[Federal Register: July 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 132)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39735-39777]
[DOCID:fr12jy10-9]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 98

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases From Magnesium Production,
Underground Coal Mines, Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and Industrial
Waste Landfills; Final Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508; FRL-9171-1]
RIN 2060-AQ03

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases From Magnesium
Production, Underground Coal Mines, Industrial Wastewater Treatment,
and Industrial Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is promulgating a regulation to require monitoring and
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from magnesium production,
underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment, and industrial
waste landfills. This action adds these four source categories to the
list of source categories already required to report greenhouse gas
emissions. This action requires monitoring and reporting of greenhouse
gases for these source categories only for sources with carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions above certain threshold levels as described in
this regulation. This action does not require control of greenhouse
gases.

DATES: The final rule is effective on September 10, 2010. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 10,
2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA established a single docket under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508 for this action and for the previous action promulgated
October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). All documents in the docket are listed
on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20004. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For technical information and implementation
materials, please go to the Web site http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a question, select Rule Help
Center, followed by Contact Us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated Entities. The Administrator determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See
CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.''). The final
rule affects underground coal mines, magnesium production, industrial
waste landfills, and industrial wastewater treatment facilities that
are direct emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Regulated categories
and entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble:

                               Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                      NAICS                 Examples of affected facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnesium Production.......................       331419  Primary refiners of nonferrous metals by electrolytic
                                                           methods.
                                                  331492  Secondary magnesium processing plants.
Underground Coal Mines.....................       212113  Underground anthracite coal mining operations.
                                                  212112  Underground bituminous coal mining operations.
Industrial Waste Landfills.................       562212  Solid waste landfills.
                                                  322110  Pulp mills.
                                                  322121  Paper mills.
                                                  322122  Newsprint mills.
                                                  322130  Paperboard mills.
                                                  311611  Meat processing facilities.
                                                  311411  Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing
                                                           facilities.
                                                  311421  Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
                                                  221320  Sewage treatment facilities.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment............       322110  Pulp mills.
                                                  322121  Paper mills.
                                                  322122  Newsprint mills.
                                                  322130  Paperboard mills.
                                                  311611  Meat processing facilities.
                                                  311411  Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing
                                                           facilities.
                                                  311421  Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.
                                                  325193  Ethanol manufacturing facilities.
                                                  324110  Petroleum refineries.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Although Table 1 of this preamble lists the
types of facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected
by the reporting requirements, other types of facilities not listed in
the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A as
amended by this action. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the
person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Many facilities affected by this final rule have GHG emissions from
other source categories listed in 40 CFR part 98. Table 2 of this
preamble has been developed as a guide to help reporters affected by
this action identify other source categories (by subpart) that they may
need to (1) consider in their facility applicability determination, and
(2) include in their reporting. Table 2 of this preamble identifies the
subparts that are likely to be relevant to sources with magnesium
production, underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment,
and industrial waste landfills. The table should only be seen as a
guide. Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a
given reporter, while some subparts listed in Table 2 of this preamble
may not be relevant to all reporters in these source categories.

            Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Other Subparts in 40 CFR part 98
  Source category (and main       recommended for review to determine
     applicable subpart)                     applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnesium Production.........  Subpart C: General Stationary Fuel
                                Combustion.
Underground Coal Mines.......  Subpart C: General Stationary Fuel
                                Combustion.
Industrial Waste Landfills     Subpart C: General Stationary Fuel
 \a\.                           Combustion.
                               Subpart Y: Petroleum Refineries.
                               Subpart AA: Pulp and Paper Manufacturing.
                               Subpart II: Industrial Wastewater
                                Treatment.
Industrial Wastewater          Subpart C: General Stationary Fuel
 Treatment.                     Combustion.
                               Subpart Y: Petroleum Refineries.
                               Subpart AA: Pulp and Paper Manufacturing.
                               Subpart TT: Industrial Waste Landfills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The industrial landfills source category was proposed with municipal
  solid waste landfills under 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH in the April
  10, 2009 proposal (74 FR 16448). However, EPA has since decided to
  separate landfills into two subparts: subpart HH for municipal solid
  waste landfills (promulgated October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56374) and
  subpart TT for industrial waste landfills.

    Judicial Review. Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of
this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
September 10, 2010. Under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), only an objection
to this final rule that was raised with reasonable specificity during
the period for public comment can be raised during judicial review.
This section also provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding
for reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can
demonstrate to EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection
within [the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the
time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of this rule.'' Any person seeking to make
such a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration
to the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General
Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel
(Mail Code 2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Note, under CAA section 307(b)(2), the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BAMM Best Available Monitoring Methods
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system(s)
    CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
cf cubic feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e CO2-equivalent
COD chemical oxygen demand
DOC Degradable organic carbon
EIA economic impact analysis
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FK 5-1-12 dodecafluoro-2-methylpentan-3-one (or Novec\TM\ 612)
GHG greenhouse gas
HCFC-22 chlorodifluoromethane (or CHClF2)
HFC-23 trifluoromethane (or CHF3)
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HFEs hydrofluorinated ethers
ICR information collection request
kg kilograms
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSW municipal solid waste
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PFCs perfluorocarbons
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA regulatory impact analysis
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
scf standard cubic feet
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VOC volatile organic compound(s)

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of this Preamble
    B. Background on the Final Rule
    C. Legal Authority
II. Reporting Requirements for Magnesium Production, Underground
Coal Mines, Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and Industrial Waste
Landfills
    A. Overview
    B. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of 40 CFR part
98
    C. Magnesium Production (40 CFR part 98, subpart T)
    D. Underground Coal Mines (40 CFR part 98, subpart FF)
    E. Industrial Wastewater Treatment (40 CFR part 98, subpart II)
    F. Industrial Wastewater Treatment (40 CFR part 98, subpart II)
III. Other Source Categories Proposed in 2009
    A. Overview
    B. Ethanol Production
    C. Food Processing
    D. Suppliers of Coal
IV. Economic Impacts of the Rule

    A. How were compliance costs estimated?
    B. What are the costs of the rule?
    C. What are the economic impacts of the rule?
    D. What are the impacts of the rule on small businesses?
    E. What are the benefits of the rule for society?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coodination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble consists of five sections. The first section provides
a brief history of 40 CFR part 98 and describes the purpose and legal
authority for today's action.
    The second section of this preamble summarizes the revisions made
to the general provisions in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A and outlines the
specific requirements for the four new source categories being
incorporated into 40 CFR part 98 by this action. It also describes the
major changes made to these source categories since proposal and
provides a brief summary of significant public comments and EPA's
responses on issues specific to each source category.
    The third section of this preamble summarizes and provides our
rationale for the decisions not to include two source categories as
distinct subparts in 40 CFR part 98 and not to include reporting
requirements for one additional proposed source category under 40 CFR
part 98 at this time.
    The fourth section of this preamble provides the summary of the
cost impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of the final rule and
discusses comments on the regulatory impacts analyses for the four
additional source categories.
    Finally, the last section discusses the various statutory and
executive order requirements applicable to this rulemaking.

B. Background on the Final Rule

    Today's action finalizes monitoring and reporting requirements for
the following four source categories: magnesium production, underground
coal mines, industrial waste landfills,\1\ and industrial wastewater
treatment. With today's action EPA has decided not to include ethanol
production and food processing as distinct subparts. Lastly, EPA has
made the final decision not to include any reporting requirements for
suppliers of coal at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The industrial landfills source category was proposed with
municipal solid waste landfills under 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH in
the April 10, 2009 proposal (74 FR 16448). However, EPA has since
decided to separate landfills into two subparts: subpart HH for
municipal solid waste landfills (promulgated October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56374)) and subpart TT for industrial landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These source categories were proposed on April 10, 2009 (74 FR
16448) as part of a larger rulemaking effort to establish a GHG
reporting program for all sectors of the economy. This rulemaking was
initiated by EPA in response to the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (Appropriations Act).\2\ This Act authorized funding
for EPA to develop and publish a rule ``* * *to require mandatory
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in
all sectors of the economy of the United States.'' An accompanying
joint explanatory statement directed EPA to ``use its existing
authority under the Clean Air Act'' to develop a mandatory GHG
reporting rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128. Congress reaffirmed interest in a GHG
reporting rule, and provided additional funding, in the 2009 and
2010 Appropriations Acts (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009,
Pub. L. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574-3716 and Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010, Pub. L. 111-117, 123 Stat. 3034-3408).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposed 40 CFR part 98 on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448) and
held two public hearings in April 2009. The public comment period ended
on June 9, 2009. The final 40 CFR part 98 was signed by EPA's
Administrator on September 22, 2009 and published in the Federal
Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The October 2009 Final
Rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, included reporting
requirements for facilities and suppliers in 31 subparts. The April
2009 proposal, however, included monitoring and reporting requirements
for a further eleven source categories that were not finalized in the
October 30, 2009 action. This action includes monitoring and reporting
requirements for four of the eleven source categories (subpart T--
Magnesium Production, subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines, subpart II--
Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and subpart TT--Industrial Waste
Landfills) that were proposed but not finalized in the October 30, 2009
action, and amends the general provisions for 40 CFR part 98, subpart
A. This action also provides EPA's final decision not to include
ethanol production and food processing as distinct subparts in 40 CFR
part 98, as well as the final decision not to include suppliers of coal
in 40 CFR part 98 at this time.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The remaining four source categories included in the April
2009 proposal but not included here are being reproposed in Proposed
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems (75 FR 18608, April 12, 2010) and Proposed Mandatory
Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Additional Sources of Fluorinate GHGs
(75 FR 18652, April 12, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the comment period, EPA received a number of detailed
comments on the proposal, including comments specific to the proposed
subparts for ethanol production, food processing, underground coal
mines, industrial waste landfills, industrial wastewater treatment, and
suppliers of coal. EPA decided to delay finalizing the reporting
requirements for these source categories to allow for additional time
to review public comments, perform additional analysis, and consider
modifications and alternatives to the proposed methodologies. Changes
made to the proposed requirements and significant comments received
during the public comment period for 40 CFR part 98, subparts FF, II,
and TT are described in more detail in the discussions of the
individual source categories included in Section II of this preamble.
    Upon further consideration, EPA decided not to include distinct
subparts for ethanol production and food processing in 40 CFR part 98
because these facilities will already be covered under the rule due to
their aggregate emissions from all applicable source categories in the
rule, such as stationary combustion, industrial wastewater, industrial
waste landfills, miscellaneous use of carbonates, and any others that
may apply. Moreover, EPA has also decided to not include coal suppliers
in 40 CFR part 98 because the vast majority of emissions from
combustion of coal in the United States is already covered by the rule
through reporting by direct emitters. Further explanation of these
decisions is provided in more detail in the discussions of the proposed
individual source categories in Section III of this preamble.
    Summaries of comments on other aspects of the reporting rule, such
as the verification approach and selection of source categories, are
included and were

responded to in the preamble to the October 2009 Final Rule (74 FR
56260, October 30, 2009) and in volumes 1 through 14 of ``Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments.''

C. Legal Authority

    EPA is finalizing 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT under
the existing CAA authorities provided in CAA section 114. As discussed
in detail in Sections I.C and II.Q of the preamble to the 2009 final
rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides
EPA with broad authority to require emissions sources, persons subject
to the CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, or persons
whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to
monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the
Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision
of the CAA. EPA may gather information for a variety of purposes,
including for the purpose of assisting in the development of emissions
standards under CAA section 111, determining compliance with
implementation plans or such standards, or more broadly for ``carrying
out any provision'' of the CAA. Section 103 of the CAA authorizes EPA
to establish a national research and development program, including
nonregulatory approaches and technologies, for the prevention and
control of air pollution, including GHGs. As discussed in the proposal
(74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), among other things, data from magnesium
production, underground coal mines, industrial wastewater treatment,
and industrial waste landfills will inform decisions about whether and
how to use CAA section 111 to establish new source performance
standards (NSPS) for these four source categories, including whether
there are any additional categories of sources that should be listed
under CAA section 111(b). The data collected will also inform EPA's
implementation of CAA section 103(g) regarding improvements in sector
based nonregulatory strategies and technologies for preventing or
reducing air pollutants.

II. Reporting Requirements for Magnesium Production, Underground Coal
Mines, Industrial Wastewater Treatment, and Industrial Waste Landfills

A. Overview

    40 CFR part 98 requires reporting of GHG emissions and supply from
all sectors of the economy, including fossil fuel suppliers, industrial
gas suppliers, and direct emitters of GHGs. It covers various GHGs,
including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and
other fluorinated compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)). The rule
requires that source categories subject to the rule monitor and report
GHGs in accordance with the methods specified in the individual
subparts. For a list of the specific GHGs to be reported and the GHG
calculation procedures, monitoring, missing data procedures,
recordkeeping, and reporting required by facilities subject to each of
the four subparts included in today's action, see Section II.C through
II.F of this preamble.
    In order to meet the quality assurance and verification
requirements of the rule, EPA is establishing an electronic reporting
system to facilitate collection of data under this rule. All facilities
that are covered under 40 CFR part 98, including those subject to the
reporting requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT
will use this data system to submit required data.

B. Summary of Changes to the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 98

    Today's action amends certain requirements in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart A (General Provisions). These amendments are summarized in this
section of the preamble and apply only to those subparts included in
this action. Other than the changes to format discussed immediately
below, none of the amendments change the general provisions applicable
to those subparts already incorporated into 40 CFR part 98.
    Changes to Format. On March 16, 2010, EPA published both a direct
final rule and concurrent proposal (75 FR 12451 and 75 FR 12489) that
made minor changes to the format of several sections of the general
provisions to accommodate the addition of new subparts in the future in
a simple and clear manner. The changes included converting into a
tabular format the lists of source categories and supply categories
that are affected by the October 2009 final rule. The lists, which were
originally embedded in three paragraphs of 40 CFR part 98, subpart A
(40 CFR 98.2(a)), were moved to three new tables in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart A. Each table also indicated the applicable first reporting
year for each source and supply category. For source and supply
categories included in the 2009 final rule, the first reporting year
remains 2010. As a concurrent harmonizing change, all references to
applicable subparts (e.g., ``40 CFR part 98 subparts C through JJ'')
were replaced by references to the appropriate source or supply
category table. Other changes included updating the language for the
schedule for submitting reports and calibrating equipment to recognize
that subparts that may be added in the future would have later
deadlines. These revisions did not change the requirements for subparts
included in the 2009 final rule.
    The direct final rule notice also stated the direct final rule
would become effective May 17, 2010, unless any adverse comments were
received by April 15, 2010. If such comments were received, EPA would
withdraw the direct final rule and finalize the proposal at a later
date. The Agency received two comments that could be construed as
adverse and subsequently withdrew the direct final rule on April 30,
2010 (75 FR 22699).
    EPA received two sets of ostensibly adverse comments, however
neither addressed any of the specific formatting changes EPA made to
the General Provisions in the direct final rule. Rather, the commenters
focused on portions of the regulatory text that remained unchanged from
the original final rule that was published on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56260). Both raised concerns with sentences that remained the same as
they were in the October 2009 final rule and were not related to the
formatting changes proposed on March 16, 2010. Specifically, both
commenters objected to the reporting of biogenic emissions required
under 40 CFR part 98, section 98.3(C)(4)(i) and (ii). EPA did not
actually change that requirement from the October 2009 rule but rather
revised the reference in the paragraph from ``source categories in
subparts C through JJ'' to ``source categories listed in Table A-3 and
Table A-4 of this subpart'' to reflect the proposed reformatting from
lists of subparts to tables.
    One of the commenters also objected to the schedule for reporting
described in 98.33(b)(2). Again, EPA did not change that requirement at
all. Instead, the Agency inserted the phrase ``and becomes subject to
the rule in the year that it becomes operational'' to the sentence that
reads ``for a new facility or supplier that begins operation on or
after January 1, 2010 and becomes subject to the rule in the year it
becomes operational, reporting emissions beginning with the first
operating month and ending on December 31 of that year.'' That
additional phrase makes it clear that reporters must meet the
applicability requirements for each

source category before they are subject to any reporting requirements
but does not actually amend the schedule for reporting itself.
    Finally, one commenter objected to regulatory text in 98.3(i)(1)
that requires calibration of flow meters and other devices. This
specific requirement also remains unchanged from the 2009 final rule.
Similar to the above amendment, EPA revised this paragraph not to
change the requirements for sources covered by the October 2009 final
rule, but rather to allow facilities that must report under any
additional subparts to conduct any initial calibrations that are
required by the newly published subparts during the first year that the
subpart applies rather than in the year 2010. To do that, EPA changed
the following sentence, ``for facilities and suppliers that become
subject to this part about April 1, 2010, the initial calibration shall
be conducted on the date that data collection is required to begin'' to
``for facilities and suppliers that are subject to this part on January
1, 2010, the initial calibration shall be conducted by April 1, 2010.
For facilities and suppliers that become subject to this part after
April 1, 2010, the initial calibration shall be conducted by the date
that data collection is required to begin.''
    In both cases, the comments received did not address any of the
changes EPA proposed to make to the General Provisions. As a result,
EPA is finalizing those proposed minor amendments to accommodate the
addition of new subparts in this rulemaking. The additional changes to
40 CFR part 98, subpart A discussed below reflect these changes (i.e.,
revising Tables A-3 and A-4 instead of 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1), (2) or (4)).
As explained above, the comments that could be construed as adverse
related to parts of the regulatory text that remained unchanged from
the 2009 final rule. If and when EPA decides to make any changes to any
regulatory requirements set forth in the October 2009 final rule,
including those highlighted in the comments above, the Agency will
initiate a separate notice and comment process.
    Changes to Applicability. Facilities containing magnesium
production, industrial waste landfills, and/or industrial wastewater
treatment, are subject to 40 CFR part 98 if they emit 25,000 metric
tons CO2-equivalent (CO2e) or more per year in
combined emissions from combustion units, miscellaneous uses of
carbonate, ferroalloy production, glass production, hydrogen
production, iron and steel production, lead production, pulp and paper
manufacturing, zinc production, magnesium production, industrial
wastewater treatment, and industrial waste landfills, or if they are
required to report under 98.2(a)(1). In today's action, EPA is making
revisions to Table A-4 in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A from that included
in the direct final rule and accompanying proposal to include the
source categories: Magnesium production, industrial wastewater
treatment, and industrial waste landfills.
    Underground coal mines that are subject to quarterly (or more
frequent) sampling of ventilation systems by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) are subject to 40 CFR part 98 regardless of the
actual facility emissions. In today's action, we are making revisions
to Table A-3 from that included in the direct final rule and
accompanying proposal to include the underground coal mine source
category.
    Changes to the Reporting Schedule. Facilities with existing
magnesium production, underground coal mines, industrial wastewater
treatment, and industrial waste landfills must begin monitoring GHG
emissions on January 1, 2011 in accordance with the methods specified
in 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT. Facilities must report
the GHG emissions and associated verification data required under each
of these subparts by March 31, 2012. Facilities with existing reporting
requirements for the year 2010 are not required to collect the data
required under 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT for the
reporting year 2010 or report it in 2011.
    EPA decided to require reporting of calendar year 2011 emissions
for the four source categories finalized in today's action because the
data are crucial to the timely development of future GHG policy and
regulatory programs. In the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act,
Congress requested that EPA develop this reporting program on an
expedited schedule, and Congressional inquiries along with public
comments reinforce that data collection for calendar year 2011 is a
priority. Delaying data collection until calendar year 2012 would mean
the data would not be received until 2013, which would likely be too
late for many ongoing GHG policy and program development needs.
    EPA received a number of comments on the April 2009 proposal from
stakeholders expressing concerns that there would be insufficient time
between the publication of a final rule and the date on which
monitoring must begin. EPA concluded that the time period between the
publication of this final action and the January 1, 2011 deadline for
beginning monitoring for 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT is
sufficient to allow facilities to implement the required monitoring
methods, including calibrating and installing monitoring equipment. The
monitoring requirements for each subpart included in today's action
have not changed significantly from those requirements proposed in
April 2009. Although facilities in some source categories will have to
make emissions assessments to determine whether their facility exceeds
the 25,000 metric tons CO2e applicability threshold, EPA has
concluded that there is ample time to complete this assessment. Many
facilities affected by today's action will not need additional time to
make emissions assessments because they will already be subject to
monitoring and reporting emissions under other applicable subparts in
40 CFR part 98. For example, pulp and paper mills which may be required
to report under 40 CFR part 98, subparts TT and II, are already
required to report under 40 CFR part 98, subpart AA and any other
applicable source categories if their emissions are more than 25,000
metric tons CO2e per year. Furthermore, many of those
facilities that are not subject to monitoring in 2010 will have already
completed some assessments of their emissions from source categories
included in the Octber 2009 Final Rule. For example, many industrial
facilities will have already assessed their GHG emissions from
combustion units for the 2010 reporting year. For these reasons, EPA
concluded that the January 1, 2011 deadline should provide sufficient
time for facilities to comply with the rule.
    Best Available Monitoring Methods. In the October 2009 Final Rule,
facilities had the option to use Best Available Monitoring Methods
(BAMM) for the first quarter of the first reporting year. While
facilities in the source categories included in today's action will not
automatically be allowed to use BAMM for the first quarter of
monitoring (January 1, 2011 to March 31, 2011), facilities will have
the option to request the use of BAMM. The request must be submitted by
October 12, 2010 and must contain the information specified in 40 CFR
98.3(d)(2)(ii). Specific information regarding the use of BAMM is
included in the Monitoring and QA/QC Requirements section of each
subpart for the source categories included in today's action. The use
of BAMM for these source categories will not be approved beyond
December 31, 2011. The only change to the general provisions, by virtue
of inclusion of BAMM in each subpart, is to make it

clear that the automatic three month provision of 98.3 does not apply
to these subparts.
    For most facilities covered by the source categories in today's
action, there are monitoring requirements that may not be typical
operating procedure and therefore, monitoring equipment will need to be
purchased and installed. In addition, per EPA's experience with the
source categories finalized in 2009 final rule, there will likely be
facilities with unique circumstances that will require some additional
time to comply with the rule requirements. Therefore, EPA decided to
allow facilities to request the use of BAMM for the first reporting
year so that those that are not able to acquire, install, and calibrate
the required monitoring equipment due to their unique circumstances may
still comply with the rule.
    Other Changes to 40 CFR part 98, subpart A. In today's action, we
are also amending 40 CFR 98.6 (definitions) to add definitions for
several terms used in 40 CFR part 98, subparts T, FF, II, and TT and to
clarify the meaning of certain existing terms for purposes of 40 CFR
part 98, subpart II.
    We are also amending 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to
include standard methods references in 40 CFR part 98, subparts FF, II,
and TT.

C. Magnesium Production (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart T)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. Magnesium production and processing
facilities are defined as any facility where magnesium metal is
produced through smelting (including electrolytic smelting), refining,
or remelting operations, or any site where molten magnesium is used in
alloying, casting, drawing, extruding, forming, or rolling operations.
    Facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)) summarized in Section II.B of this preamble
must report GHG emissions.
    GHGs to Report. Each magnesium production facility must report
total emissions at the facility level for each of the following gases
in metric tons of gas per year resulting from their use as cover gases
or carrier gases in magnesium production or processing:
     SF6.
     HFC-134a.
     FK 5-1-12.
     CO2.
     Any other GHG as defined in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A
(General Provisions) of the rule.
    In addition, each facility must report GHG emissions for other
source categories for which calculation methods are provided in the
rule. For example, facilities must report CO2,
N2O, and CH4 emissions from each stationary
combustion unit on site by following the requirements of 40 CFR part
98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. Owners or operators of
magnesium production facilities must calculate emissions of each gas by
monitoring the annual consumption of cover gases and carrier gases
using one of three methods:
     Use a mass-balance approach that takes into account the
following:
    - Decrease in Inventory: The decrease in inventory of cover or
carrier gases stored in containers from the beginning to the end of the
year.
    - Acquisitions: The amount of cover or carrier gas acquired through
purchases or other transactions.
    - Disbursements: The amount of cover or carrier gases disbursed to
sources and locations outside the facility through sales or other
transactions.
     Monitor the changes in the mass of individual containers
as the gases are used.
     Monitor the mass flow of pure cover gas and carrier gas
into the cover gas distribution system.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must
submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list
of the specific data to be reported for this source category is
contained in 40 CFR part 98, subpart T.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the information required by the
General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of
additional data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific
records that must be retained for this source category is included in
40 CFR part 98, subpart T.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    No major changes since proposal have been made to the magnesium
production sector.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    No comments specific to regulation of the magnesium production
sector were received.

D. Underground Coal Mines (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart FF)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. This source category consists of active
underground coal mines and any underground mines under development that
have operational pre-mining degasification systems. An underground coal
mine is a mine at which coal is produced by tunneling into the earth to
a subsurface coal seam, where the coal is then mined with equipment
such as cutting machines, and transported to the surface. Active
underground coal mines are underground mines categorized by the MSHA as
active and where coal is currently being produced or has been produced
within the previous 90 days. This source category includes each
ventilation well or shaft, and each degasification system well or
shaft, and includes degasification systems deployed before, during, or
after mining operations are conducted in a mine area.
    This source category does not include abandoned (closed) mines,
surface coal mines, post-coal mining activities (e.g., storage or
transportation of coal), or coalbed methane recovery from coal seams
not associated with active underground coal mines.
    Reporters must submit annual GHG reports for facilities that meet
the applicability criteria in the General Provisions (40 CFR
98.2(a)(1)) summarized in Section II.B of this preamble.
    GHGs to Report. For underground coal mines, report the following:
     Quarterly CH4 liberation from ventilation and
degasification systems.
     Quarterly CH4 destruction for ventilation and
degasification systems and resultant CO2 emissions, if
destruction takes place on-site.
    In addition, each facility must report GHG emissions for other
source categories for which calculation methods are provided in the
rule. For example, facilities must report CO2,
N2O, and CH4 emissions from each stationary
combustion unit on site by following the requirements of 40 CFR part
98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. For CH4
liberated from mine ventilation air, facilities are to monitor
CH4 using either quarterly or more frequent sampling of
CH4 content and gas flow, or continuous emissions monitoring
systems (CEMS).
    For the quarterly sampling option, coal mine operators are required
to either: (a) To obtain the results of the quarterly, or more
frequent, testing that MSHA conducts, and use the results to calculate
quarterly emissions, or (b) independently collect quarterly, or more
frequent, samples of CH4 released from the ventilation
system(s), using MSHA procedures, have these samples analyzed for
CH4 composition, and use

the results to calculate quarterly emissions.
    If operators use CEMS as the basis for emissions reporting, they
must provide documentation on the process for using data obtained from
their CEMS to estimate emissions from their mine ventilation systems.
    For CH4 liberated from degasification systems,
facilities are to monitor CH4 using either weekly sampling,
or CEMS.
    The option of collecting weekly samples includes both measurement
of the total gas volume liberated (including that which is emitted or
sold, used onsite, or otherwise destroyed (including by flaring)),
along with measurements of CH4 concentrations in gas volumes
recovered or emitted. Under this option, facilities must determine
weekly gas flow rates and CH4 composition from these
degasification wells and shafts, either on an individual well or shaft
basis, or in aggregate at one or more centralized collection points.
Methane composition could be determined either by submitting samples to
a lab for analysis, or from the use of methanometers at the
degasification well site(s) and/or one or more centralized collection
point(s).
    For the CEMS option, facilities must monitor either individual
wellbores, or can monitor gas at points of aggregation, as long as
emissions from all wells are addressed, and the methodology for
calculating total emissions from all wells is documented.
    For all systems with CH4 destruction, CH4
destruction is monitored through direct measurement of CH4
flow to combustion devices with continuous monitoring systems. The
resulting CO2 emissions for onsite combustion devices
without energy recovery (i.e., flaring) are to be calculated from these
monitored values.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must
submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list
of specific data to be reported for this source category is contained
in 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional
data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific
records that must be retained for this source category is contained in
40 CFR part 98, subpart FF.

2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal

    The major changes in this rule since the original proposal are
identified in the following list. The rationale for these and any other
significant changes to 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF can be found below or
in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Subpart FF: Underground Coal Mines.''
     An option of using one or more CEMS to obtain data on mine
ventilation systems was added.
     For CH4 liberated from degasification systems,
the requirement to monitor each well was removed. CEMS may be used to
monitor aggregate CH4 from more than one well, as long as
CH4 from all wells is monitored, and the methodology for
estimating total emissions from all wells is documented.
     The requirement for continuous monitoring for total
CH4 liberation at degasification systems was removed.
Degasification wells may be monitored with CEMS or through weekly
sampling of all degasification wells, including gob gas vent holes and
other degasification wells.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. EPA received many comments on this subpart covering numerous
topics. EPA's responses to these significant comments can be found in
the comment response document for underground coal mines in ``Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments,
Subpart FF: Underground Coal Mines.''
Definition of Source Category
    Comment: Several commenters stated that many operators currently
recover liberated CH4 for various purposes, including
destruction, and therefore CH4 that has been recovered is no
longer an emission as it is not vented into the atmosphere. The
commenters recommended that EPA not include recovered CH4 in
the reporting requirements.
    Response: EPA agrees that CH4 that has been recovered
and combusted is not emitted. However, EPA does not agree with the
commenter that recovered CH4 should be excluded from the
reporting requirements. Recovery projects at mines greatly reduce
CH4 emissions from this source. It is vital that EPA obtain
the best information available about these practices for future policy
analysis. In addition, since mines with CH4 collection
systems generally monitor the amount of CH4 collected in
these systems, this can provide an effective internal validation method
for assessment of CH4 generation within the mine. As such,
data for mines with gas collection systems are also vitally important
to better understand and improve estimates of CH4 emissions
from mines in general. EPA has taken the same approach for the
reporting of recovered CH4 from landfills under 40 CFR part
98, subpart HH.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that EPA include abandoned mines in
the source category definition. For existing abandoned mines whose
operators can be identified from State or Federal records, they
recommended that EPA require the installation of appropriate monitoring
equipment. They also recommended that EPA make clear that the abandoned
mine exception does not apply prospectively.
    Response: For currently abandoned mines, EPA considered this
emission source and determined that measuring and/or monitoring
emissions from abandoned mines would be difficult at this time, since
there are currently no robust facility-level monitoring methods
available to measure fugitive emissions from abandoned mines. Further,
in many cases, EPA concluded that it would be difficult to identify
owners of abandoned mine sites, i.e., it would be difficult to identify
the responsible parties to monitor and report. Finally, even where the
site owner is known, these sites are often unmanned, remote, and lack a
source of nearby power, making it burdensome to monitor emissions. EPA
may reconsider including abandoned mines in this rule should additional
information become available demonstrating that monitoring is feasible.
    With regard to the ``once in, always in'' provision of the proposed
reporting rule, a mine covered by the rule that later ceases coal
production would need to continue reporting until its emissions fell
below the levels specified in the provisions to cease reporting in 40
CFR part 98, subpart A. Mines continue to emit CH4 after
mining activities have ceased and therefore it is prudent to continuing
monitoring emissions until they are below the threshold.
    Comment: For surface mines, while commenters recognized that
existing monitoring methods presently may not be robust, some
commenters consider the use of existing methods to be preferable to
excluding this source of emissions. They suggested that EPA consider
requiring these methods for surface mines, adjusting emissions figures
appropriately to account for uncertainty.
    Response: EPA determined that monitoring emissions from surface
mines would be challenging, since there are currently no robust
facility-level monitoring methods to measure fugitive

CH4 emissions from surface mines at this time. Measuring
fugitive emissions at specific locations would not adequately capture
the emissions from the entire mine, would be expensive and resource-
intensive, and difficult for mine operators to implement on a periodic
basis. EPA may reconsider including surface mines in this rule should
additional information become available demonstrating that monitoring
is feasible.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that even the most
accurate instrumentation will have accuracy difficulties based upon
varying conditions, calling into question the accuracy of the
measurements. Because of this, they recommended that degasification
wells be exempt from the rule.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that CH4
degasification wells should be exempt. While the factors mentioned in
the comment may indeed influence the accuracy of measurement of
CH4 from degasification wells, EPA considered this issue
when including this source category, and determined that the collection
of facility-level data at these mines is still of value to EPA because
it provides valuable information for characterizing CH4
emissions from underground coal mining options. This information is
also of value to mine owners, because those facilities reporting under
the rule will have stringent monitoring systems in place that will
allow them to quantify the mitigation value of destroying
CH4 from their degasification systems.
Reporting Threshold
    Comment: One commenter recommended that establishing the reporting
threshold at a level of 100,000 metric tons CO2e/yr instead
of the proposed threshold of MSHA quarterly reporting would ensure
accurate reporting while sparing small mines and manufacturers from the
burdens of compliance.
    Response: In developing the threshold for active underground coal
mines, EPA considered various emissions-based thresholds, and
determined that reporting should be required for those coal mines for
which CH4 emissions from the ventilation system are sampled
quarterly by MSHA. MSHA conducts quarterly testing of CH4
concentration and flow at mines emitting more than 100,000 cubic feet
of CH4 per day. This threshold was selected because
subjecting underground mine operators to a new emissions-based
threshold would be unnecessarily burdensome and perhaps confusing,
since these mines are already subject to MSHA regulations and therefore
would be able to comply with this rule without having to separately
determine applicability.
Selection of Proposed GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring Methods
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that CEMS should be allowed
as a monitoring method, but not required, for both ventilation and
degasification systems. In particular, they claim that continuous
monitoring of CH4 emissions and air flow rates for all
degasification wells and degasification vent holes is not feasible for
several reasons. The remote location, unavailability of power,
inaccessibility, susceptibility to vandalism, and the relatively short
longevity of many degasification and vent holes renders continuous
monitoring impractical in many cases.
    One commenter generally agreed with EPA's approach to underground
coal mine CH4 monitoring, but urged EPA to require the use
of CEMS for ventilation systems in addition to degasification systems.
    Most commenters stated that the procedures and quarterly sampling
are sufficient as an option for GHG emissions reporting from
ventilation of underground coal mines if such data can be received from
MSHA. However, some expressed concern that MSHA does not normally
report such data back to mines unless requested.
    Response: For monitoring CH4 liberation from underground
coal mines, EPA considered several approaches: Engineering approaches
whereby default emission factors would be applied to total annual coal
production; periodic sampling of CH4; daily sampling of
CH4; and the use of CEMS. EPA selected periodic sampling as
its minimum requirement because the cost burden of purchasing,
installing and maintaining CEMS, and the cost of maintaining a more
frequent sampling program were not justifiable under present
circumstances relative to the greater measurement accuracy achieved.
    We agree that CEMS should be allowed, but not required, to monitor
CH4 liberation from ventilation and degasification systems,
and have changed the rule accordingly. For systems where recovered
CH4 is sold, destroyed, or used on site, EPA determined that
such systems are already installed on most wells, and CEMS are
required.
    For monitoring at ventilation systems, EPA has concluded that
quarterly sampling is sufficient as an option for GHG monitoring from
ventilation systems. Quarterly sampling was chosen for ventilation
systems because that is the frequency of sampling conducted by MSHA.
Greater frequency would provide more accurate data; however, the
increased burden would outweigh the benefits of improved accuracy for
the purposes of this reporting rule at this time. The quarterly option
represents a balance between burden on reporters and accuracy of data.
    EPA is aware that MSHA does not normally report sampling data back
to mines unless requested. However, since MSHA is conducting sampling
that provides data useful to this rule, EPA determined that it should
include use of the data collected by MSHA, by facilities that do obtain
this data from MSHA, as an option under this rule. Under this option,
facilities would input MSHA data into the emissions calculations
required under this rule. Mines that do not obtain this data from MSHA
must conduct sampling as specified in the rule.
    EPA added the use of CEMS at ventilation systems as an option for
monitoring. CEMS are not currently widely implemented at ventilation
systems, but mines evaluating the feasibility of mitigation, abatement,
or use of ventilation air methane might install CEMS to monitor
methane, and this monitoring would be allowed under this rule.
    For monitoring at degasification systems, it was determined that
weekly sampling is sufficient. Most degasification systems conduct
continuous monitoring and where this type of monitoring is already in
place, it should be used for purposes of this rule. Based on interviews
with a number of mine operators, for many of those sites where
continuous monitoring is not being conducted (primarily for gob gas
vent holes) degasification wells are monitored at least weekly.
Moreover, EPA determined that emissions do not generally vary much from
week to week for mine degasification systems, so the weekly
measurements would provide sufficient accuracy.
Cost Data
    Comment: Many commenters noted that EPA did not appropriately take
into consideration the full costs of compliance associated with the
proposed rule, particularly those associated with the installation of
CEMS on all degasification wells and vent holes. They noted that both
the number of impacted wells and vent holes, as well as the costs
associated with implementing such systems, was probably underestimated.
    Response: Based on these comments and further analysis, EPA
reevaluated its cost assessment, revised its costs,

and on the basis of those revised costs, modified the monitoring
requirements.
    EPA reassessed the number of degasification wells and vent holes
that would likely be associated with mines required to report under the
rule. This resulted in a substantially larger estimate of the number of
degasification wells that would be required to install CEMS systems in
compliance with the originally proposed requirements, with an
associated greater incremental cost burden.
    EPA determined that implementing CEMS on some degasification wells
could be quite costly, and in many cases, would be difficult and/or
impractical due to remote location, unavailability of power,
inaccessibility, susceptibility to vandalism, and the relatively short
longevity of many degasification and vent holes. As a result, EPA
included consideration of the costs associated with weekly or more
frequent sampling, as an alternative to the installation of CEMS, to
address this potential burden. For more detailed information on costs,
please see Section 4 of the Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) found in
docket EPA-OAR-2008-0508.

E. Industrial Wastewater Treatment (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart II)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. This source category applies to
anaerobic processes used to treat industrial wastewater and wastewater
treatment sludge only at pulp and paper mills, food processing
facilities, ethanol production facilities, and petroleum refineries. It
does not include anaerobic processes used to treat wastewater and
wastewater treatment sludge at other industrial facilities. It does not
include municipal wastewater treatment plants or separate treatment of
sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities. It does not include oil/
water separators. This source category consists of the following:
Anaerobic reactors, anaerobic lagoons, anaerobic sludge digesters, and
biogas destruction devices.
    Facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)) summarized in Section II.B of this preamble
must report GHG emissions.
    GHGs To Report. Operators of anaerobic processes used to treat
industrial wastewater and industrial wastewater treatment sludge at the
above noted facilities must report the following:
     The amount of CH4 generated, recovered, and
emitted from treatment of industrial wastewater using anaerobic lagoons
or anaerobic reactors.
     The amount of CH4 recovered and emitted from
anaerobic sludge digesters.
     The amount of CH4 destroyed by and emitted from
biogas collection systems and destruction devices.
    Operators of anaerobic wastewater treatment sludge digesters are
not required to report the amount of CH4 generated. It is
EPA's understanding that all anaerobic sludge digesters are designed
for CH4 recovery and are therefore not expected to emit
CH4 directly from the digester apparatus. Further, this rule
requires operators of anaerobic sludge digesters to report the amount
of CH4 recovered and emitted from the recovery system.
Therefore, all CH4 that is generated in the anaerobic sludge
digester is already accounted for in the amount of CH4
recovered and emitted from the recovery system. For this reason, a
separate calculation and report of the amount of CH4
generated is not necessary.
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. For each anaerobic
wastewater treatment process, facilities must calculate the mass of
CH4 generated using the following inputs and data:
     Volume of wastewater sent to an anaerobic treatment
process.
     Average concentration of chemical oxygen demand (COD) or
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) of wastewater
entering an anaerobic treatment process.
     Maximum CH4 producing potential of wastewater
(0.25 for COD, 0.6 for BOD5).
     CH4 conversion factor for the type of
wastewater treatment process used.
    For each anaerobic process (such as a reactor, lagoon, or sludge
digester) from which biogas is recovered, covered facilities must
calculate the mass of CH4 recovered using the following
inputs and data:
     Cumulative volumetric flow of biogas for the monitoring
period.
     Average CH4 content of the biogas.
     Temperature, pressure, and moisture content at which flow
is measured, as needed to accurately calculate biogas flow and
CH4 content.
    For each anaerobic process (such as reactor, lagoon, or sludge
digester) from which biogas is recovered, covered facilities must
calculate the mass of CH4 emitted using the following inputs
and data:
     Mass of CH4 recovered.
     Collection efficiency for the anaerobic process, based on
the type of anaerobic process.
     Destruction efficiency of the biogas collection and
combustion system.
     Fraction of hours the destruction device was operating in
the reporting year.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), facilities must
submit additional data that are used to calculate or verify GHG
emissions. A list of the specific data to be reported for this source
category is contained in 40 CFR part 98, subpart II.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)) facilities must keep records of additional
data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that
must be retained for this source category is included in 40 CFR part
98, subpart II.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes since proposal are identified below. The
rationale for these and any other significant changes can be found
below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments, Subpart II: Industrial Wastewater Treatment,'' and
``Technical Support Document for Industrial Wastewater Treatment.''
     The source category has been renamed Industrial Wastewater
Treatment and the applicability of this subpart has been clarified.
Only petroleum refineries, and ethanol production, food processing, and
pulp and paper facilities that meet the requirements of 98.2(a)(2) are
required to report CH4 emissions from anaerobic processes
used to treat industrial wastewater and industrial wastewater treatment
sludge and biogas destruction devices. Separate treatment of sanitary
wastewater at industrial facilities is not included in the
applicability, nor are facilities that do not employ the wastewater
treatment processes listed in the source definition (i.e., those that
employ only aerobic or anoxic processes are not required to report).
     The requirement to report emissions from oil/water
separators at petroleum refineries has been removed. EPA expects no
direct emissions of CO2 or other GHG from these oil/water
separators.
     Because petrochemical facilities are not known to employ
anaerobic wastewater treatment, this sector has been removed from the
final version of the rule.
     For ease of reporting, EPA revised the regulation to allow
for either continuous or weekly monitoring of biogas CH4
concentration. Facilities may use either installed or portable monitors
to measure the CH4 concentration. Further, EPA added
BOD5 as an

alternative to measuring COD to determine the organic load of influent
to anaerobic wastewater treatment systems.
3. Summary of Comments and Response
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. EPA received many comments on this subpart covering numerous
topics. EPA's responses to these comments can be found in the comment
response document for industrial wastewater treatment in ``Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments,
Subpart II: Industrial Wastewater Treatment.''
    Comment: Many commenters expressed confusion about which facilities
were required to report emissions from wastewater treatment systems.
Some commenters requested EPA clarify the definitions of aerobic and
anaerobic wastewater treatment, while others were uncertain whether
only the industries explicitly mentioned in the rule were required to
report. Many commenters also requested that EPA clarify whether the
rule applied to centralized municipal wastewater treatment plants and
treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities.
    Response: EPA revised 40 CFR 98.351 to clarify that only ethanol
production, food processing, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper
manufacturing facilities must report wastewater treatment system
emissions if they both meet the requirements of 40 CFR 98.2 (a)(1) or
(2) and operate an anaerobic process to treat industrial wastewater or
industrial wastewater treatment sludge.
    With regard to anaerobic processes covered by the rule, EPA revised
40 CFR 98.350 to state explicitly that facilities are only required to
report emissions for the following: anaerobic reactors, anaerobic
lagoons, anaerobic sludge digesters, and biogas destruction devices. To
further clarify the scope of 40 CFR part 98, subpart II, EPA has
removed emission factors for aerobic processes used to treat industrial
wastewater from Table II-1 of 40 CFR part 98, subpart II because these
processes are not covered by the reporting rule.
    EPA agrees with commenters that it is appropriate to exclude
centralized domestic or municipal wastewater treatment plants from 40
CFR part 98, as was the case in the proposed rule. EPA continues to
exclude municipal wastewater treatment plants from the final rule, and
has retitled 40 CFR part 98, subpart II as Industrial Wastewater
Treatment to clarify the applicability of this subpart.
    EPA also agrees with commenters that it is appropriate to exclude
separate treatment of sanitary wastewater at industrial facilities from
40 CFR part 98. Most such sanitary treatment plants are much smaller
than municipal wastewater treatment plants and few use anaerobic
treatment. As a result, EPA explicitly excluded these systems from 40
CFR part 98; however, anaerobic processes used to treat combined
industrial and sanitary wastewater are covered by the rule.
    Comment: Multiple commenters objected to the inclusion of emissions
from petroleum refinery oil/water separators in the rule. Some argued
that the GHG emissions from these devices would be insignificant.
Others asserted that the GHG emissions calculations were unsupported
and that this subpart was the only one to consider the atmospheric
conversion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to CO2 in
the calculation of GHG emissions.
    Response: In the proposed rule, EPA included a method to calculate
CO2 emissions that indirectly come from VOCs from petroleum
refinery oil/water separators. EPA agrees with commenters that this
requirement should be removed because this is the only source category
to consider and require reporting of the conversion of VOCs to
CO2 in the atmosphere. The purpose of this rule is to
collect direct GHG emissions data from downstream sources including
industrial wastewater treatment. Therefore we are not collecting data
from downstream sources on indirect emissions such as VOCs that can
convert to CO2 once in the atmosphere. Please see
``Technical Support Document for Industrial Wastewater Treatment'' for
more detailed information on this issue. While EPA is not requiring the
reporting of CO2 resulting from VOC emissions at this time,
we understand that these emissions may be important and we may revisit
this reporting requirement in the future.
    Comment: EPA received many comments recommending that wastewater
treatment be considered a de minimis source. Some argued that
wastewater treatment contributes an extremely small percentage of
emissions compared to certain sectors' process emissions. Others
contended that the burden of determining the small amount of wastewater
treatment emissions was not warranted.
    Response: EPA disagrees that reporting of wastewater treatment
emissions should be excluded from the rule. Despite the comparatively
small amount of GHG emissions from wastewater treatment nationally,
emissions at individual facilities could be significant. We note that
the source categories required to report are industries that both have
the potential to exceed the reporting threshold, and have high levels
of BOD or COD in their wastewater and frequently employ anaerobic
treatment operations. See the Wastewater Treatment Technical Support
Document (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-035). These two conditions result in the
opportunity for increased GHG emissions. EPA has minimized the overall
reporting burden by focusing the rule requirements on those treatment
systems with the highest likelihood of generating GHG emissions
exceeding the reporting threshold. In light of the potential
significance of the emissions, lack of facility specific data, and
revisions made to the reporting requirements in response to comments,
we find that the burden on facilities is justified.
    Given this reporting rule is aimed at collecting data to inform a
range of future policies and programs it is important to understand the
entirety of a facility's emissions. Therefore, requiring facilities in
the included industry sectors to report wastewater treatment emissions,
even though they may result in only a small portion of a facility's
overall emissions, will allow each reporting facility to estimate their
total emissions more accurately.
    Comment: Many commenters requested additional flexibility in the
rule requirements. Some requested the ability to use BOD instead of COD
to calculate the organic content of the wastewater they treat in
anaerobic processes. Others requested changes in sampling frequency for
both biogas and wastewater.
    Response: To reduce the reporting burden, EPA has revised the rule
to allow for the use of either COD in conjunction with Equation II-1 of
the rule or BOD5 in conjunction with Equation II-2 of the
rule for the calculation of CH4 generation. EPA does not
expect that this will effect the accuracy of the estimate of the annual
mass of CH4 generated at the facility.
    EPA also revised the language regarding sampling of wastewater to
require facilities to collect a flow-proportional composite sample
(either constant time interval between samples with sample volume
proportional to stream flow, or constant sample volume with time
interval between samples proportional to stream flow). Facilities are
required to collect a minimum of four sample aliquots per 24-hour
period and to composite the aliquots for analysis. This requirement
provides for greater certainty that the collected

sample represents the wastewater influent to the anaerobic wastewater
treatment process, without imposing unnecessary burden on reporters.
    In response to comments, EPA considered revising the proposed
language of 40 CFR 98.354 to clarify how facilities might meet the
stated requirement for the collection of grab samples or time-weighted
composite samples. EPA considered allowing facilities to collect grab
samples if the wastewater influent to the anaerobic wastewater
treatment process represents the discharge from a well-mixed wastewater
storage unit (tank or pond), such that the COD or BOD5
concentration of the waste stream does not vary in a 24-hour period.
Similarly, EPA considered allowing facilities to collect time-weighted
composite samples if the flow rate of the wastewater influent to the
anaerobic wastewater treatment process does not vary more than 50 percent of the mean flow rate for a 24-hour sampling period.
However, establishing that these conditions are met would require the
facility to collect more samples than the proposed requirement to
collect flow-weighted composite samples. Thus we did not include these
sampling approaches in the final rule.
    The final rule establishes differing requirements for the frequency
of monitoring biogas flow and biogas CH4 concentration. EPA
expects that facilities that recover biogas will have existing gas flow
meters, and is therefore requiring continuous monitoring of biogas flow
from these facilities. EPA has revised the rule to allow either
continuous or weekly monitoring of biogas CH4 concentration.
If a facility has equipment that continuously monitors CH4
concentration, the facility must use this equipment to determine the
CH4 concentration in the recovered biogas. If a facility
does not currently monitor biogas CH4 concentration, they
must use either installed or portable equipment to monitor the
CH4 concentration at least once a week. Once a week means
once each calendar week, with at least three days between measurements.
Weekly monitoring provides an adequate number of samples to evaluate
the variability and uncertainly associated with CH4
generation. Less frequent monitoring would result in greater
uncertainty and would not significantly reduce the costs compared to
weekly monitoring.
    Some gas flow meters and gas composition meters automatically
compensate for temperature, pressure, and moisture content. EPA revised
the equations in 40 CFR part 98, subpart II so that facilities that use
automatically compensated meters are not required to measure
temperature, pressure and moisture content. Facilities that operate
meters that are not automatically compensated must measure these
parameters as specified in 40 CFR 98.354.
    Some facilities, particularly food processing facilities, may not
operate their wastewater treatment plants all year round. EPA clarified
that wastewater monitoring requirements apply when the anaerobic
wastewater treatment process is operating. Further, biogas methane
concentration monitoring is only required in weeks when the cumulative
biogas flow measured as specified in 40 CFR 98.354(g) is greater than
zero.
    Comment: Many commenters argued that it would be unduly burdensome
and costly to require facilities to monitor influent to wastewater
treatment systems. Some stated that their influent often consists of
multiple phases, making measurement of wastewater organic content
(BOD5 or COD) difficult. Others contended that since
effluent concentrations and flow are already measured for the purposes
of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance,
EPA should allow facilities to use engineering calculations and
effluent measurements to calculate GHG emissions.
    Response: The rule requires that flow and BOD5 or COD be
monitored at the location of influent to the anaerobic treatment
process. EPA disagrees that facilities should be allowed to use the
flow and organic loading of treated effluent to estimate CH4
generation. CH4 generation is a function of the organic load
into the treatment system. If facilities used measured treated effluent
organic load, they would need to back-calculate the influent
(untreated) load. This approach would require EPA to describe all
possible treatment scenarios, which would make the rule cumbersome and
overly complex. Facilities would be required to use complex and
burdensome methodologies to back-calculate the influent load.
    Further, influent monitoring gives the most accurate determination
of GHG emissions because it captures the inherent variability of the
wastewater. In contrast, treated effluent characteristics typically
have lower variability because high and/or variable influent
concentrations have been reduced by treatment.
    EPA also disagrees that monitoring the influent to the anaerobic
process would be difficult because it consists of multiple phases. EPA
has revised 49 CFR 98.354(b) of the rule to clarify that flow and
BOD5 or COD concentration must be monitored following all
preliminary and primary treatment steps (e.g., after grit removal,
primary clarification, oil-water separation, dissolved air flotation,
or similar solids and oil separation processes). Such preliminary and
primary treatment sufficiently removes the non-aqueous phases (oil,
foam, suspended solids) that the wastewater stream that can be analyzed
for BOD5 and COD without undue burden.
    EPA disagrees that the cost of monitoring would be an undue burden
on facilities. The final rule continues to require facilities to
collect and analyze samples of anaerobic treatment process influent no
less than once per week. Weekly monitoring provides an adequate number
of samples to evaluate the variability and uncertainty associated with
CH4 generation. Less frequent monitoring would result in
greater uncertainty and would not significantly reduce the costs
compared to weekly monitoring.
    EPA has determined that the sampling methods contained in the rule
are not unduly burdensome and still result in an accurate estimate of
GHG emissions from industrial wastewater treatment processes for the
purpose of this rulemaking.

F. Industrial Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 98, Subpart TT)

1. Summary of the Final Rule
    Source Category Definition. This source category consists of
industrial waste landfills whose total landfill design capacity is
greater than or equal to 300,000 metric tons and that accepted waste on
or after January 1, 1980.
    This source category does not include Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C or Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
hazardous waste landfills, construction and demolition landfills, or
landfills that only receive inert waste materials, such as coal
combustion residue (e.g., fly ash), cement kiln dust, rocks and/or
soil, glass, non-chemically bound sand (e.g., green foundry sand),
clay, gypsum, pottery cull, bricks, mortar, cement, furnace slag,
refractory material, or plastics.
    Facilities that meet the applicability criteria in the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.2(a)) summarized in Section II.B of this preamble
must report GHG emissions.
    GHGs to Report. For industrial waste landfills, facilities must
report:

     Annual CH4 generation and CH4
emissions from the industrial waste landfill.
     Annual CH4 recovered (for landfills with gas
collection and destruction systems).
    GHG Emissions Calculation and Monitoring. All facilities must
ascertain annual modeled CH4 generation based on:
     Measured or estimated values of historic annual waste
disposal quantities; and
     Appropriate values for model inputs (i.e., degradable
organic carbon (DOC) fraction in the waste, CH4 generation
rate constant). Default parameter values are specified for certain
industries and for industrial waste generically.
    Facilities that do not collect and destroy landfill gas must adjust
the annual modeled CH4 generation to account soil oxidation
(CH4 that is converted to CO2 as it passes
through the landfill cover before being emitted) using a default soil
oxidation factor. The resulting value must be reported and represents
both CH4 generation (corrected for oxidation) and
CH4 emissions.
    Facilities that collect and destroy landfill gas must calculate the
annual quantity of CH4 recovered and destroyed based on
continuous monitoring of landfill gas flow rate, and continuous or
weekly monitoring of CH4 concentration, temperature,
pressure, and moisture of the collected gas prior to the destruction
device.
    Those facilities that collect and destroy landfill gas must then
calculate CH4 emissions in two ways and report both results.
Emissions must be calculated by:
    1. Subtracting the measured amount of CH4 recovered from
the modeled annual CH4 generation (with adjustments for soil
oxidation and destruction efficiency of the destruction device) using
the equations provided; and
    2. Applying a gas collection efficiency to the measured amount of
CH4 recovered to ``back-calculate'' CH4
generation, then subtracting the measured amount of CH4
recovered (with adjustments for soil oxidation and destruction
efficiency of the destruction device) from the back-calculated
CH4 generation using the equations provided. A default
collection efficiency of 75 percent is specified, but landfills should
use a collection efficiency that takes into account collection system
coverage, operation, and landfill cover materials.
    Data Reporting. In addition to the information required to be
reported by the General Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(c)), reporters must
submit additional data that are used to calculate GHG emissions. A list
of the specific data to be reported for this source category is
contained in 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT.
    Recordkeeping. In addition to the records required by the General
Provisions (40 CFR 98.3(g)), reporters must keep records of additional
data used to calculate GHG emissions. A list of specific records that
must be retained for this source category is included in 40 CFR part
98, subpart TT.
2. Summary of Major Changes Since Proposal
    The major changes since proposal are identified in the following
list. The rationale for these and any other significant changes can be
found below or in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's
Response to Public Comments, Subpart TT: Industrial Waste Landfills.''
     A number of provisions were added to focus on industrial
waste landfills that have a potential to generate significant
quantities of methane rather than all landfills. These provisions
include an exemption for landfills that did not accept any waste after
January 1, 1980, an exemption of landfills with a total landfill design
capacity of less than 300,000 metric tons, and an exemption for
landfills that only receive inert waste materials.
     In addition to direct mass measurements for determining
waste quantities for current reporting years, we also allow volume
measurements, mass balance procedures, or number of truck loads.
     Additional model defaults for industrial waste are
included in the final rule and additional methods are provided to
estimate DOC content of industrial solid waste streams.
     For landfills with landfill gas recovery, all of the
changes that were incorporated in the final 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH
rule (allowing weekly sampling and direct flame ionization methods) are
also included in this final rule for industrial waste landfills (by
cross-referencing the final requirements in 40 CFR part 98, subpart
HH). For additional details regarding the changes in the landfill gas
recovery monitoring requirements, see the final preamble for the 40 CFR
part 98, subpart HH [Municipal Solid Waste Landfills] rule at 74 FR
56336.
3. Summary of Comments and Responses
    This section contains a brief summary of major comments and
responses. EPA received many comments on this subpart covering numerous
topics. EPA's responses to these significant comments can be found in
the comment response document for industrial waste landfills in
``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments, Subpart TT: Industrial Waste Landfills.''
Definition of Source Category
    Comment: Many commenters stated that landfills containing inert
industrial wastes should not be subject to this proposed rule because
inert wastes do not generate methane via anaerobic processes. Inert
wastes, according to various commenters, include: construction and
demolition waste, coal combustion residue monofills, geothermal filter
cake waste landfills, waste rock landfills at coal mines, plastics,
soils from construction and other site activities, hazardous waste
landfills, solid waste management units (SWMUs) and non-hazardous
landfills located at refineries, agricultural waste landfills
associated with sugar mills, pottery cull, gypsum, clays, green sand,
resin sand, refractory, slag, carbon and graphite manufacturing
byproducts.
    Several commenters stated that the rule would be very burdensome
for industrial waste landfills with inert waste streams and that EPA
has not sufficiently justified its decision to make all industrial
waste landfills, regardless of typical byproduct waste characteristics,
meet the provisions proposed.
    Rather than listing specific exclusions, several commenters stated
that EPA should do as suggested by the proposed rule and limit the
requirements of the rule to landfills located at food processing, pulp
and paper and ethanol production facilities which are known for methane
gas generation; several commenters also included petroleum refineries
in this list. One commenter suggested that ethanol production
facilities should not be required to report landfill emissions because
emissions from landfills at these facilities are so small.
    A number of other exemptions were suggested by different
commenters, including:
     Exempt inactive landfills, from which emissions are small.
     Exempt facilities that are not required to monitor methane
or install and operate any methane control facilities under State
permitting in order to keep the requirements simple and not overly
burdensome.
     Exempt on-site industrial waste landfills that have been
closed under RCRA because they have little or no

potential for air emissions and would create an unnecessary compliance
burden.
    Response: We agree that there will be negligible methane emissions
from landfills that contain only inert waste materials because they do
not have organic materials that would emit methane after being placed
in an industrial landfill. Therefore, we investigated alternative
applicability requirements for industrial waste landfills to target the
reporting requirements to landfills that are expected to produce
significant amounts of methane. Based on an analysis of various options
(see the ``Technical Support Document for Industrial Waste Landfills''
in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508), we decided to exclude from the
industrial waste landfill reporting requirements landfills that are
used exclusively to dispose of inert materials or ``inorganic'' wastes.
Specific types of wastes that are expected to be inert in the landfill
(e.g., bricks, glass, plastics, rocks, and fly ash) are listed. This
list of inert waste types also includes wastes that contain 0.5 weight
percent (dry basis) or less of volatile solids as a means for
industrial waste landfill owners and operators to characterize a waste
stream as ``inorganic'' if the waste stream is not already on the list
of inert materials. We did not provide exemptions for specific
industries nor limit coverage to specific industries (e.g., ethanol
production, food processing, or pulp and paper facilities) because the
waste material generated and managed in a landfill at any given
facility can be widely different, even within a given industry sector.
As such, we determined that the waste material exclusions provided a
better mechanism to exclude inert materials without omitting waste
materials that have high organic content. Additional rationale
regarding waste materials that were not specifically excluded is
provided in the following paragraph.
     Geothermal filter cake. We anticipate that geothermal
filter cake would be included in the exemption for rocks and soil from
excavation activities. If this filter cake includes other materials,
the landfills managing this waste may still be exempted if the waste
can be shown to contain 0.5 weight percent (dry basis) or less of
volatile solids. We note that this exclusion applies to any waste
material at any industrial waste landfill (i.e., any of the following
bullets).
     Landfills at petroleum refineries. We did not exclude
landfills at petroleum refineries because we anticipate that refinery
waste materials will contain significant amounts of DOC.
     Agricultural wastes at sugar mills. Again, we did not
exclude these wastes because we anticipate that the waste may contain
significant amounts of DOC (scraps of sugar canes).
     Resin sand. While we excluded green sand (i.e., ``non-
chemically'' bound sand, we did not exclude resin sand because resin
sand generally contains organic chemical binders that can degrade in
landfills and generate methane emissions.
     Carbon and graphite wastes. These wastes are expected to
contain significant amounts of carbon. It is unclear if the carbon
material can be degraded. However, with the information currently
available regarding this waste stream, we could not conclude that these
wastes are inert. If the graphite does not contain volatile impurities,
it may be possible to exempt these wastes by demonstrating that the
waste material contains 0.5 weight percent (dry basis) or less of
volatile solids.
    We also limited the reporting requirements for industrial waste
landfills to facilities whose total landfill design capacity is greater
than or equal to 300,000 metric tons. Our analysis indicated that there
are a large number of very small industrial waste landfills.
Approximately two-thirds of the total number of potentially affected
industrial waste landfills have a total landfill design capacity of
less than 300,000 metric tons, and these landfills are projected to
contribute only 7 percent of the total GHG emissions from industrial
waste landfills. Landfills with a design capacity of less than 300,000
metric tons are expected to have emissions well below 25,000 metric
tons CO2e. Landfills of this size would not be required to
report emissions if they were not co-located at an industrial facility
that has other emission sources exceeding the reporting threshold. The
incremental costs for requiring these small co-located industrial waste
landfills to report their landfill emissions was approximately $1.25
per additional metric tons CO2e reported (1st year costs),
compared to approximately $0.05 per metric tons CO2e
reported (1st year costs) for facilities with landfills whose total
landfill design capacity is greater than or equal to 300,000 metric
tons.
    We also agree that certain inactive landfills can be excluded from
the GHG reporting requirements. As described in the preamble to the
final rule for municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills (74 FR 56335),
landfills that have been closed over 30 years represent a small
fraction of GHG emissions from landfills and are not relevant for
purposes of policy analysis. Therefore, we also limit the reporting
requirements for industrial waste landfills to facilities that received
waste on or after January 1, 1980.
    We disagree that only industrial waste landfills that are required
to monitor for methane or that are required to capture and destroy
methane emissions should be included in the rule. Methane has not
traditionally been a pollutant for which monitoring or destruction
requirements have been established. We do not know of any such
requirements, and available information indicates that few, if any,
industrial waste landfills have methane capture and destruction
equipment. Although few industrial landfills capture and destroy
methane, that does not mean that these landfills do not generate
methane in significant quantities.
    As proposed, the industrial waste landfill source category did not
include hazardous waste landfills or dedicated construction and
demolition landfills. The final rule also excludes these landfills,
however, we have clarified that hazardous waste landfills refers to
those subject to RCRA Subtitle C or TSCA requirements. These landfills
are excluded due to the landfill design requirements, such as ``dry
tomb'' methods, which are expected to minimize methane production.
    We have not exempted Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (Superfund) landfills.
Generally, landfills become listed as CERCLA sites because the
landfills were not designed for hazardous wastes but some hazardous
materials were disposed of in the landfill and subsequently these
materials contaminated the groundwater. Thus, these landfills were not
designed and operated in a manner similar to RCRA Subtitle C or TSCA
landfills. Furthermore, the remediation requirements for CERCLA
landfills are determined on a site-specific basis, and these methods
generally do not necessarily require significant changes to the
landfill. For example, clean-up efforts focused on groundwater
remediation may pump and treat the contaminated groundwater and
recirculate the treated groundwater to the landfill. This technique can
be used to clean-up the groundwater and leach any other remaining
contaminants from the landfill, but this technique will enhance rather
than limit methane generation from the landfill. Consequently,
landfills that are subsequently listed by States as ``hazardous'' for
the purposes of

CERCLA (Superfund) or similar State programs are not excluded from the
industrial waste landfill source category.
    In summary, the final industrial waste landfill rule does not apply
to: (1) Industrial waste landfills that have not accepted waste on or
after January 1, 1980; (2) industrial waste landfills that have a total
design capacity of less than 300,000 metric tons; (3) RCRA Subtitle C
or TSCA hazardous waste landfills; (4) dedicated construction and
demolition landfills; and (5) industrial waste landfills that receive
only one or more of the following types of waste materials: coal
combustion residue (e.g., fly ash); cement kiln dust; rocks and/or soil
from excavation and construction and similar activities; glass; non-
chemically bound sand (e.g., green foundry sand); clay, gypsum, or
pottery cull; bricks, mortar, or cement; furnace slag; materials used
as refractory (e.g., alumina, silicon, fire clay, fire brick);
plastics; or other waste material that has a volatile solids
concentration of 0.5 weight percent (on a dry basis) or less.
Method for Calculating GHG Emissions
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA not require direct
measurement of the waste entering the landfill. One commenter noted
that there are materials that are conveyed and sluiced to solid waste
disposal areas that could not be monitored across truck scales. The
commenters suggested a number of alternatives to direct mass
measurements, which include:
     Allow the use of company records.
     Allow the use of any measurement method specified in an
applicable permit or any reasonable estimation method that is
adequately documented.
     Allow the use of typical waste disposal records and other
testing on parameters such as density and chemical analysis.
     Allow periodic calibration of the trucks hauling landfill
waste to determine the weight to volume ratio of various waste streams
provides a practical measurement for industrial waste landfills.
     Allow estimation methods outlined in the proposal to
calculate previous years' data be applied in future years (i.e.,
require direct waste measurements for only one year).
    Response: Unlike MSW landfills, many industrial waste landfills do
not directly weigh waste loads as they enter the landfill. We
reevaluated the cost of requiring direct mass measurements for
industrial waste landfills. According to one of the commenters, the
capital cost of installing scales could be as much as $50,000 each,
with operating and driver time resulting in an estimated annualized
cost of over $23,000. We also considered the uncertainty associated
with different measuring methods and their resulting uncertainty in the
overall modeled methane generation. Given the significant additional
costs for requiring direct mass measurements at industrial waste
landfills and the limited improvement in the uncertainty of the
reported methane emissions, we revised the rule so that direct mass
measurements are not required for industrial waste landfills.
    In 40 CFR 98.463 of the final rule, industrial waste landfills that
are subject to the rule are given several options for determining the
current waste quantities and historical values for waste quantities and
DOC. The types of processes that generate the waste, the types of waste
generated, and the means by which the wastes are transported or
conveyed to the landfill are very diverse. As such, different methods
of determining these waste quantities are needed. Consequently waste
quantities determined for years for which emissions reports are
required may be determined by any of the following methods: direct mass
measurements; volume measurements and waste stream density determined
from measurement data or process knowledge; mass balance procedures,
determining the mass of waste as the difference between the mass of the
process inputs and the mass of the process outputs; and the number of
loads (e.g., trucks) and the mass of waste per load based on the
working capacity of the container or vehicle.
    We determined these methods accommodate the approaches requested by
the commenters except for the last bulleted item. We do not agree with
the commenter's request to allow projections of waste quantities
disposed of after the first reporting year based on processing rate
correlations used to project historical waste quantities. This method
would not account for processing changes that may reduce (or increase)
the waste generation rate. Given the flexibility in determining waste
disposal quantities in a given reporting year, we determined that the
costs of determining these waste quantities as provided in the final
rule are reasonable and that the provided methods would produce more
accurate values for the purposes of reporting than the ``future''
projection of waste quantities based on a single year of measurement
data.
    We also provide a number of methods by which historical waste
quantities must be determined subject to the hierachy of available
data. Historical waste quantities must be determined using the methods
specified for current waste quantities when that information is
available. For years when waste quantity data are not available,
historical waste quantities must be estimated using production or
processing rates when these data are available. For years when neither
waste quantity data nor production/processing rate data are available,
historical waste quantities must be estimated based on the capacity of
the landfill used and the number of years the landfill has accepted
waste.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that more information be
provided in the rule to calculate GHG emissions from industrial waste
landfills, including an expansion of the type of information in Table
HH-1 of the rule, especially if reporting of GHG emissions from
industrial waste landfills is not limited to the food processing, pulp
and paper, and ethanol production facilities. One commenter suggested
that, if there are no DOC or k parameters in Table HH-1 for a given
waste category, such as boiler ashes, reporters should assume they are
zero and that no CH4 is generated from that waste. According
to the commenter, this assumption would more accurately calculate
CH4 emissions from a landfill by excluding quantities of
inert wastes rather than assuming all wastes generate CH4.
    Response: We have specifically included a default DOC value of zero
for inert materials in Table TT-1. Inert material is described as any
waste material (such as glass, cement, and fly ash) that is
specifically listed in Sec.  98.460(b)(3) paragraphs (i) through (xii).
As discussed previously, industrial waste landfills that receive only
inert materials are not required to report, but landfills that receive
both degradable organic and inert waste streams may use the default DOC
for the quantity of inert material disposed of in the industrial waste
landfill. For all other (non-inert) waste materials, the final rule
allows either the use of Table TT-1 to determine the default values for
DOC or the use of measured, waste stream-specific DOC values following
the methods provided in the final rule. In addition to default DOC and
k values for selected industries, we have also included in Table TT-1
of 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT default DOC and k value for ``other solid
industrial waste (not otherwise specified).'' As such, there should no
longer be an ``unlisted'' waste stream.

Costs
    Comment: One commenter stated that EPA presents its summary cost
analysis data in the preamble with further details in the accompanying
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) report. The commenter stated that EPA
presented cost data for each of the subparts separately but fails to
consider the overall burden per facility of complying with multiple
subparts, including landfills, as is the case with most industrial
facilities.
    Response: EPA agrees that the costs facing facilities in some
sectors include not only process costs but additional costs associated
with other subparts in the rule. While these costs are presented
individually in the costs tables, where these conditions apply the
costs are summed across applicable subparts and compared to revenues in
the economic and small entity impact analyses. In response to comments
on this issue, we revised the RIA of the 2009 final rule to more
clearly describe the approach taken. The same approach has been taken
for this rule.

III. Other Source Categories Proposed in 2009

A. Overview

    With this action EPA has made the final decision not to include
Ethanol Production or Food Processing as distinct subparts in 40 CFR
part 98. This decision does not change the applicability requirements
under other subparts of this rule that may affect these industries.
Further explanation of this decision is included in Section III.B and
III.C of this preamble. EPA has also made the final decision to not
include Suppliers of Coal in 40 CFR part 98 at this time. Further
explanation of this decision is included in Section III.D of this
preamble.

B. Ethanol Production

    EPA has made the final decision not to include Ethanol Production
(proposed as 40 CFR part 98, subpart J) as a distinct subpart in 40 CFR
part 98. EPA has determined that it is not necessary to include 40 CFR
part 98, subpart J in order to cover ethanol facilities in the final
rule. Thus, although there is no distinct subpart applicable to ethanol
production, these facilities will still be subject to the final rule
(if emissions exceed the applicable threshold) and the overall coverage
of the final rule regarding these facilities is the same as that of the
proposed rule.
    The proposal for this subpart (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) did not
include any unique requirements for monitoring or reporting of process
emissions from ethanol production facilities. Instead, the proposed
subpart simply referred to reporting that those facilities might be
required to do under other subparts, namely, 40 CFR part 98, subpart
C--Stationary Combustion, subpart HH-Landfills, and subpart II--
Wastewater Treatment.
    EPA received many comments on this subpart covering various topics.
EPA's response to these comments can be found in the comment response
document for ethanol production in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart J: Ethanol
Production.''
    40 CFR part 98, subpart J was originally included as a distinct
subpart to clearly indicate that these facilities must aggregate
emissions from all source categories when determining whether emissions
exceeded the applicable threshold. As structured, the proposed subpart
specifically required that emissions from stationary combustion, on-
site landfills, and on-site wastewater treatment were to be aggregated
in determining the reporting threshold and reporting emissions from
these facilities.
    Upon closer examination of 40 CFR 98.2(a), it is clear that ethanol
production facilities are already required to report if they meet the
threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions from
all applicable source categories in the rule including stationary
combustion, industrial wastewater treatment, industrial waste
landfills, miscellaneous use of carbonates, and any others that may
apply. In fact, any type of facility not specifically identified in a
subpart must report their GHG emissions if that facility contains
source categories itemized by the rule and their aggregate emissions
meet the applicable threshold.
    Note that in this final rule, ethanol production facilities are
among those specifically identified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart II--
Industrial Wastewater Treatment and are required to report if they meet
the applicability provisions in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2). Thus for clarity,
the definition of ethanol production facility is included in 40 CFR
98.358.
    Again, in sum, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
include 40 CFR part 98, subpart J in order to cover ethanol facilities
in the final rule. Moreover, highlighting the ethanol production (and
food processing) categories as being covered by the rule due to
emissions covered by other source categories may give the false
impression that there are not any other types of sources that may be
covered by the rule due to their aggregate emissions from stationary
combustion, industrial waste landfills and/or industrial wastewater
treatment.

C. Food Processing

    EPA has made the final decision not to include Food Processing
(proposed as 40 CFR part 98, subpart M) as a distinct subpart in 40 CFR
part 98. EPA had determined that it is not necessary to include 40 CFR
part 98, subpart M in order to cover food processing facilities in 40
CFR part 98. Thus, although there is no distinct subpart applicable to
food processing, these facilities will still be subject to the final
rule (if emissions exceed the applicable threshold) and the overall
coverage of the final rule regarding these facilities is the same as
that of the proposed rule.
    The proposal for this subpart (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) did not
include any unique requirements for monitoring or reporting of process
emissions from food processing facilities. Instead, the proposed
subpart simply referred to reporting that those facilities might be
required to do under other subparts, namely, 40 CFR part 98, subpart
C--Stationary Combustion, subpart HH--Landfills, and subpart II--
Wastewater Treatment.
    EPA received many comments on this subpart covering various topics.
EPA's response to these comments can be found in the comment response
document for food processing in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Subpart M: Food Processing.''
    40 CFR part 98, subpart M was originally included as a distinct
subpart to clearly indicate that these facilities must aggregate
emissions from all source categories when determining whether emissions
exceeded the applicable threshold. As structured, the proposed subpart
specifically required that emissions from stationary combustion, on-
site landfills, and on-site wastewater treatment were to be aggregated
in determining the reporting threshold and reporting emissions from
these facilities.
    Upon closer examination of 40 CFR 98.2(a), it is clear that food
processing facilities are already required to report if they meet the
threshold of 25,000 tons CO2e by aggregating emissions from
all applicable source categories in the rule including stationary
combustion, industrial wastewater treatment, industrial waste
landfills, miscellaneous use of carbonates, and any others that may
apply. In fact, any type of facilities not specifically identified in a
subpart must report their GHG emissions if that facility contains
source categories

itemized by the rule and their aggregate emissions meet the applicable
threshold.
    Note that in this final rule, food processing facilities are among
those specifically identified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart II--Industrial
Wastewater Treatment and are required to report if they meet the
applicability provisions in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2). Thus, for clarity, a
definition of food processing facility is included in 40 CFR 98.358.
    Again, in sum, EPA has determined that it is not necessary to
include 40 CFR part 98, subpart M in order to cover food processing
facilities in the final rule. Moreover, highlighting the food
processing (and ethanol production) categories as being covered by the
rule due to emissions covered by other source categories may give the
false impression that there are not any other types of sources that may
be covered by the rule due to their aggregate emissions from stationary
combustion, industrial waste landfills and/or industrial wastewater
treatment.

D. Suppliers of Coal

    As proposed (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) 40 CFR part 98, subpart
KK would have required that all coal mines, coal importers and
exporters, and coal waste reclaimers report the amount of coal produced
or supplied to the economy annually, as well as the CO2
emissions that would result from complete oxidation or combustion of
this quantity of coal. After reviewing the comments received on the
proposal as well as other available information, EPA has made a final
decision not to include Suppliers of Coal (proposed as 40 CFR part 98,
subpart KK) in 40 CFR part 98 at this time.
    EPA's rationale for not requiring reporting from coal suppliers at
this time is that (i) the overlap in reporting from upstream coal
suppliers and downstream emitters is almost 100 percent indicating that
double-reporting does not provide more complete information to EPA,
unlike with other upstream supplier subparts (e.g., 40 CFR part 98,
subpart MM and NN), and (ii) the high accuracy of the downstream
reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 98 provide more than adequate
emissions data for anticipated near-term uses.
    The overall purpose of 40 CFR part 98 is to collect information to
inform the development of future climate policy and programs under the
CAA. In the context of GHG emissions from coal consumption, EPA seeks
information on the magnitude and location of facility-level emissions
across the economy as well as overall emissions at the national level.
These near-term needs can be met with high accuracy and at principally
the same coverage through existing reporting requirements for direct
emitters under 40 CFR part 98, primarily through reporting under 40 CFR
part 98, subparts C, D, and Q. For example, the existing 40 CFR part
98, subpart D, which accounts for approximately 94 percent of emissions
from the use of coal, builds on rigorous monitoring requirements of 40
CFR part 75. Coal-fired electricity generating units subject to 40 CFR
part 75 typically use continuous emissions monitoring equipment that
measures actual carbon dioxide emissions hourly. Furthermore, 40 CFR
part 98 requires rigorous Tier 3 and Tier 4 reporting at industrial
facilities with large units combusting coal and other solid fuels.
Reporting requirements under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (general
stationary combustion) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart D (electricity
generation) will allow EPA to obtain data on more than 99 percent of
total CO2 emissions from coal combustion through existing
reporting provisions of 40 CFR part 98. The proposed 40 CFR part 98,
subpart KK procedures would have covered approximately 100 percent of
coal supplied to the economy and resulting downstream CO2
combustion emissions. The difference in combustion coverage of less
than 1 percent is estimated to come from the smallest consumers of
coal, such as home owners for use in heating.
    Furthermore, EPA's near-term needs regarding the data can be met
with higher accuracy through existing reporting requirements for direct
emitters. Under the proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK, approximately
50 percent of coal suppliers would have used engineering calculations
to correlate HHV from daily coal samples with carbon content from
either daily or monthly coal samples, assuming those are representative
of the entire coal stream. For the remaining coal mines, the proposed
40 CFR part 98, subpart KK procedures would have relied on default
CO2 emissions values, which are less accurate than direct
measurement and would not have supplied mine specific data.
Furthermore, existing reporting procedures for direct emitters account
for the combustion efficiency of the facility rather than assume 100
percent combustion or oxidation as was proposed in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart KK.
    While EPA believes that the proposal had a pragmatic approach to
balancing accuracy and cost, it is clear that the upstream data under
proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK would not have been as accurate as
the more rigorously monitored data reported by direct emitters. In sum,
including proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK would have provided EPA
with a near negligible amount of additional information on emissions,
while not achieving the same level of accuracy as the existing
reporting downstream.
    Though cost and burden are not reasons for EPA's decision to
exclude 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK, EPA notes that changing the 40 CFR
part 98, subpart KK proposal to require more rigorous reporting on par
with downstream requirements would have raised the costs and burden of
proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK significantly. In the proposed
Regulatory Impacts Analysis Cost Appendix Section 29, EPA assumed that
52 percent of coal mines (706) mines would meet 40 CFR part 98, subpart
KK requirements by sampling and testing for coal content monthly and
that 48 percent (659 mines) would meet requirements by using default
factors. To raise the reporting rigor, EPA would have had to require
100 percent of coal mines (1,365 mines) to sample and test coal content
daily.
    In addition, there is other information available to EPA such as
the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,\4\ other data
reported by coal-fired electricity generating units to EPA's Acid Rain
Program, and the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) detailed
coal production, consumption, imports and exports data.\5\ The national
GHG inventory tracks CO2 emissions from the combustion of
coal across the entire economy for each year since 1990 and breaks down
emissions according to economic sector. From this data set EPA
determined that in 2007, electricity generation accounted for
approximately 94 percent of all CO2 emissions from coal
combustion. The remaining emissions from coal consumption come
primarily from the industrial sector. EIA collects and publishes annual
data on coal production, consumption, imports and exports, thus
providing an additional source of information to serve as a check on
estimates of emissions from this sector and to inform potential
policies and programs related to coal supply. As EPA has stated in this
preamble and in the original 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK proposal,
rigorous, direct CO2 emissions measurements of coal
combustion are preferred by EPA over the use of default CO2
values for informing policies and programs that relate to stationary
source emissions. However, policies and programs of another nature for
which default

emissions values are more appropriate and have been previously used by
EPA, such as life cycle emissions considerations for National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses and Federal government climate
change contribution analyses, can be adequately informed at this time
by existing EIA data on coal production and default CO2
emissions values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
usinventoryreport.html.
    \5\ http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelcoal.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA views potential double-reporting for emissions from other
fossil fuels as appropriate where downstream reporting of all or the
large majority of emissions is impractical and where the upstream and
downstream reporting combine to provide the complete picture. Near
complete downstream coverage, as is achieved with coal, is not possible
for downstream users of petroleum, natural gas, or industrial gases. In
many cases, the fossil fuels and industrial GHGs supplied by producers
and importers are used and ultimately emitted by a large number of
small sources, particularly in the commercial and residential sectors
(e.g., HFCs emitted from home air conditioning units or CO2
emissions from individual motor vehicles). EPA would have had to
require reporting by hundreds or thousands of small facilities to cover
all direct emissions. EPA determined it was more appropriate to require
reporting by the suppliers of petroleum products, natural gas and
natural gas liquids, and industrial gases and CO2. As
exhibited by Table 5-18 of the RIA of the October 2009 Final Rule, the
downstream emitters requirements of the October 2009 Final Rule account
for only 20 percent of petroleum supply, approximately 23 percent of
natural gas supply and 28 percent of industrial gas supply.
Comparatively, requiring reporting by suppliers of these fuels,
accounts for a much larger percentage of emissions (100 percent for
petroleum and industrial gas suppliers and approximately 68 percent for
natural gas suppliers).
    Some commenters suggested that 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK data on
the carbon content of all coal supplied would have informed the
downstream effects of emissions changes resulting from the changing
carbon intensity of the fuel (which in turn assists in analyses such as
Best Available Control Technology (BACT)). EPA notes that it did not
propose that facilities affected by 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK would
report information on their customers because coal from multiple
suppliers can be blended together and sent to multiple customers.
Therefore information on downstream effect would not have been
available for use from the proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart KK. For
other upstream categories, EPA also did not propose and does not
require detailed information about specific customers. If EPA
determines that such type of carbon content data are necessary for a
specific analysis or determination, the Agency can request it at that
time. The robust data being collected now on downstream CO2
emissions are adequate for general policy analysis and will assist the
Agency in targeting additional information requests in the future.
    EPA's final decision is entirely consistent with the language of
the various appropriations acts authorizing the expenditure of money
for the reporting rule. The language in the FY2008 Appropriations Act
instructed EPA to spend the money on a rule requiring reporting ``in
all sectors of the economy.'' The Joint Explanatory Statement provided
that EPA should include upstream production ``to the extent that the
Administrator deems appropriate.'' The appropriations language grants
EPA much discretion to determine the appropriate source categories to
include in the reporting rule.
    The phrase ``all sectors of the economy'' is not further elaborated
in the FY2008 or later appropriations language. The term is ambiguous,
and EPA may interpret it in any reasonable manner. See Chevron, U.S.A.
v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Notably, the phrase is not ``all
industrial sectors'' but rather ``all sectors of the economy.'' There
is a difference between an industrial sector and a sector of the
economy. The former typically refers to a specific type of industry,
while the latter refers to categories of industries or businesses. For
example, the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is
a two- through six-digit hierarchical classification system, offering
five levels of detail, ranging from the broad economic sector to the
narrower national industry. See http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/
faqs/faqs.html#q5 (last visited May 10, 2010) (``Each digit in the code
is part of a series of progressively narrower categories, and the more
digits in the code signify greater classification detail. The first two
digits designate the economic sector, the third digit designates the
subsector, the fourth digit designates the industry group, the fifth
digit designates the NAICS industry, and the sixth digit designates the
national industry.'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although we cite to the NAICS system as an example
illustrating that sectors of the economy are considered to be
broader than industrial groupings, we are not indicating that we
think the appropriations language requires EPA to cover sources from
the 20 sectors covered by the NAICS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the proposed rule, EPA used the term ``sector'' to refer both to
different types of sectors of the economy and specific industrial
sectors or source categories. Compare 74 FR 16467/1 (referring to
source categories in the ``agricultural and land use sectors'') to 74
FR 16488/1 (referring to ``adipic acid production sector'').
Unfortunately, that usage may have caused some confusion, and lead some
stakeholders to believe that the two types of sectors are
interchangeable and equivalent. But as noted above, there are
differences between sectors of the economy, industrial sectors and
source categories in the reporting rule. EPA can cover a sector of the
economy in the reporting rule without covering every type of source in
that sector of the economy.
    40 CFR part 98 already covers a broad and diverse selection of
sources and emissions in the various sectors of the economy (e.g., fuel
and industrial gas suppliers, motor vehicle manufacturers, underground
coal mines, manufacturing facilities, universities and other facilities
with stationary combustion). While EPA considers it reasonable to
include more than one source category in any given sector of the
economy, it is not required to include every possible source category.
    In any event, the appropriations language at most denotes a
Congressional intent to ensure that emissions from various economic
sectors are covered by the rule. As noted above, 40 CFR part 98 already
adequately covers emissions from coal combustion even without getting
additional information from coal suppliers.
    Finally, the Joint Explanatory Statement already contemplated that
the Administrator may not ``deem[] it appropriate'' to include all
possible upstream production and downstream sources. As explained
above, the October 2009 Final Rule already thoroughly covers the
emissions that result from coal combustion. That information, combined
with other sources of information regarding the coal supply available
to EPA, makes EPA's decision that it is not ``appropriate'' at this
time to include coal suppliers in the rule entirely reasonable.
    EPA will continue to assess the need for reporting from coal
suppliers in the future in light of new information or identification
of policy or program needs. If EPA were to decide in the future to add
coal suppliers to 40 CFR

part 98 it would initiate a new rulemaking process.

IV. Economic Impacts on the Rule

    This section of the preamble examines the costs and economic
impacts of the proposed rulemaking and the estimated economic impacts
of the rule on affected entities, including estimated impacts on small
entities. Complete detail of the economic impacts of the final rule can
be found in the text of the EIA in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508).
    A large number of comments on economic impacts of the rule were
received covering numerous topics. Responses to significant comments
received can be found in ``Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:
EPA's Response to Public Comments, Cost and Economic Impacts of the
Rule.'' Additional subpart specific comments and responses can be found
in EPA's Response to Public Comments subpart specific documents.

A. How were compliance costs estimated?

1. Summary of Method Used To Estimate Compliance Costs
    EPA used available industry and EPA data to characterize conditions
at affected sources. Incremental monitoring, recordkeeping, and