Summary of Public Comments and Responses:

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

                                                                  November 2016

Summary of Public Comments and Responses: 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

                     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Office of Atmospheric Programs
                            Climate Change Division
                               Washington, D.C.

                                   FOREWORD
Together with the preamble to the final rule, this document provides EPA's response to public comments on the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (81 FR 2536). We subsequently published a notice of extension of the public comment period on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9797).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. In conjunction with this action, we are finalizing confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements to the program. We are also finalizing action in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
During the 75-day public comment period, EPA received 45 unique comment letters in response to the January 15, 2016 proposal. These comments were submitted by industry representatives and associations, environmental organizations, and private citizens. This document provides EPA's responses to the significant public comments regarding these proposals. EPA received one comment letter from industry representatives following the close of the comment period. Although EPA is not required to respond to these comments, to the extent practicable EPA has responded to the late comments and our responses to such comments are also presented in this document. The verbatim text of each comment extracted from the original comment letters is included in this document, arranged by subject. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt are provided. Where possible, EPA separated comments on specific topics into their respective data categories. However, in some cases, commenters made broad statements about the proposed amendments to Part 98 or general comments on the approach that could not be easily separated by topic or data category without potentially affecting the intended meaning of the commenter's statements. In such cases, we either repeated the comment excerpt in its entirety in each of the relevant sections of this document or referred the reader to the response to another similar comment.
EPA's responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment excerpt. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA has referenced the preamble to the final rule. In some cases, a commenter incorporated by reference the comments of another company or organization. Rather than repeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once under the name of the person, company or organization who submitted the comment and included a list of commenters who indicated their support for that comment in a footnote. Copies of all comment letters submitted are available at EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room or electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is:

         	Carole Cook<PHONE_NUMBER>
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
         	Office of Atmospheric Programs
         	Climate Change Division
         	Mail Code 6207-J
         	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
		Washington, D.C. 20460

For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at:  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.html.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Page
FOREWORD	iii
LIST OF COMMENTERS	x
1.0	Comments on EPA's Administrative Procedures and Implementation Schedule	1
1.1	Comments on EPA administrative procedures	1
1.2	General comments on the proposed implementation schedule	4
1.3	Comments on the proposed implementation schedule RY2017	5
2.0	Comments Re: EPA's Rationale for the Proposed Amendments	6
3.0	Revisions to the General Provisions	7
3.1	Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify when reporters may cease reporting	7
3.2	Streamlining: Limiting resubmittal of reports to 5 years	11
3.3	Improve Quality: Clarification of missing data provisions	15
3.4	Improve Quality: Updates to Certificate of Representation (listing subparts)	19
3.5	Improve Quality: Addition of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to report emissions under a new e-GGRT ID	20
3.6	Other Amendments: Revisions to request for extension for response or resubmittal of reports in e-GGRT (40 CFR 98.3(h)(4))	24
3.7	Other comments on proposed Subpart A Revisions (Table of Revisions)	26
3.8	Comments on Subpart A Issues not proposed	27
4.0	Revisions to Subpart C	32
4.1	Improve Quality: Reporting Moisture Content Used to Correct HHV  (Table C-1)	32
4.2	Improve Quality: Reporting cumulative maximum rated heat capacity for GP and CP configurations	35
4.3	Other Amendments: Revising Equation C-2b for HHV sampling received less frequently than monthly	41
4.4	Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-1	43
4.5	Other Amendments: Revisions to Fuel Categories in Table C-2	44
4.6	Other Amendments: Updating test methods (ASTM D6866-12)	46
4.7	Comments on Subpart C Issues not proposed	49
5.0	Revisions to Subpart G	50
5.1	Improve Quality: Reporting of annual ammonia production where a CEMS is used to measure CO2	50
5.2	Other Amendments to Subpart G	51
5.3	Comments on Subpart G Issues not proposed	52
6.0	Revisions to Subpart I	55
6.1	Improve Quality: Revisions to Equation I-24	55
6.2	Improve Quality: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.96(y) - Triennial Technology Report	56
7.0	Revisions to Subpart N	59
7.1	Other Amendments: Clarification of use of default for fraction of calcination and carbonate mass fraction	59
7.2	Other comments on proposed Subpart N Revisions (Table of Revisions)	60
8.0	Revisions to Subpart O	60
8.1	Streamlining: Removing reporting requirements related to revised destruction efficiency - 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4)	60
8.2	Improve Quality: Reporting of the method used to calculate revised destruction efficiency	61
9.0	Revisions to Subpart P (Table of Revisions)	61
10.0	Revisions to Subpart S	63
10.1	Improve Quality: Reporting annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste sold, and annual average results of the chemical composition analysis for each type of lime product and calcined byproduct/waste sold	63
11.0	Revisions to Subpart V	65
11.1	Streamlining: Removing the annual approval request for an alternative method to calculate N2O	65
11.2	Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include all nitric acid producers	65
11.3	Improve Quality: Report date of installation of abatement technology	66
12.0	Revisions to Subpart X	66
12.1	Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (specific to subpart X)	66
12.2	Streamlining: Revision to use the mass balance method for an integrated EDC/VCM process	67
12.3	Improve Quality: Reporting annual average carbon content and annual average molecular weight of each feedstock and product when using the mass balance method	69
13.0	Revisions to Subpart Y	71
13.1	Streamlining: Excluding pilot gas from flare gas GHG emissions (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)	71
13.2	Streamlining: Identifying whether a flare has a flare gas recovery system (General comments and/or comments specific to Subpart Y)	72
13.3	Improve Quality: Revising the calculation method for CH4 from delayed coking units (heat balance method)	72
14.0	Revisions to Subpart Z	79
14.1	Improve Quality: Reporting annual phosphoric acid production capacity for each wet-process acid line	79
15.0	Revisions to Subpart AA	79
15.1	Streamlining: Clarification of subpart C methodologies for fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions (removal of Tier 4 CEMS)	79
15.2	Other Amendments: Revisions to missing data requirements for spent liquor solids (allowing alternative use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids reported under subpart MM)	80
15.3	Minor Revisions to Table AA-2	81
16.0	Revisions to Subpart CC	82
16.1	Improve Quality: Reporting of facility level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock	82
17.0	Revisions to Subpart DD	86
17.1	Improve Quality: Reporting U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies	86
17.2	Improve Quality: Reporting total miles of transmission & distribution lines in each state or territory	87
17.3	Improve Quality: Separate reporting for nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year	91
17.4	Improve Quality: Separate reporting for number of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressured equipment and other SF6- and PFC-insulated equipment installed and retired during the year	95
17.5	Improve Quality: Alternative approach to report number of pieces of each type of equipment installed or retired by nameplate capacity range	96
17.6	Comments on Subpart DD Issues not proposed	98
18.0	Revisions to Subpart FF	99
18.1	Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to clarify when abandoned underground mines may cease reporting	99
18.2	Improve Quality: Removal of option to use MSHA quarterly inspection reports for CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (40 CFR 98.324(b)(2))	100
18.3	Improve Quality: Alternative methods for measuring CH4 liberated from ventilation systems (e.g., surface level samples at the fan mouth)	103
18.4	Improve Quality: Increasing sampling frequency from quarterly to monthly	105
18.5	Comments on Subpart FF Issues not proposed	109
19.0	Revisions to Subpart HH	110
19.1	Improve Quality: Request for comment on option for reporters to use either an area-weighted average or a volume-weighted average approach to determine collection efficiency	110
19.2	Improve Quality: Revisions to include alternative final covers in area type A5 (Table HH-3)	112
19.3	Other Amendments: Revision of soil cover requirements and definition of intermediate or interim soil cover (Table HH-4)	119
19.4	Other Amendments: Revisions to the oxidation fraction for landfills with passive vents/passive flares or active vent systems (Table HH-4)	134
19.5	Comments on Subpart HH Issues not proposed	139
20.0	Revisions to Subpart MM (Table of Revisions)	143
21.0	Revisions to Subpart NN	144
21.1	Other comments on proposed Subpart NN Revisions (Table of Revisions)	144
22.0	Revisions to Subpart OO	145
22.1	Improve Quality: Revising the source category to include and require reporting from facilities that that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy F-HTFs that are not also F-GHGs.	145
23.0	Revisions to Subpart PP (Table of Revisions)	147
24.0	Revisions to Subpart RR	147
24.1	Improve Quality: Reporting whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas	147
25.0	Revisions to Subpart TT	149
25.1	Improve Quality: Revisions to default DOC values in Table TT-1 (includes comments re: EPA's analysis of industrial waste DOC data)	149
26.0	Revisions to Subpart UU (Table of Revisions)	150
27.0	Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments	151
27.1	Comments re: proposed new and revised data elements assigned to data categories with categorical confidentiality determinations	151
27.2	Comments re: proposed individual confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements in two direct emitter data categories and two supplier data categories	155
27.3	Comments re: proposed categorical and confidentiality determinations for existing Part 98 data elements for which no determination has been previously established	163
27.4	Comments on methodology for CBI assignments and/or determinations	171
28.0	Comments re: Impacts and Burden	172
28.1	Comments re: impacts/burden: Revision of Reporting Requirements	172
28.2	Comments re: impacts/burden: Monitoring Requirements for Underground Coal Mines	173
29.0	General support for the amendments	176
30.0	Out of Scope Comments	177

                              LIST OF COMMENTERS
                                      DCN
                                   COMMENTER
                                   AFFILIATE
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0023
Bruce Watzman
National Mining Association (NMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024
Lorraine Krupa Gershman
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0025
Anne Germain and David Biderman
National Waste & Recycling Association and Solid Waste Association of North America
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Dow Chemical Company
Dow Chemical Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0027
Karin Ritter
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0028
Kim A. Wolfe
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0030
Stuart Sanderson
Colorado Mining Association (CMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0031
William C. Herz
National Lime Association (NLA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032
Darden Hood
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Ted Michaels
Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Paul Gilman
Covanta
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Emily Fisher
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0037
Anonymous public comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Brad Upton
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0040
Anonymous public comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0041
Kimberly S. L. Bauman
Mississippi Lime Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0042
Mary Josie Blanchard
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0043
David Isaacs
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Karin Ritter
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Lauren E. Freeman,
Hunton & Williams LLP
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0047
Jean E. Bogner
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Kerry Kelly and
Amy Van Kolken Banister
Waste Management (WM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0050
J. Chanton

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0051
Bruce Watzman
National Mining Association (NMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0052
Richard Krock
Vinyl Institute (VI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Angus E. Crane
North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0054
Stephen R. Gossett
Eastman Chemical Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0055
Darden Hood
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0056
Patrick J. Renshaw
PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Anne Germain and David Biderman
National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0058
William A. Collins, Jr.
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Owen A. Kean
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060
Leslie Ritts
National Environmental Development Associations Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0061
Laura M. Goldfarb, Counsel, Steptoe & Johnson
Arcelor Mittal Princeton
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0062
Ann Brewster Weeks
Clean Air Task Force
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
David Friedman
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Wade Foster
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0065
Jesse E. Levine
Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Jennifer Cleary
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0067
Niki Wuestenberg
Republic Services
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0068
Chris Greissing
Industrial Minerals Association-North America (IMA-NA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Christine G. Wyman
American Gas Association (AGA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0072
Bill Bissett
Kentucky Coal Association

Comments on EPA's Administrative Procedures and Implementation Schedule
Comments on EPA administrative procedures
Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The American Chemistry Council (ACC) respectfully requests that EPA extend the comment deadline for the Proposed Rule on the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule by 30 days. This would extend the deadline for comments until March 28, 2016.
The proposed changes to the GHG Reporting Rule have an impact on many different reporting subparts, and as such necessitate an in-depth review by our experts. Some potentially significant changes are proposed to Subpart O, Subpart OO, along with multiple CBI changes and additions. And due to the timing of the release of this rule, many of the ACC member company technical experts who will provide input to this proposal are busy preparing for the submittal of 2015 GHG Reporting Rule data. Extending the comment period will provide ACC and our member companies with the time required to fully understand the numerous proposed changes and their potential impact on the operations of the business of chemistry. This in turn, will allow us to submit more substantive and detailed comments which we hope will help the Agency in its final decision-making.
Response: EPA considered the concerns of commenters and subsequently published a notice of extension of the public comment period for the proposed rule on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9797). This extended the deadline for public comments from February 29, 2016 to March 30, 2016.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0027
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The American Petroleum Institute ("API") hereby respectfully requests a 45-day extension of the public comment period for EPA's Proposed 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 2536, January 15, 2016. Given that comments are currently due on February 29, 2016, API respectfully requests that the comment period for this complex rule with an impact on many different reporting subparts affecting the oil and natural gas industry, be extended by 45 days to April 14th 2016, to ensure that API and all interested stakeholders have a full and fair opportunity to comment. This extension is necessary to allow API to present EPA with relevant information necessary to support an informed, reasoned, and defensible final rule. Given the importance of this proposal, API needs adequate time and opportunity to review the 20 additional "background" documents posted to the docket and to provide constructive input to EPA on the practical and technical consequences of this proposal.
Currently API member's GHG reporting staff are immersed in responding to and are thus very busy and focused on RY 2015 reports due March 2016. In addition API members are in the midst of responding to another of EPA's proposals that was recently published in the federal register, "Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems" 81 Fed. Reg. 4987 (January 29, 2016), and which also requires comments by February 29, 2016. We believe additional time is critical to ensure that API members can comment on and inform EPA of the potential consequences of the proposed amendments related to several of the Subparts affecting API members.
In light of the potentially significant impacts that the proposed rule would have on API's members, API respectfully believes that a 45-day extension of the comment period is warranted and will provide API the necessary time to provide more detailed comments better suited to assist EPA.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Bruce Watzman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0023
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: We are writing to request that the period for the submission of comments on the above referenced proposed rule be extended for 45-days beyond the current comment deadline.
As the agency is aware, the proposed rule will significantly and disproportionally impact underground coal mine operators. Indeed, 92 percent of the total costs of the proposal will be borne by underground coal mine operators with the next highest industry sector responsible for a mere 4 percent of the total costs of the rule. The dramatic impacts on underground coal operations result from a proposed change in the sampling methodology, the basis of which is an examination of sample results from only 3 mine sites and a contractor report, the foundation of which is a cursory critique of current sampling procedures.
The preparation of substantive and scientifically grounded comments cannot be accomplished within the limited time provided for in the proposed rule. As such, we request a 45-day extension of the comment deadline.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Stuart Sanderson
Commenter Affiliation:  Colorado Mining Association (CMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0030
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the members of the Colorado Mining Association I am writing to request that the period for the submission of comments on the above referenced proposed rule be extended for 45-days beyond the current comment deadline.
As the agency is aware, the proposed rule will significantly and disproportionally impact underground coal mine operators. Indeed, 92 percent of the total costs of the proposal will be borne by underground coal mine operators with the next highest industry sector responsible for a mere 4 percent of the total costs of the rule. The dramatic impacts on underground coal operations result from a proposed change in the sampling methodology, the basis of which is an examination of sample results from only 3 mine sites
and a contractor report, the foundation of which is a cursory critique of current sampling procedures.
The issues are particularly serious here in Colorado as more than two-thirds of the state's production is from underground coal mines. This rule raises complex issues and reporting burdens and will have a substantial impact on our membership, which accounts overall for nearly $1 billion in sales and nearly $3 billion in overall economic benefit to the state.
The preparation of substantive and scientifically grounded comments cannot be accomplished within the limited time provided for in the proposed rule. As such, we request a 45-day extension of the comment deadline.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association and Solid Waste Association of North America
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0025
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the solid waste industry, the National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) request a forty-five day extension to the comment period for the 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determination for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (81 FR 2536). The NWRA and SWANA represent companies, municipalities and professionals in the solid waste industry. The NWRA is a not-for-profit trade association representing private solid waste and recycling collection, processing, and management companies that operate in all fifty states. SWANA is a not-for-profit professional association in the solid waste management field with more than 8,000 members from both the private and public sectors across North America.
Our members have a significant interest in this rule. However, they are simultaneously focused on preparing their 2015 submissions on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. As you know, these reports are due at the end of March. We would greatly appreciate an extension beyond that date so that our members can focus on preparing comments to the proposed revisions once their reports are submitted.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darden Hood
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the ASTM International and emitters submitting annual reports of % biogenic CO2 emissions, and with the objective for EPA to receive the most accurate % biogenic CO2 emission readings using ASTM-D6866, we request an extension of the comment period of 45 days.
Response: Regarding the commenter's request for extension, see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0024, Excerpt 1. Regarding additional comments related to ASTM-D6866, see section 4.6 of this document.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darden Hood
Commenter Affiliation:  Beta Analytic Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0055
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: On behalf of the ASTM International and emitters submitting annual reports of % biogenic CO2 emissions, and with the objective for EPA to receive the most accurate % biogenic CO2 emission readings using ASTM-D6866, we request an extension of the comment period of 30 days.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0032, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General comments on the proposed implementation schedule
Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: AFPM supports the staggered implementation of these proposed revisions. AFPM member companies need time to reconfigure data collection systems, calculation tools, and monitoring plans to incorporate the final changes. These revisions take time, and we support the fact that EPA has accounted for this time in the implementation schedule.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment, and is retaining the staggered implementation in the final rule. However, EPA has revised the implementation timeline to more clearly address when each rule change becomes effective and the reporting year to which the change applies. See Section I.E of the preamble to the final rule for the final implementation schedule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the proposed implementation schedule RY2017
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: In the 2015 GHGRP Revisions, EPA proposes several other changes to Subpart G. These changes would require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities with CEMS and require reporting of annual consumption and annual average carbon content of feedstock. TFI does however request that EPA delay any change in reporting requirements for Subpart G to RY 2018. Many TFI members also produce nitric acid and are subject to reporting under Subpart V. The Subpart V revisions will not take effect until RY 2018. TFI requests that the EPA align the effective reporting dates of Subpart G and Subpart V by delaying the effective date of changes to Subpart G to RY 2018.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed implementation schedule for subpart G. See Section III.E.3 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  14
Comment: API is concerned with the additional burden of adding a calibration requirement on fuel flow meters in 98.164 to be effective beginning RY2017. Facilities will need additional time to implement the additional requirements and will need to consider planned downtime and turnaround schedules. API proposes that this requirement apply no earlier than RY2018. In the event that a shut-down is needed to do the calibration, then EPA should consider allowing BAMM until the next turnaround. EPA is allowing in Subparts V, Y, FF, and OO additional time for reporters to "acquire, install, and calibrate...as well as implement any new changes...for the 2018 reporting year." API requests the same consideration be given for this requirement.
Response: EPA is revising the implementation schedule of the final rule such that the revisions related to calibration of fuel flow meters in subpart P will become effective on January 1, 2018 and will be reflected in RY2018 reports that are submitted in 2019. See Section III.AA. of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: [Note: This comment refers to proposed revisions to subpart DD that require facilities to separately report the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment installed and retired during the year.]
To implement this reporting requirement, facilities likely would have to update their asset management tracking systems.[25] The level of burden this would entail largely would depend on a facility's size (with larger facilities facing a greater burden), as well as on the number of geographic areas that a facility spans. Some entities may not have enough time to update their tracking mechanisms and databases for the 2017 compliance period (as reported in 2018). If EPA does finalize the requirement to segregate reporting of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from other types of SF6-containing equipment, the Group requests that EPA extend the deadline for meeting this requirement an additional year, so that the requirement applies for the 2018 compliance period (as reported in 2019).
Footnote:
(25) For instance, at least one Group member would have to revise their Environmental Management Information System ("EMIS") program, which currently is set up to automatically generate their report in XML format. Changing the EMIS program would incur additional costs and burdens.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed implementation schedule for subpart DD. See Section III.Q.3 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Re: EPA's Rationale for the Proposed Amendments
Commenter Name:  Wade Foster
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0064
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The agency states that at least some of the amendments are "needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule and would expand monitoring or reporting requirements that are necessary to improve verification and improve the accuracy of data used to inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks"[2] (the "Inventory"). TFI supports consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory.
Footnotes:
(2) 81 Fed. Reg 8,713 (Feb. 22, 2016)
Response: This comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to the General Provisions
Streamlining: Revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify when reporters may cease reporting
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: ACC supports clarifications related to the process for discontinuation of reporting, as these changes will make it easier for reporters to exit the program at the appropriate time.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.1 and 2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA is proposing a number of provisions to clarify the mechanism for reporting, when reporting is no longer required, and under what Subparts the facility is reporting. In general, these seem to make sense to assure that the Agency understands which facilities are reporting and when they are no longer required to report.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: We agree that there should be provisions for reporters to stop reporting when a process or operation is curtailed or ceases or when a source no longer meets the definition of a source category. With the changes that we continue to see in our industries, it is appropriate to provide a clear path to exit the reporting regime when the reporter no longer meets the requirements for submitting reports.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) and (5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years, or if process operations are permanently shut down. There has been confusion among reporters as to whether these off-ramp provisions apply to both direct emitters and suppliers, given the use of the term "emissions" in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) since suppliers report the quantity of product supplied into the economy and the emissions that would occur if the products were completely released, combusted, or oxidized when used by their customers. In the preamble, the EPA indicated that their original intention was that these off-ramp provisions apply to both suppliers (subparts LL through QQ) and direct emitters (subparts A through KK and subparts SS and TT), as well as the Injection of Carbon Dioxide source category (subpart UU).
AFPM supports this clarification.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2), and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add a new paragraph under §98.2(i) to clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR §98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers.
AFPM supports this addition.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4), and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Several of the proposed revisions clarify how and when a facility ceases reporting emissions: (1) EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(i) to make clear that both direct emitters and suppliers may cease reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years. See id. at 2547; and (2) EPA proposes to clarify that, under 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(i)(3), facilities can discontinue reporting under relevant subparts if a process or operation has ceased, even if other operations necessitate continued reporting under other subparts, provided that the owner or operator submits notification to EPA and explains the reasons for cessation of operation. See id. at 2547-48.
In general, these proposed clarifications addressing cessation of reporting are reasonable, appropriate and consistent with EPA's stated goal of streamlining and improving the implementation of the Reporting Rule. However, these proposed revisions require that some sort of notice be provided to EPA without specifying the form or content of this notice. Notice is not defined in the existing Reporting Rule regulations, nor is there an existing notice form provided on the e-GGRT website. In the final revisions to the Reporting Rule, EPA should clarify the form and content of such notice and the method for providing notice to EPA. Consistent with the goals of these proposed revisions, the required notice should be streamlined and not impose unnecessary burdens on reporters. Further, EPA should make clear that, while the Agency requires notice as to cessation of operations or reporting, EPA will not deny a request to cease reporting that otherwise complies with the requirements of Part 98.
Response: The notification process will be available in e-GGRT as an easily-identified, simple process guided by system prompts. No additional data submission will be required for any subpart for which a reporter is ceasing to report. EPA is relying on the existing design of e-GGRT as the cessation notification mechanism by allowing the reporter to clear the subpart check box on the Facility Overview screen in e-GGRT when completing the reporting forms for the first full year after which the subpart processes or operations ceased. Reporters who desire to notify the EPA in advance of the deadline in the final rule will be able to submit a notification to the EPA informing them of the process closure using the Help Desk or another equally streamlined and simple procedure in e-GGRT. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
The notice for ceasing reporting is not an application that EPA must either approve or deny before it takes effect. A facility or supplier that submits a notification automatically qualifies to cease reporting. The only additional requirement is to maintain the records demonstrating that the facility or supplier has met the requirements to cease reporting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) allow reporters to discontinue reporting if all processes or operations cease operation (e.g., plant closure). There has been confusion among reporters as to whether there is a similar provision to cease reporting for situations where a single process or operation ceases operation. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to specify that reporting is not required for any process or operation that ceases operation in the reporting years following the reporting year in which the process or operation ceased operation, provided the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator and explains the reasons for the cessation of operation.
In the preamble, the EPA notes that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations, and that reporting must resume for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation.
AFPM supports this clarification. However, there is a concern that if a reporter does not notify EPA by the March 31st deadline following the cessation of applicable processes or operations, that they would then be required to report zero emissions ad infinitum. There may be a circumstance where a process or operations are ceased temporarily, but after the March 31st deadline it is determined that the cessation is permanent. In this situation, the change occurred before the March 31st deadline, but it was not determined until after the notification deadline that the change is permanent. AFPM requests clarification that the operator would still be able to notify EPA of this change before March 31st of the next year and would not be subject to reporting for the reporting year following notification.
Response: EPA is finalizing a requirement that the notification for cessation be submitted no later than March 31 following the first reporting year in which the subpart processes or operations have ceased or no longer meet the definition of the applicable subpart for an entire reporting year. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to clarify that if the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting under any such subpart for the reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. For any future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, the owner or operator would be required to resume reporting for the process or operation.
AFPM supports this addition.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. EPA is finalizing the proposed changes, with the exception of minor revisions to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streamlining: Limiting resubmittal of reports to 5 years
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA should limit resubmittal of reports to the five years prior to the current reporting year. Currently, EPA allows facilities to resubmit past year GHG Reporting Rule reports going back to the first year of the program if a substantive error is identified in a report. The Class of '85 supports EPA's proposed policy to limit resubmittal of reports in which a substantive error is identified to the five years prior to the current reporting year.[6] Based on EPA's determination that (i) "the number of reports that are resubmitted falls drastically after the active verification period of 6 months, and continues to fall over time" and (ii) there is a "significant burden to the EPA for maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years," EPA proposes to set a five-year limit for resubmittals.[7] This corresponds to the five-year recordkeeping requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 98.3. The proposed change would not require revising the regulatory text.
The Group supports this five-year limit on resubmittals. As EPA acknowledges, "this change will have minimal impact on the quality of the data set, as resubmissions for past years to date have not impacted overall sector or total emission trends." [8] The Group encourages EPA to implement this policy.
Footnotes:
(6) See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,548. For example, for the 2016 reporting year, facilities could resubmit reports from reporting years 2011-2015 but not from 2010 or any prior year.
(7) Id.
(8) Id.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmittal of prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AF&PA and AWC agree with limiting resubmittals of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. In particular, we agree that resubmittals should only be required if a substantial error is identified. Because the rules have been changing as the program has developed, many of our members have wanted to provide updated reports to improve the accuracy of their information. But, we assume that as the GHG reporting program matures and the rules become settled, the need to resubmit reports will diminish and thus the five year period should be sufficient.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmitting prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AFPM supports the revision to limit resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. It is a significant burden for reporters to maintain reporting forms for previous years. This change provides relief for reporters by eliminating the need to maintain different versions of the e-GGRT reporting format that are older than 5 years.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmitting prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). However, these amendments will not prevent facilities from voluntarily resubmitting reports for up to five years. See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: EPA proposes to limit resubmittals of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. Currently, EPA requires facilities to resubmit past reports in which a substantive error is identified and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of the Reporting Rule program. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2548. EPA states that it is burdensome for the Agency to maintain the forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years and that, to date, resubmissions have not affected overall sector or total emission trends. See id.
In general, limiting the time for resubmittals is reasonable and appropriate. However, EPA's discussion of resubmittals addressed the impact on the Agency and on aggregate emissions data. It did not address the potential impact of any limitation on resubmittals on reporters. At the present time, reports submitted to EPA are not tied to regulatory obligations to limit or otherwise address GHG emissions.[1] In the future, however, regulatory requirements could be defined by the quantity of emissions reported under Part 98. If this were the case, reporters should be able to resubmit reports to ensure accuracy and to avoid penalties.[2] Before finalizing any limit on the ability to resubmit reports, EPA carefully should consider the role the Reporting Rule may play in future regulatory programs addressing GHG emissions from particular sources.
Footnotes:
(1) Regulations addressing GHG emissions from new and modified EGUs under section 111(b) and existing EGUs under section 111(d) rely on emissions data reported under Part 75 not Part 98. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.5555(c); 40 C.F.R. § 60.5860.
(2) At this time, electric utilities reporting under Part 98 use the best available data and the calculation methodologies set forth in Part 98. To date, resubmittals primarily have been driven by EPA changes to reporting and calculation methodologies.
Response: EPA acknowledges that the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) is intended to supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research, and may potentially inform future regulations that may limit or otherwise address GHG emissions. If a future regulation were to be promulgated that relied on GHGRP data for compliance purposes, EPA would re-evaluate whether reporters should be able to voluntarily resubmit prior year reports at that time by taking into account the specific requirements of the relevant regulations. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment, because it is premature to attempt to make such judgments without knowing how GHGRP data may be used in future regulatory programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: In Subpart A, EPA proposes two changes to the procedures for addressing potential errors in electronic reports. Under § 98.3(h), owners and operators are required to submit a revised annual GHG report within 45 days of discovering a substantive error in a previously submitted report. 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(1). EPA also is authorized to notify owners and operators when it believes that an annual GHG report contains a substantive error, and owners and operators are required to respond to that notice within a certain period of time. Id. § 98.3(h)(2). One of the options for response is to submit a revised report. The rules also authorize extension of the time to respond, including a second extension as long as the request is submitted at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the first automatic extension. Id. § 98.3(h)(4).
EPA proposes to revise this scheme first by adopting a "policy" of limiting resubmission of electronic reports to "five years prior to the current reporting year." 81 Fed. Reg. at 2548. In support, EPA refers to the 5-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98, the burden on EPA of maintaining forms needed for resubmittal, and the fact that few facilities seek to resubmit reports older than 5 years old. Id. However, EPA does not propose any regulatory language to affect this change.
UARG agrees that there should be a limit on the period for resubmittal and that 5 years is a reasonable period. However, UARG does not agree that result can be accomplished without any regulatory change. In order to make the rule consistent with EPA's proposed policy, the Agency must limit an owner or operator's obligation to submit a revised report, and EPA's authority to trigger submission of a revised report, to the same "five years prior to the current reporting year" for which EPA intends to apply its policy. Although UARG agrees that the lack of a recordkeeping requirement may make it unlikely that an owner or operator would on its own discover an error more than 5 years old, EPA can hardly prohibit an owner or operator from complying with the rule if one is discovered. As a result, if the rule is not revised, EPA still would be obligated to maintain the forms necessary for owners and operators to comply with the resubmission requirement should it be triggered under the existing rule. Moreover, revision of the rule to limit EPA's authority to trigger resubmission also would resolve any question about whether a facility could be expected to respond to an EPA notification of potential error after the 5-year recordkeeping period has expired. In short, UARG supports the intent behind EPA's proposed policy and urges EPA to revise the rule language accordingly.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement for resubmittal of prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: EPA is requesting comment on a proposal to limit resubmittal of a given year's reports to the five years prior to the current reporting year. EPA states that it selected five years because there is a five-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.3(g). The five-year reporting requirement only applies to facilities using the Input Verification Tool (IVT) when reporting. WM does not use the IVT in reporting, and is thus only subject to a three-year recordkeeping requirement as EPA notes in its footnote (81 FR 2548). Therefore, we recommend that EPA instead establish the resubmittal period based on the recordkeeping requirements applicable to a particular reporter (either three years or five years). This change would ensure that EPA's policy for accepting resubmitted reports is consistent with the recordkeeping provisions promulgated in 40 CFR 98.3(g). In addition, EPA should not require reporters to re-submit reports that are beyond the record retention requirements.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement to resubmit prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA is requesting comment on creating a policy to limit resubmittal of reports to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. EPA is setting the 5-year limit based on the record retention requirements for reporters using the Input Verification Tool (IVT), although the Agency notes not all reporters use the IVT and that reporters not using IVT are only required to maintain records for three years. Instead of creating a 5-year limit on report resubmittals for all facilities, EPA's policy should be consistent with record retention provisions created under 40 CFR 98.3(g) and allow resubmittals only during the record retention time period. These records should then subsequently be purged from the e-GGRT system based on the record retention requirements since the data is no longer required to be maintained.
Response: In the final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 98.3(h) to limit the requirement to resubmit prior year reports to the recordkeeping requirement time period specified in 40 CFR 98.3(g). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Clarification of missing data provisions
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA should not change the existing reporting requirements related to missing data procedures. ACC is concerned the proposed changes to the missing data procedures under Subpart A are vague and unworkable. Section 98.3(c) of Subpart A lists the items facilities must submit to EPA in their annual reports. Prior to this proposal, section 98.3(c)(8) required facilities to document "each parameter for which a missing data procedure was used according to the procedures of an applicable subpart and the total number of hours in the year that a missing data procedure was used for each parameter." In the current proposal, however, EPA has significantly expanded this requirement by adding the following sentence: "Parameters include not only reported data elements, but any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions." (81 FR 2549)
ACC believes that this proposal is unnecessary, will be difficult to implement, and will increase the burden on both reporters and the Agency. The preamble does not provide a compelling rationale for EPA's new approach. To the contrary, the Agency has not described any problems with current missing data procedures that would necessitate expanded data reporting. Nor has EPA explained why the current approach, which relies on recordkeeping by the reporting facilities, needs to be modified.
In the initial GHGRP rule, promulgated in 2009, EPA included general regulatory requirements under Subpart A for all subparts, and extended these requirements with certain subpart-specific approaches. For example, in Subpart C, there is a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). Similarly, in subpart Y, there is a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
The combination of the existing Subpart A requirements and, where necessary, additional subpart-specific recordkeeping provisions satisfy the rationale that EPA uses in the preamble describing its intention that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood" (81 FR 2549)[.] Since the reporting facility has the documented information, EPA already has the authority to request it or inspect to review it. There is no reason to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
If this proposed revision is finalized, however, the impacts on the e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT) systems are likely to be significant. The missing data procedures apply to many different types of data, making it difficult to set up the entry fields in the software. Moreover, each reported data element would require a confidential business information (CBI) determination, to ensure that no business sensitive information is released to the public. Due to the unknown types of data that facilities might use to support missing data calculations, if finalized this proposal would likely create significant challenges and problems as EPA attempts to anticipate and accommodate new and unique data elements into the regimented software system used for reporting.
ACC strongly urges EPA to retain the current missing data procedures. The alleged benefits of the proposal (better understanding of the accuracy of emission estimates) do not justify the difficulty of implementing it and the complications it would cause for reporters.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA has added additional language to 98.3(c)(8) around missing data reporting procedures that would take effect for 2017 reporting. API is concerned about the significant expansion of the reporting burden, in the amount of missing data information that must be reported and the feasibility associated with the change in wording from data element to parameter. This is a significant expansion of the amount of missing data information that must be reported. For example -including all "parameters" for applicability with missing data procedures can be problematic on a parameter like monitoring process flow -- how would missing data procedure be used on a valve indicator or positioner (i.e. open or close position on a valve) used to monitor process flow. Also, if readings from multiple devices contributed to one data element, it is not clear on how to handle the missing data from these multiple devices. With the potential proliferation of new data parameters to be reported, it is unclear how these parameters will be handled in e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool.
In addition, to assess the impact of this change, we need to look at the specific language in the applicable subparts. For instance, in Subpart C, in addition to the specific language which provides for how to substitute for the missing data (98.35(b)(1)), there is also a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). Similarly, in subpart Y, the provisions specify how to substitute missing data (98.255(b) and (c)). There is also a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
These record keeping provisions satisfy the rationale that EPA uses in the preamble describing its intention that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood" (81 FR 2549). Since the reporting facility already has the documented information, EPA has the current authority to request it or inspect to review it. There is no reason to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment: The EPA is proposing revisions to the missing data requirements to clarify that the provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. The EPA contends that the use of missing data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate regardless of whether that parameter is reported. The EPA indicates it is their intention that the effect be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood.
AFPM believes EPA's addition of the new sentence "Parameters include not only reported data elements, but any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions" should not be added to Subpart A. The existing language and §98.3(a) already direct reporters to follow the procedures for missing data that are specified in relevant Subparts. It is within each of the Subparts that missing data requirements related to specific measured, monitored and/or calculated parameters are specified. For example, in Subpart C, there is a requirement that "you must document and retain records of the procedures used for all such estimates" of the missing data (98.35(b)(2)). In subpart Y, a requirement that the "owner or operator shall document and keep records of the procedures used for all such estimates" (98.255(c)).
The current record keeping provisions meet the intent that EPA describes in the preamble that "the effect [of using missing data procedures affecting the accuracy] be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood." (81 FR 2549)[.] With the reporting facility already having the documented information, EPA could simply request it or conduct an inspection to review it. There is no need to revise the current language to expand the reporting requirements.
Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed amendments to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8). See Section III.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Christine G. Wyman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Subpart A: proposed revisions to clarify missing data provisions, 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(c)(8). EPA is proposing to revise the "missing data provisions" to clarify that the provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but also to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. 81 Fed. Reg. 2549. AGA agrees that missing data can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate. However, an informed engineering judgment can be used in many circumstances to estimate data. In these circumstances, the data would not be considered "missing." AGA encourages EPA to recognize the use and benefit of engineering judgment and ensure that any final rule would not treat data estimated through engineering judgment as "missing."
Response: Missing data procedures are those procedures that EPA allows a reporter to use whenever a quality-assured value of a parameter that is used to calculate GHG emissions according to the methods prescribed in the rule is unavailable. Missing data procedures are provided in each subpart and state the "required parameters" and the procedures that may be followed to provide substitute data in keeping with the methodologies in the subpart. Reporters must consult each applicable subpart to determine the parameters for which missing data procedures are provided and for whether engineering estimates are allowed. If engineering judgment is allowed by a subpart as a method for estimating a parameter used to estimate emissions, then the missing data procedures are not automatically triggered. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Updates to Certificate of Representation (listing subparts)
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  20
Comment: We also support the proposed requirement to list all of the subparts under which a facility/supplier intends to report in the Certificate of Representation.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We are finalizing the proposed requirement with minor revisions. See comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063, Excerpt 11 for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  11
Comment: In the Preamble, EPA indicates that the revised content of the certificate of representation (COR) would apply only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not previously reported to the GHGRP, and EPA implies that this list would not need to be revised if the reporter later determines that a particular subpart is or is not applicable. Therefore, AFPM suggests additional clarification be added to paragraph (6) related to revised CORs. Suggested text is shown below in yellow shading:
      (6) A list of the subparts that the owners and operators anticipate will be included in the annual GHG report. The list of potentially applicable subparts is required only for an initial certificate of representation that is submitted after [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility or supplier that previously was not registered under this part). The list of subparts is not required for a revised COR. [highlighted text follows] The list of anticipated subparts does not need to be revised with revisions to the COR or if the actual applicable subparts change.
Response: We agree that the rule does not require reporters to revise the list of potentially applicable subparts under any circumstances, even if additional subparts become applicable in the future. To clarify this, EPA has revised the final rule as recommended by the commenter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.4(i) to update the content of the certificate of representation (COR). See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2549. A COR is the tool by which a facility's designated representative (DR) is appointed. CORs contain basic information about reporting facilities and suppliers, including ownership and contact information for the DR. EPA proposes to require that all new CORs include a list of all of the subparts under which the facility or supplier intends to report. See id. This new requirement, in and of itself, is not burdensome. It would be burdensome, however, if this change required all existing DRs to re-submit revised CORs or if the CORs need to be updated and resubmitted in light of any revisions to the applicability of any subpart. EPA states that this would not be the case, see id., and should ensure that the final rule does not require re-submission of all previously filed CORs.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063, Excerpt 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Addition of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to report emissions under a new e-GGRT ID
Commenter Name:  Owen A. Kean
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0059
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: We find that the proposal to inform EPA when a facility stops reporting under one e-GGRT number because emissions are being reported under a different e-GGRT number will help avoid confusion for both EPA and the affected facility.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Proposed 98.2(a)(6) requires the owner/operator to make notification that they merged or sold their entity to another. The rule should be flexible and allow either the former facility or the new owner/operator to make the notification. The previous owner/company may no longer exist or personnel may not be present to make the notification.
Response: EPA agrees that the new owner should be allowed and able to notify EPA of a merger when the previous owner is not available to do so. The rule as written allows for the necessary flexibility in such a situation, thus no additional change to the rule is needed. EPA has previously provided guidance on the GHGRP website for how to register changes in ownership (see, for example:  http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=263585793). The following example illustrates how a merger would be registered in the situation presented by the commenter:
Assume that Facility A, owned by Company A, and Facility B, owned by Company B, are physically adjacent to one another and both have reported to the GHGRP in the past. Assume further that in 2018, Company B purchases and becomes owner of Facility A, thereby merging Facility A and Facility B into one facility. Consistent with the newly adopted section 40 CFR 98.2 (i)(6), the Designated Representative (DR) or Alternate Designated Representative (ADR) listed on Facility A's COR must submit a notification announcing the discontinuation of reporting and provide the e-GGRT identification number of Facility B by March 31, 2019. EPA intends to implement this requirement by developing the notification fields on the same e-GGRT page and along the same timeline as the existing notification fields for a cessation of operation. Thus, the merger notification fields would be available for Facility A's DR or ADR to complete anytime between approximately February 20, 2018, and March 31, 2019.
If neither the DR nor ADR listed on Facility A's COR is available to make this submission, then Company B as the new owner must appoint a new individual to become the DR for Facility A. The new DR must then submit the notification to discontinue reporting by Facility A and provide the e-GGRT identification number for Facility B between approximately February 20, 2018 and March 31, 2019. A representative of Company B will be required to report all of the data for the combined AB Facility for calendar year 2018 between approximately February 20, 2019 and March 31, 2019. Therefore, new e-GGRT credentials will not be required to abide by this requirement.
This example is consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 98.4 and illustrates the flexibility of the rule to handle diverse situations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: The EPA is proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to include a requirement that a facility must inform the EPA whenever the facility (or supplier) stops reporting under one e-GGRT identification number because the emissions (or quantity supplied) are being reported under another e-GGRT identification number. The EPA anticipates that this would occur when one facility purchases another facility (in its entirety) that is physically adjacent. The emissions from the purchased process equipment would automatically become part of the facility for the purchaser, and the facility previously reported by the seller would no longer exist. The rule currently does not require reporting of any information from which the EPA could ascertain that the discontinuation of reporting was done for a valid reason or with which the discontinuing reporter could make a formal notification. To ensure that the EPA is aware of situations when an annual report for a facility or supplier is no longer required because the emissions will now be reported under a different facility, EPA is proposing the following changes: If a facility reported GHG emissions in the previous year, and the GHG emissions are being reported as part of another facility in the current reporting year, the prior facility must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT facility identification number under which the emissions are reported in the current reporting year. A similar requirement would apply to suppliers.
This provision does not add any additional burden and does achieve EPA's objectives for informing the EPA when emissions are reported under a different facility. However, AFPM recommends adding "previous" as indicated below and one additional sentence to provide further clarification to the proposed text. AFPM believes the additional sentence is needed for the situation where the previous owner no longer exists or does not submit notification to EPA on the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility. In this case, the current owner could provide the new e-GGRT identification number and inform EPA of the change.
§98.2(i)(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this part, then the previous owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the previous owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. If the previous owner cannot or will not provide the e-GGRT identification of the reconstituted facility, the current owner may provide this information to EPA.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0044
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: API recommends for clarification that the following text [i.e., the word "previous"] be added to 98.2(i)(6): "(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this part, then the previous owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the previous owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following such changes."
[Note that the comment letter erroneously cited "98.2(a)(6)".]
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Several of the proposed revisions clarify how and when a facility ceases reporting emissions: With appropriate notice, in the event of a change in ownership or control, EPA proposes to allow a facility to cease reporting under one e-GGRT identification number and transfer reporting obligations to another facility using a different e-GGRT identification number under 40 C.F.R § 98.2(6). See id. at 2549-50.
In general, this proposed clarification addressing cessation of reporting is reasonable, appropriate and consistent with EPA's stated goal of streamlining and improving the implementation of the Reporting Rule. However, this proposed revision requires that some sort of notice be provided to EPA without specifying the form or content of this notice. Notice is not defined in the existing Reporting Rule regulations, nor is there an existing notice form provided on the e-GGRT website. In the final revisions to the Reporting Rule, EPA should clarify the form and content of such notice and the method for providing notice to EPA. Consistent with the goals of these proposed revisions, the required notice should be streamlined and not impose unnecessary burdens on reporters. Further, EPA should make clear that, while the Agency requires notice as to cessation of operations or reporting, EPA will not deny a request to cease reporting that otherwise complies with the requirements of Part 98.
Response: The notification process will be available in e-GGRT as an easily-identified, simple process guided by system prompts. No additional data submission, beyond the e-GGRT identification number of the re-constituted facility, will be required for any facility or supplier for which a reporter is ceasing to report. As necessary, EPA will provide further guidance on how to make the notification in e-GGRT. The notification for the merger or sale is not an application that EPA must either approve or deny before it takes effect. A facility or supplier that is merged into another facility or supplier and that submits a notification automatically qualifies to cease reporting. The only additional requirement is to maintain the records demonstrating that the facility or supplier has met the requirements to cease reporting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: In Subpart A, EPA also proposes to revise § 98.2(i)(6) to require that a facility inform EPA whenever it stops reporting under one Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) identification number because emissions are being reported under another number (e.g., because one facility purchases another). Id. at 2549. UARG does not object to this requirement as long as the notification can be made in a format and using a method of submission (e.g., email or U.S. mail) that does not require access to e-GGRT. A facility owner or operator should be allowed to make the notification at the time of sale (or within a reasonable amount of time after sale) and should not be required to wait until the official reporting period or to retain e-GGRT credentials solely for that purpose. Otherwise, EPA should impose the reporting requirement on the new owner or operator.
Response: We agree that a facility owner or operator should be allowed to make the notification at the time of sale or within a reasonable amount of time after sale, and we stress that such an outcome is possible while relying on e-GGRT. We refer you to EPA's response to Comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026, Excerpt 1, in which we explain the flexible timeline for making this notification and how the new owner can make the notification if the previous owner is unable to do so.
The commenter states that the notification should not require access to e-GGRT. For the existing notifications outlined in § 98.2(i), EPA makes sure that e-GGRT fields are available for reporters to complete themselves, but EPA also accepts written notification sent electronically to the GHGRP Help Desk. It is EPA's intention to continue this practice for the notification of merged facilities.
No change to the rule is necessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Amendments: Revisions to request for extension for response or resubmittal of reports in e-GGRT (40 CFR 98.3(h)(4))
Commenter Name:  Debra J. Jezouit and Leslie Couvillion, Baker Botts, L.L.P
Commenter Affiliation:  Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA should allow additional extension requests to be submitted up until the expiration of the automatic extension period. The Rule currently allows reporters a 45-day period, with an automatic 30-day extension, if needed, to respond to EPA's questions on a submitted report or to submit a revised report to correct a reporting error identified by EPA during report verification.[9] Additional requests for an extension currently must be submitted at least five days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[10] EPA proposes to simplify the process for requesting extensions by revising 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4) to eliminate the requirement that a request for an extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension be submitted at least five days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[11] Reporters still would have to submit a request for the additional extension, but could do so closer to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.[12] The Group supports relaxing the time limit on submitting additional extension requests. Extensions enable reporters to prepare more thorough and accurate responses to questions and revised reports. EPA should eliminate as many barriers in the extension request process as possible and allow maximum flexibility to reporters for requesting extensions. The Group urges EPA to adopt this change and make clear in the final rule that reporters may submit requests for additional extensions up until the expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension period.
Footnotes:
(9) See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,550. For example, for the 2016 reporting year, facilities could resubmit reports from reporting years 2011-2015 but not from 2010 or any prior year.
(10) 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4).
(11) 81 Fed. Reg. at 2,550.
(12) Id.
Response: EPA acknowledges the supportive comment. We received no adverse comment on these proposed changes, and we are finalizing the proposed changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Emily Fisher
Commenter Affiliation:  Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0035
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: EPA proposes to simplify the process for requesting an extension for a reporter to respond to EPA's questions about filed reports or request to file a revised report to address errors identified by EPA during the verification process. See 81 Fed. Reg. at 2550. Currently, reporters have 45 days to respond to EPA in these circumstances and can receive an automatic 30-day extension. An additional 30 days may be granted, but the reporter must submit a request for this additional time at least five days before the end of the automatic 30-day period. See id. EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h)(4) to allow reporters to request an additional 30 days at any time prior to the end of the automatic 30-day period. See id. This additional flexibility is appropriate and reasonable.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman, Hunton & Williams LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0046
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: EPA further proposes to revise § 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that requests for further extension of the time to respond to an EPA notification of potential error in a report be submitted 5 business days prior to expiration of the first extension. Id. at 2550. UARG agrees that this limitation is not necessary and should be removed.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly and Amy Van Kolken Banister
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0049
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment: WM also supports EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that a request for extension beyond the 30-day limit must be submitted five days in advance of the extension deadline. This will simplify the process for reporters, and allow them to focus their resources on responding to Agency questions and making any needed corrections.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment: Currently, reporters are allowed a 45-day period to respond to the EPA's questions and may request an extension of 30 days, which is automatically granted, if needed. The Administrator may also grant an additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension, if the owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. The EPA is proposing to remove the requirement that the request for an extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. Reporters would still be required to submit a request for the additional extension, but they may do so closer to (but not after) the expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension.
AFPM supports this revision.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Anne Germain and David Biderman
Commenter Affiliation:  National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) and Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0057
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: We support EPA's proposal to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to remove the requirement that the request for extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. This will simplify the process for requesting an extension so that reporters can appropriately respond to EPA questions and reduce unnecessary administrative burden for the reporter.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0070, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other comments on proposed Subpart A Revisions (Table of Revisions)
Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA proposed a number of changes to 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A, which are the general provisions of the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule. AHAM does not oppose EPA's proposed changes which are aimed at streamlining the rule's implementation and improving the quality of data collected under the rule.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on Subpart A Issues not proposed
Commenter Name:  Jennifer Cleary
Commenter Affiliation:  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0066
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: AHAM respectfully requests that EPA consider allowing reporters to have some modest amount of discretion in revising reports when the revision would be a de minimus representation of the data. For example, currently it seems that if exports in one calendar year are returned during the next calendar year, a reporter would need to revise a report to show this as a "change." In reality, however, it is not a change. EPA should consider explicitly providing a threshold below which no revised report is required. EPA also could permit conservative reporting such that a reporter might not revise a report in the sort of situation identified above.
AHAM urges EPA to expressly recognize this de minimus concept and companies' discretion to report conservatively in certain instances. For instance, if the charge of the fluorinated gas changes in an engineering revision of a model year, a company may be able to use that conservative (higher) charge volume in reporting for all derivatives of that basic model during the year. EPA should further consider specifically excluding components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeration and/or insulation. Examples include mechanical thermostats, drain valves and cold control sensors. The miniscule, if any, contribution to total CO2 equivalent of these types of data do not justify the significant burden and potential sources of error introduced by requiring this level of detail in the reporting. Further, in instances where the identity of a fluorinated gas cannot be determined from a supplier due to proprietary reasons, it may be useful to allow reporting of just the CO2 equivalent of the gas in certain instances, to facilitate reporting and avoid the ambiguity around the certification of inability to obtain the data from suppliers.
Response: Regarding revision and resubmission of annual reports, EPA solicited comment on limiting the resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. The issue of the conditions under which a report is required to be resubmitted is unrelated to the time period for which resubmittal is required or allowed and, therefore, is outside the scope of this rulemaking. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. EPA may consider these or similar edits in a future rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Leslie Ritts
Commenter Affiliation:  National Environmental Development Associations Clean Air Project (NEDA/CAP)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: Current Regulation - The current regulation at 40 CFR 98.3(h) requires the owner or operator of a facility subject to the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule to submit a revised annual report within 45 days of discovering one or more "substantive errors." The regulation describes a substantive error as "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being validated or verified." The term has not engendered much discussion but it could be interpreted quite broadly to require any error that is discovered in a submitted previously report to require resubmission of the prior report. NEDA/CAP submits that EPA should clarify that a "substantive error" does not include de minimis adjustments, which as we suggest below would be defined in the final rulemaking as (1) errors that collectively on a calendar year basis increase emissions by 1% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted and (2) errors that collectively on a calendar year basis decrease emissions by 10% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted.
History of EPA's Interpretation of "Substantive Error" - When the final rule was first published in 2009, §98.3(h) required follow up reporting of any error discovered in an annual report. In 2010, EPA changed that provision to require follow up reporting only for a "substantive error." EPA made this change to narrow the scope of the types of errors that would result in submitting revised reports. Specifically, EPA offered that the rule change was necessary "because some errors are not significant." 75 Fed Reg. at 79102 (Dec. 17, 2010). While NEDA/CAP agrees that insignificant errors should not be required to be reported, § 98.3(h)(3) remains difficult to interpret when it is applied to changes in calculated GHG emissions. The definition states that a substantive error includes "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being verified." Id. This language suggests that any change in reported quantity, even a single pound of GHGs, might be considered a substantive error subject to follow up reporting. Given that the thresholds for GHG reporting are 25,000 metric tons, and that the calculation methods specified in Part 98 allow for calculations of partial tons even down to pounds, there must be a level at which very small adjustments to calculations result in relatively tiny changes to reported GHGs would be considered non-substantive. Any other reading of the term "substantive error" would be at odds with the plain meaning of the term and defeat the purpose of the 2010 rulemaking.
Merriam-Webster defines substantive as "considerable in amount or number" or "involving matters of major or practical importance to all involved." With this plain meaning, not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive. For example, if 1,000 reporters discovered a refinement in their calculations that resulted in increasing each reporter's annual GHG emissions by 2 pounds, in aggregate this would have an impact of only one ton, but the rule would arguably require the submittal of 1,000 revised annual reports. That would cause a tremendous expenditure of time and resources, across the regulated community and for EPA, with no discernable value to the national GHG inventory. Similarly, for a single facility that reports 100,000 tons of CO2e emissions, an error that resulted in an additional ton, or even 10 tons, of CO2e emissions would not be consistent with the plain definition of a "substantive" error. An error that resulted in less than 0.01% change in emissions is not considerable in amount or number.
Requested Amplification of Agency Interpretation - Consequently, NEDA/CAP is joining other industry groups by requesting that EPA clarify that a "substantive error" does not include errors that result in an insignificant increase, or decrease, in reportable emissions as a result of a correction. To this end, we are seeking EPA's concurrence that:
      (1) Not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive errors;
      (2) The determination of which errors are substantive requires the owner or operator to use reasonable judgment; and
      (3) For a reporting facility, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis increase emissions by 1% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted are not substantive. And, regarding decreases, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis decrease emissions by 10% or less of the previously reported emissions, per GHG emitted, are not substantive.
EPA's further amplification on the meaning of "substantive error" would serve several useful purposes. It would clarify for the regulated community when an error is substantive, and would ease administrative burdens on both reporters and EPA. The purpose of the substantive error provision is to ensure that significant corrections are made to the national GHG inventory. No one is well served if resources need to be used to make very minor changes in previously submitted reports when those revisions do not materially change the amounts of reported emissions.
Response: Regarding the suggested changes to 40 CFR 98.3(h) to clarify the meaning of "substantive error," these clarifications are unrelated to the time period for which resubmittal is required or allowed and, therefore, are outside the scope of this rulemaking.  EPA may consider clarifying the meaning of this term in a future rulemaking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: AFPM is recommending that EPA clarify when reporters must resubmit reports for substantive errors. The regulation (40 CFR 98.3(h)) requires the owner or operator of a facility subject to the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule to submit a revised annual report within 45 days of discovering one or more "substantive errors." The regulation describes a substantive error as "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being validated or verified." AFPM believes that EPA should clarify that a substantive error does not include truly de minimis calculation adjustments. However, the definition of substantive error that EPA adopted in 98.3(h)(3) is ambiguous when it is applied to truly de minimis calculated changes in GHG emissions. The definition states that a substantive error includes "an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise prevents the reported data from being verified." This language suggests that any change in reported quantity, even a single pound of GHGs, might be considered a substantive error. Given that the thresholds for GHG reporting are 25,000 metric tons of CO2e, there must be a level at which very small adjustments to calculations which result in relatively small changes to the reported quantities would be considered non-substantive. We believe that substantive errors triggering resubmission of an annual report should be defined as changes in previously reported GHG emissions of more than 250 metric tons CO2e or 1% of reported emissions, whichever is less. Consequently, we are requesting that EPA clarify that a substantive error does not include errors that result in an insignificant increase, or decrease, in emissions as a result of a correction. We are seeking EPA's concurrence that:
      (1) Not all errors that impact the quantity of GHG emissions reported are substantive;
      (2) The determination of which errors are substantive requires the owner or operator to use reasonable judgment; and
      (3) As a guide, for a facility, errors that collectively on a calendar year basis change emissions by 1% or less of the reported emissions are not substantive.
EPA's elaboration on the definition of "substantive error" would serve several useful purposes. It would clarify for the regulated community when a calculation error is substantive, and would ease administrative burdens on both reporters and EPA. The purpose of the substantive error provision is to ensure that substantive corrections are made to the national GHG inventory. No one is well served if resources need to be used to make very minor changes in previously submitted reports when those revisions do not materially change the amounts of reported emissions.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0060, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter Name:  Dow Chemical Company
Commenter Affiliation:  Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0026
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The rule should also address how to handle situations where part of an existing facility is sold to another entity (e.g., sale of some process units to Olin Corporation in our case). Our understanding is that the entity that owns the emission source(s) as of December 31st is responsible for reporting the emissions for that previous year. However, this is based on information obtained from the help desk and is not in the regulation.
Response: Regarding revising the rule to address instances when part of an existing facility is sold to another entity, in general, 40 CFR 98.4(h) puts responsibility on the new owner in the case of a change in ownership. In this rulemaking, EPA initially proposed and sought comment on a change to the notification requirements in the case of a specific kind of change in ownership. EPA did not solicit comment on the matter of which owner is subject to the reporting requirements. Therefore, this comment is outside of the scope for this rulemaking.
The facility for reporting purposes is defined at 40 CFR 98.6. As noted by the commenter, EPA has previously issued guidance to reporters to clarify that whatever physical property, plant, building, structure, source, or stationary equipment the facility consists of on December 31 of a given year constitute the facility for that entire year and must be covered in that facility's submission for that entire reporting year. This guidance addresses the partial sale scenario raised by this comment. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Ted Michaels
Commenter Affiliation:  Energy Recovery Council(ERC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: The methane GWP (25) of the Proposal is from the 9-year old IPCC 4th Assessment Report and is now out of date. Updating the GWPs will properly align reporting with the latest climate science. This is especially important for emissions of methane. Methane is the second largest contributor to global climate change and the latest data on methane's contribution to radiative forcing, a measure of the uptake of energy, and hence global warming of the earth's climate system, is over 75% higher than previously reported. According to the 5th Assessment Report, the 100 year methane GWP is 34 when climate-carbon feedbacks are included and 84 times more potent over 20 years.[1] The report concludes that "it is likely that including the climate-carbon feedback for non-CO2 gases as well as for CO2 provides a better estimate of the metric value than including it only for CO2."
Footnotes:
 See Table 8‐7 of Myhre, G. et al. (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Response: EPA did not solicit comments on updates to the GWP values for methane, or any other chemicals in Table A-1, in the proposed rule. Therefore, the commenter's recommendation is outside of scope for this rulemaking. EPA previously discussed the GWPs of compounds in Table A-1 in the rulemaking "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements; Final Rule" (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Gilman
Commenter Affiliation:  Covanta
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0034
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment: The methane GWP (25) of the Proposal is from the 9-year old IPCC 4th Assessment Report and is now out of date. Updating the GWPs will properly align reporting with the latest climate science. This is especially important for emissions of methane. Methane is the second largest contributor to global climate change and the latest data on methane's contribution to radiative forcing, a measure of the uptake of energy, and hence global warming of the earth's climate system, is over 75% higher than previously reported. According to the 5th Assessment Report, the 100 year methane GWP is 34 when climate-carbon feedbacks are included and 84 times more potent over 20 years.[1] The report concludes that "it is likely that including the climate-carbon feedback for non-CO2 gases as well as for CO2 provides a better estimate of the metric value than including it only for CO2."
Footnotes:
(1) See Table 8‐7 of Myhre, G. et al. (2013) Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.‐K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0033, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Revisions to Subpart C
Improve Quality: Reporting Moisture Content Used to Correct HHV
(Table C-1)
Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: EPA proposes amending 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(i)(B) to require reporting of the moisture content used to calculate wood and wood residuals wet basis HHV from the dry basis default HHV in Table C-1 for use in Equations C-1 and C-8, as applicable. These changes are appropriate, as they will assist in correctly submitting and interpreting emissions reports.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment: AF&PA and AWC are pleased to see that EPA has taken note of comments we submitted in 2013 seeking to address moisture content in wood and wood residuals. We are in full agreement with the changes because we believe that this will increase the accuracy of our reporting.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kim A. Wolfe
Commenter Affiliation:  Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0028
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment: The EPA is proposing to require reporting of moisture content used to correct the default high heating value for wood and wood residuals in Table C-1 (3rd column, 81 FR 2550). The frequency of this determination could not be located in the preamble or regulations. It is recommended EPA clarify the required frequency of determining moisture content. Since source testing requires the determination of moisture content it is recommended EPA accept the moisture content determination frequency to be the same as the source testing frequency. A more frequent moisture content determination would result in additional costs to the facility.
Response: Please note that the Table C - 1 default HHV for wood and wood residuals assumes that the wood and wood residuals are dry (i.e., zero percent moisture content). However, wood and wood residuals are often wet when burned. Applying the wet weight of the wood to the dry basis HHV overestimates emissions, since a portion of the weight of the combusted wood is water. In order to correct this (at the behest of industry), subpart C now allows facilities the option to calculate a wet basis HHV using the following equation:
                        HHVw = ((100 − M)/100) * HHVd
Where:
      HHVw = wet basis HHV
      M = moisture content (percent)
      HHVd = dry basis HHV from Table C-1
The wet basis HHV conversion should only be used when a configuration is reporting according to the Tier 1 calculation methodology and when the wood and wood residuals combusted contain moisture greater than zero percent.
Correcting to a wet basis HHV is not required by Subpart C, but is optional. The alternative to correcting the HHV to a wet basis is for facilities to report the total quantity of wood and wood residuals combusted on a dry basis. Currently, Subpart C does not specify a method for determining the dry weight of wood, it only specifies a method for correcting the HHV to a wet basis.
Because the Tier 1 calculation method may be used for solid, gaseous, or liquid biomass fuels in a unit of any size if the fuel is listed in Table C-1 of this subpart, it is likely that many facilities will use this option.
Under the final revisions to 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2)(i)(A) and 98.37(b)(37), if facilities opt to correct HHV to a wet basis, they will be required to report and retain a record of the moisture content used to do so. EPA intends that facilities using the moisture content correction should keep a complete record of the methods used, the measurements made, and the calculations performed to quantify moisture content. The frequency of determination should also be noted and based on the availability of existing company data. EPA does not intend to specify a method or frequency for moisture content determination because facilities already have systems in place to determine moisture content and the use of the wet basis HHV correction is optional, not required. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Brad Upton
Commenter Affiliation:  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment: EPA proposes allowing reporters to elect under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) to either enter the moisture content into the inputs verification tool (IVT) or report the data in e-GGRT. These changes are appropriate.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Paul Noe and Robert Glowinsk
Commenter Affiliation:  American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and American Wood Council (AWC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0045
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: We are in full agreement with EPA's approach for our industry that produces wood and wood residuals as a production process byproduct as it relates to potential competitiveness issues associated with moisture content. We agree that the option of either reporting under the IVT (if the reporter is concerned about CBI) or just entering the data into the e-GGRT directly (if the reporter is not concerned about CBI) is an appropriate set of options to allow individuals to make their own determination.
Response: The comment is a supportive comment to which no response is required.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improve Quality: Reporting cumulative maximum rated heat capacity for GP and CP configurations
Commenter Name:  Christine G. Wyman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0069
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment: Subpart C: 40 C.F.R. § 98.36 EPA has proposed a revision to Subpart C that would require natural gas combustion sources that use "aggregation" or "common pipe" provisions to report a new data element: cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. 81 Fed. Reg. 2551. Aggregation and/or common pipe reporting is used for compressor stations and storage facilities because these Subpart C provisions apply to combustion sources  -  typically compressor drivers  -  at those facilities. Section 98.36(c)(1) addresses "aggregation" reporting and §98.36(c)(3) addresses "common pipe" reporting. EPA is proposing to make similar revisions to each section to add the new data element. The provisions are similar, and the proposed §98.3.6(c)(1)(iii) is provided here:
      Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units in the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
      81 Fed. Reg. 2603 (proposed § 98.36(c)(1)(iii)); see also id. (proposed § 98.36(c)(3)(ii)).
AGA recommends that EPA not include this data element because it can be determined from already reported information and the addition of the data element may cause unnecessary confusion. The actual annual heat input of the grouped sources at compressor stations and storage facilities can be determined from available information. These facilities combust natural gas and aggregate combustion sources for reporting, as allowed by Subpart C. Based on the reported combustion emissions (e.g., metric tons of CO2) and the mandatory, default CO2 emission factor from natural gas combustion in Table C-1,[1] the actual heat rate (annual mmBtu) can be determined. That value can also provide an average mmBtu/hr for the year based on actual operations. The facilities that use "aggregation" and/or "common pipe" reporting often include compressor drivers with a rated heat input capacity less than 10 mmBtu/hr (which is equivalent to about 1,200 horsepower). Those units would be excluded from the proposed cumulative total reported. There could be confusion when comparing implied capacity from actual emissions, which would include units with less than 10 (mmBtu/hr), to the reported cumulative capacity, which would exclude units with less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
It is not clear what EPA expects to learn from the new data element. The reported cumulative capacity may be much lower than the actual capacity calculated from reported CO2 emissions, because excluding units rated at less than 10 mmBtu/hr may omit many sources from typical facilities. At some facilities, all or nearly all of the capacity would be excluded. For example, compressor stations and storage facilities often include units of different sizes to support demand requirements that vary over the year. Stations usually include multiple compressors, and the number of units at a facility that exceed 10 mmBtu/hr can vary from zero to several units, depending on the site. Facilities often will include several units that are below the reporting threshold that would be excluded from the cumulative site capacity reported. Some facilities may be comprised solely of units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. Those units would be excluded from the total reported, so a cumulative maximum heat input capacity of zero would be reported for some facilities. However, reported Subpart C emissions would not be zero, and the facility report could appear to be erroneous. Because these scenarios will not be uncommon, the new reporting requirement would not provide insight into the site nor operations, and may cause confusion when results are reviewed.
AGA recommends that EPA not incorporate this proposed data element into any final GHGRP rule because it will not add insight and could cause confusion. If EPA retains this new requirement, a lower exclusion threshold should be considered to avoid the scenarios described above for typical compressor stations. For example, a threshold of 2.5 mmBtu/hr would address nearly all transmission and storage compressors, but would exclude smaller emergency/auxiliary generators as well as facility ancillary equipment such as water heaters. A marginally lower threshold may minimize the potential for confusion.
Footnotes:
(1) Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98 -- Default CO2 Emission Factors and High Heat Values for Various Types of Fuel.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Friedman
Commenter Affiliation:  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0063
Comment Excerpt Number:  13
Comment: AFPM disagrees with the assertion that providing the "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" for units reporting under aggregation and/or common pipe methodologies will provide meaningful verification data to EPA. Stating that "...reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP reporting configurations would greatly improve the ability to verify emissions for these configurations" is a mischaracterization of the significance of this data. The "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" will provide nothing more than a determination of actual emissions relative to potential on a group level. Such a high-level assessment does very little to "greatly improve the ability to verify emissions," as variations within the aggregation are not identified. This is particularly true when there is a difference between maximum design values and permitted values, as is often the case. EPA fails to recognize that the "cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity" is not necessarily a federally enforceable limit and thus not an indication of non-compliance. Other factors, such as unit modification or hours of operation, will make these values meaningless to compare.
We disagree with EPA's assertion that the burden to provide this information is minimal. The information EPA is requesting is duplicative with various reports provided to both state and federal agencies. These would include but would not be limited to: NSR permit applications, issued (final) NSR construction permits, title V permits and NSPS and MACT Stack/Performance tests. It is wasteful and resource-intensive to provide the same information to the same government agencies in multiple instances. Further, this cumulative heat capacity value must be reassessed and updated annually to ensure accuracy, otherwise a value that is irrelevant to an emission inventory that is based on actual operating data becomes a potential source of violation and penalty. EPA states that "approximately 3,540 units will be affected by this additional requirement  -  this is a significant number of sources throughout the United States that would now collect and maintain information not previously required. No other inventory provided at the state level requires the information EPA seeks in order to "validate" the reported data.
To the extent that EPA requires collecting this information, EPA correctly states that "these data elements provide information that is generally already available to the public through other sources (e.g., operating permits)." (FR Vol.81. No. 10, pg. 2576) Thus, the information EPA seeks is already reported in a number of sources in a much more granular format- namely NSR and Operating permits. These are sources available to the agency and should be relied upon as more up-to-date and detailed sources of information. Rather than burdening industry with duplicative reporting, EPA should seek this information from other readily available government documents.
Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement to report the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units within the GP or CP configuration that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). As discussed in Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA intends to use these data to verify that emissions are not being significantly over-reported. EPA intends to directly compare "actual emissions relative to potential on a group level' in order to identify over reporting. EPA currently has no other means to verify that emissions reported under the GP and CP configurations are not overstated. Because there are approximately 7,000 of these configurations in use and the non-biogenic emissions from these configurations represent 50% of the total emissions in Subpart C, EPA feels that this will improve our ability to verify emissions for this sub group of units.
EPA has not proposed any regulatory language that would make cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity a federally enforceable limit. The intent of this new data element in Subpart C is for emissions verification. As explained in Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA will use the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity to help determine when emissions have been overstated or when the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity has been understated.
With regard to the comment on burden, we acknowledge that the burden estimate provided in the preamble to the proposal was understated for subpart C. We have revised the burden estimate in consideration of these comments. See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule and the memorandum "Assessment of Burden Impacts of Final 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule" available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation:  North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526-0053
Comment Excerpt Number:  3