factors that this conclusion was incorrect. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to now have to retroactively comply with the relevant regulations, and more importantly, can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perhaps facing legal action, penalties and fines? Conversely, if a GWP is reduced, facilities that have narrowly triggered a regulatory threshold may learn that this regulation no longer applies to their facility. What is the remedy under this circumstance?
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  The GHG MRR is linked to the Federal PSD (Tailoring Rule) and Title V programs. By taking EPA's preferred approach, previous year facility inventories will be revised and published. When the change in GWP is applied to prior reporting years, previous PSD and Title V determinations could be affected. For example, the municipal waste landfill sector will be subject to a 20% increase in GHG emissions due to the change in GWP which could cause a non-PSD major source to exceed the PSD major source threshold. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to now have to retroactively comply with the relevant regulations, and more importantly, can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perhaps facing legal action, penalties and fines? EPA's should provide clarity on this issue and include a statement that GWP values would not retroactively apply to PSD, Title V, or any other regulatory program that relies on GWP values.
Response:  Regarding the relationship between the final GWP amendments and the Tailoring Rule and permitting under the PSD and Title V permitting programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding retroactive application of amended GWPs, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  When the new GWP is utilized under PSD and Title V permitting, regulated facilities should be allowed to apply the new GWP both to baseline (pre-project) emissions as well as to any emission increases from the modification project. The change in GWP should be treated no differently than a change to an emission factor or quantification method, such as AP-42 guidance, where there is no retroactive liability for emission changes outside of a subsequent facility modification that increases emissions.
Response:  Regarding the relationship between the final GWP amendments and permitting programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding retroactive application of amended GWPs, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment:  One approach that EPA could take to address these concerns would be to establish two different tables in the regulations that would be used to determine PSD/Title V applicability depending on the date. For example, the existing Table A-1 to subpart of part 98 would be used to determine GHG emissions under sections 51.166, 52.21, 70.2, and 71.2 until the effective date of the rule, and a new Table A-1(a) containing the revised GWP values would then be used to determine GHG emissions after that date. This approach would be similar to the biogenic deferral rule where EPA amended sections 51.166, 52.21, 70.2, and 71.2 to provide that prior to a date certain (July 21, 2014), the mass of GHG emissions shall not include biogenic emissions. For pending permit applications, if the application has been determined to be administratively complete by the effective date of the rule, then the applicant would not be required to revise emissions using the revised GWPs. This approach has been used by the Agency in its 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS PSD implementation determination that grandfathered existing permits [ Footnote: In early 2013, EPA issued the Final Rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 78 Fed. Reg. 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013). This rule strengthened the annual PM2.5 standard to 12 μg/m3 and retained the 24-hour PM standard at a level of 35 μg/m3. The existing annual standard, 15.0 μg/m3, was set in 1997. Grandfathering of existing permit applications also is addressed in the new rule. Traditionally, 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(k)(1) and 51.166(k)(1) require that PSD permit applications include a demonstration that new major stationary sources and major modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS that is in effect as of the date the PSD permit is issued. However, in this rule, EPA grandfathered existing permit applications from demonstrating compliance with the new NAAQS for PM2.5 if the (a) the application is determined to be complete by December 14, 2012, or (b) the public notice on the draft permit or preliminary determination is published before March 18, 2013 (the day the revised PM2.5 standards become effective).]
Likewise, EPA could require facilities renewing or modifying existing permits after the effective date of the Technical Corrections to update GHG emissions using the revised GWP values. EPA must clarify, however, that such application submittals would not be considered modifications that would themselves trigger PSD Tailoring Rule requirements.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We disagree with the commenter's recommendation that the original Table A-1 be retained in the regulatory text. Including two versions of Table A-1 in the regulatory text could be confusing to many reporters and increases the potential for reporters to accidentally use GWP values from the wrong table. Regarding EPA's response to concerns on the applicability, compliance schedule, or calculation methodologies for major or minor source determinations, permit limits, or other such compliance requirements, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment:  TFI has concerns with how state and independent programs that rely on the GWP values set forth in the GHGRP may change in light of EPA's modification of the values in accord with the Fourth Assessment Report. As EPA is aware, several TFI members participate in national and regional nitrous oxide offset programs. The programs rely on the current GWP value of 310 for purposes of calculating the climate reserve tonnes (CRTs) of carbon offset credits. If EPA changes the nitrous oxide GWP value from 310 to 298, and recalculates prior year GHGRP values, the entities in charge of these programs may similarly back-calculate prior year CRTs, which would lead to lower offsets. This would be unfairly prejudicial to those participating in these programs, would serve as a disincentive to future participation, and would add additional uncertainty to the overall carbon markets.
As such, if EPA moves forward with its proposed lowering of the GWP value for nitrous oxide, we request that EPA make clear in the final rule that it encourages state and independent programs relying on the GHGRP GWP values to maintain the prior value of 310 for all CRTs calculated prior to the new value taking effect as part of the GHGRP.
Response:  Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect on past years' reports, and III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs,
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0060-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  AFPM is concerned about the potential of increased complexity in comparing emissions between programs and between years. Some states aligned the GWP values in the state reporting programs to match the EPA values so that the reporting burden would be reduced. These states will either have to propose and approve rule changes that match this proposed change by EPA or certain facilities will be required to report two sets of data; one to EPA and one to the state or local program. In order to ensure consistent reporting across federal, state and regional reporting programs, the Agency must ensure that the reporting revisions currently and in the future are well coordinated with state and local reporting programs.
Response:  Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Commenter Affiliation:  California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0068-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  Retroactive application of AR4 GWPs or other technical changes that influence GHG emission estimates not only has the potential to trigger other EPA regulations, but also State regulatory programs. For example, the State of California is actively implementing its Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32, AB 32) GHG reduction program, directed and enforced by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The program requires ambitious statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 1990 GHG emissions target was a result of extensive inventory analysis by CARB, as well as the present and future "business as usual" levels and the emissions cap targets. These estimated statewide GHG emissions levels and annual emissions reports rely on GWPs for measuring the State's performance in meeting its goals. In addition, in order to streamline GHG reporting efforts and minimize costs for reporting entities, CARB has coordinated with EPA to make their GHG reporting program and online reporting system consistent with EPA's. At this point, CARB's reporting program is in alignment with EPA's reporting program with some exceptions, including but not limited to the following:
a) CARB requires additional information or level of detail for specific reporting entities.
b) CARB requires independent third-party verification of GHG emissions reports exceeding a specified threshold.
c) CARB has begun implementing its Cap-and-Trade Program. As there is further alignment between the programs, policy decisions at the federal level regarding technical changes will impact the more rigorous State or local level GHG programs.
CWCCG recognizes that technical factors affecting GHG emissions estimates will change in the future and CARB will have to puzzle through how to incorporate those changes into the AB 32 program; however, retroactive application of these factors creates a set of complicated issues that can have far-reaching impacts. In California, applying GWPs retroactively affects the 1990 emissions inventory, "business as usual" levels, emissions caps and compliance obligations under the Cap-and-Trade program, as well as previously submitted annual GHG reports. EPA needs to carefully consider the unintended consequences of its policy decisions regarding the retroactive application of GWPs.
Response:  Regarding retroactive impacts, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  Revising the GWPs is not only unwarranted based on the available science, it would engender significant problems by creating inconsistent GWP standards throughout the United States. EPA's remaining policy rationales for revising the Table A - 1 of subpart A of Part 98  GWPs  -  maintaining consistency with GHG inventories reported by foreign nations and  "promot[ing] consistency across the estimation methods used in the rule"  -  reflect a generally sound preference for harmonizing GHG emission estimations. EPA's proposed action would,  however, have the opposite effect. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,806. For instance, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ("RGGI"), which operates in the northeastern states of Connecticut,  Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector, relies on the GWPs provided by the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. See RGGI Model Rule § XX-1.2(as) (Dec. 31, 2008). The RGGI states are in the process of revising their regulations to update certain elements of the RGGI program, but they will maintain their reliance on the Third Assessment Report GWPs. See Updated Model Rule § XX-1.2(aw) (Feb. 7, 2013). If EPA moves to adopt the Fourth Assessment Report's GWPs, the Agency will create unnecessary divisions between its reporting protocols and the regulatory provisions of the RGGI states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response:  Regarding retroactive impacts, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment:  Under California's greenhouse gas reporting rule "global warming potential values listed in Table A-1 of 40 CFR Part 98 are used to determine the CO2 equivalent of emissions." 17 CAL.CODE REGS.tit. 17 § 95102(a)(65).
It is unclear whether California's regulation is intended to incorporate future revisions to Table A-1 or to only adopt Table A-1 as it existed at the time California promulgated its reporting regulation. EPA should fully examine this question before proceeding with any revision to the Table A-1 GWPs and consult with state officials regarding potential disruptions to the state's new GHG regulatory program. Regardless of the effect of a potential GWP revision, EPA's modification of Table A-1 could be problematic. If, for instance, California's regulation is intended to incorporate all future EPA revisions to Table A-1 automatically, EPA changes to Table A-1 will distance California's requirements from the requirements imposed by the RGGI states at the same time that these jurisdictions are attempting to align their programs and further integrate them. On the other hand, even if EPA's modifications to the Table A-1 have no effect on California's requirements, finalizing EPA's proposed revisions to the GWPs would nevertheless create a significant break between federal and state requirements. Instead of taking such action, EPA should endeavor to bring consistency to these state and federal requirements.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
Comments on applicability and new reporters
Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  Because the retroactive application of the revised GWP values to prior year GHG emission reports is unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and confusing, WM urges the Agency to apply the revised GWP values on a prospective basis only. Specifically, WM supports EPA's proposal to require existing GHG reporters to incorporate data changes into the 2013 calendar year report due as of March 31, 2014. Likewise, WM agrees that new reporters that will be subject to the requirements of Part 98 as a result of the proposed GWP revisions should not be required to collect or report data until calendar year 2014, with the GHG report due as of March 31, 2015. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19833.
Response:  Regarding the prospective application of the amendments, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the schedule, see Section III.A of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment:  WM also does not support the expansion of applicability that will occur in the MSW Landfill sector due to the revision of the GWP for methane, and we note that there are other sectors (e.g., Subpart FF: Underground Coal Mines, Subpart NN: Natural Gas) that are not facing this issue because their applicability threshold is not based on CO2e emissions. Requiring reporting from more very small landfills and requiring other very small closed landfills to continue reporting is costly and has limited policy relevance. We further note that the applicability determination for MSW Landfills is already based on the methane generation level, which was converted to tons CO2e. Emissions of CO2 from combustion have never been considered in determining applicability under the rule.
Given the increased cost and limited utility of these "side effects" of revising the GWPs, we recommend that that EPA establish both a methane-based reporting threshold for Subpart HH to replace the CO2e based reporting threshold, and a methane-based requirement for exiting the program. As noted below, these changes are easily implemented by simply establishing a methane reporting threshold of 1190 metric tons/year or more and by adding new language to clarify off-ramp provisions for both the five-year exit threshold (1190 metric tons CH4) and the three-year exit threshold (714 tons metric tons CH4).
EPA could modify language in both "TABLE A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98  -  Source Category List for § 98.2(a)(1)  -  Source Categories[a] Applicable in 2010 and Future Years" [Footnote a: Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart] and Subpart HH, § 98.341 as follows:
TABLE A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98 Source Category List for § 98.2( a )(1)
Source Category List for §98.2(a)(1)
Source Categories[a] Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
"Municipal solid waste landfills that generate CH4 in amounts equivalent to 25,000 1190 metric tons CO2e or more per year, as determined according to subpart HH of this part.
As for exiting the program requirements, amend Section 98.341 as follows:
§98.341 Reporting Threshold
(a) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility contains a MSW landfill and the facility meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1), except as provided for in (1) or (2) below.
(1) If reported emissions are less than 1190 metric tons CH4 per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive year of emissions less than 1190 metric tons methane per year. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more.
(2) If reported emissions are less than 714 metric tons CH4 per year for three consecutive years then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the third consecutive year of emissions less than 714 metric tons methane per year for Subpart HH. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more.
Subpart HH facilities would still calculate and report methane as well as CO2e emissions for EPA inventory purposes but rule applicability and program exit provisions would be based upon methane emissions  -  not CO2e. The proposed exit provisions do not consider ancillary Subpart C anthropogenic emissions because MSW Landfills that meet the exit provisions are very small and primarily closed landfills, and they do not operate Subpart C devices. Subpart C emissions are either non-existent or at such negligible amount that by including these emissions would not prevent a Subpart HH facility from exiting the program. Therefore, we believe reporters will not exit the program prematurely due to exclusion of Subpart C anthropogenic emissions.
The methane based reporting threshold allows the Agency to avoid increasing the reporting program burden for the MSW landfill sector and EPA staff. It would also prevent subjecting additional small and primarily closed landfills with negligible emissions to reporting requirements and new compliance costs. Existing reporters will not be delayed five additional years or more from exiting the reporting program. It also allows EPA to meet national and global inventory program commitments without needlessly affecting GHG MRR applicability.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  The purpose of the change in GWP is to align with global inventory practices, not to broaden applicability of the GHG MRR. In the Preamble to the technical corrections EPA clearly states, "The changes are being proposed for two reasons.....to ensure consistency with the Inventory as the Inventory begins to use GWPs from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Second, we propose to add GWPs for F-GHGs that are not currently included in Table A-1..." (78 FR 19807).
Adding new reporters or delaying exit for existing reporters is not the intent of changing the GWP; yet the collateral damage is significant for MSW Landfills. The methane emissions at MSW landfills have not changed. No physical or operational changes have occurred at the MSW Landfills. The change in GWP is simply a change in calculation; a change, nonetheless, that significantly impacts GHG MRR applicability for Subpart HH reporters.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance,
Commenter Affiliation:  Republic Services, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0057-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  Republic recommends the EPA consider the significant impacts that are inadequately addressed in the Impact Analysis and allow an alternative approach to the reporting threshold for Subpart HH. As an alternative approach, we recommend EPA establish applicability and reporting threshold that is not based on CO2e emissions as this approach has done for other industry sectors identified in Table 2-3 in the Impact Analysis. A methane-based reporting threshold for Subpart HH would be appropriate since the applicability determination for MSW landfills is already based on a methane generation that is converted to tons CO2e. A methane-based applicability and reporting threshold approach will not impact how Subpart HH calculates and reports CO2e and methane under the GHGRP. Also the number of existing applicable MSW landfills will remain the same. This approach will however reduce the GHGRP reporting burden for the regulated community and EPA while resolving many of the issues discussed with the GWP change. As such Republic request the EPA to consider the following modified language in both "TABLE A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98  -  Source Category List for §98.2 ( a )(1) -  Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years" and Subpart HH, §98.341 as follows:
TABLE A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98 Source Category List for  § 98.2( a )(1)
Source Category List for §98.2(a)(1)
Source Categories[a] Applicable in 2010 and Future Years
"Municipal solid waste landfills that generate CH4 in amounts equivalent to 25,0001190 metric tons CO2e or more per year, as determined according to Subpart HH of this part."
Republic requests EPA consider the following language to address the off-ramp provisions by amending Subpart HH, Section 98.341 as follows:
§98.341 Reporting Threshold
(a) You must report GHG emissions under this Subpart if your facility contains a MSW landfill and the facility meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1), except as provided for in (1) or (2) below.
(1) If reported emissions are less than 1190 metric tons CH4 per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive year of emissions less than 1190 metric tons methane per year. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more.
(2) If reported emissions are less than 714 metric tons CH4 per year for three consecutive years then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the third consecutive year of emissions less than 714 metric tons methane per year for Subpart HH. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  Given the increased cost and limited utility of the "side effects" of revising the GWPs, we recommend that EPA establish a methane-based reporting threshold for Subpart HH to replace the CO2e based reporting threshold, and a methane-based requirement for exiting the program. Such an approach allows the Agency to avoid increasing the reporting burden for the MSW landfill sector and EPA staff, while not impacting EPA's need to meet national and global inventory program commitments.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Angela D. Marconi, Cherry Island Landfill Gas Manager
Commenter Affiliation:  Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0077-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  DSWA encourages EPA to consider a revision to the applicability threshold for subpart HH. If the applicability threshold was based on metric tons of methane, rather than CO2e, the revision of the GWP would not result in bringing additional closed facilities into the rule, or delaying closed facilities from exiting the rule. We suggest the use of 1,190 metric tons of methane as the applicability threshold for the rule.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment:  Instead of utilizing a reporting threshold based upon equivalency (e.g. CO2e), we recommend that EPA establish a methane-based reporting threshold for Subpart HH to replace the CO2e based reporting threshold. EPA could simply establish a methane reporting threshold of 1190 metric tons/year or more which is equivalent to 24,990 metric tons CO2e based on the current methane GWP change, especially with regard to closed landfill sites.
Response:  See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
Comments on EPA's proposal to recalculate emissions from 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting years
Commenter Name:  Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0073-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  EPA Should Define and Implement a Simple Process Using e-GGRT Notices and Messages to Inform Reporters of Revisions to Previous Year's Reported Values and Logging Reporter Comments Regarding Errors.
If EPA implements Option 2, a correspondence folder should be initiated at the time EPA revises a facility's previous years' reports in e-GGRT. In this way, the reporter can submit confidential comments to EPA, if necessary, in case an error or other issue arises. Currently in e-GGRT, a facility reporter cannot initiate a correspondence. Only EPA can open the dialogue. The reporter is notified of the correspondence via electronic mail prompting the reporter to go into e-GGRT and read the correspondence. Therefore, our suggestion involves programming e-GGRT to automatically open a correspondence folder for each facility when a previous year's report is revised by EPA.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John L. Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0045-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  SMA supports EPA's proposed option (Option 2) regarding revision and republication of emission estimates for prior year (2010-2012) reports in light of the proposed adoption of updated global warming potential (GWP) values. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,834.Independent recalculation of CO2e emissions for the 2010-2012 reporting years by the agency is only reasonable, rather than imposing the burden on each facility of recalculating and resubmitting the reports. The proposed revisions to the GWP values involve data points entirely outside the control of, and wholly unrelated to actual emissions from, reporting facilities. Reporting facilities have already fulfilled their obligations for 2010-2012, and the agency's decision to revise the GWP weighting assigned to the reported emissions should not impose additional burdens. Moreover, the alternative  -  requiring each facility to resubmit their own prior reports  -  would set a poor precedent by potentially limiting the agency's freedom to make future changes to GWP values (or other aspects of how emissions data are interpreted) due to concerns with imposing additional burdens on reporting facilities. In sum, the GWP values are data elements outside the control of reporting facilities and within the agency's discretion to change as appropriate based on science. However, in making such changes, the agency should not impose additional burdens on facilities that already have fulfilled their reporting responsibilities.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Commenter Affiliation:  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  The preamble notes that EPA revisions to reports from previous years (i.e., "Option 2") would be communicated to reporters prior to public release via e-GGRT. INGAA supports using e-GGRT for communication. However, in some cases reporter review of the information could identify an obvious error, and reporters should be able to comment on the values revised by EPA. INGAA recommends implementing a simple process for two-way communication between EPA and reporters through e-GGRT. This process should be defined and discussed in the final rule and allow reporters to comment on EPA revisions.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0073-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  EPA has proposed to revise the CO2e emission estimates in annual reports for reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using the proposed revised GWP values, and has proposed two options to accomplish this [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,833]. EPA's "Option 1" would require all reporters who submitted annual reports for 2010, 2011, and 2012 to resubmit their prior year reports using the revised GWPs. Under "Option 2," EPA would itself calculate the revised CO2e emissions.
To the extent the GWPs are revised and applied retroactively to emissions in previous annual reports, we prefer Option 2 as the "default" option with the ability for reporting entities to either voluntarily revise their previous annual reports themselves or to provide comment on EPA's revised emission calculations if deemed necessary. This approach, unlike Option 1, would not directly impose the burden of review and certification of emission estimates/revisions on the reporting entity. However, if EPA does move forward with Option 2, it should not foreclose an opportunity for reporting entities to review and provide input to this process. There is no reasonable basis to preclude such review. EPA should provide the opportunity and a mechanism for reporting entities to review and, if deemed necessary, provide corrections to recalculated CO2e emissions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. EPA should also allow reporters the option to revise, certify and resubmit previous reports on their own if they so choose.
Response:  For the response to the comment supporting EPA's recalculation of CO2e emissions and supply for reporting years 2010 through 2011, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
EPA intends to provide an opportunity for facilities to view their recalculated facility-level CO2e totals before publication. The Agency does not believe it will be useful to formally solicit comments on the recalculated GWPs. Because application of the new GWPs will be a very simple recalculation that has no bearing on a facility's annual report, EPA does not want to place any additional burden on reporters. However, if a reporter were to find an error, we would as always welcome feedback through our Help Desk. EPA will also review the recalculated CO2e values to ensure they are accurate before making them available to the public.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy, President
Commenter Affiliation:  California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0035-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  As science evolves in the area of climate change, technical changes to important factors, such as GWPs will also continue to evolve. EPA is proposing a far-reaching policy to apply some technical changes retroactively. These changes currently impact many industry sectors, such as the oil and gas, and municipal solid waste landfill sectors, and only three reporting years are impacted by this decision (2010, 2011, 2012). This policy would have the far-reaching effect of requiring retroactive updates to former reports for any technical changes that impact GHG emissions, no matter how many reporting years were involved. The bureaucratic and regulatory ramifications of this decision are far reaching. CCEEB recommends that all updates be prospective.
Response:  We disagree with the commenter that the decision to provide revised CO2e values has far reaching ramifications for individual reporters or the reporting program in general. No additional burden is placed on reporters by this decision.EPA is not requiring reporters to submit revised reports for reporting years 2010 through 2012 or requiring facilities to review the recalculated CO2e values calculated by the EPA. For additional information on the publication of CO2e emissions and supply data for reporting years 2010 through 2012 using the revised GWPs finalized in this rulemaking, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  TFI has concerns, should EPA proceed with its proposal to "recalculate" CY2010-CY2012 GHGRP emissions, regarding how this will be implemented. EPA proposes that either reporting entities revise their prior reports, or EPA will revise the prior reports. [Footnote: Id. at 19,833-19,834]
Should EPA disregard TFI's comment that prior GHGRP reports not be revised to reflect the new GWP values, TFI believes that EPA should recalculate the values, not mandate that reporters revise their prior reports. However, EPA should allow reporters the opportunity to review, and as necessary inform EPA of errors, prior to EPA making the "recalculated" emissions publicly available.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services
Commenter Affiliation:  The Dow Chemical Company (Dow)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0044-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  EPA notes in the preamble that two options are being considered for recalculating the CO2e emissions for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012 due to the proposed changes to the Global Warming Potentials (GWP) for several GHG compounds. Option #1 would require the owner/operator to recalculate the CO2e emissions, recertify, and resubmit these earlier reports. Option #2, EPA's preferred option, would result in EPA recalculating the emissions from the previous years. Although this option does not place an increased burden on reporters, the reporters would not have the opportunity to provide feedback on the revised emissions prior to EPA republishing the numbers. If EPA selects Option #2, the system should be designed such that the owner/operator could provide input on the updated emission values.
In addition to options #1 and #2, Dow suggests that EPA consider a third option where the new GWP's are used starting in Reporting Year 2013, and that EPA and company resources are not used to revise the reporting quantities for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. The final rule should allow for an option for a reporting entity to update the values, but should not require an across the board update for the first three reporting years. Most changes would be relatively minor from combustion sources due to the changes to the GWP for methane and nitrous oxide, and that other emission factor changes are relatively minor in nature. Therefore, the rule should not require a revision to the previously reported values. Should the RY 2010  -  2012 emissions be used for a baseline for a future regulatory GHG emission control program, EPA could make a sector based revision at the appropriate time, if needed.
EPA is setting a precedent of significant concern by proposing to require that the older emission reports continue to be updated due to detailed rule changes. This also creates uncertainty in the future as undoubtedly there will be additional emission factor changes and GWP changes as better scientific information becomes available. Again, we suggest that EPA only require emission values to be reported using the rules, emission factors, and GWP values that were in effect for a specific reporting year.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Frank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Services Department
Commenter Affiliation:  Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0056-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  In the Reporting Rule EPA is proposing to revise global warming potentials (GWPs) and presents two options for applying them retroactively. How EPA handles treatment of the proposed revised GWPs in this revision will establish a significant policy direction for the many technical revisions that are likely to occur in the future. To this end, we do not concur with the proposed options but instead, recommend that all technical revisions, now, and into the future, be applied prospectively. Not taking this approach can bring about enormous ramifications.
Response:  We disagree with the commenter that the decision to provide revised CO2e values has far reaching impacts or ramifications for individual reporters or the reporting program in general. EPA is not requiring reporters to submit revised reports for reporting years 2010 through 2012 or requiring facilities to review the recalculated CO2e values calculated by the EPA. For additional information on the publication of CO2e emissions and supply data for reporting years 2010 through 2012 using the revised GWPs finalized in this rulemaking, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Commenter Affiliation:  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  In the Proposed Rule preamble [78 FR 19834], EPA requests comments on the preferred option for updating annual reports using revised GWPs for reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012. "Option 1" would require reporters to resubmit prior years' reports using the revised GWPs. For "Option 2": "The EPA would independently recalculate revised CO2e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and2012 reporting year emissions or supply for each facility using the revised GWPs in Table A - 1. Under this scenario, through e-GGRT, each reporter would be able to see the EPA's revision of its emission or supply totals in previously submitted 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports before that information is publically available." [78 FR 19834]
The preamble also indicates that emissions would be recalculated for each facility and that EPA prefers Option 2, where EPA updates calculations for previous reporting years. INGAA supports Option 2 and agrees that EPA recalculation of the previous inventories (i.e., Option 2) is the preferred approach. However, INGAA strongly opposes the preamble stipulation that, "although the reporter would be able to view the estimate, the reporter would not be able to comment on or change the revised estimate." It is unreasonable to preclude comments from reporters if EPA recalculations show an obvious error. INGAA agrees that updating previously reported inventories to address GWP revisions is a straightforward calculation. However, mistakes happen and reporters should be able to ensure that emissions attributed to their facilities are not erroneous. It is imperative that reporters have the opportunity to review revised CO2e emissions calculated by EPA. Communications between EPA and reporters can be conducted through e-GGRT, and it is reasonable to limit the types of comments that reporters provide, such as comments that identify calculation errors.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  We support EPA's statement that it is not the Agency's intent to revise GWPs each time new data are published (78FR 19808), however technical and scientific data will continue to evolve overtime, and future updates to the reporting program are likely. The currently proposed changes impact many industry sectors, such as oil and gas, and MSW landfills, but this update only impacts three reporting years (2010, 2011 and 2012). This policy would have the far reaching effect of requiring retroactive updates to former reports for any technical changes that impact GHG emissions, no matter how many reporting years were involved. The bureaucratic and regulatory ramifications of this decision are far reaching
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0035-A2, Excerpt 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Commenter Affiliation:  California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0068-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  The primary focus of CWCCG's concerns is not the revision of GWPs in the future; rather it is the EPA's proposal to retroactively apply revised GWPs to the 2010, 2011, and 2012 emissions reports. The EPA proposes two options for retroactively applying AR4 GWPs. One option is to have reporters resubmit their prior year reports using the revised GWPs. The other option (EPA's preference) is for EPA to independently recalculate revised carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting year. Neither of these approaches is acceptable. While CWCCG recognizes the importance of ensuring consistency across emissions reports and supports the planned (i.e., future) application of AR4 GWPs as discussed for New Reporters, we do not support the retroactive application of these GWPs to reporting years 2010, 2011,and 2012.
Should EPA decide to go forward with applying the proposed revised GWPs retroactively, it will establish a significant policy change that will result in many future technical revisions and significant future ramifications for reporting entities, well beyond any administrative burden or other issues that have been discussed in the Preamble. The CWCCG recommends that all technical revisions within the GHG Mandatory Reporting Program be applied prospectively (i.e., in the future) at a reasonable beginning point.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  The proposed revision raises some practical considerations that should be considered by the Agency. By EPA's own admission, obtaining revised emission estimates for some facilities "could be difficult." Additionally, depending on which of the proposal's options are pursued, the associated costs for facilities to compile, calculate, and certify the results -- up to $3.5 million--would be unnecessarily burdensome and prohibitively expensive.
Based on these concerns, ACC suggests that EPA not require reporters to revise their certified emissions reports from prior years when a GWP or other factor is changed by EPA. A more reasonable approach would be for the Agency to revise the emissions data (as described in Option 2 in the proposal) and then present it in the database as a parallel metric, leaving the certified facility-reported data unchanged. These revised emissions data should be clearly marked as having been revised from what was reported by a facility previously. In addition, EPA should give facilities 30 days to review the changed data and note any issues before finalizing such revisions. Going forward, this would enable EPA to create a parallel metric that automatically updates as GWPs and emissions factors are revised and allow EPA to report updated U.S. emissions to the IPCC. Alternatively, EPA could revise the emissions data on a sector basis, which would leave the reported facility emissions data unchanged. Both of these approaches would ensure that a facility's reported emissions data appropriately remain the official emissions report for that facility while creating a "continuous" emissions baseline dating to 2010.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Eldon Lindt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services
Commenter Affiliation:  Xcel Energy, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0074-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  EPA has requested comments on the two options for revision and republication of emissions estimates for prior years. Xcel Energy supports EPA recalculating the CO2e emissions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. Therefore, we support EPA's Option 2 but are requesting reporters have the opportunity to comment on EPA's recalculated values and provide corrections. Currently, Option 2 only allows reporters to view the data. Having the option to comment and identify possible errors in recalculated values is an important part of the stakeholder process and ensures that data comparisons to 2013 and future years are based on accurate information.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment:  EPA should not impose the burden of review and certification of emission estimates by reporters. There is no practical value in recalculating emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and reporters should not be expected to devote resources to such an endeavor.
On the other hand, EPA's proposed rule unnecessarily attempts to foreclose the opportunity to correct EPA calculations. If EPA decides to move forward with Option 2, the Agency should announce that it will accept and take into account any information submitted by reporters that is intended to correct or otherwise influence EPA's recalculated CO2e emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Pamela Lacey, Senior Managing Counsel, Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0080-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  EPA has requested comments on the two options for revision and republication of emissions estimates for prior years. AGA supports Option 2, in which EPA proposes to recalculate the CO2e emissions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. We appreciate EPA's offer to run this calculation internally so that individual reporters do not face this burden. However, AGA requests that reporters have the opportunity to comment on EPA's recalculated values and provide corrections if needed. Currently, Option 2 would only allow reporters to view the data. Having the option to comment and identify possible errors in recalculated values is an important part of the stakeholder process and ensures that data comparisons to 2013 and future years will be based on accurate information.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy, American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President,
Commenter Affiliation:  American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0058-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  17
Comment:  With respect to revised emissions estimates for 2010, 2011, and 2012 based on revised GWPs: AF&PA and AWC question the need for revising these estimates. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule has been an evolving requirement throughout that period--with new sources being added and emission estimating methods being revised, as well as improvements in estimates as facilities gained experience and, in some cases, switched from reporting based on BAAM. Thus, even if total estimates for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were revised to reflect the proposed new GWPs, that would still not make, e.g., 2010 total emissions directly comparable to 2013 emissions. If EPA nonetheless sees a significant value in revising past years' estimates, we do not believe EPA should revise the emission estimates itself based on new GWPs alone (i.e., "Option 2" on p. 19,834 of the proposed rule). Rather, EPA should (1) give facilities the option of recalculating estimated emissions for prior years themselves and submitting the revised estimates to EPA within 12 months after the rule is finalized, and (2) update prior years' estimates -- whether based on facilities' own submissions or EPA doing the recalculation itself -- not only using revised GWPs, but also reflecting other revisions EPA has made to emission estimation methods. For example, revised emission estimates for recovery furnaces should reflect not only the different GWPs EPA is proposing, but also the lower default methane and nitrous oxide emission factors in the proposed rule. Another example is the important clarification of dry basis for the High Heat Value (HHV) and proposed change in the HHV itself for wood and wood residuals in Table C-1. In many instances these other improvements to emission estimation methods will have a greater impact on total facility estimated greenhouse gas emissions than the revised GWPs, so it is important that they be reflected in recalculated emissions from past years if the past years' estimates are to be compared to more recent years, as well as to make the past years' estimates more comparable to greenhouse gas emissions being reported by other countries.
Response:   See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs,
Commenter Affiliation:  Portland Cement Association (PCA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0061-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  PCA members support clarity and predictability with respect to calculation and submission of GHG emissions data pursuant to the requirements of the MRR. Retroactively revising data submitted in prior reports undermines regulatory and business certainty and may have the unintended consequence of altering GHG mitigation strategies currently being deployed by cement makers. To promote regulatory certainty, PCA members recommend that EPA reject both options, whether it constitutes an independent recalculation of CO2e emissions on the part of cement makers as outlined under Option 1, or the EPA supplying revised emissions for each facility based on the new data, per Option 2. Whereas both options undermine regulatory certainty, Option 1 includes the added disadvantage of increasing paperwork and administrative burdens by requiring cement makers to recalculate reports already submitted for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 reporting years. Furthermore, EPA estimates that Option 1 impose on reporters a total one-time cost of $3.5 million for re-submittal and recertification of 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports.
Option 2 also creates regulatory confusion. While Option 2 shifts the paperwork burden associated with revising the prior year reports to regulators, it denies a reporting entity the authority to calculate emissions from facilities over which it is responsible for compliance with PSD permits, among other requirements. EPA concedes that Option 2 is flawed because reporters would be unable to submit revised emission estimates or comment on the estimation methods used to calculate the updated CO2e totals; therefore, they would have less control over the revised data. While EPA claims that the calculation is very straightforward for most reporters, EPA further concedes there could be some uncertainty associated with the revisions to subpart L emission data if Option 2 is selected. It is because of this built-in uncertainty that causes PCA members to oppose any revisions whatsoever to the reports filed for the past three reporting years.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  In the 2013 GHGRP Revisions preamble, EPA proposes to implement the new GWP values starting with the reporting of CY2013 GHG emissions, due by March 31, 2014. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,832]. Further, EPA recognizes that other EPA programs, such as the GHG "tailoring rule," cross reference the Table A-1 GWP values for purposes of calculating GHG emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs.[Id. at 19,808-19,809]. As proposed, the Inventory would first start using the revised GWP values in 2015 (reflecting CY1990 - CY2013) emissions, but EPA is proposing to "recalculate" the CY2010-CY2012 GHGRP emissions and is silent on whether it would recalculate the CY1990-CY2013 Inventory emissions.
TFI suggests that EPA should not recalculate either the CY1990-CY2012 Inventory emissions or the CY2010-CY2012 GHGRP emissions as these emissions are in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used by sources for purposes of evaluating applicability of the PSD and Title V "tailoring" rule. TFI feels that changing values already made available will also undermine public confidence in the overall database.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kara M. Montalvo, Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting
Commenter Affiliation:  Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0040-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  In this rulemaking action, EPA proposes to implement new global warming potential (GWP) values for greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutants to ensure continued consistency with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. EPA also has proposed to "recalculate" the GHGRP emissions for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using these revised GWP values.
As such, EPA proposed two options for retroactively recalculating and reporting prior years GHG emission estimates, as follows:
Option 1 --  Reporting entities recalculate GHG emissions provided in prior reporting years using the revised GWPs and resubmit these reports to EPA; or
Option 2  --  EPA recalculates GHG emissions from prior reporting years using the revised GWPs and applies that data to prior reporting years.
There are significant issues with either option currently being contemplated by the EPA. Most notably, under either option, EPA is requiring that emission estimates previously calculated in good faith be reassessed based on a revised rule that is being implemented as many as 3 years after the data was first reported. It is inappropriate to retroactively assess data based on regulatory requirements that were not in place at the time the emissions reporting took place.
The only real difference between the two options is the entity that is required to perform the work associated with recalculating and re-reporting GHG emissions data. Regardless of which entity is required to perform these additional calculations, it creates a substantial reporting burden without any real benefit. Even if EPA addresses this reporting burden by selecting Option 2, reporting entities will still incur additional workload resulting from their desire to ensure they are in agreement with EPA's revised calculations.
It seems more logical from a legal, scientific, and workload perspective to apply the new GWPs once they are approved in a forward-thinking manner rather than applying them retroactively. As such, SRP recommends that EPA consider and adopt a third option in which changes to GWPs that affect emission estimates be applied prospectively to future GHG emission reports.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Mike Roddy, Director of Environmental Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0042-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  EPA should not recalculate prior Inventory or GHGRP emissions as they are already in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used to evaluate applicability under other regulatory programs, including for PSD and Title V permitting under EPA's Tailoring Rule. Changing prior values may also undermine public confidence in the overall database.
If EPA nevertheless decides to revise prior reported emissions, EPA should recalculate the values itself, and not mandate that sources revise prior reports. However, EPA should allow sources the opportunity to review, and, as necessary, inform EPA of errors, prior to EPA making the "recalculated" emissions publicly available. EPA should also make it clear that any prior reported emission data that is recalculated based on any new GWP has no relevance to prior regulatory determinations made in reliance on prior GWP value, including for Title V or PSD applicability under the "Tailoring Rule."
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs,
Commenter Affiliation:  Portland Cement Association (PCA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0061-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  As a general policy rationale, EPA suggests it is promoting transparency by claiming that revision of GHG emission estimates in reports for years 2010, 2011, and 2012 --  either by reporters or by the EPA -- would allow for the comparison of emission data submitted for those reporting years with data submitted in 2013 and future reporting years and ensure that published annual GHG reports are based on a common metric. According to EPA, this would allow regulators and the public to more efficiently analyze changes in GHG emissions and industry trends in a time series. PCA disagrees with the above rationale. Cement makers have established, by means of a long history of tracking their GHG emissions, implementation plans for increasing energy efficiency and mitigating GHG emissions, all pursuant to various reporting programs that have not retroactively altered data for purposes of previous years' recordkeeping. Furthermore, by revising methodologies and data retroactively to alter previously filed reports and denying the regulated community any control over new methodologies, EPA is undermining transparency in the regulatory process.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  An area where we do have concern is with EPA's proposal to apply the revisions to prior reporting years. EPA's preferred approach is to independently recalculate revised CO2e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting year emissions on the basis that it would allow for the comparison of emissions data submitted for those reporting years with data submitted in 2013 and future reporting years. A second proposed option is to have reporters resubmit their prior year reports using the revised GWPs. We do not concur with either of these approaches but believe a third approach is necessary; recommending that all technical revisions within the GHG MRR, now, and into the future, be applied prospectively.
We recommend that all technical revisions within the GHG MRR now, and into the future, be applied prospectively. This approach will have the lowest impact on GHG regulatory permitting programs at the federal, state and local levels. If EPA believes that its GHG reporting program should be comparable over the years, then a less disruptive approach could be to re-calculate emissions and only report the global emissions change associated with the technical corrections. If a higher level of resolution is desired this report could also include the overall emission changes at the industry sector level; but not at a facility level. Also, this approach should not be selective in its updates, but include all technical updates that significantly impact emission estimates. This approach allows global comparisons of GHG emissions throughout the years, but avoids the facility level impacts that will occur with retroactive application of technical changes.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  EPA Should Not "Recalculate" Earlier GHGRP Data Utilizing the New GWP Values.
Since the stated purpose of the GHGRP is to "inform" and "complement" the Inventory, it is not clear why it is necessary to recalculate the GHGRP emissions rather than simply update the Inventory. In the preamble, EPA recognizes that other programs, such as the GHG "tailoring rule," cross reference the Table A-1 GWP values for purposes of calculating GHG emissions and determining applicability under the NSR and Title V permitting programs. GPA recommends that EPA not recalculate the CY2010-CY2012 GHGRP emissions, as these emissions are in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used by sources for purposes of evaluating applicability of the NSR and Title V "tailoring" rule.
Response:  See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  ACC has a few concerns with EPA's proposal to use these new GWPs and emission factors to revise and republish CO2e emissions estimates for the reporting years of 2010, 2011, and 2012. First, the precedential nature of this activity creates a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding how similar situations will be handled in the future. For instance, as the IPCC continues to update GWPs, it is unclear how, or even if, EPA plans to revise its own GWPs to remain consistent with new IPCC revisions. It is also unclear how often EPA may opt to revise or upgrade emission factors, and whether those changes will require older reports to be revised. These uncertainties need to be considered and addressed by the Agency.
Response:  For the response to the comment regarding EPA plans to revise GWPs in the future, see Section II.A.2 of the preamble. For the response to the comment regarding updates to emission factors and revision of prior year reports, see response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0058-A1, Excerpt 17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  5