Summary of Public Comments and Responses for Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:

2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements

                                                                  November 2013

Response to Public Comments on the 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements

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

                                   FOREWORD

This document provides EPA's responses to public comments on the 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements. The EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19802).
The proposed amendments are designed to clarify the data reporting requirements for certain facilities; correct ambiguities or minor inconsistencies in greenhouse gas monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements; amend monitoring and quality assurance methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities; and make other corrections identified as a result of working with the affected sources during rule implementation and outreach. In conjunction with this action, we proposed confidentiality determinations for the new and substantially revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data elements. The notice also included proposed amendments to Table A-1 of subpart A to Part 98 to revise the values for the global warming potential (GWP) of some greenhouse gases (GHGs) and adding some GHGs (with associated GWP values) that are not currently included in the table. The proposed GWP values were from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and EPA assessments of data supporting GWP estimates for certain GHGs identified since Reporting Rule promulgation.
During the 45-day public comment period, EPA received over 2,400 comment letters in response to the April 2, 2013 proposal. The majority of these comments were received from a mass comment campaign. EPA also received nearly 80 unique letters from industry representatives and associations, environmental organizations, and municipalities. This document provides EPA's responses to the significant public comments regarding these proposals. EPA received two comments and sets of materials from industry representatives following the close of the comment period. Although the EPA is not required to respond to these comments, to the extent practicable the 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 the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room or electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

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	v
TABLE OF CONTENTS	1
1.0	Comments on EPA's Legal Authority and Administrative Procedures	10
1.1	Comments on EPA administrative procedures	10
1.2	Comments on legal authority for the revisions	15
2.0	Amendments to Table A-1	21
2.1	Comments on the revision of the GHGRP to complement the U.S. Inventory and relationship to the UNFCCC	21
2.2	Comments on use of the IPCC AR4 to update Table A-1 and proposed revised GWPs	27
2.3	Comments on inclusion of new GWPs from the scientific literature	41
2.4	EPA's analysis of the additional F-GHGs and GWPs from the scientific literature (including additional data or analysis submitted to support GWPS during the public comment period)	45
2.5	Relationship to other EPA Programs (e.g., Tailoring Rule and PSD programs) or state programs	47
2.6	Comments on applicability and new reporters	75
2.7	Comments on EPA's proposal to recalculate emissions from 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting years	81
2.8	Other comments on proposed revisions to Table A-1	118
3.0	Other Revisions to the General Provisions	128
3.1	Revisions to General Provisions reporting requirements (e.g., ORIS code, latitude/longitude)	128
3.2	Clarification to extension for submittal of revised reports	135
3.3	Revisions to General Provisions definitions	136
3.4	Comments on Rule issues not proposed	138
4.0	Revisions to Subpart C	140
4.1	Revision to expand use of Tier 1 in Subpart C	140
4.2	Revisions to Table C-1	140
4.3	Revisions to Table C-2	149
4.4	Revision to MSW default biogenic fraction	157
4.5	Other comments on proposed Subpart C Technical Corrections	162
5.0	Revisions to Subpart E	163
6.0	Revisions to Subpart H	163
6.1	Revisions to reporting requirements	163
7.0	Revisions to Subpart K	164
8.0	Revisions to Subpart L	164
8.1	Revisions to reporting requirements for RY2013	164
9.0	Revisions to Subpart N	164
10.0	Revisions to Subpart O	165
11.0	Revisions to Subpart P	165
11.1	Revisions to term definitions in Equations P-1, P-2, and P-3	165
11.2	Revisions to fuel and feedstock analysis requirements	165
11.3	Revisions to reporting requirements	166
11.4	Other comments on proposed subpart P Technical Corrections	167
12.0	Revisions to Subpart S	167
13.0	Revisions to Subpart Q	167
13.1	Revisions to calculation methods	167
14.0	Revisions to Subpart V	168
15.0	Revisions to Subpart X	168
15.1	Revisions to calculation methods	168
15.2	Revisions to monitoring requirements	170
15.3	Revisions to missing data requirements	172
15.4	Other comments on proposed subpart X Technical Corrections	172
15.5	Comments on Rule issues not proposed	172
16.0	Revisions to Subpart Y	173
16.1	Revisions to calculation methods	173
16.2	Other comments on proposed subpart Y Technical Corrections	175
17.0	Revisions to Subpart Z	175
17.1	Revisions to reporting requirements	175
18.0	Revisions to Subpart AA	176
18.1	Revisions to Table AA-1 or AA-2	176
18.2	Revisions to reporting requirements, annual pulp and/or paper production	177
18.3	Comments on Rule issues not proposed	179
19.0	Revisions to Subpart BB	180
20.0	Revisions to Subpart DD	180
20.1	Revisions to accuracy and precision requirements for weighing cylinders	180
21.0	Revisions to Subpart FF	181
22.0	Revisions to Subpart HH	181
22.1	Revisions to calculation methods in Equation HH-1	181
22.2	Revisions to monitoring requirements	183
22.3	Revisions to oxidation fraction in Equations HH-5 through HH-8	185
22.4	Revisions to other calculations methods in Equations HH-6 through HH-8	199
22.5	Other comments on proposed subpart HH Technical Corrections	201
22.6	Comments on Rule issues not proposed	201
23.0	Revisions to Subpart II	216
24.0	Revisions to Subpart LL	217
25.0	Revisions to Subpart MM	217
25.1	Revisions to calculation methods	217
25.2	Revisions to equipment calibration requirements	217
25.3	Revisions to reporting requirements	217
25.4	Definitions: NGL and bulk NGL	220
25.5	Revisions to Table MM-1	222
25.6	Other comments on proposed subpart MM Technical Corrections	222
25.7	Comments on Rule issues not proposed related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements	224
26.0	Revisions to Subpart NN	225
26.1	Revisions to definition of LDC	225
26.2	Revisions to Equations NN-5 and NN-6	225
26.3	Revisions to reporting requirements for large customer meters	226
26.4	Revisions to reporting requirements	228
26.5	Revisions to Table NN-1 or NN-2	228
26.6	Other comments on proposed subpart NN Technical Corrections	229
27.0	Revisions to Subpart PP	230
28.0	Revisions to Subpart QQ	230
28.1	Revisions to reporting requirements (i.e., dates of import/export)	230
28.2	Comments on Rule issues not proposed	232
29.0	Revisions to Subpart RR	233
30.0	Revisions to Subpart SS	233
31.0	Revisions to Subpart TT	233
31.1	Revisions to calculation methods	233
31.2	Revisions to Table TT-1	237
31.3	Revisions to reporting requirements	240
32.0	Revisions to Subpart UU	241
33.0	Revisions to Other Subparts	241
33.1	Comments on Rule issues not proposed for subpart G	241
34.0	Schedule for Implementation	243
34.1	Proposed schedule for existing reporters 	243
34.2	Proposed schedule and BAMM for new reporters	248
35.0	Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments For New or Substantially Revised Data Elements	253
35.1	Approach to CBI determinations and data category assignments for new or revised data elements	253
36.0	Impact of the Proposed Rule	253
36.1	Comments regarding impacts/burden of new or revised GWPs in Table A-1	253
36.2	Comments regarding impacts/burden of the technical corrections	261
37.0	General Comments on the Proposed Amendments	264
37.1	General support for the amendments	264
38.0	Out of Scope Comments	265
38.1	General comments on e-GGRT or reporting questions	265
38.2	General comments outside of the scope of the amendments	266

List of Commenters
                                      DCN
                                Commenter Name
                             Commenter Affiliation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0031
Anonymous Public Comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0032-A1
Kim A. Wolfe, Environmental Compliance
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0034-A1
Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate
Earthworks
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0035-A2
Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy, President
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0037
Anonymous public comment

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0038
Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director
Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0039-A1
Darden Hood, President
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0039-A2
Darden Hood, President
Beta Analytic Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0040-A1
Kara M. Montalvo, Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Waste Management (WM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0042-A1
Mike Roddy, Director of Environmental Affairs
Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0044-A1
Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services
The Dow Chemical Company (Dow)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0045-A1
John L. Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0046-A1
Marla Benyshek, Director, Fuels Regulatory Issues
Phillips 66 Research Center
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0047-A2
Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0048-A2
Donna M. Christensen,
House of Representatives
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0050-A1
Peter Anderson, Executive Director
Center for a Competitive Waste Industry
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0051-A2
Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs
Southern Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0053-A2
David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs
National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0054-A2
Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship
GE Appliances
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0055-A2
Robert E. Cleaves, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
Biomass Power Association (BPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0056-A1
Frank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Services Department
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0057-A1
Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance,
Republic Services, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0058-A1
Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy, American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President,
American Wood Council (AWC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1
Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0060-A1
David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0061-A1
Andrew T. O'Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs
Portland Cement Association (PCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0062
Frederick Sciance
General Motors LLC
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0063-A1
Patrice Tompkins-Everidge
Texas Instruments Incorporated
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0064-A1
Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director
Clean Air Council
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0065-A1
C. Lish
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
QEP Field Services Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0068-A1
Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager
California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Gas Processors Association (GPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
American Chemistry Council (ACC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0071-A1
Darin Schroeder
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0071-A2
Darin Schroeder
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0072-A1
Matt Hall
Consumers Energy Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0073-A1
Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO
Dominion Resources Services, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0074-A1
Eldon Lindt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services
Xcel Energy, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0076-A2
Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0077-A2
Angela D. Marconi, Cherry Island Landfill Gas Manager
Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0079-A2
John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services
American Electric Power (AEP)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0080-A2
Pamela Lacey, Senior Managing Counsel, Environment
American Gas Association (AGA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0081-A1
Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate
Earthworks
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0081-A2
Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate
Policy Advocate Earthworks
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0082-A2
Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability
Covanta Energy Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0083-A2
Frank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Service Department
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0084-A2
Ted Michaels, President,
Energy Recovery Council (ERC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0085-A2
J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safety and Health Director
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0086-A2
Gary Glasser, Vice President, Field Services, Methane Gas Group,
Tetra Tech BAS (TTBAS)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0087-A2
David Marshall, David McCabe & Darin Schroeder,
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Sierra Club
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0087-A3
David Marshall, David McCabe & Darin Schroeder,
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Sierra Club
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0089-A1
Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Intel Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0091-A1
L. Y. Young
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0092-A1
G. Hogan
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0093-A1
N. Rapp
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0094-A1
D. Lassaw
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0095-A1
L. Usechak
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0096-A1
V. Jones
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0097-A1
C. Gross
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0098-A1
C. Dykstra
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0099-A1
V. Anderson
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0100-A2
Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0101-A1
J. Lisak
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0102-A1
M. Ballin
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0103-A1
K. Rowlett
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0104-A1
G. Seger
Mass comment campaign
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0105-A2
Jonathan Lewis, Senior Council-Climate policy
Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Clean Air Council
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0106
Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist
Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0107
Peter Anderson, Executive Director
Center for a Competitive Waste Industry
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0108-A1
D. McKee

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0109-A1
J. Redpath

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0110-A1
K. Sorvig

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0111-A1
B. Clark

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0112-A1
T. Motes

EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2
Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist
3M Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0114
Sean P. Flynn, Environmental Manager; Gregory Wilkins, Environmental, Auditing, and Processes Manager
Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Petroleum Company LP

Comments on EPA's Legal Authority and Administrative Procedures
Comments on EPA administrative procedures
Commenter Name:  Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate
Commenter Affiliation:  Earthworks
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0034-A1
Comment:  I am writing to respectfully request that the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") grant a 60-day extension of time to submit public comments on the proposed revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule ("Draft Rule"), Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934. The Draft Rule would amend almost all subsections of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, a rule that creates a mandatory reporting program for the major emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States. This program is essential to forming an appropriate response to climate change  -  it would be impossible for the EPA to effectively regulate the threats posed by climate change without accurate and comprehensive data on national greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Draft Rule and its supporting documents contain thousands of pages of extremely technical analysis and calculations that cannot be meaningfully reviewed by the public before the May 17, 2013 comment deadline.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We cannot agree to extend the formal comment period past the May 17, 2013 deadline. As described in the proposal preamble, EPA intends to publish a final rule in time for its provisions to take effect by January 1, 2014 and extending the comment deadline would impact the Agency's ability to meet that schedule.
The Agency balances any request for an extension of the comment period with our need to thoroughly review, integrate, and respond to submitted comments and to publish a final rule in time to give regulated entities sufficient notice before any changes come into effect. In recognition that the proposed rule and the analyses contained in the docket may take considerable time to review, EPA provided a longer comment period than the standard 30 days after publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and posted the proposed rule on its website when it was signed by the EPA administrator on March 8, 2013, nearly three weeks before the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register. This is comparable to the 60-day comment period that EPA provided for review of the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (FR 74 16448, April 10, 2009), for which EPA did not provide an extension.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA did not provide adequate notice of the Proposed Rule's substantive impacts or an adequate opportunity to comment on those impacts. Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act governs this rulemaking because the Administrator determined that statute would apply pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1)(V). 78 Fed. Reg. at 19803. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(3) requires the Administrator to publish notice of the proposed rulemaking as provided under Section 553(b) of Title 5, United States Code (the Administrative Procedure Act or "APA"). Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(5)requires the Administrator to "allow any person to submit written comments" on the Proposed Rule. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(5). The APA contains a similar requirement for the agency to give interested persons an opportunity to participate through written comments. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c).
To satisfy the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 307(d) and APA Section 553b, the opportunity to comment must be meaningful. Safe Air for Everyone v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy, 728 F.2d 1477, 1490 (Em. Ct. App. 1983), cert denied 467 U.S. 1255 (1984). The notice provided to the public must be sufficient to afford a reasonable opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process. Forester v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 559 F.2d 774, 787‐88 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The courts have explained that a notice of rulemaking must focus on the significant implications of the proposal so as to enable criticism or formulation of alternatives. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 48‐49 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United Church Bd. for World Ministries v. SEC, 617 F. Supp. 837 (D. Colo. 1985).
The notice of proposed rulemaking did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to comment because it obscured the substantive impact of the rule. The proposal is incorrectly described as a "Technical Correction" to the Reporting Rule, see 78 Fed. Reg. at 19806‐07, when in fact the Proposed Rule makes a substantive change to certain major source thresholds and subjects additional facilities to permitting requirements. This mistaken description of the Proposed Rule as a mere technical correction made it more difficult for sources to recognize its true impact. Because EPA downplayed and obscured the substantive impact of the proposed rule, QEPFS and others in the industry did not become aware of its significance until quite late in the public comment period. This substantially delayed industry's response and hindered our ability to provide meaningful comments.
The mischaracterization of the Proposed Rule likely restricted the participation of other stakeholders and members of the public. For example, given their limited resources, state regulatory agencies have little reason to pay attention to or comment on technical corrections to the Reporting Rule. Sources report GHG emissions directly through the EPA's Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool without state involvement. However, these state agencies must implement the revised Table A‐1 and the Tailoring Rule. The rule should have highlighted these issues in order provide the state agencies notice of the Proposed Rule's substantive impacts and give them an opportunity to comment.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The notice of the proposed rulemaking was titled "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements". The summary published in the Federal Register (79 FR 19802, April 2, 2013) stated:
      "The EPA is proposing to amend the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and to clarify or change specific provisions. Particularly, the EPA is proposing to amend a table in the General Provisions to reflect revised global warming potentials of some greenhouse gases that have been published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to add global warming potentials for certain fluorinated greenhouse gases not currently listed in the table."
Furthermore, at 79 FR 19806, the proposal preamble identifies the changes as technical corrections "and other amendments." Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the summary and description provided in the proposal preamble obscured the substantive impact of the rulemaking.
Additionally, in recognition that the proposed rule and the analyses contained in the docket may take considerable time to review, EPA provided a longer comment period than the standard 30 days after publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and posted the proposed rule on its website when it was signed by the EPA administrator on March 8, 2013, more than three weeks before the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register (on April 2, 2013). EPA also published a factsheet on its website describing the proposed changes to Table A-1. Therefore, interested stakeholders have received adequate notice and opportunity to provide their comments to EPA.
In regards to the ability to comment on the proposed rule's effect on the tailoring rule, see the response to DCN No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1, Excerpt 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  18
Comment:  GPA is concerned that EPA has not provided stakeholders with adequate time to carefully study the proposal and prepare more meaningful comments. The proposed rule is presented as a minor technical amendment to a routine Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 data request. However, Table A-1 to Subpart A of Part 98 is specifically cited in the new source review (NSR) and Title V regulations as the source of factors to be used to determine whether a facility is subject to regulation under those rules. GPA members operate thousands of centralized gathering and processing facilities and the proposal to change the methane global warming potential (GWP) factor in Table A-1 from 21 to 25, a 19% increase, has the potential to change the regulatory status of many facilities that are borderline with respect to Title V and/or NSR major source applicability. Additionally, GPA members have devoted significant resources to developing and implementing data collection, management, and reporting tools using the current published Part 98 emission factors to comply with the GHGRR. Because EPA did not evaluate the impact this change will have on current GHGRR programs, and more importantly, the regulatory status of facilities across the country and across industries, EPA should have allowed stakeholders additional time to evaluate the impact of these rules on their current GHGRR programs and the regulatory status of their facilities.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  In addition to the statutory mandate to conduct rulemaking through notice and comment, EPA stated in the Tailoring Rule preamble that "because any changes to Table A - 1 of the mandatory GHG reporting rule regulatory text must go through a rulemaking, [incorporation of Table A‐1] will assure that the values used for the permitting programs will reflect the latest values adopted for usage by EPA after notice and comment." In order to fulfill that promise, EPA must now give notice of and solicit comment on the Proposed Rule's effect on the Tailoring Rule. In this case, EPA has solicited comment only on the mechanics of the GHG reporting process, and has said it will let the chips fall where they may with respect to major source thresholds and permitting. This does not provide a sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the most significant issue raised by the Proposed Rule.
QEPFS respectfully requests that the Administrator publish a notice soliciting public comment on the impacts that the proposed rule would have on the Tailoring Rule, the Indian Country minor source rule, the permitting thresholds applicable to each rule, and related implementation issues. We request that EPA establish a new period of at least 60 days for the public to comment on these issues. Failing that, QEPFS requests that the Administrator extend the existing public comment period by an additional 60 days.
Response:  Regarding the relationship between this final rule and other EPA programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the impacts of this final rule on other EPA programs, see Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule.
EPA is not extending the formal comment period past the May 17, 2013 deadline. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0034-A1, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  7
Comment:  GPA has several concerns related to the timing of implementation; particularly, EPA needs to address impacts to other regulatory programs (e.g. NSR and Title V) that reference the emission factors in Part 98 prior to adopting the new factors.
Impacts of Part 98 revisions to the NSR and Title V rules must be addressed through a rulemaking process.
As noted above, increases in GWPs, such as for methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, will likely push many "borderline" GHG emission facilities into the NSR and Title V regulatory programs, perhaps retroactively. EPA indicates that it is not reopening the decision made in the Tailoring Rule, or any other rules or programs that reference Table A-1. In GPA's view, this is precisely the effect of the proposed revision. The substantive effect of the proposed revision, the uncertainty surrounding past and future regulatory determinations, and the potential for enforcement actions based on the new criteria all require clarification through rulemaking prior to final adoption of the revised GWP factors. EPA cannot address this issue with anything less.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066, Excerpt 5, and Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the relationship of the proposed amendments to other EPA programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Peter Anderson, Executive Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Center for a Competitive Waste Industry
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0050-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  Neither the Federal Register nor the Supporting Materials for the Docket contain the document referenced in Document EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0015 as the actual document relied upon for the calculations that serve as the basis for the proposed rule change, which is identified as:
Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWICS), 2012. SWICS 2.2 Methane Oxidation Addendum 2012. Addendum to the "Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills." Prepared for Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWICS); prepared by SCS Engineers. Version 2.2, Revised January 2009. Addendum is dated November 19, 2012
This is to request that this document by SWICS be added to the Supporting Documents and the comment period for Subpart HH be extended for one week from the time that this SWICS document is provided in the Supporting Documents for this Docket.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The document cited by the commenter has since been published in the Federal docket. As noted by the commenter, the document cited is referenced in the memorandum "Review of Methane Flux and Soil Oxidation Data" (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0015). This memorandum extensively reviews the SWICS document and summarizes the data and options provided in the referenced document. EPA has determined that the memorandum, which is the basis for the proposed amendments to subpart HH, sufficiently summarizes the content of the referenced document. As such, EPA does not agree to extend the formal comment period past the May 17, 2013 deadline. However, EPA has accepted and addressed comments submitted within a reasonable period of time past the May 17, 2013 deadline to take commenter concerns into consideration.
Comments on legal authority for the revisions
Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  UARG emphasizes that EPA's authority to require reporting of GHG emissions and related data under this rule is of limited scope and purpose. Under the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress authorized funding for EPA to develop and publish a rule "to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States." Pub. L. No. 110 - 161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2007). The joint explanatory statement accompanying the legislation directed EPA to "use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act" (e.g., authority under CAA §114) to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule covering those "upstream production and downstream sources" the Administrator deems "appropriate," and to determine "appropriate thresholds" and frequency for reporting. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,448, 16,454 (Apr. 10, 2009). Congress also authorized EPA to rely on the existing reporting requirements for electric generating units [("EGUs")] under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments." Id.
The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ("GHGRP") that has resulted is wholly out of proportion to that mandate. Facilities are expending enormous resources tracking, quality assuring, and reporting vast amounts of information on even the smallest quantity of GHG. This is particularly true with respect to the Subpart C requirements for combustion sources to report GHG from all activities no matter how de minimis. EPA also continues to spend significant resources for both its own staff and Agency contractors to implement the GHGRP and its electronic reporting requirements. Since its initial promulgation in October 2009, EPA has promulgated more than twenty revisions to the GHGRP rules. Although UARG understands that many of these rule revisions have been directed at correcting errors or simplifying data collection and reporting, the need for those revisions only underscores the already complicated nature of the program.
EPA's authority under CAA § 114 is limited by the Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA") and its implementing regulations. To lawfully require a data collection, EPA must prepare and  receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget ("OMB") of an Information  Collection Request ("ICR") that demonstrates the "practical utility" of the covered information. 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(iii). Under 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(l),
      Practical utility means the actual, not merely the theoretical or potential, usefulness of information.... In determining whether  information will have `practical utility,' OMB will take into  account whether the agency demonstrates actual timely use for the  information....
(emphasis added). As a result, each new piece of information EPA proposes be reported by  facilities and analyzed by EPA, and each new detail EPA proposes to specify in its existing rule  must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether the revision is both consistent with that authority and necessary to carry out its obligations under the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Now that the program has been in place for several years, and EPA has provided Congress the  information it sought, EPA should be considering whether there are ways to reduce (rather than  increase) the amount of information require to be reported.
Response:  As discussed the preamble to the proposed 2009 GHG reporting rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), Section 114(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to require certain persons on a one-time, periodic or continuous basis to keep records, make reports, undertake monitoring, sample emissions, or provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonably require. The information may be required for the purposes of developing an implementation plan, developing an emission standard under sections 111, 112 or 129, determining if any person is in violation of any standard or requirement of an implementation plan or emissions standard, or ``carrying out any provision'' of the Act (except for a provision of title II with respect to manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines). As EPA stated in the 2009 proposal preamble (74 FR 16454):
      The scope of the persons potentially subject to a section 114(a)(1) information request (e.g., a person ``who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in'' section 114(a)) and the reach of the phrase ``carrying out any provision'' of the Act are quite broad. EPA's authority to request information reaches to a source not subject to the CAA, and may be used for purposes relevant to any provision of the Act. Thus, for example, utilizing sections 114 and 208, EPA could gather information relevant to carrying out provisions involving research (e.g., section 103(g)); evaluating and setting standards (e.g., section 111); and endangerment determinations contained in specific provisions of the Act (e.g., 202); as well as other programs.
Given the broad scope of section 114 of the CAA, it is appropriate for EPA to gather the information required by this rule because such information is relevant to EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. As described in the preamble of the proposed 2009 GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research. The GHGRP provides data to develop and inform inventories and other U.S. climate programs by advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. For example, GHGRP data published through the Greenhouse Gas Data Publication Tool may be used by state and local entities to better understand the contribution of emissions from specific regional industries, or by EPA regulatory programs to review emissions from certain facilities within an industry to inform policy decisions.
As EPA stated in the preamble for the proposed amendments (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013), the amendments reflect EPA's engagement with reporters and stakeholders and our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of Part 98 provisions. The changes improve the GHGRP by clarifying compliance obligations and reducing confusion for reporters, improving the consistency of the data collected, and ensuring that data collected through the GHGRP is representative of industry and comparable to other inventories. The proposed changes correct errors, simplify data collection and reporting for reporters, and reduce the burden associated with implementing certain provisions of 40 CFR part 98. The changes to Table A-1 of subpart A reflect improved scientific understanding. Specifically, the changes to Table A-1 allow for improved understanding of the radiative forcing from reported GHG emissions and supply, based on GWP values that are more up-to-date relative to the values previously provided in Table A-1. Updating these values ensures that the GWPs for these compounds allow their atmospheric impacts relative to other GHGs to be accurately assessed.
The changes also make the emissions reported under the Part 98 consistent with other programs. For more on this, see Section II.A.1 of the proposal preamble (78 FR 19807) and Sections II.A.1 and 2 of the final rule preamble.
With these considerations, the amendments to the final rule are both consistent with EPA's existing authority under Section 114(a) and necessary to carry out its obligations under the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Furthermore, the information collection requirements in this rule for new reporters have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements for 40 CFR part 98 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, assigned OMB control number 2060 - 0629, ICR 2300.10. The EPA has recently submitted a request for approval for an ICR renewal that incorporates the burdens and costs imposed by all of the current ICRs under the GHGRP, including this rulemaking. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safety and Health Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0085-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  We support UARG's contention that the GHG reporting rule has transformed into something that is wholly out of proportion to its Congressional Mandate and that our facilities, as well as our peers in the industry, are expending an extraordinary amount of time, effort and resources tracking, quality assuring and reporting de minimis GHG emissions ancillary to those flue gas emissions we have been historically reporting under 40 CFR, Part 75. EPA is also spending significant resources (staff and contractors) to implement the reporting rule and its electronic reporting requirements  -  with most of the effort being spent on the de minimis fraction of emissions. As a result, we believe EPA should be focusing on ways to reduce (rather than increase) the amount of information that is required to be reported under this program.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services
Commenter Affiliation:  American Electric Power (AEP)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0079-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  AEP emphasizes that USEPA's authority to require reporting of GHG emissions and related data under this rule is of limited scope and purpose. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Congress authorized funding for USEPA to develop and publish a rule "to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States." Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). The joint explanatory statement accompanying the legislation directed USEPA to "use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act" (e.g., authority under CAA § 114) to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule covering those "upstream production and downstream sources" the Administrator deems "appropriate," and to determine "appropriate thresholds" and frequency for reporting. Congress also authorized USEPA to rely on the existing reporting requirements for EGUs under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments.
The reporting rule that has resulted is wholly out of proportion to that mandate. Facilities are expending enormous resources tracking, quality assuring, and reporting vast amounts of information on even the smallest quantity of GHG. This is particularly true with respect to the Subpart C requirements for combustion sources to report GHG from all activities no matter how de minimis. USEPA also continues to spend significant resources for both its own staff and Agency contractors to implement the reporting rule and its electronic reporting requirements. Although AEP understands that many of the revisions USEPA has made to the rule have been directed at correcting errors or simplifying data collection and reporting, the need for those revisions only underscores the already complicated nature of this reporting rule.
In AEP's case, our 2010-2012 Subpart C GHG emissions, which represent "new" reporting requirements beyond existing requirements under Title IV of the 1990 CAAA, added only 0.14%, 0.17% and 0.34% to our corporate GHG emissions respectively. Considering Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems are only certified by EPA to within 5% of actual (for Subpart D reporting), all efforts to collect Subpart C emissions should be considered de minimis.
Each new piece of information that USEPA proposes be reported by facilities and analyzed by USEPA, and each new detail USEPA proposes to specify in its existing rule must be carefully scrutinized to determine whether the revision is both consistent with that authority and necessary to carry out its obligations under the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Now that the program has been in place for several years, and USEPA has provided Congress the information it sought, USEPA should be considering whether there are ways to reduce (rather than increase) the amount of information require to be reported.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment:  Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, is cited as the basis for the Proposed Rule, but Section 114 does not empower EPA to change the thresholds for major source determinations. Section 114 governs recordkeeping and inspections. It allows EPA to require sources to provide data about air emissions. 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(iii)(1). Any amendments to major source and permitting thresholds must be proposed and finalized under EPA's authority to implement the relevant permitting program. More specifically, amendments to the PSD program must be made pursuant to Sections 160‐169, the Indian Country minor source rule must be amended pursuant to Sections 171‐179B, and the Title V program must be amended pursuant to Sections 501‐507.
In order for the substantive aspects of the Proposed Rule to be evaluated and processed under the appropriate sections of the Clean Air Act, it should be routed through the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ("OAQPS"). OAQPS published the Tailoring Rule and traditionally handles substantive permitting regulations. In this case, the Proposed Rule was published by the Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1, Excerpt 1. See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the relationship of the proposed amendments to other EPA programs.

 	Amendments to Table A-1
Comments on the revision of the GHGRP to complement the U.S. Inventory and relationship to the UNFCCC
Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  GPA understands that the United States, as a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is obligated to report its Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and that the emissions are to be determined using internationally-accepted methods agreed upon by the Parties. Starting in 2015, the UNFCCC requires the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) to use the factors published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). GPA supports EPA's efforts to ensure consistency between the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) and the Inventory.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Commenter Affiliation:  California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0068-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  CWCCG understands and supports the need to ensure consistency and comparability with national inventory data submitted by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Parties. As part of this, UNFCCC parties decided on March 15, 2012, to require countries submitting annual reports in 2015 and beyond to use global warming potential (GWP) values established by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), replacing the current standard established by IPCC's Second Assessment Report (SAR).
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  EPA proposes to revise the Table A-1 (40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A) global warming potential (GWP) values for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and add GWP values for certain F-GHGs. The changes are being proposed to ensure continued consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (the "Inventory"). The new GWP values are set forth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Notably, for TFI members, EPA proposes to raise the GWP value for methane from 21 to 25, and to lower the GWP value for nitrous oxide from 310 to 298. TFI supports consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Pamela Lacey, Senior Managing Counsel, Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0080-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  Over the past year, AGA has encouraged EPA to incorporate recent emissions data reported by natural gas system operators under 40 C.F.R. Part 98 Subpart W in the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) in order to update and improve the accuracy of the Inventory's estimated methane emissions for the natural gas value chain. Thus, we support EPA's proposed revisions in the GWP for methane to reflect changes previously agreed to by the United States and other parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, because this change in Table A-1 of Subpart A will allow EPA to use the Subpart W reported data to update the annual Inventory. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19807-09, Table 2, and 19846, Proposed Table A-1. While we are disappointed that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report increased the GWP of methane from 21 to 25 times that of CO2 on a 100-year time frame, we understand that EPA is bound to use this GWP in the Inventory, and we strongly support being able to update the Inventory using the new Subpart W reported data, because we anticipate that this new data will demonstrate that methane emissions from the natural gas value chain are lower than currently estimated.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  QEP Field Services Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0066-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  8
Comment:  Modification of Table A‐1 is not necessary to meet EPA's goals. EPA stated that it proposed to amend Table A‐1 "to ensure comparability of data collected in the GHGRP to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks that the EPA compiles annually to meet international commitments." 78 Fed. Reg. at 19806. However, EPA can ensure comparability without amending Table A‐1. EPA does not comply with international commitments by directly submitting the data collected under the Reporting Rule. EPA draws on the Reporting Rule data, manipulates it as necessary, and combines it with other data to prepare the Inventory. EPA receives Reporting Rule data electronically and could easily convert such data to match the IPCC's revised GWP values without impacting the Tailoring Rule thresholds. In fact, EPA has proposed to convert prior year Reporting Rule data to reflect the new GWP values and has acknowledged that "the calculation is very straightforward." 78 Fed. Reg. at 19833. This approach would allow EPA to achieve its stated goal of maintaining consistency with the Inventory without causing a side effect on the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
Response:  Regarding EPA's decision to amend Table A-1, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the relationship of these amendments to the Tailoring Rule, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.
EPA is not finalizing the 26 additional F-GHGs not listed in AR4 that were proposed to be included in Table A-1 in this final rule. See Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Mike Roddy, Director of Environmental Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0042-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  Seminole also disagrees with EPA's cited basis for the proposed revisions. As noted above, EPA has proposed GWP revisions to achieve consistency between its Inventory, which is prepared to comply with international commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Footnote: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2011, at iii, EPA 430-R-13-001 (April 12, 2013), available at http://www.epa.goviclimatechange/Downloadsighgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Upfront.pdf], and its GHGRP, which is developed in response to domestic legislative directives to require reporting of GHG emissions [Footnote: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008).]. Yet, while consistency and regulatory certainty is a generally laudable goal, EPA's proposal does anything but achieve such aim. Instead, industry is faced with adjusting data collection and reporting protocols for revised GWPs after only three years of reporting under the GHGRP, the possibility of frequent future revisions to GWPs (as the IPCC issues future assessment reports including the currently underway Fifth Assessment Report), the potential for on-going revisions to past emission reports as GWPs are continually tweaked, and unknown ripple effects from these changes on other regulatory programs that rely on these GWPs, such as the Title V and PSD permitting programs under EPA's "Tailoring Rule."
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  American Petroleum Institute (API)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0047-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  API agrees with EPA's intention noted on page 78 FR 19808, that the GWPs values would not be updated each time new values are published. However, API notes that EPA seems to contradict this statement on page 78 FR 19809 where it is stated the EPA intends to periodically update Table A-1 as GWPs are evaluated or re-evaluated by the scientific community. API believes this second statement is in reference to specialty, fluorinated greenhouse gases that are not included in the AR4 list of greenhouse gases.
API notes that although the IPCC periodically updates GWP values, the UNFCCC has only officially adopted the updated factors in the AR4 for GHG reporting starting the second commitment period (post 2012). With the exception of the specialty gases, EPA should only update the GWP values used by the GHGRP when the UNFCCC adopts new values for reporting to the IPCC. This maintains consistency with IPCC's reporting requirements per EPA's reporting obligations for the national GHG inventory.
Response:  For the response to this comment, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  15
Comment:  GPA has concerns that future revisions to the GWP values by the IPCC will drive further rule revisions by EPA. If EPA's desire is to ensure consistency between the Inventory and GHGRP, future changes to the GWP values based on IPCC revisions seem inevitable. If future changes are adopted, they may, like the current proposal, require sources to constantly change their data gathering and evaluation protocols for reporting, and require sources to continually revise (or have EPA revise) their prior year submissions. Also, constant changes to Table A-1 will not provide certainty to regulated sources as they evaluate modifications (and the timing of them) to determine NSR and Title V applicability based on GHG emissions.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  TFI has concerns with future revisions to the GWP values by the IPCC and if (and how) they will be implemented by EPA. If EPA's desire is to ensure consistency between the Inventory and GHGRP, future changes to the GWP values based on IPCC revisions seem inevitable. If future changes are adopted, they may, like the current proposal, require sources to constantly change their data gathering and evaluation protocols for reporting, and require sources to continually revise (or have EPA revise) their prior year submissions. Also, constant changes to Table A-1 will not provide certainty to regulated sources as they evaluate modifications (and the timing of them) to determine PSD and Title V applicability based on GHG emissions.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Southern Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0051-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  Southern Company understands EPA's expressed desire to use the AR4 GWPs to ensure consistency with the GWPs used in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (hereafter referred to as "Inventory"); however, doing so sets a troublesome precedent and creates conflicts that are fully described in the UARG comments referenced above. EPA states in the preamble, "it is not now EPA's intent to revise the GWPs in Table A-1 each time new data are published," but it is likely that once EPA makes this initial effort to establish consistency with the GWPs used in the Inventory, it will want to maintain that consistency despite the data quality and consistency issues raised in the UARG comments.
Southern believes it is impractical to change the GWPs listed in Table A-1 each time the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change decides to require new GWPs to be used for the Inventory. Changing GWPs creates confusion between reporting years that makes it difficult to compare emissions across reporting years.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. Regarding comparing emissions across reporting years, please see, Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
Comments on use of the IPCC AR4 to update Table A-1 and proposed revised GWPs
Commenter Name:  Mike Roddy, Director of Environmental Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0042-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  As an initial matter, EPA's wholesale reliance on IPCC assessment reports is inappropriate. For example, the IPCC assessment reports are not prepared in accordance with U.S. standards for scientific assessments. Rather, the IPCC is governed by its own official "Principles Governing IPCC Work," which emphasizes that approval of the contents of the assessment reports is obtained on the basis of consensus among IPCC member governments. See http://wvvw.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf, at 2. In other words, the contents of IPCC assessment reports may be as much a product of international, political consensus-seeking as they are of scientific inquiry. In contrast, EPA must ensure that it adheres to applicable federal standards regarding the quality, objectivity, integrity, and utility of information disseminated by federal agencies. See, e.g.,. Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515; 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). For this reason, and for applicable reasons stated in petitions pending before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging EPA's "Endangerment Finding," EPA's reliance on IPCC reports is inappropriate.
Response:  We disagree with the commenters that the reliance on, and specifically the use of GWP values from, IPCC reports is inappropriate. We note that this comment has been raised and addressed in other GHG rulemakings. See, e.g., Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 FR 66510 (Dec. 15, 2009). It is EPA's view that the peer-reviewed scientific assessments of the IPCC are among the best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues surrounding global climate change. Furthermore, as discussed in Section II.A.1 and Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, it is EPA's intent that the GHGRP supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research, including the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC, which has historically relied on GWP metrics published by the IPCC. During the development of the GHG Reporting Rule, EPA generally proposed and finalized estimation methodologies and reporting metrics that were based on recent scientific data and that would allow comparisons between the Inventory, other U.S. climate programs, and the GHGRP. The goal of Part 98 is to collect data of sufficient accuracy and quality to inform future climate policy development. In this final rule, EPA is adopting the proposed AR4 values for certain compounds currently listed in Table A-1 to ensure more accurate CO2e emission and supply estimates are collected for the GHGRP. The IPCC AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports, following advances in scientific knowledge on the radiative efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs and of CO2. Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of these gases in the atmosphere, the AR4 values are more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to provide accurate emissions data that is consistent with other programs. Therefore, we are finalizing the incorporation of the AR4 GWPs in Table A-1 to subpart A. See Sections II.A.1 and II.A.2 of the preamble of the final rule for additional information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP
Commenter Affiliation:  Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0075-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  The science addressing GWPs is hardly settled or free from controversy. Indeed, the  IPCC Fourth Assessment Report explains in some detail that there are considerable uncertainties  associated with the GWPs that EPA has proposed to adopt. See generally IPCC, Climate Change  2007: The Physical Science Basis, Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Contribution,  Ch. 2.10 at 210-16 (2007). The IPCC has noted that the GWPs it has adopted are derived using  significant simplifications intended to avoid critical uncertainties that characterize potentially  more robust GWP derivation methodologies. Id. at 211. Those simplifications include:
      (1) setting g(t) = 1 (i.e., no discounting) up until the time horizon  (TH) and then g(t) = 0 thereafter, (2) choosing a 1-kg pulse  emission, (3) defining the impact function, I(ΔC), to be the global  mean RF, (4) assuming that the climate response is equal for all RF mechanisms and (5) evaluating the impact relative to a baseline  equal to current concentrations (i.e., setting I(ΔCr(t)) = 0).
As the IPCC acknowledged, these simplifications have been the subject of considerable criticism, and because of shortcomings in scientific knowledge, there is no way in which to  conduct an objective assessment of their impacts. Id. Accordingly, there is not a strong  scientific basis for updating the GWPs in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98 to reflect the values  adopted in the Fourth Assessment Report.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services
Commenter Affiliation:  American Electric Power (AEP)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0079-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment: USEPA has proposed revising the global warming potentials ("GWPs") for GHGs that are contained in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,807. The GWPs in Table A - 1 were derived primarily from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") Second Assessment Report, although GWPs for GHGs that were not identified in the Second Assessment Report were taken from either the IPCC Third Assessment Report or Fourth Assessment Report. USEPA's proposed rule would replace the existing GWPs with those the IPCC adopted in its Fourth Assessment Report. USEPA states that it is proposing these changes to: (1) ensure comparability of data collected in the GHGRP to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (hereinafter referred to as "Inventory") that the USEPA compiles annually to meet international commitments and to GHG inventories prepared by other countries; (2) reflect improved scientific understanding; and (3) promote consistency across the estimation methods used in the rule.
The science addressing GWPs is not settled or free from controversy. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report explains in some detail that there are considerable uncertainties associated with the GWPs that USEPA has proposed to adopt. The IPCC has noted that the GWPs it has adopted are derived using significant simplifications intended to avoid critical uncertainties that characterize potentially more robust GWP derivation methodologies. The IPCC acknowledged these simplifications have been the subject of considerable criticism and, because of shortcomings in scientific knowledge, there is no way in which to conduct an objective assessment of their impacts. Accordingly, there is not a strong scientific basis for updating the GWPs in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98 to reflect the values adopted in the Fourth Assessment Report.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safety and Health Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0085-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  We object to EPA's proposed revisions to GWPs in Table A-1 of Subpart A of Part 98. As UARG points out in their comments, there are considerable scientific uncertainties associated with the GWPs being considered, and the proposed GWPs are not necessarily improved or more technically precise than the values EPA has already adopted. Given these shortcomings, there is no way to objectively determine if they are more or less accurate than the GWPs we have been using historically for reporting.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  The semiconductor industry utilizes fluorinated gases as an essential part of our manufacturing processes. In many instances, there are no known substitutes to the use of these gases. A fraction of the gases are emitted and, therefore, the global warming potential (GWPs) that apply to fluorinated gases are important to tracking, managing, and reporting of our GHG emissions.
In that context, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) plays a very important role. [Footnote: As indicated on their website, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio - economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC. The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy - relevant and yet policy - neutral, never policy-prescriptive.]
IPCC has both the responsibility and the ability to review and standardize scientific information on Climate Change. IPCC is the international lead in assessing climate change and determining a scientifically based and standardized list of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and their associated GWPs. The IPCC also provides detailed guidance for the preparation of national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure that those inventories are consistent and comparable across all of the Annex I countries. The role of the IPCC, and EPA's commitment to report emissions using IPCC methods, is well articulated in the preamble to the proposed rule, where it states that EPA is proposing revisions to Table A-1 "to ensure continued consistency with the Inventory as the Inventory begins to use GWPs from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report." We strongly support that goal.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. EPA is adopting the GWPs for compounds included in the IPCC AR4 for Table A-1 of subpart A as proposed. This approach is in keeping with the Agency's decision to use methods consistent with the Inventory and similar U.S. domestic programs. See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble for additional information.
Based on comments that EPA should not include compounds that are not included in an IPCC study or peer-reviewed as well as comments on permitting applicability, the EPA is reevaluating its approach to assigning GWPs for compounds not included in the IPCC AR4. In this final rule, we are not finalizing the 26 additional F-GHGs (with associated GWP values) not included in the IPCC AR4 that were proposed to be added to Table A-1 in the 2013 Revisions proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  Intel supports the concept of updating the GWP values as new scientific data becomes available and a certain level of scientific consensus is reached on the appropriate values to use for each material. The most widely recognized source of scientifically established, peer reviewed values are those published in the periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the most recent of which is the fourth assessment report published in 2007. The fourth assessment report is widely regarded as one of the most current and peer reviewed assessments of climate change. As such, Intel believes it is appropriate to align the values published in 40 CFR part 98 Table A-1 with the GWP values in the fourth assessment report.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist
Commenter Affiliation:  3M Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  4
Comment:  3M is generally supportive of the proposed changes. Consistent with our past comments, we support EPA's proposed addition of GWP values to Table A-1 to ensure consistency with the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). By basing these additions on published literature and data obtained from chemical manufacturers, EPA ensures that the changes reflect the most recent and accurate emissions data.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0041-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  WM supports the Agency's proposed use of a 100-year timeframe for GWPs consistent with the IPCC's AR4 and the UNFCCC reporting guidelines for annual inventories. Furthermore, we support EPA's statement that it is not the Agency's intent to revise GWPs each time new data are published. (78 FR 19808).
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Pamela Lacey, Senior Managing Counsel, Environment
Commenter Affiliation:  American Gas Association (AGA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0080-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  AGA also supports EPA's proposal to adopt only GWP values based on a 100-year time horizon, rather than a 20-year horizon, because the UNFCCC parties agreed to use a 100-year time horizon to compare the global warming potential of CO2 compared to that of methane and other greenhouse gases. See 89 Fed. Reg. at 19810.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0038
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  We support EPA's continued use of the 100 year GWP and the statement that the GWP will not be revised as new IPCC reports are published. The County feels that consistency in reporting is very important and that changes such as this have the potential to cause concern and confusion for the regulated community as well as the public at large.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Commenter Affiliation:  Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0059-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  A primary purpose of the Proposed Rule is to update GWP values in Subpart A, Table A-1. For INGAA members, this affects reporting of methane and N2O emissions for natural gas transmission and storage facilities. INGAA understands that EPA is proposing GWP revisions based on the current understanding of best science and for consistency with the national inventory annually prepared by EPA. INGAA supports the proposed revisions, which would increase the methane GWP to 25 and decrease the N2O GWP to 298. As reporting regimes are updated, the timing is appropriate to revise the current Table A-1 values, which are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR), to more recent values published in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Although IPCC reports and EPA documents discuss other time horizons for assessing GWP, INGAA strongly supports retaining a one hundred year time horizon as the standard for defining GWP values. Shorter or longer time horizons should not be considered as the standard for the GHG MRR or other EPA programs. Although INGAA supports this change, EPA should strive to retain AR4 GWP values in future years rather than resorting to ongoing GWP revisions that would require recalculation of GHG inventories. For INGAA members, N2O emissions are not significant. The methane GWP revision increases calculated methane CO2e emissions by nineteen percent. INGAA notes that while this revision warrants recalculation of reported emissions from previous years (i.e., 2010  -  2012), this change is similar in magnitude to other uncertainties inherent to GHG reporting under the GHG MRR.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. EPA is retaining a 100-year time horizon as the standard metric for defining GWPs. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
Regarding periodic updates to Table A-1 see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO
Commenter Affiliation:  Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0067-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  In Subpart A  - General Provisions, EPA has proposed to increase the GWP of methane from 21 to 25 bringing the GHG MRR into agreement with the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). We believe that EPA should work to ensure the latest science is used to develop inventories, but we do not have the scientific background to evaluate the proposed change of GWP from 21 to 25; however, we do support the Agency's proposed use of a 100-year timeframe for GWPs consistent with the IPCC's AR4 and the UNFCCC reporting guidelines for annual inventories.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. No changes have been made as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Gary Glasser, Vice President, Field Services, Methane Gas Group,
Commenter Affiliation:  Tetra Tech BAS (TTBAS)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0086-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  9
Comment:  EPA has proposed to increase the global warming potential (GWP) of methane from 21 to 25. This change will bring the Greenhouse Gas Mandatory Reporting Rule (GHG MRR) into agreement with the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). TTBAS understands that the United States has committed to using the AR4 GWPs for national GHG inventory reporting for 2015 and future years. Based on that commitment, TTBAS does not oppose the revision to the GWP for methane.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. No changes have been made as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs
Commenter Affiliation:  The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0036-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  12
Comment:  In the preamble to the 2013 GHGRP Revisions, EPA states that while it is adopting the GWP values are set forth in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it does not, at this time, envision, "revis[ing] the GWPs in Table A-1 each time new data are published."78 Fed. Reg. at 19,808. TFI supports this position. However, EPA recognizes that IPCC is working on its Fifth Assessment Report.
EPA should again confirm in the final rule preamble that it does not intend to continually adopt IPCC revisions to the GWP values for purposes of the GHGRP and Inventory, and will not require that reporters (or EPA), should it adopt revised IPCC GWP values, revise prior reports based on IPCC-revised GWP values.
Response:  Regarding future revisions to Table A-1, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response. For the response to the comment recommending EPA not require reporters to submit revised reports for prior reporting periods, please see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0069-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  10
Comment:  EPA Should Not Continually Adopt IPCC Revisions to the GWP Values.
In the preamble to the 2013 GHGRR Revisions, EPA states that while it is adopting the GWP values as set forth in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it does not, at this time, envision "revis[ing] the GWPs in Table A-1 each time new data are published." (FR 19,808). GPA supports this position. However, EPA recognizes that IPCC is working on its Fifth Assessment Report (FR 19,808).
EPA should again confirm in the final rule preamble that it does not intend to continually adopt IPCC revisions to the GWP values for purposes of the GHGRP and Inventory, and will not require that reporters (or EPA), should it adopt revised IPCC GWP values, revise prior reports based on IPCC-revised GWP values.
Response:  Regarding future revisions to Table A-1, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response. For the response to the comment recommending EPA not require reporters to submit revised reports for prior reporting periods, please see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Peter Anderson, Executive Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Center for a Competitive Waste Industry
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0107
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  The GWP/100 for methane should be updated, but to the most current authoritative value of 33x CO, not the out of date 25x value, and supplemental emissions tables should be compiled with GWP/20 values for methane of 105x CO2.
Previously, EPA has required reporting entities  to use a value of 21x CO2 for methane's GWP calculated on a 100-year basis (GWP/100) which derives from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (AR2). In its suggested revisions, EPA proposes to update methane's GWP/100 to 25x CO2 from the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report AR4). [Footnote: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing. (2007)(FAR), at pg. 212, Table 2.14.]
Subsequent to the completion of AR4, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) published in Science further updates in the value for methane's GWP/100 to incorporate net direct and indirect radiative forcing impacts from aerosols, which the prior AR4 estimates did not contemplate. This is the best and most current, authoritative value for methane's GWP,  33x CO2 on a 100 year basis, which is one-third greater than EPA's 4-year out of date proposal, and 105x CO2 on a 20-year basis(GWP/20). [Footnote: Drew Shindell, "Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing Emissions," 326 Science 716 (2009); W.J. Collins, et.al., "Global and regional temperature-change potentials for near-term climate forcers," 13Atmos.Chem.Phys.2471(2013).]
EPA should conform its GWP conversion to NASA's current published conclusions, because that is the U.S. agency in charge of calculating the best estimates to which EPA should defer. Otherwise known net impacts from aerosols will be ignored in the reported (calculated) emissions values, and decision makers will not be informed of the correct impact of sources of methane emissions when developing climate action plans. There is a significant value in incorporating the most reliable data into decision-making, and the proposed GWP/100 for methane, which is one-third too low, fails to accord this need its due. If EPA is not willing to act on NASA's latest research that was peer reviewed and has not been controverted, then we urge the Agency hold open this item until September of this year when the IPCC's initial Fifth Assessment (AR5) will be released, and at that time, use that Report's methane GWP.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0071-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA states that "it is not now EPA's intent" to revise the GWP values when AR5 is released. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808. This is unreasonable, and will potentially compromise the integrity of the GHG RR and possibly future regulatory efforts based thereon. We urge EPA to reconsider this part of its proposal. EPA's stated rationale for choosing not to update the GHG RR GWPs with new consensus values in the future is that the United States is bound by UNFCCC reporting guidelines to use the AR4 GWP values starting in 2015 for purposes of annual reports of national GHG inventories to the UNFCCC. EPA apparently perceives some "conflict" in having different GWPs for certain pollutants in the two inventories. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810. We disagree.
We understand the benefit in reporting national inventories from around the world on a consistent basis, and fully support US reporting to the UNFCCC based on the GWP values in AR4 until the parties to the UNFCCC agree on another update to those values. However, US GHG inventory reporting to UNFCCC is not the same -- and indeed need not be the same -- as domestic reporting of GHGs under the GHG RR. The two programs have different purposes and do not cover the same emissions or sources. For example, the original GHG RR, as well as EPA's proposed revisions, require reporting of a wide variety of pollutants that are not required to be included in the national inventories reported to UNFCCC. See, e.g.,74 Fed. Reg. at 56270, 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810-14. Nor are the GHG emissions sources covered by the GHGRR and the national UNFCCC inventories the same (for example, most agricultural emissions are not included in the GHG RR. [Footnote: EPA does not currently collect any agricultural emissions data under the GHG RR; while Subpart JJ of the rule was intended to collect emissions data for manure management, appropriations language has prohibited EPA from implementing this Subpart. Agricultural sources (not including manure management) emitted about 6% of US GHG in 2011, according to the US national GHG inventory (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-ES.pdf, Table ES-2).] 74 Fed. Reg. at 16466-67, and emissions sources are grouped quite differently in the two inventories. Nor does the UNFCCC inventory reflect the 25,000 ton facility reporting threshold contained in the GHG RR.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the purposes of the two inventories are not the same. The GHG RR has significant potential regulatory implications, and in fact presently can impact the applicability of certain federal regulatory programs; two examples are the PSD and Title V permitting programs, 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808-09. Another important purpose of the GHG RR is to assist states in their analysis of GHG emissions and trends, thereby supporting potential GHG emission regulations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 56265. It is clear that US national and state regulation must be based on the latest and most robust scientific consensus of climate science, including appropriate GWPs. Simply put, the advance of US regulatory policy should not be slowed by a non-identical international emission reporting process designed for other purposes. This is especially so given the staleness of the international reporting data -- 1995 GWPs from the SAR will continue to be used until 2015, when 2007 GWPs will be substituted, and if international guidelines are updated on the same schedule, those GWPs will be used until around 2027. US domestic regulatory policy must not be grounded on data that could be outdated by as much as two decades.
In sum, the GHG RR inventory and the national GHG inventory are different documents, produced for different purposes, and need not use the same GWP values. Furthermore, any administrative convenience achieved by using the same GWP values in both inventory programs is strongly outweighed by the need to use the most current and comprehensive GWP values in the domestic GHG RR. [Footnote: We note that EPA is proposing to require reporting of certain pollutants that are not included in AR4. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810-11. This, of course, will also result in some administrative inconvenience, but is nonetheless appropriate and reasonable.]
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Peter Anderson, Executive Director
Commenter Affiliation:  Center for a Competitive Waste Industry
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0107
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  We do understand that EPA states it does not intend to conform to AR5 GWPs. [Footnote: 78 FED REG. 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19808.]  Previously, it may be noted, EPA explained its refusal to use current GWP data because it wanted to maintain a consistent time series. [Footnote: EPA, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, at pg. ES-3.] Apparently the belief that consistency over time supersedes accuracy has been abandoned. Now, EPA states that it cannot use the best science because it must be consistent with the distinct Inventory -  as if the two entities inhabit different planets. [Footnote: 78 FED REG. 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19808.] Or, that it must conform to the dictates of the UNFCCC  -  as if the U.S. is not a member of the United Nations, or if it has no influence on its policies, yet, at the same time, have no concern over conflicts with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which did win the Nobel Prize.
On the bottom line, EPA has always had a bureaucratic reason to eschew the best science with the effect, if not the intent, of dramatically understating the responsibility of sources of methane for greenhouse gas emissions. There is no valid reason why this particular decision in the hearing notice cannot, if necessary, be held until the initial AR5 report is published this September in order to determine the IPCC's latest GWPs, and we urge it to do so. Waiting perhaps two months to make a final decision on methane's GWP would not, as the notice incorrectly avers, prevent the stakeholders from having predictable requirements, because, in fact, there would only be one single change in the GWP in this time period, not two -  as if, even if there were two, three or four changes in the GWP, the task of inserting the number 33 instead of 25 into one cell of a spreadsheet imposes confusing and undue administrative burdens on multi-billion dollar corporations.
Decision-makers and the public are entitled to the best science, not the exaltation of bureaucracy over knowledge. Even if the Agency would need to hold the decision on the methane GWP for a month or two, it will have both the best science without two successive changes.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director,
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Council
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0064-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA Should Update the GWP When the AR5 is Released. The Fifth Assessment Report ("AR-5") of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently underway and expected to be finalized in October 2014. The most recent Assessment Report was released six years ago and EPA is just now updating numbers to be consistent with it. The Clean Air Council is very concerned, given EPA's track record on this issue, which at this rate AR-5 GWP numbers will not be incorporated until 2020.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0071-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  The choice of GWP values used in the GHG RR is important. As EPA explained in its original GHG RR proposal:
      Because GHGs have different heat trapping capacities, they are not comparable without translating them into common units. The GWP, a metric that incorporates both the heat-trapping ability and the atmospheric lifetime of each GHG, can be used to develop comparable numbers by adjusting all GHGs relative to the GWP of CO2.
74 Fed. Reg. 16452 at 16453. This has several significant ramifications in the context of the GHG RR. First, "[w]hen quantities of the different GHGs are multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can then be compared on a CO2e basis." Id. Second, "[a]ggregating all GHGs on a CO2e basis at the source level allows a comparison of the total emissions of all the gases from one source with emissions from other sources." Id. Third, and importantly, most stationary sources are not subject to the GHG RR and thus are not required to report their GHG emissions unless their aggregate facility emissions exceed 25,000 tons of CO2e per year. See, e.g.,74 Fed. Reg. at 56266-67. The choice of GWP thus impacts not only the amount of GHG emissions reported by a facility, but also whether it is required to report at all. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19839; see also 40 C.F.R. §98.2(b) (requiring use of GWP conversions for emissions to determine whether a source meets the GHG RR reporting threshold).
As EPA has recognized, "[a]ccurate and timely information on GHG emissions is essential for informing many future climate change policy decisions." 74 Fed. Reg. at 56265. This is clearly true for the GWP values used in the GHG RR as well -- in order for the GWPs of various GHGs to adequately perform the functions described above, they must be as up-to-date and accurate as possible.
EPA's proposed revisions to the GWPs in the GHG RR are an important step in the right direction, but are substantially too limited. The present GHG RR uses GWP values that are woefully outdated. Approximately every six years, the IPCC has updated its assessment of climate change science, reflecting improved scientific understanding of climate change. The 2009 GHG RR generally used GWP values from the IPCC Second Assessment Report ("SAR"), which was published in 1995. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808. These values have since been superseded by the IPCC's Third Assessment Report (2001) and Fourth Assessment Report, referred to as "AR4" (2007). [Footnote: P. Forster et al., 2007, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing."Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html.)] EPA now proposes to use GWP values from AR4. 78 Fed. Reg. 19808.
We fully support EPA's decision to update the GWP values used in the GHG RR based on improved values contained in updated IPCC assessment reports. We agree with EPA that:
      "the IPCC AR4 ...is among the most current and comprehensive peer-reviewed assessments of climate change. The AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports, following advances in scientific knowledge on the efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs and CO2. Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of these gases in the atmosphere, the values provided are more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to collect GHG data than the SAR GWP values currently included in [the present GHG RR]." 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808 (emphasis added).
However, the AR4 represents consensus climate science from one period in time -- 2007 -- just as the SAR represents the state of that science in 1995. But climate science is not frozen. Rather, it continues to advance, and work on the next (fifth) consensus assessment of the climate science ("AR5") -- potentially including revised GWPs for some GHGs -- is presently underway. Publication of the relevant section of AR5 (the Working Group I report) is anticipated in September 2013. [Footnote: See https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch]. EPA's logic in proposing to replace the GWP values in the SAR with those in the AR4 will apply with equal force to replacing the GWP values in the AR4 with those in the AR5 when they become available in the near future. Because the GWPs to be provided in the AR5 will reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, the values to be provided in the AR5 will be more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to collect GHG data than the AR4 GWP values proposed to be included in the revised GHG RR. [Footnote: Consensus GWP values for important GHGs can and do change significantly as more mature, comprehensive and accurate science is reflected in succeeding IPCC assessments. For example, the GWP of methane, the second most prevalent GHG emitted in the US (see, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html), increased from a value of 21 in the SAR to a value of 25 in the AR4, an increase of almost 20%. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19807-09 and Table 2.]
Response:  See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Commenter Affiliation:  Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al.
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0071-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  We strongly agree with EPA that it must, at a minimum, update the long-obsolete SAR values now used in the GHG RR and that the AR4 values are the most appropriate to use until the AR5 issues. Once the next report issues, EPA should incorporate it as soon as possible. If EPA is able to further revise the rule with AR5 GWP values in time to allow their use for the 2014 reporting year, it must do so. If not, EPA must finalize the rule with AR4 values and prepare for further updates.
Therefore, EPA must, at a minimum, amend its proposal to clearly state its intention to include of the latest GWP values from subsequent IPCC assessment reports or other generally accepted sources when they become available to prevent future use of GWPs that are based on outdated, and therefore inappropriate, data. In particular, given the scheduled publication of AR5 GWPs later in 2013, EPA should finalize this rule with the stated intention of further revising the rule when the GWPs in AR5 become available.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed incorporation of IPCC AR4 GWP values into Table A-1. For the response to the comment recommending EPA revise Table A-1 after IPCC AR5 is issued, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney
Commenter Affiliation:  Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0100-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  EDF supports the agency's efforts to update GWP values consistent with IPCCAR4.
We support the agency's efforts to deploy the most up-to-date scientific information and agree that doing so will be critical to help ensure the MRR produces rigorous information. The agency has already used updated GWP values from IPCC AR4 in the context of other rulemakings and doing so will help ensure consistency across several important programs. [Footnote: See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,808-09. AR4 values were used in EPA's joint rulemaking with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration entitled "Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards," 75 Fed. Reg. 25,324 (May 7 2010); see also id at 19,808 (addressing PSD and Title V permitting).] Building on the importance of incorporating the latest scientific information, we respectfully urge the agency to consider:
Incorporating any further-revised GWPs on account of IPCCs Fifth Assessment Report or other newly-available information as quickly as practicable; and
Including GWP values on both a 100-year and 20-year time frame, which can provide policy makers with critical additional information on short-lived, potent greenhouse gases like methane. [Footnote: See Ramón A. Alvarez, Stephen W. Pacala, James J. Winebrake, William L. Chameides & Steven P. Hamburg, Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Infrastructure, 109 PNAS 6435 (2012) (describing the importance of understanding the warming potential of methane on different time frames when evaluating fuel switching scenarios).]
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. Regarding the use of GWPs from the IPCC AR5, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the use of a 20-year GWP for methane, see Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.
Comments on inclusion of new GWPs from the scientific literature
Commenter Name:  Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney
Commenter Affiliation:  Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0100-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  EPA has also proposed to include 26 new fluorinated gases in Table A-1 that were not included in IPCCAR4, either because these gases had not yet been developed or because they had short atmospheric lifetimes or low GWPs. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,811. ] As a result, GWPs for those gases "are not currently included in threshold calculations for applicability or in the CO2e totals reported by facilities and suppliers."
EDF strongly supports the agency's proposal to include GWPs for these gases. Up-to-date GWP information for fluorinated gases is especially important given the swiftly changing landscape in this area, where new fluorinated gases are being developed and others are becoming less prevalent. Some of these gases have very low global warming potentials though others are quite potent, and accurate GWP information will help characterize these emissions going forward. Consistent with our above comments, we respectfully request that EPA revisit these GWP values as new fluorinated gases are produced.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. However, we are not finalizing the 26 new fluorinated gases and associated GWPs in Table A-1 in this rulemaking. Based on comments that EPA should not include compounds that are not included in an IPCC study or peer-reviewed as well as comments on permitting applicability, the EPA is reevaluating its approach to assigning GWPs for compounds not included in the IPCC AR4 and may address these additional compounds in a separate rulemaking (see Section I.D of the preamble for additional information). Regarding the EPA's intent to update the GWPs in Table A-1 in the future, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director
Commenter Affiliation:  American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0070-A1
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  ACC recognizes the value of timely and precise reporting of greenhouse gas emission data from facilities through EPA's Mandatory GHG Reporting Program. To effectively track current emission trends, it is essential that the Agency uses the most accurate GWP values available to ensure the validity of the data, especially if it were to be used to support a future rulemaking.
ACC supports EPA's proposed addition of GWPs for F-GHGs not previously included in Table A-1, as well as the GWPs for F-GHGs listed in EPA's separate Federal Register Notice of Data Availability dated April 5, 2013.2
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0100-A2, Excerpt 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  When discussing the GHGs and GWPs listed in the 4th Assessment Report, IPCC states: "The species in Table 2.14 are those for which either significant concentrations or large trends in concentrations have been observed or a clear potential for future emissions has been identified." However, this proposed rule indicates that EPA is contemplating identifying US-only GHGs and setting US-only GWPs rather than working through the IPCC to add GHGs and set GWPs that are consistent and accepted  internationally. EPA acknowledges in the preamble that the GWPs for the US-only GHGs could be an order of magnitude over - estimates which means they are likely to have to be revised in the  future. Changes to the GWPs have consequences beyond the reporting rule and should be minimized. SIA asks that EPA work with IPCC to identify GHGs and GWPs so they may go through the international review  process and will be consistent for all countries.
Consistency with the IPCC is very important to our efforts to manage GHGs. Semiconductor  manufacturing is a global business and, as such, unilateral action taken by one country can  negatively impact our efforts to track, reduce and report reductions in GHG emissions and  place the semiconductor manufacturers in that country at a competitive disadvantage. To ensure a level playing field and consistency in emissions reporting with respect to climate change, the semiconductor industry has worked collectively through the World Semiconductor Council  ("WSC")  to develop consensus GHG emissions reduction goals. WSC members use the IPCC 4th Assessment Report GWPs to track progress towards their goals. Efforts by EPA to track and regulate GHGs in a manner at odds with the IPCC will negatively impact the US semiconductor  industry. Importantly, if EPA adopts its own set of F-GHGs and GWPs, separate from those of the IPCC, we and EPA will be required to keep two sets of records on GHG emissions. IPCC is an effective entity in this arena, and we see no benefit in separate EPA action when consistency is so critical to addressing GHGs internationally. Therefore, with regard to the GWP revisions proposed here, SIA supports updating GWPs to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report values. SIA does not support action on any of the other GWPs in this proposal or the addition of GHGs not listed in Table 2.14 of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.
Response:  The 26 additional F-GHGs (with associated GWP values) proposed to be added to Table A-1 in the 2013 Revisions proposal are not included in the final rule (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule). However, we disagree with the comment that the EPA should list GWPs in Table A-1 only after those GWPs have been published in an IPCC Scientific Assessment Report. See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A-1 in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2A
Comment:  Table 2 in the preamble to the proposed rule lists proposed changes in GWP values to 23 materials currently listed in 40 CFR part 98, table A-1, with the intent of making those values consistent with the IPCC Fourth Assessment report. Intel agrees that the values in 40 CFR part 98 should be consistent with IPCC and therefore agrees that these changes should be made. EPA then proposes to add 26 new fluorinated greenhouse gases (listed in table 3 of the preamble) to Table A-1. These gases are not currently listed in the IPCC fourth assessment report, but instead are proposed for listing based on data provided by manufacturers or through other available sources. While we recognize the importance of continuing to collect data on compounds whose global warming impact is not yet well understood, Intel believes that it is important to maintain consistency between the values used by EPA and those published by the IPCC and therefore does not recommend adding GWP values to Table A-1 that have not yet been reviewed by IPCC or added to its table of values.
In addition to the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, other important regulatory programs utilize the GWP values published in this table, most notably the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. Changes in the GWP values can result in sources being covered by these rules that previously were not, or even alter the determination of whether an individual project triggers permitting requirements. In addition, if a source is operating under a plant-wide applicability limit (PAL) permit, compliance with the permit or the ability to take actions without exceeding the PAL can be impacted every time the GWP values change. Given these potentially significant compliance implications, Intel believes that it is appropriate to publish new values in Table A-1 only when they have been through a level of scientific process and peer review that makes future changes to the values less likely. We believe that the most widely accepted criteria for demonstrating this level of scientific acceptance is publication in the periodic IPCC reports, and that publication of new values in Table A-1 should be limited to those values that have been published in the latest version of the IPCC report. This will help minimize changes over time in GWP values, and maximize a regulated source's ability to predict its future permitting requirements. Sources that are obligated to comply with limits or permit requirements that are tied to these values depend on as much predictability as possible to plan and ensure ongoing compliance with these requirements. Frequent changes in these numbers makes such predictability difficult to achieve, and can significantly impact a source's ability to build environmental compliance decisions into its business plans. For these reasons, Intel believes that the 26 proposed new values listed in table 3 of the preamble to this proposed rule should not be proposed for inclusion in Table A-1, but should instead be brought to IPCC for consideration for inclusion in future lists of GWPs published by that group.
Response:  The 26 additional compounds identified in the scientific literature proposed to be included in Table A-1 are not included in this final rule (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule). However, we disagree with the comment that EPA should list GWPs in Table A-1 only after those GWPs have been published in an IPCC Scientific Assessment Report. See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A-1 in the future.
As noted by the commenter, other regulatory programs (e.g., the Tailoring Rule) codify the GWPs in Table A-1 of Subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 for emissions calculations using CO2e for determination of applicability. See Section II.A.2.a and II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA's response to these concerns.

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

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  5
Comment:  Intel recommends that EPA not adopt any GWPs other than those adopted by the IPCC. In that context, EPA should take the available data on the other materials addressed in this proposed rule and provide it to the IPCC. Then EPA should work through the IPCC to get any additional GWPs set or reset. Where these GWP changes have impacts to important permitting programs, EPA should provide for a delayed effective date for the GWP changes and adopt guidance and rules to clarify how sources may transition into or out of Title V, PSD and PALs without creating non-compliance situations that result simply from the change in the GWPs.
Response:  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble for the response to this comment.

EPA's analysis of the additional F-GHGs and GWPs from the scientific literature (including additional data or analysis submitted to support GWPS during the public comment period)
Commenter Name:  Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist
Commenter Affiliation:  3M Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  1
Comment:  3M has comments on two of the chemicals which it produces and which have been added to Table A-I.

                                     Name
                                    CAS No.
                               Chemical Formula
                                 GWP (100 yr.)
                                 EPA Proposed
FK-5-1-12 Perfluorketone; FK-5-1-12myy2; n-Perfluoroctane; Octadecafluorooctane
                                    75-13-8
                              CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2
                                      1.8
                                  3M Comment
FK-5-1-12 Fluoroketone; KF-5-1-12mmy2
                                    75-13-8
                              CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2
                                       1

3M believes that fluoroketone is the appropriate description for this material. n-Perfluoroctane and octadecafluorooctane should be removed from the listing. These compounds are described by CAS 307-34-6 and a chemical formula of C8F18. We are also requesting that a GWP of 1 be assigned for this chemical. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA describes the methodology that was used to assign a value of 1.8. 3M would agree with EPA's preamble statement that, " ..... we do not anticipate that the proposed value would result in substantial over-reporting for the magnesium source category." However,  it is our understanding that the summation of direct and indirect values has not been consistently applied in Table A-I. It does not appear that an indirect component has been included in the GWP value assigned to any other compound. As a result, the G WP being assigned to this chemical would be disproportionately higher than other compounds on this table.
Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. EPA is not finalizing the 26 additional F-GHGs (with associated GWP values) emitted or supplied by reporters proposed to be included in Table A-1 in this rulemaking (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule). See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A-1 in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist
Commenter Affiliation:  3M Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  2
Comment:  3M has comments on two of the chemicals which it produces and which have been added to Table A-I.

                                     Name
                                    CAS No.
                               Chemical Formula
                                 GWP (100 yr.)
EPA Proposed
C7 Fluoroketone, Novec 774/FK-6-1-12
813-44-5 and 813-45-6
C7F14O Chemical Blend
1
3M Comment
C7 Fluoroketone, FK-6-1-14
813-44-5 and 813-45-6
C7F14O Chemical Blend
1

Consistent with most other entries into Table A-1, the trade name should be excluded and FK-6-1-12 should be changed to FK-6-1-14.
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2, Excerpt 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist
Commenter Affiliation:  3M Company
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3
Comment:  There is also a minor spelling error in Table A-I. Hexadecofluoroheptane should be changed to hexadecafluoroheptane and PFC-6-1-12 should be changed to PFC-6-1-16. (Note: The designations listed in the preamble are correct.)
Response:  See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0113-A2, Excerpt 1.
Relationship to other EPA Programs (e.g., Tailoring Rule and PSD programs) or state programs
Commenter Name:  David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs
Commenter Affiliation:  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0078-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  6
Comment:  Any changes to the GWPs in Table A-1 and any changes to the gases listed in Table A-1 unavoidably create discontinuities in the assessment of emissions under the permitting rules. This in turn can create shifts in the permitting requirements that are solely the result of the changes to Table A-1. We recognize that the Reporting Rule will continue to evolve. Nonetheless, to use it for permitting, we must have an orderly and non-punitive way to change emissions tracking and compliance determinations when the Reporting Rule changes. A one year transition period in the effective date of the new GWPs will support such an orderly transition.
The first instance where the GWP changes will be important to compliance under the Tailoring  Rule is for compliance with Title V operating permit requirements. To the extent  the new GWPs increase the CO2e assessment of a facility's emissions, that change can cause a source's potential to emit (PTE) to rise such that it becomes a major source. In such an instance, the source needs at least one year from the change in the GWPs, to assess the impact and, if need be, submit a Title V application. We understand that this is current EPA policy with regard to facilities becoming subject to Title V for the first time and we ask that EPA affirms this as soon as possible.
Additionally, if a source has taken a synthetic minor limit on its CO2e emissions to remain below the Title V permit threshold, and now finds it can no longer meet the synthetic minor limit with the new reporting rule GWPs, three things are needed:
The source should have the option of continuing to use the prior accounting methods for up to one year, to have time to change its emissions tracking system and determine if the synthetic minor is no longer viable.
If it is determined that the synthetic minor is no longer viable, the source should have one year to file for a change in the synthetic minor limit or file a Title V application, if needed.
There should be no penalty for non-compliance with the synthetic minor limit or Title V permitting requirements so long as the necessary applications were filed within one year of the change in the GWPs.
The first two measures are consistent with a one year delay in the effective date of the new GWPs under the tailoring rule. The final measure can be implemented through agency guidance.
One SIA member has determined that the new GWPs will cause noncompliance with an existing synthetic minor permit CO2e limit at one of their facilities simply because of the new weighting of emissions. EPA should provide this facility  -  and others in the same situation  -  with a clear way of transitioning to the new GWPs without facing noncompliance with their current permit limit as early as the day the new GWPs are adopted. The one year delay in the effective date of the revision to Table A-1 provides that.
Response:  Consistent with the approach set forth in the Tailoring Rule, EPA is not granting a delay of the effective date of the Table A-1 values for permitting purposes. However, to the extent that a source has a change in its Title V applicability as a result of this GWP revision, there is a 12-month transition period built into the Title V rules. Furthermore, for some PSD programs, states will have to amend their state rules and SIPs in order to use the new GWPs, so sources in these states will be allotted additional time. See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commenter Name:  Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer
Commenter Affiliation:  Intel Corporation
Document Control Number:  EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0090-A2
Comment Excerpt Number:  3