Comment:  EPA is proposing changes to the HHV and emission factors in Table NN-1 and NN-2. EPA is proposing to revise the default HHV and emission factors for the individual components of liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including propane, ethane, isobutane, and butane. These values for Table NN-1 and NN-2 are based on the same HHV, density and carbon share used for the HHV and emission factors in Table C-1 and MM-1. Since these compounds are gases under standard conditions, the default emission factors in Table NN-1 and NN-2 (kg CO2 per MMBtu or MT CO2 per barrel) and HHV in Table NN-1 (MMBtu per barrel) must be presented using a density at a stated temperature and pressure. For all these LPGs, we are proposing calculated values of HHV and emission factors using the density of the liquid at 60°F and saturation pressure, standard temperature and pressure conditions used by industry. The current and proposed default HHV and emission factors are shown in the following tables.
API supports the proposed revisions as they are more in line with values reported in API's Compendium.
The proposed rule changes and preamble do not discuss whether the changes for the emission factors and density values apply to reports starting in 2013, or if the values are to be retroactively applied to previous reports. API opposes applying these revisions to previously submitted reports. Reporters should not have to resubmit reports to incorporate these changes for 2010, 2011, or 2012 reporting. These revisions should only apply going forward.
EPA should restrain from frequent revisions to default factors, as any changes made to the factors in the rule requires companies to make changes to their internal reporting systems and processes to align with the revised factors in the rule and subsequent changes to the reporting forms and XML schema. These are not trivial activities. This incurs costs and requires time for the reporting companies to implement and test these changes
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the revisions to the default HHV and emission factors in Tables NN-1 and NN-2. EPA is not requiring reporters to revise their RY2010 through RY2012 reports to incorporate the revised default emission factors. For additional information regarding retroactive submittals of prior year reports, please see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  14
Comment:  GPA agrees with the need to clarify Subpart NN reporting requirements and supports EPA's proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4) and Table 7. GPA requests EPA's assurance that these changes will be applied to future reporting requirements and that EPA will not require past reports to be revised or resubmitted.
Response:  Thank you for your support for the revisions to 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4). For the response to the comments on revising past reports and the revisions to Table NN-1 of the rule (shown in Table 7 of the proposal preamble), please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0047-A2, excerpt 37.
Other comments on proposed subpart NN Technical Corrections
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:  6
Comment:  Xcel Energy requests clarification on the definition of an end-user as related to a series of customer meters. Under §98.406(b)(13), end-user relates to residential, commercial, industrial and electricity generating facilities under EIA Form 176. Xcel Energy recommends further defining an end-user under Equation NN-4 to constitute gas service at a single service address.
Response:  For the response to this comment, please see Section II.U.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
Revisions to Subpart PP
No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart.
Revisions to Subpart QQ
Revisions to reporting requirements (i.e., dates of import/export)
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:  9
Comment:  Dow supports EPA's proposed change to remove the requirement to report the dates on which closed-cell foams were imported or exported (40 CFR 98.436(a)(5),(a)(6)(iv), and 98.436(b)(5)). We agree with EPA's rationale that this level of specificity is not needed to verify the amounts of closed-cell foams imported and exported.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Frederick Sciance
Commenter Affiliation:  General Motors LLC
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0062
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  General Motors supports the proposal to eliminate the requirement to report the specific dates of import or export of pre-charged equipment or closed cell foams [40 CFR 98.436(a)(5) and 40 CFR 98.436 (b)(5)].
Automobile air conditioner systems are charged with refrigerant at the automobile assembly plant, and it would be very inefficient to attempt to charge them at a later point in the distribution chain...
Gathering and reporting these dates of import and export of various products under Subpart QQ of the EPA greenhouse gas reporting rule has been a very time consuming and difficult task over the past two years. Yet reporting of the specific dates adds no value, since the total quantities of vehicles, refrigerant and foam are the relevant information that is of interest.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0076-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  For Subpart QQ, EPA proposed to revise the reporting requirements for 40 CFR 98.436(a)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii) to match the reported data element to the units required to be reported. Specifically, EPA proposed to change from "mass in CO2e" to "density in CO2e." The units specified for the data elements in the current subpart QQ are kg CO 2 e/cubic foot, and EPA did not change that in its proposal. AHAM does not oppose the proposed revision to match the reported data element to the units required to be reported.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0076-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA also proposed to remove the following reporting requirements to alleviate burden on reporters: 40 CFR. 98.436(a)(5), (a)(6)(iv), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(iv). Those provisions require reporters to supply the dates on which pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams were imported or exported. AHAM strongly supports removal of these reporting requirements. AHAM agrees that tracking and reporting each shipment by date is burdensome. In addition, because EPA did not determine the date of import/export data to be confidential, as we commented before, it could allow competitors to more easily link import and export data to related customs data. Accordingly, we support EPA's proposal to remove these reporting requirements.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship
Commenter Affiliation:  GE Appliances
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0054-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  I am writing in support of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and in particular the revisions related to Subpart QQ impacting the reporting for pre-charged appliance products. Like AHAM, GE Appliances underscores the importance of EPA's proposal to remove the requirements for reporters to supply the dates on which pre-charged equipment or closed cell-forms were imported and exported. In addition to this requirement being very burdensome, it is potentially inconsistent with how import and exports are tracked, and therefore leads to ambiguity in the reporting of these dates.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  22
Comment:  ACC is encouraged by EPA's proposed removal of the reporting requirements under Subpart QQ in 40 CFR 98.436(a)(5), (a)(6)(iv), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(iv), requiring the reporting of import and export dates for pre-charged equipment or closed-cell foams. These proposed changes will alleviate an unnecessary burden on reporters by helping to streamline the reporting process.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Comments on Rule issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship
Commenter Affiliation:  GE Appliances
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0054-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  We would strongly urge EPA to consider adopting AHAM's suggestions of explicitly allowing conservative reporting of charge amounts, adopting a de minimis threshold for reporting amendments, and explicitly exempting components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeration and/or insulation. By adopting these changes, EPA will significantly address the burden associated with these reporting requirements for manufacturers, and make the reporting much more straightforward and less subject to error.
Response:  EPA appreciates this comment; however it is beyond the scope of the proposed rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0076-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  AHAM respectfully requests that EPA consider allowing reporters to have some modest amount of discretion in revising reports when the revision would be a de minimus representation of the data. For example, currently it seems that if exports in one calendar year are returned during the next calendar year, a reporter would need to revise a report to show this as a "change." In reality, however, it is not a change. EPA should consider some sort of threshold below which no revised report is required. EPA also could permit conservative reporting such that a reporter might not revise a report in the sort of situation identified above.
In addition, AHAM urges EPA to recognize this de minimus concept and allow companies discretion to report conservatively in certain instances. For instance, if the charge of the fluorinated gas changes in an engineering revision of a model year, a company should be able to use that conservative (higher) charge volume in reporting for all derivatives of that basic model during the year. EPA should further consider specifically excluding components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeration and/or insulation. Examples include mechanical thermostats, drain valves and cold control sensors. The miniscule, if any, contribution to total CO2 equivalent of these types of data do not justify the significant burden and potential sources of error introduced by requiring this level of detail in the reporting. Further, in instances where the identity of a fluorinated gas cannot be determined from a supplier due to proprietary reasons, it may be useful to allow reporting of just the CO2 equivalent of the gas in certain instances, to facilitate reporting and avoid the ambiguity around the certification of inability to obtain the data from suppliers.
Response:  EPA appreciates this comment; however it is beyond the scope of the proposed rule.
Revisions to Subpart RR
No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart.
Revisions to Subpart SS
No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart.
Revisions to Subpart TT
Revisions to calculation methods
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:  10
Comment:  EPA should further simplify the requirements regarding the oxidation factors for reporting CH4 emissions from industrial landfills.
EPA should consider another option for the use of oxidation factors for reporting CH4 emissions under Subpart TT. In order to streamline the calculations and to use a consistent basis from year to year, EPA should allow the reporter an option to continue to use an oxidation factor of 0.1. This option would lead to conservative emission estimates from industrial landfills since 90% of the CH4 that is generated will be emitted. In addition, for our industrial facilities these emissions are minor compared to those from other Subparts so we encourage EPA to provide a streamlined approach to estimating emissions from Subpart TT landfills vs. requiring the use of additional flux calculations and the use of factors on Table HH-4.
However, if EPA opts not to allow this option, then EPA should copy Table HH-4 and the associated equations into Subpart TT so that all required calculations and factors are included in Subpart TT of the rule.
Response:  We agree that it is reasonable to allow landfill owners or operators an option to simply retain the use of the 10% default oxidation factor without the need to do additional flux calculations, and this appears to be reasonable for both MSW and industrial waste landfills, with the exception of the following case. Landfills that do not have a soil cover of at least 12 inches in depth are not likely to have significant soil oxidation; these landfills are required to use an oxidation factor of 0% in today's final rule. See also our responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1, Excerpt 15 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0037, Excerpt 2 in Sections 22.3 and 22.5, respectively, of this document. We did not copy the table into Subpart TT as landfills with gas collection systems are already required to refer to Subpart HH. We did, however, clarify that GCH4 is determined using Equation HH-1 or Equation TT-1, as applicable. W
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  12
Comment:  One related aspect of the use of the DOC in estimating landfill emissions pursuant to Subpart TT deserves clarification: The original Subpart TT regulations allowed facilities to develop a DOC for use when estimating emissions from historic waste deposits. It appeared, however, that once such a DOC was developed, the same DOC was required to be used for these historic deposits in all future reports under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, even if better information became available. See 40 CFR. §98.463(a)(3), particularly the passage: "The historical values for DOC or DOCx must be developed only for the first annual report required for the industrial waste landfill; and used for all subsequent annual reports (e.g., if DOC for year x = 1990 was determined to be 0.15 in the first reporting year, you must use 0.15 for the 1990 DOC value for all subsequent annual reports)." This was not reasonable at the time, especially since facilities had relatively little time to develop such historical DOCs, following EPA's protocol, for the first required reporting of landfill methane emissions under a new reporting scheme and procedures. Making those initial determinations unchangeable would make even less sense now, when EPA is itself revising DOCs applicable to various wastes landfilled in the forest products industry. An interpretation that the historical DOC that the facility first chose is fixed for all time appears to be at odds with 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h), which requires a facility to submit a revised report if the facility becomes aware of a substantive error in the prior report -- which presumably could include an error in the DOC applied to historical deposits in the landfill. In fact, in response to a question last fall, the EPA e-GGRT Help Desk indicated that a facility could recalculate and resubmit an annual GHG report if it determined that there is a more accurate method for estimating emissions, which could include a more accurate DOC than what was used in the past.
Response:  See Section II.Z.2 of the preamble 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:  13
Comment:  We note also that EPA has proposed to change the regulations to recognize that it is appropriate to use a new DOC for historically managed wastes derived using the 60-day anaerobic digestion test. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,830. The same considerations should lead to a similar approach when a new DOC is derived using the volatile solids content measurement approach. Accordingly, AF&PA and AWC ask that EPA clarify that a revised, more accurate DOC may be used to characterize emissions from waste deposited in the past, either by modifying 40 CFR §98.463(a)(3) or, at a minimum, by publishing in the preamble to the final rule an explanation that 40 CFR. §98.3(h) allows a facility to use a new, more accurate DOC to represent previously landfilled waste.
Response:  See Section II.Z.2 of the preamble 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:  14
Comment:  AF&PA and AWC also want to point out one apparent oversight in the way EPA proposes to revise Subpart TT to provide for adjustment of methane emission rates to account for surface oxidation of methane, using formulas EPA has developed for municipal waste landfills (rather than using an assumption of 10% oxidation as required in current 40 C.F.R. § 98.463(b)(1)). We support this apparent improvement in methane emission estimation. We are concerned, however, that Table H-4, to which the proposed revised section 98.463(b)(1) in Subpart TT would refer, provides alternative methane oxidation fractions for different ranges of methane flux rates, but the equation that would be used to determine methane flux rate includes a variable, GCH4, which is defined in terms of modeled methane emissions from equations in Subpart HH, for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, rather than Equation TT-1, which is used to calculate GCH4 for Industrial Landfills pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 98.463(a)(1). See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,867-68 and 19,876. EPA should add Equation TT-1 to the reference to Equations HH-1, HH-4, and HH-6 in the definition of GCH4 in proposed Table HH-4.
Response:  We agree. We have revised the definition of the footnote for GCH4 to read:  "Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH - 1 of this subpart or Equation TT-1 of subpart TT of this part, as applicable, except for application with Equation HH-6 of this subpart (metric tons CH4). For application with Equation HH-6 of this subpart, the greater of the modeled methane generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH - 1 of this subpart or Equation TT-1 of this part, as applicable, and the quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH - 4 of this subpart (metric tons CH4)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  18
Comment:  ACC supports the proposed changes for Subpart TT, including revisions to terms used in equations TT-1 and TT-7 to determine waste stream-specific degradable organic carbon (DOC) for facilities' biodegradation tests.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  21
Comment:  ACC requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that the proposed revised oxidation factor approach for calculating CH4 emissions be used for reporting years 2013 and forward, and not require facilities to revise emissions data from reporting years 2010  -  2012. Such retroactive revisions would be time-consuming and expensive while resulting in minimal changes to reported emissions.
Response:  We agree. The calculation of the oxidation factor only impacts the current reporting year. Landfill owners or operators will not be required to determine methane fluxes for previous annual reports and revise those reports if a different oxidation factor applies. We have revised Table HH-3 to clarify that an oxidation factor of 0.1 must be used for reports prior to RY2013 and that the new oxidation factors can only be used starting with the RY2013 and later annual reports.
Revisions to Table TT-1
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:  9
Comment:  Although the changes EPA has proposed to the default DOC table, Table TT-1, will improve the accuracy of estimated GHG emissions from pulp and paper mill landfills, they do not go far enough. EPA has proposed a new DOC for "industrial sludge" that would apply to industrial sludges landfilled by pulp and paper mills and wood products facilities. That value is less than half of the current default DOC value for all non-exempt pulp and paper industry waste. It also is consistent with the IPCC default DOC for industrial sludge. AF&PA and AWC therefore support that new waste classification and default DOC. AF&PA is concerned, however, that applying a default DOC of 0.20 (wet basis) for all other waste from pulp and paper mills substantially overestimates methane emissions from landfills accepting such waste. A substantial portion of the other waste generated by many chemical pulp mills is (a) residuals from the pulping chemical recovery process and (b) ash from boilers fired with wood or wood residue. These waste streams are predominantly inorganic materials with essentially no DOC and potential for methane generation. Boiler ash is the residual, largely mineral, material remaining after efficient combustion of wood and wood residue or other fuels. The pulping chemical recovery portion of a pulp mill generates "causticizing wastes" that are comprised of inorganic chemicals such as calcium and sodium carbonate and sulfates that would not be expected to decompose or to otherwise release methane in landfill environments.
Because of the processes involved, however, there may be small amounts of organic carbon carried over from the pulping process or remaining as uncombusted fuel in ash, which would prevent the waste from meeting the definition of "Inert Waste," for which Table TT-1 assigns a DOC of zero (i.e., the volatile solids concentration may be somewhat higher than 0.5 weight percent (on a dry basis)). If they are lumped in with "Pulp and Paper (other than sludge)," however, they will be assigned a DOC of 0.20 that will result in greatly overstating the potential of these wastes to generate methane in the landfill.
Response:  See Section II.Z.2 of the preamble 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:  10
Comment:  AF&PA and NCASI have submitted information to EPA, including NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 793, which accompanied an October 3, 2011 letter from Dr. Brad Upton of NCASI to Rachel Schmeltz of EPA, showing that the essentially inert boiler ash and chemical recovery system causticizing wastes made up 31% and 17% (on a dry basis), respectively, of the total by weight of materials deposited in pulp and paper mill landfills in 1995 (based on an industry survey). Using an inappropriately high DOC for these waste streams therefore will result in a substantial overestimation of methane emissions from such landfills.
Response:  See Section II.Z.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:  11
Comment:  One AF&PA member conducted DOC tests, using the volatile solids method, on samples of various waste streams at a number of their mills in the first quarter of 2013. Those data confirm that wood-fired boiler ash and causticizing wastes have very low DOCs, although they may have volatile solids concentrations higher than the 0.5 weight percent (on a dry basis) threshold for excluding wastes from GHG landfill emission calculations as inert, under 40 C.F.R. § 98.460(c)(2)(xii) and Table TT-1. The DOCs for boiler ash ranged from 0.049 to 0.11, and the DOCs for causticizing wastes (lime mud, lime slaker grits, green liquor clarifier dregs) ranged from 0.0023 to 0.056.
Three out of four ash samples had DOCs below 0.07. While these are only results from an initial round of testing and may not represent the full range of DOCs, these data provide additional indications that the boiler ash and causticizing area waste streams at a pulp and paper mill have a DOC (and therefore a potential for methane emissions in the landfill) far lower than the 0.2 DOC EPA proposes to apply to all mill wastes other than "industrial sludge." The approach to DOCs that EPA has proposed for landfills at pulp and paper mills therefore would continue to overstate substantially the GHG emissions from those landfills. The same is true of including ash from wood-fired boilers in with other wastes in the "Wood and Wood Product (other than sludge)" category, for which Table TT-1 applies a default DOC of 0.43. AF&PA sees two potential resolutions to this inaccuracy: (1) EPA could create separate categories of wastes that would include these largely inorganic waste streams and assign a DOC of 0.09 or less. The categories could be defined as: "solid and semi-solid wastes from the chemical recovery process at chemical pulp mills" and "ash from combustion of wood and wood residue at pulp and paper mills and wood and wood products facilities" (or perhaps the two could be combined into a single waste category); or (2) EPA could clarify that the term "industrial sludge" (which is undefined in the proposed rule) is intended to encompass materials that meet the common, dictionary meaning of "sludge" (e.g., "thick, soft, wet mud or a similar viscous mixture of liquid and solid components, especially the product of an industrial or refining process"), as well as the meaning EPA often gives to "sludge," i.e. residue removed from wastewater treatment or air pollution control equipment. This would then allow mills to apply the "industrial sludge" DOC to the high-inorganic-content wastes from the pulping chemical recovery process, such as lime mud and green liquor clarifier dregs, as well as to high inorganic-content ash removed from air pollution control equipment on wood-fired boilers. While the default DOC of 0.09 that EPA proposes for Industrial Sludge still would result in overstatement of emissions from the essentially inert ash and causticizing wastes, it would be much more accurate than using a DOC of 0.20. Regardless of the approach EPA chooses, it is essential to recognize that the potential methane emissions from these wastes would be greatly overstated by using the 0.20 DOC proposed for "Pulp and Paper (other than sludge)" wastes.
Response:  See Section II.Z.2 of the preamble 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:  20
Comment:  ACC also supports the proposed revisions to Table TT-1 to improve the accuracy of default DOC and industrial sludge values.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

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

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:  20
Comment:  AF&PA and AWC also ask that application of the proposed revised DOCs for industrial landfills be optional for the 2013 reporting year. EPA is proposing to use different default DOCs for landfills associated with pulp and paper mills depending on whether waste is considered "Industrial Sludge" or "Pulp and Paper (other than sludge)."
Likewise, landfills associated with wood products facilities would use one DOC for "Industrial Sludge" and another for "Wood or Wood Product (other than sludge)." 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,877. Since there is no such distinction in the current Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, see 40 C.F.R. Part 68 Subpart TT Table T-1, facilities in those industrial sectors may not have been collecting data on solid waste sent to the landfill broken down according to those classifications. Facilities should have the option to use the existing calculation method for the 2013 reporting year and use the revised DOCs in the proposed rule beginning with the 2014 reporting year.
Response:  Subpart TT requires that the current year waste quantities be determined separately for each waste stream that is disposed of in the landfill as specified in §98.463(a)(2)(i). Given the definition of "waste stream", we expect that all industrial waste landfill owner or operator would have all of the data needed to implement the new default DOC values for wastewater sludges. The landfill owner or operator would simply need to classify the waste stream-specific quantities that should already be collected as either an "industrial sludge" waste stream or an "other than sludge" waste stream. As such, we do not believe that it is necessary to wait to implement the additional DOC values in Table TT-1.
Revisions to reporting requirements
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:  11
Comment:  EPA should consider removing the requirement to report information on inert waste streams since they do not contribute to the facility's CH4 generation.
Dow is also concerned with one other aspect of EPA's proposal that affirms that the owner/operator must report the volume of inert wastes under Subpart TT even though this information is not used to determine methane generation rates or emissions. In order to further reduce the burden on reporting sites, EPA should revise the rule to eliminate the requirement to report volumes and details on inert wastes.
Response:  In order to assess the impacts of certain policy decisions, it is often necessary to assess the active life of a landfill and the number of new landfills that may be permitted over a given time period. These projections are generally made using landfill capacity data annual waste disposal rates. If the waste quantity data for inerts are not collected, then these projections would be inaccurate. Thus, even though they do not directly contribute to GHG emissions, these data are needed to accurately assess policy options that may be considered regarding landfill GHG emissions. Therefore, we are not revising subpart TT to eliminate this reporting requirement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  19
Comment:  ACC supports EPA's proposal to provide further clarification and reduce duplicative reporting requirements through revisions to 40 CFR 98.466(c) and equations TT-4a and 4b.
Response:  Thank you for your support.
Revisions to Subpart UU
No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart.
Revisions to Other Subparts
Comments on Rule issues not proposed for subpart G
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:  2
Comment:  TFI has long been an advocate for ensuring consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory. This is particularly true with how the Agency handles the reporting of CO2 bound in urea produced by ammonia manufacturing units under Subpart G of the GHGRP and the Inventory. TFI continues to be concerned with the requirement to report CO2 bound in urea produced by ammonia manufacturing units under Subpart G of the GHGRP as a GHG "emission." The CO2 bound in urea is not an "emission" by any common-sense understanding of that word. Further, the requirement to report CO2 bound in urea under Subpart G is (1) inconsistent with EPA's statements in the preamble of the GHGRP, (2) internally inconsistent with the regulatory language itself, (3) contrary to EPA's approach for other source categories in the GHGRP, and (4) contrary to EPA's methodology in the Inventory.
EPA states in the preamble to the final GHGRP, and reiterates in Subpart G, that ammonia manufacturing facilities must report only: (1) process emissions; (2) emissions from stationary combustion units; and (3) CO2 collected and transferred off-site or sequestered, under Subpart PP of the GHGRP. CO2 bound in urea does not fit into any of these three categories. Additionally, the general policy of the GHGRP, as expressed in 40 C.F.R. § 98.1, is to gather GHG data from "certain facilities that directly emit GHGs as well as for certain fossil fuel suppliers and industrial GHG suppliers." The policy therefore is to gather data on "direct emissions," which from a common sense perspective means releases to the atmosphere. The requirement to report CO2 bound in urea, and not "emitted," is thus inconsistent with EPA's statements in the preamble and with other provisions of Subpart G.
Importantly, other source categories regulated under the GHGRP are able to account for carbon bound in products (and thus not "emitted"), and report only net emissions, or report carbon bound in products as data distinct from emissions reporting. For example, Subpart X, setting forth reporting requirements for the petrochemical production source category, allows for accounting of "net annual carbon input or output," which includes offsets and excludes carbon not emitted from the facility.
Additionally, Subpart P, which sets forth reporting requirements for the hydrogen production source category, is structured in a manner similar to Subpart G, in that hydrogen production facilities are required to report only the same three categories as ammonia production facilities, as noted above. EPA states in the preamble to the GHGRP that several commenters on Subpart P pointed out the need for a calculation methodology to account for feedstock carbon that does not exit the hydrogen production facility as CO2, but rather in the form of other products or co-products containing carbon. EPA responded to these comments by stating that it "generally concurs with the need to account for carbon other than CO2 that exits the facility. EPA considered several options for reporting such carbon and chose to have facilities report CO2 and `carbon other than CO2' as separate data reporting elements."
Given the similarities in the types of emissions reported under Subparts G and P, and the analogous nature of the CO2 bound in urea shipped from ammonia manufacturing facilities and "carbon other than CO2" shipped from hydrogen production facilities, TFI is confused why it is required to report CO2 bound in urea as an emission under Subpart G. Further, TFI questions why sources in Subpart X are able to reduce their carbon reporting for carbon in products, while sources in Subpart G are not able to reduce their CO2 reporting for CO2 in urea. Based on our review of the GHGRP preamble and Response to Comments document, TFI is unable to ascertain the rationale for this disparate treatment of source categories.
EPA's requirement in the GHGRP to report CO2 bound in urea is also inconsistent with EPA's approach in the Inventory. In the Inventory, EPA does not attribute CO2 bound to urea to the ammonia manufacturing sector because the CO2 is not emitted by this sector; it is used to produce a product. As noted by EPA in its most recent draft Inventory:
Only the CO2 emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process are accounted for in determining emissions from ammonia production. The CO2 that is captured during the ammonia production process and used to produce urea does not contribute to the CO2 emission estimates for ammonia production presented in this section. Instead, CO2 emissions resulting from the consumption of urea are attributed to the urea consumption or urea application source category (under the assumption that the C stored in the urea during its manufacture is released into the environment during its consumption or application). Emissions of CO2 are accounted for in the Cropland Remaining Cropland section of the Land Use, Land-use Change, and Forestry chapter. Emissions of CO2 resulting from non-agricultural applications of urea (e.g., use as a feedstock in chemical production processes) are accounted for in the Urea Consumption for Non-Agricultural Purposes section of the Industrial Process chapter.
EPA should apply this same common sense approach in its GHGRP for the ammonia manufacturing source category.
EPA's settlement agreement with TFI involving our challenge to the GHGRP requires EPA, which it does, to include the following language in both Subpart G and EPA's publicly available GHGRP data: " CO2 process emission reported under this subpart may include CO2 that is later consumed on-site for urea production, and therefore is not released to the ambient air from the ammonia manufacturing process unit." While this is helpful to contextualize the data, releasing data collected under the GHGRP and the Inventory will confuse the public due to the differing methodologies employed and the GHGRP data will lead the public to incorrectly conclude that the ammonia manufacturing sector has much larger CO2 emissions to the atmosphere than is the case. In addition, we are concerned that any Climate Change legislation may mandate use of the GHGRP data and not allow EPA to properly reduce the CO2 emissions reported by ammonia manufacturers to reflect only actual emissions to the atmosphere.
As such, to achieve its stated desire for GHGRP and Inventory consistency, EPA should revise Subpart G and only require the reporting of CO2 emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process.
Response:  See Section II.BB.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
Schedule for Implementation
Proposed schedule for existing reporters
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:  1
Comment:  AFPM supports EPA's proposal that Reporting Year 2013 (data reported by March 31, 2014) should serve as the effective date of the amendments for existing reporting facilities. While AFPM appreciates efforts to ensure adequate time to prepare for changes, we strongly urge EPA to finalize these provisions prior to December 31, 2013. This will ensure that facilities are given enough time to come into compliance with these provisions, and for EPA to ensure that the e-GGRT reporting system is modified in a timely manner to ensure accurate facility data reporting incorporating the reporting revisions.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of 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:  3
Comment:  Changes to the GWPs will directly affect compliance under both the reporting rule and the tailoring rule. The proposed changes to the GWPs will be particularly important for our sector, increasing the CO2e equivalence of fab GHG emissions by 10 - 20%. Adverse impacts can be avoided through managing the transition from one set of GWPs to the next. Most of the issues can be addressed if the affected parties are given time to transition from using the current GWPs to using the new ones. SIA recommends that the effective date for the revised and new GWPs be 12 months after the new values are set in a final rule. If EPA feels that the new GWPs need to be implemented more quickly for reporting, it is still imperative that their effective date under the tailoring rule be one year from their date of publication. Later in these comments, we outline the types of issues that will arise and how a one year transition to the new GWPs will allow for an orderly and non-punitive regulatory transition. This one year transition will address most of the compliance problems that the new GWPs create. Without this transition, GHG reporting, GHG permitting and the related projects at manufacturing facilities will be disrupted unnecessarily. Keep in mind that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was issued in 2007. We have been using "out of date" GWPs for six years. Deferring the update as it applies to permitting and reporting for one year is very reasonable when the alternative is to create coincident compliance problems arising solely out of the way that GHGs are weighted to determine emissions on a CO2e basis. The nature of the regulatory compliance problems that the GWPs change can create and the best ways to manage them are presented in the remainder of this comment. The first issue is the timing of the implementation of the new GWPs under the reporting rule. SIA agrees that the new GWPs should be applied at the start of a calendar year so that we do not have mixed GWPs in a single report. It will not be appropriate to apply the new GWPs to 2013 emissions, given that this rulemaking may change who must report and this rule may change the gases that must be reported. Therefore, given the current timeframe for final action on this rule, the new GWPs should be used for reporting of 2014 emissions (in early 2015).
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  2
Comment:  EPA should delay adoption of the IPCC AR4 factors to allow for a phase in period. EPA has indicated that the GHGRP data is used to "inform" and "complement" the Inventory. As such, there is no urgency to adopt the AR4 factors. EPA proposes requiring existing reporters to begin using the updated GWP values in Table A-1 starting with CY2013 reporting, due by March 31, 2014 (78 FR 19,832). GPA urges EPA to delay adoption of the updated GWPs until calendar year 2017 in order to provide businesses and industries sufficient time to understand the new factors and build them into their individual reporting, and more importantly permitting, programs. This implementation schedule would allow adequate time to coordinate the GHGRR with the NSR and Title V programs in an orderly way through a formal rulemaking process. It would allow operators the time needed to evaluate how this change impacts projects that are underway and those that are planned. Given the significant lead time and complexity involved with PSD permits, businesses need adequate time to determine, based on this new methane GWP, if certain projects are still even viable.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  16
Comment:  If the Part 98 GWP revisions are incorporated into the NSR and Title V programs, GPA urges the EPA to postpone application of the new factors to these programs until 2017. The regulated community requires this amount of lead time to incorporate the new GWPs into its business decisions.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  18
Comment:  For many of the same reasons discussed in the previous section of these comments, AF&PA and AWC urge EPA to be certain that there is adequate time between the promulgation of the proposed revisions (indeed, any revisions) to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and the deadline for filing reports. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asserts that it will present little problem for facilities to incorporate the changes in the proposed rule, if adopted before the end of 2013 as EPA plans, into their emissions estimates for 2013, which must be filed by March 31, 2014. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,832-33. AF&PA strongly disagrees and objects. Companies and facilities will have to reprogram their data acquisition, analysis, and reporting systems to incorporate not only revised GWPs but also revised emission factors (such as those proposed for recovery furnaces and biomass boilers, and others in Tables C-1 and C-2), revised emission estimation methods (such as the proposed revised and differentiated DOCs for landfills at pulp and paper mills and wood products facilities), and revised reporting requirements (such as revised reporting of production under proposed changes to subpart AA). In addition, some companies have implemented systems where estimated GHG emissions are calculated throughout the year, so they will have to go back and revise those calculations, rather than just applying a new factor in calculations to be performed in the first quarter of 2014.
At a minimum, the final rule should defer the reporting deadline for 2013 emissions until at least six months after the final revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is published in the Federal Register. For the initial, 2010 emission reports, EPA deferred the reporting deadline to September 30, in recognition of the burden imposed by recently released reporting requirements. There are similar justifications in this case. Also, in no event should reporting be required less than three months after EPA finalizes the XML for uploading the report electronically. (In some past years, the XML has not been finalized until shortly before the reporting deadline, imposing a major burden on companies' data management and information technology experts.)
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  16
Comment:  API is also concerned about the time required to implement these changes into existing reporting systems, particularly with respect to making changes to internal reporting systems to align with EPA's final xml schema or reporting forms. Based on previous reporting years, EPA seems to be in the habit of only providing 2 months or less for companies to make revisions to their internal reporting systems and is not providing sufficient documentation of the changes made to the XML schema. As a result, reporting companies are facing significant challenges to meeting the reporting deadlines. A minimum of three months is required between the time EPA releases a change to the reporting forms or XML schema and the report due date for companies to implement the changes into their reporting systems. This is not a trivial task. It requires significant company or contractor resources to make the changes to internal reporting system and to adequately test the changes prior to submitting to EPA.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  8
Comment:  EPA Should Adopt a Policy of Completing the Necessary Updates to e-GGRT and the xml Schema at Least 60 Days Prior to the Annual Reporting Due Date.
EPA has proposed a number of changes to various subparts of the GHG reporting rule, which will require EPA to finalize the rule amendments and subsequently update the reporting tools (e-GGRT, xml schema ) to reflect the changes. Given the significant number of large and complex facilities of ACC members, we respectfully request that EPA provide at least 60 days between the time e-GGRT and the updated xml schema are made available and the submission deadline for the annual report. Also, if e-GGRT and/or the xml schema are not ready for data entry by February 1st of a given year, ACC requests that the report submittal date be adjusted to equal the date that is 60 days after both e-GGRT and the xml schema are available for data entry for a given reporting year. This period would grant members with complex reporting requirements adequate time to revise their internal reporting systems as needed to align with EPA's updated reporting tools and complete the necessary quality checks prior to submitting their reports. Allowing this reasonable amount of time would help improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the reporting program as a whole.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  2
Comment:  It is also important for EPA to ensure that the e-GGRT reporting system is modified in a timely manner so as to not shorten the window for facility data reporting. Moreover, facilities need sufficient time to make the necessary revisions to their internal reporting systems to align with EPA's modified xml schema or e-GGRT report format.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  2
Comment:  Use of the AR4 GWP values is a requirement for IPCC reporting starting with the calendar year 2013 report (which would be published in 2015. EPA is proposing that existing GHGRP reporters begin using the updated GWPs in Tables A-1 for their reporting year 2013 annual reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2014.
As stated above, this is consistent with IPCC reporting requirements which is the driver for the annual national inventory prepared by EPA. API supports using the AR4 GWP values starting with the 2013 reporting year provided EPA makes the necessary changes to the e-GGRT system and the XML schema in a timely manner.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See Section III.A.2 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:  14
Comment:  Assuming that the amendments are finalized in 2013, INGAA agrees that it is feasible for existing reporters in the transmission and storage (T&S) segments to use updated GWPs for the 2013 report due in March 2014.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
Proposed schedule and BAMM for new reporters
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:  6
Comment:  Under §93.3(l)(1), new reporters are allowed to use BAMM for the first three months of 2014, and §93.3(l)(2) allows reporters to request BAMM beyond March 31, 2014. However, §93.3(l)(2)(iii) indicates that BAMM under this subsection will not be approved beyond December 31, 2014. In addition, the criteria in §93.3(l)(2)(ii) associated with a BAMM request are modeled after previous Subpart A sections and focus on the inability to install a monitor, thus failing to address other viable reasons for BAMM. For example, §93.236(f)(8) of Subpart W identifies other issues, such as safety, that may warrant the use of BAMM.
Several BAMM related issues should be addressed in the Proposed Rule:
:: §93.3(l) should provide additional flexibility for use of BAMM;
:: EPA should ensure that BAMM is accessible beyond 2014;
:: EPA should ensure that §93.3(l) criteria do not conflict with or supersede Subpart W BAMM provisions; and,
:: If BAMM provisions in both Subpart A and Subpart W apply, EPA should clarify and harmonize requirements and schedules under the two subparts, especially for the first and second reporting years for new reporters.
As EPA is aware, INGAA members subject to Subpart W reporting have relied on Subpart W BAMM provisions to remedy unique or unusual circumstances and rule implementation complications during the initial reporting years. For example, BAMM has been used to address safety issues associated with select compressor vent measurements, and has provided a means to address rule interpretation gaps, measurement method flexibility, and technical deficiencies as Subpart W has undergone numerous revisions since it was adopted in November 2010.
Subpart W revisions to date have not addressed substantive remaining issues  -  e.g., associated with compressor vent measurement, and associated emission calculations and data roll-up. While the BAMM section of Subpart W notes that, "EPA does not anticipate a need for best available monitoring methods beyond 2011," EPA has accepted that Subpart W BAMM has been necessary in subsequent years. Similar to the experience with Subpart W  -  and EPA's preconceived notion that BAMM would not be needed after 2011  -  the §93.3(l)(2) limitation on
BAMM beyond 2014 could prove to be short-sighted as new facilities address reporting challenges (e.g., safe access for measurements) for the first time.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  4
Comment:  EPA is proposing that new reporters who would be required to report under Part 98 as a result of the proposed changes to Table A-1 would begin collecting data on January 1, 2014 for the 2014 reporting year. New reporters would be required to submit their first reports, covering the 2014 reporting year, on March 31, 2015. The intended schedule (including publication of any final rule by the end of 2013) would allow time for new reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate monitoring equipment for the 2014 reporting year. EPA is also proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.3(l) to subpart A to allow new reporters who would be required to report as a result of the proposed new or revised GWPs to have the option of using BAMM from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 for any parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of a relevant subpart. Reporters would also have the opportunity to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond March 31, 2014; those owners or operators must submit a request to the Administrator by 60 days after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA anticipates granting approval for BAMM no later than December 31, 2014.
Any new reporter under any applicable Subpart, especially new reporters for Subpart W due to the complexity of Subpart W, should have the option to use BAMM from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 without having to request BAMM coverage. BAMM is needed for this time period to provide newly affected facilities sufficient time to come into compliance with the GHGRP requirements, for example to install monitoring devices or to bring existing monitoring devices into compliance.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  8
Comment:  It is not clear how BAMM criteria in §93.3(l)(2) comport with Subpart W BAMM. EPA should not limit BAMM to a single year, and should clarify the BAMM process under the Proposed Rule versus BAMM access under Subpart W. This clarification should address BAMM request criteria, ongoing requests beyond the initial reporting year, and the schedule for BAMM submittals. The proposed BAMM provisions in §93.3(l) could be interpreted as more limiting than BAMM provisions in Subpart W, and could be viewed as a limitation on newly affected facilities. In addition, schedules and documentation required are unclear for the two separate BAMM sections. For example, as explained by EPA in its Subpart W BAMM Fact Sheet, the process includes an option to submit a "notice of intent" by the BAMM deadline and the opportunity to submit BAMM requests after the deadline if unforeseen situations arise. The May 1, 2013 Subpart W revision to the BAMM request deadline [78 FR 28392-28396] is further evidence that BAMM access beyond the initial reporting year is imperative.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  9
Comment:  INGAA has strongly advocated for BAMM access since Subpart W was proposed, because T&S sources require annual measurement and surveys. Other EPA regulations (e.g., NSPS, NESHAP, etc.) provide mechanisms to pursue alternatives (e.g., alternative methods, alternative standards, alternative monitoring), typically in the General Provisions. However, the GHG MRR does not provide such flexibility other than through use of BAMM. Thus, especially where measurement is mandatory, access to BAMM is a necessity. A substantive record of INGAA comments and communications with EPA further expounds this issue. It is possible that §93.3(l)(2) is intended to fill a gap related to new reporters and not compromise any Subpart W provisions. However, first year schedules and the possibility of "late" BAMM requests (according to Subpart W criteria) could still be an issue in this case, and clarification is needed. EPA should ensure flexibility for reporters to use BAMM when warranted and clarify applicability, BAMM accessibility, and schedules for §93.3(l)(2) versus §93.236(f) BAMM requests. Clarifications or harmonization are especially important for the first year (2014 reporting year) and second year (2015 reporting year) for new reporters.
Response:  See Section III.A.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:  5
Comment:  EPA plans to publish a final rule that implements GWP revisions in 2013, and concluded it is feasible for existing reporters to implement the proposed GWP revisions for the 2013 reporting year (March 31, 2014 reporting deadline). EPA also understands that revisions that increase a GHG's GWP will result in a new reporting requirement for some facilities that are currently below the 25,000 metric tons CO2e reporting threshold, but would exceed the threshold due to the proposed increase in GWP (e.g., methane GWP for T&S facilities). These newly affected facilities, which are referred to as "new reporters" in the preamble, would not be required to develop a 2013 inventory  -  i.e., only future reporting is required. The Proposed Rule would apply to new reporters on January 1, 2014, with an initial report deadline of March 31, 2015 for the 2014 reporting year. INGAA agrees that GWP revisions will result in some newly subject facilities  -  e.g., due to the 19% increase in methane GWP. INGAA supports EPA's decision to not require reporting for new reporters for the 2013 reporting year. As noted in the preamble, it is not feasible for these facilities to collect data, complete measurements, and develop a report for reporting year 2013. Due to implementation logistics for data gathering and facility measurements, it is imperative that newly subject facilities not be subject to 2013 reporting. INGAA also supports the provision that allows new reporters to use best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for the first three months of 2014.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the reporting schedule for new reporters who become subject to Part 98 for the first time due to the revisions to Table A-1 of subpart A. EPA is finalizing these provisions prior to December 31, 2013 in order to ensure new reporters have enough time to come into compliance with the applicable Part 98 provisions. The BAMM provisions in §98.3(l) will allow additional flexibility for those new reporters who need additional time to install new monitoring equipment or calibrate existing monitoring devices. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section III.A of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  1
Comment:  We support the provisions in §98.3(k)(2) for facilities newly subject to reporting requirements due to the revised global warming potentials (GWPs) to begin collecting data on January 1, 2014 and then apply for an extension of the use of Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) beyond March 31, 2014, if additional time is needed for monitoring systems to be installed. We appreciate EPA providing reasonable time to ensure proper data collection. However, we strongly urge EPA to finalize these provisions prior to December 31, 2013 in order to ensure that facilities have enough time to come into compliance with these provisions.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1, Excerpt 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  2
Comment: We Support EPA's Plan to Defer Reporting to the 2014 Reporting Year for Facilities that Become Subject to Reporting Due to GWP Increases. Presuming the proposed revisions to the MRR are finalized, reporting entities would apply the updated GWPs for calculating emissions for the 2013 annual reports due in March 2014. Facilities that become newly subject to reporting due solely to the GWP increase would not be required to submit a 2013 report under EPA's proposal. These facilities would initiate data collection January 1, 2014 and be allowed use of best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for three months. We support this proposed approach. Due to implementation logistics for data gathering and facility measurements, it is imperative that newly subject facilities not be required to submit a 2013 reporting.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1, Excerpt 5.
Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments For New or Substantially Revised Data Elements
Approach to CBI determinations and data category assignments for new or revised data elements
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:  11
Comment:  EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR §98.266(f)(8) to add a requirement to report the number of times missing data procedures were used to estimate the CO2 content of the phosphate rock. According to EPA, this requirement, like the one currently contained in (f)(8), will be eligible for a confidentiality claim and that such a claim will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
TFI supports EPA's position that reporters may claim this data element as confidential.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Impact of the Proposed Rule
Comments regarding impacts/burden of new or revised GWPs in Table A-1
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:  9
Comment:  The Proposed Rule does not calculate the complete cost of amending Table A‐1. The proposal merely estimates the costs that would be incurred by new reporters, i.e. facilities that become subject to the Reporting Rule due to the amended GWP values. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19839‐41. The EPA should also calculate the costs incurred by facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values, and solicit public comment on the new cost calculations. The costs of performing a PSD review and obtaining a Title V permit are substantial. The process of obtaining a synthetic minor permit are lower but not insignificant. In addition, some projects will be delayed or modified because of the requirement to obtain a permit before commencing construction. These costs are especially significant in cases where a company planned and designed a project with the expectation that the facility would be a minor source for purposes of PSD, but must now conduct a PSD review because the facility is a major source under the new GWP values.
Response:  See Section V.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:  1
Comment:  The proposed change to the Reporting Rule would, on paper, raise the CO2e emissions of all facilities that emit methane. Some minor source facilities would become major sources for purposes of PSD and/or Title V. The owners or operators of these facilities would have to obtain Title V, and potentially PSD permits. The expansion of the universe of sources subject to permitting requirements and/or regulation as a major source is the most significant impact of the Proposed Rule. The applicability of PSD permitting requirements to additional sources will delay projects, increase costs, and restrict economic activity. These added burdens are unwarranted, particularly in light of the fact that these added burdens are not a response to any increase in emissions.
Response:  EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Impacts Analysis for the GHG reporting rule must include the costs incurred by facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values. See Section V.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:  4
Comment:  Given that the substantive impact of the Proposed Rule is to push additional sources above GHG major source thresholds, EPA should fully evaluate that impact. It is not sufficient for EPA to state that the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards "will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns." 78 Fed. Reg. at 19809.Guidance is no substitute for an effective rulemaking. Such "issues and concerns" must be addressed through public comment before promulgation of the final rule.
Response:  EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Impacts Analysis for the GHG reporting rule must include the costs incurred by facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values. See Sections II.A.2.c and V.C 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:  3
Comment:  If EPA's primary concern is consistency between GHGRP and Inventory reporting, that could be achieved by simply converting GHGRP data exactly as EPA is proposing to do for historically reported 2010-2012 GHG emissions. This would achieve the consistency EPA seeks between GHGRP and Inventory data without creating undue uncertainty and other impacts within other regulatory programs. Finally, if EPA is determined to make these revisions, it must first provide some meaningful analysis of the impacts on these changes on regulators and industry under other affected regulatory programs, instead of simply punting on the issue. See, e.g., 78 Fed. Reg. at 19809 ("To the extent that [GWP revisions] . . . raise[] 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.").
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, we are finalizing the amendments to Table A-1 as described in Section II.A.1 of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding EPA's use and periodic updating of GWPs, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the impacts of the proposed changes to Table A-1 on other affected regulatory programs, see Section V.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:  22
Comment:  EPA's technical corrections recognize that two of the 42 subparts (Subparts W and HH), would bear the greatest adverse impact by the change in GWP. A detailed analysis of the cost and economic impacts is included in EPA's Impacts Analysis (docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0022). As described below, WM's review of the Impacts Analysis indicates that EPA significantly underestimated both the number of newly subject Subpart HH MSW Landfills and the added costs of compliance imposed by these changes on both new and existing reporters.
First, the Impacts Analysis concludes that no closed landfills would be newly impacted by the change in GWP and therefore, no closed landfills are included in the cost impact analysis. It is unclear how EPA reached this conclusion. Based on a review of our MSW landfills, WM identified several closed landfills with methane generations between 21,000 and 24,999 metric tons/year CO2e that could exceed the threshold due to the proposed revision of the GWP for methane. Although emissions from these landfills are very low and will steadily decline, they would be pulled into the GHG MRR and required to report for at least three to five years. In addition, because they are closed, they do not generate revenue to offset new compliance costs, and would thus face a significant impact. This situation is also likely to arise for small municipalities that own closed facilities.
Second, we find that EPA has underestimated the cost of complying with the reporting requirements under Subpart HH. Table 11 of the Technical Corrections and Tables 4-1 and 6-16 of the Impacts Analysis state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial year of reporting and $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent years of reporting, in 2011 US Dollars. Based on WM's three years of reporting experience, the actual annual costs to comply with the monitoring recordkeeping and reporting requirements are four to five times higher than EPA estimates. WM submitted data on ongoing reporting costs to EPA on October 1, 2012. These data showed that the annual cost per landfill for subsequent years of reporting was $11,412. This cost estimate does not include the cost of responding to EPA questions raised on facility reports that by rule require a facility to respond within 45 days, and if applicable, make corrections and re-submit reports. This cost can be significant depending on the nature of the EPA inquiry. EPA also did not account for this as part of its Impact Analysis. In our previous submission to EPA, we also noted that WM's costs per site is likely to be lower than for smaller companies or even municipalities because as a large company, we are able to take advantage of economies of scale in purchasing services and equipment.
Third, EPA failed to recognize that revised GWPs will delay the date by which low-emitting MSW landfills can exit the reporting program. Subpart A of the GHG MRR includes provisions for facilities to exit the reporting program once actual emissions fall below the 25,000 CO2e threshold for five consecutive years (see 40 C.F.R. 98.2(i)). The Impacts Analysis estimates methane generation at a closed landfill decreases 18% in 5 years, or 3.6% annually. However, an increase in GWP from 21 to 25 will increase modeled emissions by 20% and will therefore delay exit from the reporting program obligations by more than 5 years. Most closed landfills that report under the GHG MRR, yet are near the exit threshold, are required to estimate actual emissions based on methane generation (Equation HH-5). This is the case because the landfills cannot operate active gas collection and control systems without augmenting the system with fossil fuel (e.g., propane) because they produce such a low quantity of methane. These older, closed landfills, which are actually experiencing decreasing emissions, will be adversely affected by the GWP value change and will be trapped in the program for a significantly longer time.
Both the technical corrections package and the Impacts Analysis conclude that the change in GWP will not affect the cost of monitoring and recordkeeping and would not materially affect the cost for calculating emissions. This is incorrect. Such delay does have a direct financial impact for these facilities. Closed landfills do not generate revenue, yet these facilities will incur additional annual compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs solely due to the change in GWP.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  6
Comment:  EPA concluded in its analysis that no closed landfills would be newly impacted by the change in GWP and therefore, not included in the cost analysis. Data we have received from industry representatives clearly show that there are many closed sites with methane generation between 21,000 and 24,999 metric tons/year CO2e that could exceed the threshold due to the proposed GWP revision. In addition, EPA failed to recognize that revised GWPs will delay the date by which low-emitting MSW landfills can exit the reporting program. Bringing new closed landfills into reporting and causing delay exiting the program will have a direct financial impact for facilities, many of which are small municipalities.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  6
Comment:  EPA significantly underestimates the number of newly subject Subpart HH municipal solid waste (MSW) Landfills, as well as the compliance costs for both new and existing reporters, associated with the increase in the GWP for methane. EPA's Impacts Analysis fails to recognize that Subpart A of the Reporting Rule includes provisions for facilities to exit the reporting program once actual emissions fall below the 25,000 CO2e threshold for five consecutive years (see 40 CFR 98.2(i)).
As proposed, the GHG MRR revisions pose a direct financial impact on existing and new reporters. Table 11 of the technical corrections and Tables 4-1 and 6-16 of the Impacts Analysis state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial year of reporting, and $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent years of reporting, in 2011 US Dollars. Based on our members' reporting experience, the actual annual costs to comply with the monitoring recordkeeping and reporting requirements are four to five times higher than EPA estimates. An increase in GWP from 21 to 25 will increase modeled emissions by nearly 20% and will therefore delay exit from the reporting program obligations by more than 5 years for many low-emitting, primarily closed, landfills. Closed landfills do not generate revenue, yet these facilities will incur additional annual compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs solely due to the change in GWP. EPA's Impacts Analysis incorrectly assumed there would be no material financial impact to landfills, particularly closed landfills.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  6
Comment:  Republic is concerned that the data source and estimation approach used for impact analysis has underestimated the number of landfills that will become subject to Subpart HH. The Impact Analysis relies on the 2006 LMOP database information, of which the report recognizes does not include small MSW landfills, to determine the number of additional affected MSW landfills [docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0022]. The small MSW landfills are at the greatest risk of becoming subject to the rule and would encompass numerous small closed landfills that are most likely not a part of the 2006 LMOP database. The reliance of such data to conclude there is no impact to closed landfills inaccurately represents the economic and regulatory impact to the MSW landfill sector.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  7
Comment:  The Impact Analysis does not recognize the increase cost to MSW landfills due to increased reportable CO2e emissions attributed to a higher GWP of methane. On the surface this change appears to be only a calculation change not requiring additional monitoring and recordkeeping. However the calculations will result in higher emissions that will delay when a facility can use the off-ramp provisions included in the GHGRP Subpart A. The ability for existing facilities to demonstrate exiting the GHGRP is directly tied to the actual CO2e emission that will increase due to a higher methane GWP as indicated in the Impact Analysis. Therefore causing a direct financial increase to cost related to extending the number of years a facility is required to monitor and report. The delay of exiting the program will have the greatest impact on closed smaller MSW landfills where there is no "actual" increase to emissions and the emissions are declining each year anyway. The financial cost burden associated with extending the number of years required to report is therefore unnecessary and burdensome and should be considered in the Impact Analysis.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  8
Comment:  Republic's review of the cost impact to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements under Subpart HH indicates that the impact cost is underestimated. The cost impact relies on the original Regulatory Impact Analysis for Subpart HH (U.S. EPA, 2009b) and does not consider actual cost incurred by reporters over the last three (3) years of reporting. On October 1, 2012 as a part of EPA's process of renewing the Information Collection Request (ICR) for the GHGRP, Republic provided a cost analysis that estimated the actual cost to range from $10,000 to $15,000 per site based on our reporting experience. This is significantly higher than the incremental cost impact provided in Table 11 of the technical corrections and Tables 4-1 and 6-16 of the Impacts Analysis that state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial year of reporting and $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent years of reporting.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  15
Comment:  EPA projects the cost for new reporters to comply with these revisions for the first year of reporting under Subpart W to be $3,400,000, and for subsequent years to be $860,000. No cost impacts are listed for Subparts X, Y, or NN, although EPA is proposing clarification revisions for those subparts. (Full analysis of the impacts is provided I the Docket under EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.
EPA's estimate of the cost implications for new reporters under Subpart W equate to $34,343 per reporting facility for the first year, and $8,687 per reporting facility for subsequent years. This significantly under-represents the actual cost burden imposed by the GHGRP. API previously assessed the costs for reporting under the GHGRP (submitted under Docket EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0333) based on surveying member companies on the actual resource requirements of complying with the rule. API's data indicate that for Onshore Production facilities that are subject to Subpart W reporting, the continuing burden would average close to $ 400,000 (ranging from to $25,000 to $ 1,500,000). These represent ongoing annual costs to comply with the GHGRP. Costs for the first reporting year would be significantly higher.
In addition, EPA's cost estimate assumes that this industry sector will incur capital costs, while it presumes no O&M costs. In reality, the majority of the costs incurred by oil and natural gas industry reporters are O&M costs, through the use of either internal resources or external experts to support data collection, data archiving, analysis and reporting functions.
Response:  First, EPA disagrees with the comment that our cost estimates significantly under-represent the actual cost burden imposed by the GHGRP. We estimated the total cost burden on all new subpart W reporting facilities (due to revised GWP) to be $1,648,000 for the first year of reporting and $772,000 for subsequent years. These estimates are based on average costs per facility that were determined using the number of expected new reporters (due to revised GWP) and the original cost analyses we conducted in the Economic Impact Analysis. As stated previously in our response to public comments on the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Subpart W  -  Petroleum and Natural Gas (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923), we concluded, after evaluating numerous comments about significantly underestimating subpart W reporting burden, that the Agency's methodology and assumptions used in the Economic Impact Analysis were sound and relied on best available data. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the Economic Impact Analysis to estimate total cost burden on all new subpart W reporting facilities (due to revised GWP). The Economic Impact Analysis provides a reasonable characterization of costs and adequate explanation of how the costs were estimated. As we discussed in the preamble Section III of the final Part 98, EPA collected and evaluated cost data from multiple sources, thoroughly reviewed the input received through public comments, and weighed the analysis prepared for the proposal against this input.
Second, with regard to the comment that EPA presumes no O&M costs associated with the burden and cost estimates for Subpart W, we responded to a similar comment received in our most recent Information Collection Request (see EPA's response to comments on the greenhouse gas reporting program renewal ICR dated May 2013 in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0333). In our response, we acknowledged that there will be continued costs for complying with the GHGRP. We also explained that the costs for these activities are included in the burden analysis; and the O&M cost of zero represented travel costs of zero associated with complying the GHGRP for the onshore production segment. O&M activities that incur costs from employee or contractor hours worked are included under the labor hours estimate, not under the O&M estimates. Similarly, upkeep and replacement of capital assets are included under the annualized capital costs.
Given these considerations, EPA has determined that the costs used in the Economic Impact Analysis for the final Part 98 are appropriate for estimate of the total cost burden for new subpart W facilities that would be required to report due to revised GWPs. There are no changes to the impact analysis as a result of 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:  15A
Comment:  We support EPA's efforts to "get it right" when scientific data indicates that previous estimation methods under- or over-estimate GHG emissions. AF&PA and AWC urge EPA, however, to balance these interests against the burden being imposed on the regulated community. Every time EPA changes the GWP to be used for reporting emissions of a GHG, companies have to expend substantial efforts to revise systems they have developed and put in place, often at considerable cost, to collect the required information, apply the GHG emission estimation methods EPA requires, and consolidate and report GHG emission estimates to EPA. The same is true of changes to other factors used in estimating a facility's GHG emissions, such as default emission factors or high heat values, some of which EPA has proposed to change by only a few 100ths of a percent. (The burden would be even greater if sources were required to go back and re-calculate all their emissions estimates for past years.) Not only does this impose substantial burdens on businesses and public and private institutions, it also introduces the potential for errors every time existing reporting systems have to be modified.
Response: Updating the values in Table A-1 to adopt the values from the IPCC AR4 ensures that the emissions estimates for these compounds are consistent with best data currently available, based on GWP values that are more up-to-date relative to the values previously provided in Table A-1. The changes also make the emissions reported under the Part 98 consistent with other programs, including the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC. It is beneficial for both regulatory agencies and industry to use similar GWPs for these compounds across programs to reduce confusion and ensure that GHG emissions are easily compared. As stated in Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule, we do not anticipate updating Table A-1 more frequently than once every few years.
Comments regarding impacts/burden of the technical corrections
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:  15B
Comment:  We support EPA's efforts to "get it right" when scientific data indicates that previous estimation methods under- or over-estimate GHG emissions. AF&PA and AWC urge EPA, however, to balance these interests against the burden being imposed on the regulated community. Every time EPA changes the GWP to be used for reporting emissions of a GHG, companies have to expend substantial efforts to revise systems they have developed and put in place, often at considerable cost, to collect the required information, apply the GHG emission estimation methods EPA requires, and consolidate and report GHG emission estimates to EPA. The same is true of changes to other factors used in estimating a facility's GHG emissions, such as default emission factors or high heat values, some of which EPA has proposed to change by only a few 100ths of a percent. (The burden would be even greater if sources were required to go back and re-calculate all their emissions estimates for past years.) Not only does this impose substantial burdens on businesses and public and private institutions, it also introduces the potential for errors every time existing reporting systems have to be modified.
Response: As EPA stated in the preamble for the proposed amendments (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013), the amendments reflect EPA's engagement with reporters and stakeholders and our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of Part 98 provisions. The changes improve the GHGRP by clarifying compliance obligations and reducing confusion for reporters, improving the consistency of the data collected, and ensuring that data collected through the GHGRP is representative of industry and comparable to other inventories. The proposed changes correct errors, simplify data collection and reporting for reporters, and reduce the burden associated with implementing certain provisions of 40 CFR part 98. These clarifications and corrections do not fundamentally affect the applicability, monitoring requirements, or data collected and reported or increase the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with Part 98. EPA estimated the impacts of the corrections, clarifying, and other amendments in the Final Impacts Analysis in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 and determined that the impacts from these changes was minimal.
With these considerations, the amendments to the final rule do not present an undue burden on reporters, but improve the reporting under the GHGRP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:  38
Comment:  EPA is neglecting to account for the costs incurred by existing reporters to implement changes into their internal reporting systems due to the revised GWP values, revised fuel emission factors and heating value factors, and other revisions that will result in changes to reporting forms or the xml schema.
Response:  See Section V.C 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:  16
Comment:  As we understand it, the primary use for GHG emissions reported under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is for comparative purposes -- determining trends in GHG emissions, comparing U.S. emissions to those of other countries, etc. For those purposes, the accuracy of emissions estimates is less important than that they be relatively comparable. Additionally, EPA needs to recognize that, of necessity, the precision of individual facility GHG emission estimates, much less of national aggregate emissions, is not particularly high. Many of the monitoring methods or analytical methods involved in estimating GHG emissions under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule may only have a precision of +/- 15 percent or more (such as the BOD test), and the emission factors EPA uses in the Rule also are necessarily averages that may be substantially higher or lower than the actual emissions from a particular process at a particular facility. In that context, making relatively small revisions to the methods for calculating estimated GHG emissions is not going to produce a benefit that warrants the substantial burden imposed on regulated facilities to adjust to those revisions.
For that reason, AF&PA and AWC suggest that, in the future, EPA not promulgate changes to GWPs, nor other changes to the methodologies for estimating GHG emissions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, if the change is unlikely to produce more than a 5 percent change in estimated emissions (nationwide, in the case of something like GWPs, or for the source category, in the case of changes to source specific GHG emission estimation methods). This will assure that GHG emission estimates are relatively accurate, without requiring regulated facilities to make numerous small yet burdensome adjustments to their GHG emission reporting systems that will not in fact result in significantly more accurate estimates (especially in light of other sources of imprecision and inaccuracy in the emission estimation methods).
Response:  See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
General Comments on the Proposed Amendments
General support for the amendments
Commenter Name:  J. Lisak
Commenter Affiliation:  Mass comment campaign
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0101-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  With my experience as a farmer, I can assure you we are already experiencing some serious issues due to climate change, not only in crop production but also in the migration of disease carrying pests. In addition, being from a state that is poised to have 150,000 gas wells and that has a history of gas production, I guarantee you that we have a growing problem with increasing CO2 and CH4 emissions.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  V. Jones110
Commenter Affiliation:  Mass comment campaign
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0096-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  This is absolutely crucial now that we have already reached the 400ppm levels of CO2 -we need to do all we can NOW-it is already very late to curb some of the drastic consequences of the changes in the climate that our actions are bringing about.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  L. Usechak110
Commenter Affiliation:  Mass comment campaign
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0095-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  As we are already dealing with the effects of climate change in our ocean and in increasingly fierce weather patterns, I appreciate that EPA is updating its GHG RR.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anonymous Public Comment
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0031
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  The proposed rule should be held in a necessary urgency; the warning of such climate effects should be addressed. Although the length of this document is lengthy, nearly every revision should be considered to be put into effect.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  D. McKee[110]
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0108-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  With the devastating impacts of climate change increasing every day, I appreciate that EPA is updating its GHG RR. At this critical time, it is essential that EPA continue to make use of the best available science in its regulatory decisions. Better science leads to better reporting. Better reporting leads to better policy decisions, which translates into a better quality of life for all Americans, now and in the future.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  N. Rapp
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0093-A1
Comment:  I am glad you are updating the latest Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHGRR), but you are not doing it in the way it needs to be done!!! YOU ARE NOT INCLUDING THE CONTRIBUTION METHANE MAKES TO GLOBAL WARMING!
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the amendments. For EPA's response to comments related to the GWP for methane, see section 2.8 of this document.
Out of Scope Comments
General comments on e-GGRT or reporting questions
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:  4
The e-GGRT reporting tool "times-out" too quickly during periods of inactivity. For more complex data entry subparts, this is causing a significant nuisance problem for our reporting sites. We request that the system not "time-out" unless there are greater than 15 minutes of inactivity. The current system frequently logs the reporting personnel out, and then they must log back in.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, this comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. EPA will consider this comment in future versions of e-GGRT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0076-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  AHAM notes that because e-GGRT seems to be built on a facility model, it is not intuitive for reporters who are not facilities, such as many reporters that report under Subpart QQ. For example, when a company is reporting under Subpart QQ as a company, not a facility, many of the data inputs that are specific to facilities still appear on the tool. It would be easier if e-GGRT could identify a facility versus a company reporter and provide only the data elements applicable to each. That would make the process less confusing, and, therefore, less burdensome.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, this comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. EPA will consider this comment in future versions of e-GGRT.
General comments outside of the scope of the amendments

The EPA received the following comments, which do not specifically address the proposed rule and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA is not responding to these comments in this document. These commenters also submitted comments through a mass comment campaign. See excerpts from DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0065-A1.
Commenter Name:  B. Clark
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0111-A1
Comment:  My thinking is that water, our available drinking water, is the most important resource to protect. And talking about air pollution when fracking gas wells take millions of gallons of water needs to be looked at now. The drilling and fracking must be stopped. I live in Fort Worth Texas and we have been invaded and the land, air, water and neighborhoods have been raped. It is unbelievable that this continues. Now they are talking about compressing and exporting. Does everyone really believe that we should complacently stand by and deplete our water supply? It is insanity! Please, please help! Water is our most precious resource. It is irreplaceable.
Commenter Name:  T. Motes
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0112-A1
Comment: I realize that you are in a difficult position, since the President supports the natural gas industry while the EPA is supposed to be regulating greenhouse gases. I know that you know that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and we need to act accordingly. The EPA has been a strong champion of clean air and water, despite massive political opposition, and I support what you are doing. But please don't water down the negative effects of gas drilling on your Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Pretending gas drilling has less of a negative impact on the climate will not make it so. Please take the actual potency of methane into account when regulating greenhouse gases.
Commenter Name:  G. Hogan
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0092-A1
Comment: The other concern is that release of Methane during the drilling process and completion process of shale drilling is unnecessary. There are technologies to prevent these releases of Ozone producing methane. The 25 tons per annual does not take into account the cumulative effect of hundreds of well sites in dense urban environments. Many times several pad sites can be within a mile of any neighborhood such as my own Texas city Fort Worth.
Commenter Name:  D. Lassaw
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0094-A1
Comment: I can SEE gas wells from my house in so-called pristine Alaska- at least it used to be before the filthy gas wells began flaring. They are loud, they smell- AND they use thousands of gallons of OUR WATER. not only climate change but all life is in danger from polluted water. Please remember this.
Commenter Name:  C. Dykstra
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0098-A1
Comment:  I've been researching fracking since I first saw "Gasland" and began Googling "fracking" and cities such as "Athens, Ohio" when a giant boulder crushed a home and two cars: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/boulder-crushes-2-cars-house_n_1370654.html, and "Clintonville, Wisconsin" when people began reporting strange sonic booms: http://suite101.com/article/clintonville-wisconsin-mysterious-booms-explained-a405227, and "Duluth, Minnesota" when normal flooding caused unbelievable sink holes which destroyed the town: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-805077, and the location of fracking wells whenever out-of-control wildfires raged in states such as California and Colorado (always over areas with live wells, naturally), and the Bayou Frack-Out: The Massive Oil and Gas Disaster You've Never Heard Of: http://truth-out.org/news/item/13136-bayou-frack-out-the-massive-oil-and-gas-disaster-youve-never-heard-of, and the most recent and absolutely devastating explosions that set West Virginia and caused untold damage. As scientists have proved, fracking does indeed cause Earthquakes... and New York sits on a huge fault line. New York's entire economy relies upon Agriculture (we're #4 in regard to top agriculture states!) and Tourism. Fracking will destroy both. We really must ensure New York is NEVER fracked! With the severe drought which affected 61% of the lower contiguous states this past summer, we lost a substantial amount of crops.
Commenter Name:  V. Anderson
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0099-A1
Comment:  If the FRACKERS are so certain that they will NOT cause any problems then they, the FRACKING owners, developers, installers and operators should be freely willing to POST a FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR ($500,000,000,000) BOND against all environmental problems (air, land, and water) and detrimental problems to people, farms, businesses, recreational activities, wildlife and homes to the extent as determined by these groups that the perpetrators have caused and created any adverse problems.
Commenter Name:  G. Seger
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0104-A1
Comment:  Fracking Waste Water is toxic killing animals in four hours after drinking and getting into the drinking water supply for humans and into the eco-system. Read the report by Cornell Veterinarian College. Methane Gas is a known, Carcinogenic, Immunotoxicant, Neurotoxicant and Pulmonary Toxicant.
Commenter Name:  K. Rowlett
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0103-A1
Comment:  We do not need fracking of any kind! The natural gas industry possibly should be outlawed. If the TVA is being sold, it needs to be to a fully American owned company, and have a democratic focus. Or possibly, the TVA should be purchased and restructured into The Center for Democratic Energy, Environmental Justice, and Civil Rights Cooperative, possibly owned by the government but inherently democrat, thus allowing these areas to always, in an uninterrupted fashion to have science and more public health in our focus, while shifting the focus from Christianity to the right, to Christianity to the left keeping the southern culture intact, and with much more environmental health needs, taken into account. We DO NOT NEED the Storm Water Authority to take the place of the TVA, now or in the future. It would better, if that were the only choice, to retain the TVA, restructured to always, without exception, be much more democrat and civil rights in its nature.