A rnA UnitedSlatB5
I»1 Environmental Protection
I	Agflncy
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments
Volume No.: 7
The Rule Development Process,
Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews, and Other Miscellaneous
Comments

-------
September 2009
The Rule Development Process, Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews, and Other
Miscellaneous Comments
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmosphere Programs
Climate Change Division
Washington, D.C.

-------
FOREWORD
This document provides EPA's responses to public comments on EPA's Proposed Mandatory
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
Federal Register on April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448). EPA received comments on this proposed
rule via mail, e-mail, facsimile, and at two public hearings held in Washington, DC and
Sacramento, California in April 2009. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comments letters and transcripts of the public
hearings are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508.
Due to the size and scope of this rulemaking, EPA prepared this document in multiple volumes,
with each volume focusing on a different broad subject area of the rule. This volume of the
document provides EPA's responses to significant public comments on the rule development
process, statutory and executive order reviews, and other miscellaneous comments.
Each volume provides the verbatim text of comments extracted from the original letter or public
hearing transcript. 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 is
provided. In some cases the same comment excerpt was submitted by two or more commenters
either by submittal of a form letter prepared by an organization or by the commenter
incorporating by reference the comments in another comment letter. Rather than repeat these
comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once and
provided a list of all the commenters who submitted the same form letter or otherwise
incorporated the comments by reference in table(s) at the end of each volume (as appropriate).
EPA's responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment
excerpt. However, in instances where several commenters raised similar or related issues, EPA
has grouped these comments together and provided a single response after the first comment
excerpt in the group and referenced this response in the other comment excerpts. 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.
While every effort was made to include significant comments related to the rule development
process, statutory and executive order reviews, and other miscellaneous comments in this
volume, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject areas. For comments that
overlapped two or more subject areas, EPA assigned the comment to a single subject category
based on an assessment of the principle subject of the comment. For this reason, EPA
encourages the public to read the other volumes of this document with subject areas that may be
relevant to the rule development process, statutory and executive order reviews, and other
miscellaneous comments.
in

-------
The primary contact regarding questions or comments on this document is:
Carole Cook (202) 343-9263
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Climate Change Division
Mail Code 6207-J
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20460
ghgreportingrule@epa.gov
iv

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Page
1.	GENERAL RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS	1
A.	RULE DEVELOPMENT	1
B.	PUBLIC PARTICIPATION	 122
C.	REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD	166
2.	STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS	29
A.	PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT	29
B.	UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT (I MR A)	32
3.	MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE GHG
REPORTING RULE	333
A.	GENERAL SUPPORT I OR THE RULE	33
B.	GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE RULE	49
C.	OTHER	711
v

-------
1. GENERAL RULE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
A. RULE DEVELOPMENT
Commenter Name: See Table 4
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NPRA is aware that EPA is attempting to promulgate the final rule in the shortest
possible timeframe in order to meet a statutory deadline. But this process should not be rushed
in order to meet a deadline that will be breached no matter how quickly EPA finalizes this
proposal. Because a GHG reporting program includes the entire domestic economy, being right
is much more important than being quick.
Response: EPA does not agree that promulgation of the rule needs to be delayed to allow for
additional comment and review, or as other commenters have suggested, delayed until Congress
enacts new legislation. As discussed in Section I of the preamble and in Volume 9 (Legal Issues)
of this document, the data submitted under this rulemaking will help inform future policies in the
Administration and in Congress. The urgent need for this data is further evident from the fiscal
year 2008 Appropriations Act, which wanted EPA to start collecting data in 2010. Although we
do not yet know what final policy direction will be taken, the data collected under this rule can
be used to support a number of possible policy options that would require accurate and reliable
data. As policies evolve and new programs are developed, the provisions in the rule can be
amended to address the new data collection needs. For more information on how the information
will be used and the urgent need to collect the data, see Section I.D. of the preamble.
EPA has conducted extensive outreach and allowed for substantial public review and comment
opportunities. During the development of the rule, we conducted a proactive communications
outreach program to inform the public about the rule development effort. We solicited input and
maintained an open door policy for those parties interested in discussing the rulemaking. Prior to
proposal, EPA staff held more than 100 meetings with over 250 stakeholders, including trade
associations and firms in potentially affected industries and sectors. Our reasons for developing
the rule, costs of the program, and our rationale for the applicability criteria, monitoring
methods, reporting requirements are provided in the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR
16488, April 10, 2009), the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), and in a series of technical
support documents prepared for each of the affected source categories. These documents were
made available to the public through the public docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508). We also held two public hearings (in Washington D.C. and Sacramento, CA), held
a 60-day public comment period, and provided a hotline for interested parties to ask questions
about the rule. In addition to the public hearings, EPA had an open door policy, similar to the
outreach conducted during the development of the proposal. As a result, EPA has met with over
4,000 people and 150 groups since proposal signature (March 10, 2009). Details of these
meetings are available in the docket. Therefore, EPA provided multiple mechanisms for
interested parties to express their concerns, ask questions, and provide input on the rule. To
further facilitate public understanding of the rule, EPA posted on its website source-specific
factsheets and other information summarizing the requirements of the rule. Moreover, although
there are numerous source categories included in this rule, not every stakeholder needs to review
1

-------
every subpart. For example, the dairy industry would need to review only the general provisions
(subpart A), stationary combustion source category (subpart C), and manure management
(subpart JJ). Therefore, we have determined there is not a need for additional review time and it
is appropriate to finalize the rule in September 2009.
In addition to the outreach described above, EPA also reviewed all of the significant comments
submitted during the comment period and in some cases made revisions to the requirements for
individual source categories. After reviewing the comments, we determined that most of the
proposed source categories do not need further analysis and should be included in the final rule
for reasons stated in Section IV.B of the preamble for the proposed rule (74 FR 16465, April 10,
2009) and the comment response documents for the individual source categories. However, EPA
decided not to include subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing), subpart J (Ethanol Production),
subpart L (Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Production), subpart M (Food Processing), subpart T
(Magnesium Production), subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems), subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoridefluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment), subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines),
subpart II (Wastewater Treatment), subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) or with the reporting
requirements for industrial landfills. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information for these source categories.
During the implementation of the final rule, EPA intends to conduct an active outreach and
technical assistance program to help facilities determine applicability and reporting
requirements. Plain English guides to the rule and a Web-based applicability tool will be
available to the public on your website. EPA also plans to conduct a number of webinars
immediately following promulgation. These materials have been tailored to the various sectors
and target small businesses and those industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors that are
less familiar with air pollution regulation.
Commenter Name: Greg Scott
Commenter Affiliation: National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212w
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: With that in mind, this rulemaking process should not be rushed. The accounting
system developed under the Acid Rain Program required several years and multiple iterations
that eventually resulted in a streamlined and accurate recordkeeping program. Given that a GHG
Reporting Rule is far more complicated than the acid rain rule, it is absolutely necessary that the
EPA and covered stakeholders be afforded adequate time to get the program right the first time.
Stakeholders need the time to fully review and assess the proposal in order to provide the agency
with the most informed and concise comments that will result in an accurate reporting system at
the lowest cost to the covered parties and to the economy. In other words, getting it right the
first time is more important than getting it done quickly.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
2

-------
Comment: Neither the rulemaking nor the available Technical Support Document appear to
have been peer reviewed by independent scientific authorities as required by EPA's Peer Review
Handbook and the Information Quality Act, 44 USC 3506 et seq. They are, therefore,
inadequate as scientific documents. In essence, the proposed rule mandates guess work by
electric utilities.
Response: We disagree that the TSD is inadequate. EPA has fully complied with the
requirements of the Information Quality Act (IQA). The IQA is designed to "ensur[e] and
maximize[e] the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical
information) disseminated by Federal agencies." Public Law 106-554; 44 U.S.C. 3516, note.
Following guidelines issued by the Office of Management and Budget, EPA released its own
guidelines to carry out the objectives of the IQA
(http://www.epa.gov/QUALITY/informationguidelines/documents/EPA_InfoQualityGuidelines.
pdf). EPA's Information Quality Guidelines (EPA IQG) provide a detailed administrative
process to address any challenges to data quality issues in data disseminated by EPA. These
guidelines would apply to information collected pursuant to this rule.
EPA has taken careful steps to ensure that the TSD is of the highest quality. EPA's Peer Review
Handbook provides non-binding guidance to EPA staff and managers who are planning and
conducting peer reviews; the Handbook does not require peer review of particular documents.
The TSD and other supporting materials for this rule have been developed with the appropriate
level of review and scientific rigor. The monitoring methods for each source category were
prepared by EPA staff with specialized knowledge of the industry. These staff completed
comprehensive reviews of existing GHG monitoring protocols and selected methods that would
provide accurate emissions data without placing too great a burden on reporters.
Commenter Name: Robert Naerebout
Commenter Affiliation: Idaho Dairymen's Association, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0314.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The proposed rulemaking violates EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's April 23, 2009
"Transparency in EPA's Operations" directive. The directive states that EPA must act in a
transparent and open manner, provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision
making, and clearly explain the basis for its decisions. This rulemaking does not meet that
standard for several reasons. First, the massive preamble and proposed rule is overly complex
and excessively burdensome. Second, this massive document is supported by technical
documents that are difficult to locate and difficult to fully understand. The technical basis for the
formulas required to calculate methane and nitrous oxide emissions, as discussed in the Preamble
and in various EPA "Technical Support" documents, is unclear. The EPA fails to explain how
these mathematical formulas were developed, and the EPA itself acknowledges that these
formulas are new, untested, and unreliable. Third, neither the rulemaking nor the available
technical support documents appear to have been peer reviewed as required by EPA's Peer
Review Handbook and therefore, they are inadequate as scientific documents. In essence, the
proposed rule mandates guess work. The EPA rulemaking section on the agricultural sector in
general and the dairy industry in particular is arbitrary and lacks transparency. The EPA
memorandum "summary of outreach meetings on GHG reporting rule" summarizing EPA's
outreach efforts from January 2008 through January 2009 establishes that the dairy industry was
not consulted in the development of this proposed rule. Yet, the manure management reporting
3

-------
regulations will have an enormous impact on the operations of dairies. This is a clear violation
of the administration's transparency directive to provide for the fullest possible public
participation.
Response: For the response to the comment on the development of the rule and EPA's outreach
activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
Regarding the comment on peer review, the technical support documents and other documents
supporting the proposal were available for public comment, as is the typical process for this type
of rule. The monitoring methods for each source category were prepared by EPA staff with
specialized knowledge of the industry. These staff completed comprehensive reviews of existing
GHG monitoring protocols and selected methods that would provide accurate emissions data
without placing too great a burden on reporters. Peer review is the process whereby Agency
staff involves experts from outside their program in one or more aspects of the development of
work products. As stated in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Peer Review Handbook
(EPA/100/B06/002, Third Edition), regulations are not subject to peer review. However, any
influential scientific information or assessment that is used to support the regulation may be
subject to peer review. For this rulemaking, peer review is not necessary because the monitoring
methods included in the rule are either based on information in scientific papers (articles) that
have already undergone adequate peer review or on methods commonly accepted by industry or
other reporting programs. For example, many of the monitoring methods included in this rule
are based on IPCC guidelines that have been established by a recognized panel of experts and
have undergone significant peer review prior to their adoption.
During the development of the rule, we met with a number of agricultural associations, including
the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
(NCFC), and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). We also held a number of agricultural
forums with agricultural trade associations and met with the Department of Agriculture. We
reviewed and addressed comments on the rule submitted by WSDPTA, NCBA, Idaho
Dairyman's Association, Colorado Livestock Association, and many other agricultural
stakeholders. During the development of the rule, we reviewed many protocols and approaches
prior to selecting the methodology for the manure management source category. The method we
selected is based on EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, as well as
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. These methodologies rely on the use of activity data, such as the number of head of
livestock, operational characteristics (e.g., physical and chemical characteristics of the manure,
type of management system(s)), and climate data, to calculate greenhouse gas GHG emissions
associated with traditional manure management systems. In addition, the selected methodology
for the reporting rule uses measured values for those manure management systems (e.g.,
anaerobic digesters) that collect and combust biogas. For additional information on the methods
selected for the manure management source category, including discussions of revisions made
since proposal and responses to comments on the calculation methodology, see Section III of the
preamble and the comment response document titled "Subpart JJ: Manure Management".
Commenter Name: Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation: Industrial Minerals Association - North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0705.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 25
4

-------
Comment: We would hope that EPA would be able to review all of the comments submitted and
take them into consideration before moving forward with a final rule at the end of the month. As
you can see from our comments, there are many fundamental errors in the proposal as they relate
to the soda ash industry, including something as basic as the wrong chemical formula for trona
being used. To that end, we would urge that the issuance of a final rule be delayed so that all of
the comments received by EPA can be taken in to consideration.
Response: EPA has reviewed the public comments and has revised the final rule to correct for
errors in the proposed rule. For a description of the changes and corrections made to the soda
ash manufacturing requirements, see the preamble to the final rule and the volume of this
comment response document titled "Subpart CC: Soda Ash Manufacturing".
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NMA supports EPA's stated goal of promulgating reporting requirements that utilize
existing GHG emission estimating and reporting methodologies in order to reduce the
compliance burden on regulated entities. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,456. NMA is concerned, however,
that EPA has ignored information that is already available, opting instead to propose reporting
requirements that, in many cases, will impart unnecessary burdens on mining operations and
other industries.
Response: To allow for further review of the monitoring methods, EPA has decided not to
include underground coal mines and suppliers of coal subparts in the final rule. As we consider
next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Thus, we
are not responding to comments on these subparts at this time. For additional information on our
monitoring approach for other source categories, see the preamble for the response on the
general monitoring approach.
Commenter Name: J. Southerland
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0165
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: With the volume of this proposal (well over 1500 pages in some published formats,
less in others) in mind, it is impossible for any individual and organization to read, analyze,
review and comment in a thorough and comprehensive manner in the allowed 60 days and
accomplish other duties. Many parts of the proposal are very specialized to particular industries
and technologies and since this proposal constitutes rule-making, the particular industries and
relevant EPA experts and industry specialists, such as those in the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, the Department of Energy, and others in the public and private sectors should
work together in a formal intergovernmental review process to assure that this important and far-
reaching rule and process is adequately vetted as applies to each affected entity, including each
category in Table 1.
5

-------
Response: EPA agrees that soliciting input from experts in industry, State agencies, EPA and
other federal agencies is important for rules that impact a diverse range of industrial sectors. The
monitoring methods for each source category were developed and reviewed by EPA staff that
have specialized knowledge of the industry, including those from the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and Department of Energy. For additional information on EPA's
outreach activities, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The massive preamble and rule is overly complex and excessively burdensome. The
supporting technical documents are difficult to locate and were developed in a non-public, non
peer reviewed manner.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: See Table 2
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0509.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The Proposed Rule has exceedingly complex provisions governing applicability as
well as emission estimation, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. Those provisions at best
are difficult to follow, contain numerous ambiguities, and in a number of cases appear to
contradict themselves. EPA needs to do a thorough re-working of the Proposed Rule to simplify
and clarify its requirements and to remove ambiguities and internal inconsistencies. EPA then
should give the public, and especially those entities that would have to comply with these
regulations, another opportunity to comment on the reporting scheme and the specific obligations
they would face.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Brad Bateman
Commenter Affiliation: Western States Dairy Producers Trade Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0365.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The technical support documents utilized by EPA for the rulemaking appear to not
have been peer reviewed as required by EPA's Peer Review Handbook and, therefore, are
inadequate as scientific documents. In essence, the proposed rule mandates guess work by dairy
farmers.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1, excerpt 7 above.
6

-------
Commenter Name: Brad Bateman
Commenter Affiliation: Western States Dairy Producers Trade Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0365.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The EPA memorandum summarizing its outreach efforts to develop the proposed
rule from January 2008 through January 2009 shows that the dairy industry and WSDPTA,
whose members produce 42.8% of all the milk in the United States, were not consulted in the
development of this proposed rule. This is a significant oversight as the regulation governs
manure management systems and will have a direct impact on the operations of WSDPTA
member dairies. The failure to consult the dairy industry violates EPA Administrator, Lisa
Jackson's April 23, 2009 directive to provide to the fullest possible public participation.
Response: See the response to the comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1
above. Although we have not met with the WSDPTA, we have met with a number of other
agricultural associations, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), National Council
of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). We also held
a number of agricultural forums with agricultural trade associations and met with the Department
of Agriculture. Finally, we have reviewed and addressed the comments on the rule submitted by
WSDPTA, NCBA, Idaho Dairyman's Association, Colorado Livestock Association, and many
other agricultural stakeholders. For the responses to the other comments submitted by
WSDPTA, see the volume titled "Subpart JJ: Manure Management" and other relevant volumes
of this document.
Commenter Name: Steven M. Pirner
Commenter Affiliation: South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SD
DENR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0576
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA provided some information on their webpage, but only plans on having two
meetings scheduled nationwide on the Proposed Rule. SD DENR recommends EPA work with
producer groups and others to schedule several web casts on the Proposed Rule during the public
comment period and once the rule is final to inform as many businesses as they can about the
requirements in the final rule.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: Dana Blume
Commenter Affiliation: Port of Houston Authority (PHA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0607.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: While the PHA does not have operations directly impacted by the rule as written,
many of the Houston Ship Channel users and PHA tenants may be subject to the proposed rule or
potential future rules. The PHA would like to be included in any future GHG proposed rule
making stakeholder meetings. In addition, the PHA would encourage the EPA to include trade
organizations such as the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which represents
7

-------
U.S. Ports on a variety of issues, including environmental concerns and initiatives of U.S. and
Western Hemisphere ports, in future GHG rulemaking stakeholder meetings.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their recommendation and plans to include interested
parties to the extent possible in future outreach efforts.
To further encourage and facilitate public participation in future policy decisions and
rulemakings, EPA will provide public access to the data collected under this rule by posting it on
our Web site. The data collected will be released as soon as possible after the March 31
reporting deadline. EPA believes this level of transparency is important to public participation in
future policy development and for building public confidence in the quality of the data collected.
Commenter Name: Lisa Beal
Commenter Affiliation: Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0171.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: If EPA elects not to grant a reasonable extension to the comment period, then
INGAA requests additional public hearings in regional locations across the country. EPA often
uses regional hearings as an instrument to engage the public in important rulemakings. Due to
its breadth and standing as the foundation for EPA GHG regulations, the Proposed Rule is an
ideal example of a rule that warrants public input and access. Multiple hearings would be
consistent with the administration goal of transparency in federal actions.
Response: Although only two public hearings were held, EPA determined that additional public
hearings were not necessary.
The data submitted under this rulemaking will help inform future policy development under the
CAA. Because of the time sensitive nature of this rulemaking, it is imperative the rule be
finalized as soon as possible to allow data collection to begin in 2010. In addition, the fiscal year
2008 Appropriations Act requires EPA to issue a final rule by June 26, 2009. Although we were
not able to complete this rulemaking by that date, it further emphasizes the necessity of
completing it in a timely manner. EPA recognizes that the notification of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), the associated Technical Support Documents, and the additional analysis contained in
the docket may take considerable time to review. To that end, we posted the NPRM on March
10, 2009, the day it was signed by the Administrator. We also opened the docket and posted
other resources such as the Regulatory Impact Analysis and source-specific information sheets
on our website approximately two weeks before the NPRM appeared in the Federal Register to
provide additional time for review. In addition, we provided numerous resources, including
overview briefings and factsheets as well as shorter information sheets for nearly each subpart of
the rule, on our Website (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html') in
order to facilitate review of the proposed rule. For additional information on the development of the
rule and EPA's outreach activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
8

-------
Comment: The proposed rulemaking violates EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's April 23, 2009
"Transparency in EPA's Operations" directive. The directive states that EPA must act in a
transparent and open manner, provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision
making, and clearly explain the basis for its decisions. This rulemaking does not meet that
standard for several reasons.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: J. Jared Snyder
Commenter Affiliation: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1184
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA states that early in the development process, a proactive communications
outreach program to inform the public about the rule development effort was conducted. EPA
states that it solicited input and maintained an open door policy for those interested in discussing
the rulemaking and that EPA staff held more than 100 meetings with over 250 stakeholders since
January 2008. Not withstanding EPA's statement that stakeholders included State, local, and
Tribal environmental control agencies and regional air quality planning organizations, EPA did
not consult with New York and many of the other states involved in GHG reporting programs
prior to developing this proposed rule. By failing to work closely with the states, EPA's
proposal does not take full advantage of the experience of the states to date.
Response: For additional information on EPA's outreach activities, see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. Although we did not meet with the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation, we reviewed many existing State,
Regional, Federal, and international GHG reporting programs during our initial development of
the rule. Our review of these programs provided valuable information on a variety of factors
important to the development of this rule, including the sectors covered, thresholds for reporting,
approach to indirect emissions reporting, monitoring methods, and QA/QC procedures. EPA
met with a number of State agencies (including Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa,
Massachusetts, Washington, New Mexico, Texas, and California) and a number of associations
(including the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), and Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS), and Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)). EPA
has benefitted from the experience of States' that have already implemented reporting programs
and recognizes the importance of these State programs both in leading the way in reporting of
GHGs and in catalyzing important GHG reductions. EPA supports and recognizes the success
and necessity of State programs as a vital component in achieving GHG emissions reductions,
particularly those focused on energy efficiency improvements. EPA is also committed to
working with States to coordinate implementation of reporting programs, reduce burden on
reporters, provide timely access to verified emissions data, establish mechanisms to efficiently
share data, and harmonize data systems to the extent possible. For the summary of our review of
these programs, see Section II of the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 16488, April 10,
2009). For additional information on the role of states and the relationship of this rule to other
reporting programs, see Section II.O. of the preamble. See Section VLB of the preamble for a
summary of comments and responses on State delegation of rule implementation and
enforcement.
9

-------
In addition to our many meetings with States and their associations,, we reviewed and addressed
comments on the rule submitted by several States and Regional bodies, including those
submitted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. The responses to the
comments submitted by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation are included
in other volumes of this document.
Commenter Name: Not Given
Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0597
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: While acknowledging the great strides that have been made by individual states and
through regional programs such as The Climate Registry (TCR), Vectren is concerned that these
programs may not have been developed in a fully transparent fashion or with full public
participation, and therefore should not be simply copied by EPA for use it the subject
rulemaking. It would be inappropriate for EPA to adopt, in whole or in part, any portion of an
existing state or regional program without subjecting the applicable provision to full notice and
comment rulemaking procedures in accordance with Federal law.
Response: We reviewed many existing State, Regional, Federal, and international GHG
reporting programs during our initial development of the rule. This review provided valuable
input on a variety of factors important to the development of this rule, including the sectors
covered, thresholds for reporting, approach to indirect emissions reporting, monitoring methods,
and QA/QC procedures. However, EPA did not rely solely on existing programs for the
development of this rule nor did we adopt any portion of existing programs without proper
review. Instead we used the experience gained by existing mandatory and voluntary GHG
reporting programs to inform our decisions on various aspects of rule. For each source category,
EPA staff with specialized knowledge of the industry evaluated possible monitoring approaches
and weighed the costs of the various monitoring options to ensure the burden placed on industry
was small. These experts reviewed many different protocols, including those prepared by the
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the European Union's Emission
Trading System, the California reporting rule, the Acid Rain Program, and The Climate Registry.
We also collected information through meetings with industry experts. For additional
information on the rule making process and EPA's outreach activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. For additional information on our review of existing programs,
see Section II of the preamble to the proposed rule (74 FR 16488, April 10, 2009).
Commenter Name: Brad Bateman
Commenter Affiliation: Western States Dairy Producers Trade Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0365.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The proposed rulemaking violates EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson's April 23, 2009
"Transparency in EPA's Operations" directive. This directive states that the EPA must act in a
transparent and open manner, provide for the fullest possible public participation in decision
making, and clearly explain the basis for its decisions. This rulemaking does not meet the
standards established by the EPA administration for several reasons.
10

-------
(1)	The massive preamble and rule is overly complex and will create excessively burdensome
paperwork.
(2)	The supporting EPA technical documents are difficult to locate and were developed in a
non-public manner. The technical basis for the formulas required to calculate methane and
nitrous oxide emissions is unclear and not scientific. EPA fails to explain how these
mathematical formulas were developed, and the EPA acknowledges that these formulas
are new, untested, and unreliable. The entire emission threshold calculation procedure was
not based on good science.
Response: For the response to the comment regarding public participation in and transparency of
the rulemaking process, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt
1 above. The selection of monitoring protocols for each source category are described in the
preamble for the proposed rule 74 FR 16488, April 10, 2009) and in the technical support
documents for each subpart. These documents are available through the public docket (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508). Changes to the monitoring methods and other requirements are discussed
in Section III of the preamble and in the appropriate volume of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Congress, acting through the legislative process, is in the best position to ensure that
any GHG Registry and GHG Management (Cap & Trade) Protocol properly accounts for
existing laws and regulations, and drives a consistent application of common reporting
thresholds and emission standards. Separating this proposed Reporting Rule from pending
legislation that will regulate economy-wide GHG emissions inevitably will lead to inconsistency,
confusion, inefficiencies, higher costs, and decreased economic activity. For example, one major
inconsistency is that the Reporting Rule proposes the use of a 25,000 tC02e emission threshold
to determine whether a facility is subject to GHG reporting requirements. However, pending
legislation suggests that potential GHG limits or "caps," or reporting obligations conceptually
similar to those proposed by the Reporting Rule, apply to facilities that emit 10,000 tC02e. This
inconsistency alone would lead to much confusion, and must cause EPA to reconsider whether it
should defer this matter to Congress for further clarification. At minimum, EPA should work
with Congress to ensure that the "covered entity" threshold is clear, consistent, and does not
differentiate between those entities subject to hard GHG emissions restrictions and those that are
"merely" required to report GHG emissions. Alternatively, EPA should delay its rulemaking
until Congress has finalized comprehensive U.S. GHG legislation. A small pause in the
agency's regulatory process would not adversely affect human health or the environment, or
create disincentives for potentially covered entities to continue implementing energy efficiency
measures and reducing GHG emissions. Rather, a prudent pause is more likely to ensure
consistency among EPA's proposals and pending Congressional legislation. Further, covered
entities/sources would have additional time to review and comment on the huge range of legal
and technical issues implicated by the proposed Reporting Rule.
Response: For information on EPA's outreach activities, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
11

-------
Commenter Name: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0635
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: As EPA explains in the preamble, a high "level of transparency will inform the
public and facilitate greater data verification and review." EPA correctly recognizes that
"[transparency helps to ensure data quality and build public confidence in the data," but
unfortunately it does not state the preamble's clear transparency principles in the rule's text
itself. It should do so to definitively resolve any future disputes over public access to emissions
data and to make the rule's commitment to transparency permanent and clear. A strong
commitment to transparency is fundamental to the present Administration, to EPA, and to the
Clean Air Act. As President Obama wrote on his second day in office: My Administration is
committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work
together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation,
and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and
effectiveness in Government. Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes
accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing.
Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will
take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms
that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new
technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available
to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify
information of greatest use to the public, [footnote: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies (Jan. 23, 2009) (emphasis in original) (Ex. 1)]. EPA also embraces
these principles. As Administrator Jackson wrote on her first day in office: EPA's actions must
be transparent. In 1983, EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus promised that EPA would operate "in a
fishbowl" and "will attempt to communicate with everyone from the environmentalists to those
we regulate, and we will do so as openly as possible." I embrace this philosophy. Public trust in
the Agency demands that we reach out to all stakeholders fairly and impartially, that we consider
the views and data presented carefully and objectively, and that we fully disclose the information
that forms the bases of our decisions.
Response: EPA agrees that transparency and public participation are important to any future
rulemaking. For additional information on EPA's plans for disseminating the data, see section
V. A. of the preamble, Volume 11 (Designated Representative and Data Collection, Reporting,
Management, and Dissemination) of this document). For an explanation of how EPA will handle
confidential business information, see the preamble for the response to the comment on CBI and
Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of this document.
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Commenter Name: C. S. Ramirez
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0258
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
12

-------
Comment: This rule is inordinately difficult to read and understand for me and similarly situated
concerned citizens. While I understand that the rule is in itself technical and is meant to be
followed by parties with significant expertise, there is no reason why an unfamiliar reader (that
is, one with no or limited chemistry, biology, meteorology and physics training) should not be
able to read and understand the proposed rule without the assistance of an engineer. Perhaps in
the future, an executive summary in simple English would be appropriate.
Response: EPA has provided information on its website during the proposal stage and will
continue to do so as the rule is finalized and implemented. To facilitate public review of this
rulemaking, EPA posted on its website source-specific factsheets and informational sheets
summarizing the requirements for the rule. EPA also set up a hotline for interested parties to call
with any questions they had regarding the requirements of the rule. After promulgation, EPA
plans to conduct an active outreach and technical assistance program to help facilities determine
applicability and reporting requirements. Plain English guides to the rule and a Web-based
applicability tool will be available to the public on your website. EPA also plans to conduct a
number of webinars immediately following promulgation. These materials have been tailored to
the various sectors and target small businesses and those industrial, commercial, and institutional
sectors that are less familiar with air pollution regulation.
Commenter Name: J. Spirito
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0238.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: A first concern which does not speak to the content of the Proposed Rule is the
writing and the wording of the Proposed Rule. I am a law school student, who is well versed in
administrative and environmental law, and yet this proposed rule was still a baffling mess at
several hundred pages and charts to read. Global warming is an issue which impacts all
Americans, and while I recognize that this regulation would primarily impact the producers of
emissions, who are typically industry or other business entities with the legal and technical
knowledge to understand such text, the EPA must do a better job of making such vitally
important material accessible and understandable to the general public who also has a stake in
the climate change.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0258, excerpt 5.
Commenter Name: Kusai Merchant
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1h
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Finally, this is a conversation that should be had in the open and in the spotlight. As
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis attested, the accountability benefits of transparency are
best — accountability benefits are tremendous and that still is said to be the best of disinfectants.
Americans are in the dark about who the big emitters of pollution are, global warming pollution
are, and where they are located. Shining light on greenhouse gas emissions is essential to an
informed conversation in America about pollution sources and its solutions. In our
13

-------
neighborhoods and communities from coast to coast, we all have a stake in an American
conversation carried out in the bright sunlight.
Response: EPA thanks the Environmental Defense Fund for their input. For additional
information about our outreach activities, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0635, excerpt 3 above.
Commenter Name: Blake Jeffery
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Cast Metals Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0321.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: INCMA believes that holding only two public hearings on such a critical rule limits
the opportunity of impacted individuals to adequately express their views directly to EPA.
Further, hosting those two hearings Washington DC and Sacramento, CA seems to purposely
exclude vast areas of the country which will be significantly more impacted by the proposed rule.
Given the concentration of manufacturing in various states and regions in the United States, EPA
should have easily been able to identify additional locations and deemed it vital to hold hearings
in those areas.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0171.1, excerpt 3 above.
Commenter Name: Mary Uhl
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Environment Department
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0450.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: New Mexico commends EPA for holding workshops and public hearings regarding
the mandatory reporting rule. Due the importance of the oil and gas sectors in this state, we
request that EPA consider holding hearings in New Mexico regarding these sectors.
Response: EPA thanks the New Mexico Environment Department for their input. For additional
information on the development of the rule and EPA's outreach activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. At this time, EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil
and Natural Gas Systems). As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information for this sector and will take into account New
Mexico's request for a specific public hearing on this sector to be held the state.
Commenter Name: Roy Prescott and John Duffy
Commenter Affiliation: Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) and Climate Change
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2079
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Stakeholder Involvement- The LGAC recommends EPA conduct a series of listening
sessions to specifically address state, local governments, small communities, and tribal
governments to fully gather the concerns and develop a mutually beneficial path forward in this
proposed rule malting. The LGAC has surveyed many local governments and have found they
14

-------
are generally unaware of this proposed rule-making and the potential requirements and
timeframe for reporting. The proposed rule contains many areas of concern for local
governments, such as: including the requirement to report wastewater treatment plants (other
than POTWs), centralizing fuel combustion sources, and exporting reporting requirements.
Response: EPA agrees that stakeholder participation is important for any rulemaking. For this
reason, EPA met with LGAC on March 23, 2009 to discuss their concerns regarding the rule.
For additional information on the development of the rule and EPA's outreach activities, see
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. For additional information regarding
reporting by fuel suppliers and facilities with stationary fuel combustion units, see Section III of
the preamble and the relevant volumes of this document.
EPA is not going final with subpart II (Wastewater Treatment). As we consider next steps, we
will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on these subparts at this time.
Commenter Name: Roy Prescott and John Duffy
Commenter Affiliation: Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) and Climate Change
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2079
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Involve the LGAC in the rulemaking process - The LGAC has members from a wide
variety of local governments from across the United States that are available to assist EPA. For
future rulemakings, LGAC would welcome the opportunity to actively participate in stakeholder
meetings regarding impacts to local governments which includes municipalities, counties, ports,
airports, waste management agencies, and river authorities.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input on this rulemaking. We agree with the
commenter that stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process is extremely important. We
met with LGAC on March 23, 2009 and encourage LGAC to continue to assist us in outreach
efforts for this rule, as well as in the development of any future GHG rulemaking.
Commenter Name: Roy Prescott and John Duffy
Commenter Affiliation: Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) and Climate Change
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2079
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Stakeholder Outreach to Identify Reporting Issues (16457): The EPA proposed rule
indicated that more than 100 stakeholder meetings have been held since March, 2009. Many of
the stakeholders EPA engaged in these dialogues are outside of city operations and would
generally not reflect the sources of GHG from local governments which may be impacted by this
rule. (ICLEI may work with well with some local governments, particularly on the West Coast,
the Cities of Boston and New York, which are conducting very high level voluntary GHG
emission inventories, which may not necessarily cover sources of GHG emissions as
contemplated in this rule, particularly centralized fuel combustion sources). It is also important
to note that neither local air quality program directors nor ICLEI would be able to represent the
interest or concerns of small or disadvantaged communities.
15

-------
Response: For the response to the comment on the development of the rule and EPA's outreach
activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
EPA met with both LGAC and with ICLEI to discuss their concerns regarding the rule. We also
reviewed and addressed the written comments submitted by LGAC on June 24, 2009.
During the development of the rule, we evaluated the economic impact of this rule to ensure the
rule does not place too great a burden on small governments. The results of our analysis showed
that the annualized reporting program costs were less than 1 percent of revenue. The estimated
costs are small enough that no small government is estimated to incur significant impacts. More
information on the economic impacts of the rule can be found in the regulatory impact analysis
(RIA), Section VII of the preamble, and the volume of this comment response document titled
"Cost and Economic Impacts."
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University Earle Mack College of Law
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0237.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The APA § 553 (c) ("553") requires that agencies give "interested persons an
opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or
arguments with or without opportunity for oral presentation." The agency has done an excellent
job providing access to the underlying information and date depended on the create this NPR.
Because of this, the public has a meaningful opportunity to comment on the NPR. Notice
improves the quality of agency rulemaking by insuring that the agency regulations will be tested
by exposure to diverse public comment. The notice-and-comment procedure assures that the
public and the persons being regulated are given an opportunity to participate, provide
information and suggest alternatives. It thus gives interested parties an opportunity to participate
in the rulemaking through the submission of data, views, and arguments. Notice also ensures
fairness to affected parties and provides a well-developed record that enhances the quality of
judicial review.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
C. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD
Commenter Name: Karen St. John
Commenter Affiliation: BP America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: On behalf of BP America, we are writing to support the American Petroleum
Institute's (API) request for a 30-day extension of the comment period on the proposed GHG
reporting rule. EPA's proposed rule will apply to and affect most of BP's US businesses
including our significant exploration & production and refining & marketing operations. The
scope of the rule will include our direct operations along with the products we supply and
market. Given the comprehensiveness of the proposed rule combined with the detailed and
16

-------
explicit monitoring and reporting protocols, there is much to digest, comprehend and comment
upon. BP aims to work constructively with the Agency on the rule and through our trade
associations, and we share the goal of getting the GHG reporting rule right from the onset. It is
in that spirit that additional time to analyze the impacts of the rule and develop formal comments
will provide value added.
Response: As EPA explained in the letter signed by Acting Assistant Administrator, Elizabeth
Craig signed on April 24, 2009, EPA did not extend the formal comment period past the June 9,
2009 deadline because of the time sensitive nature of this rulemaking and the urgent need to
finalize the rule as soon as possible to allow data collection to begin in 2010. The data submitted
under this rulemaking will help inform future policies in the Administration and in Congress so it
is imperative to allow for enough time to finalize the rule before the end of 2009. In addition,
the fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act requires EPA to issue a final rule by June 26, 2009.
Although we were not able to complete this rulemaking by that date, it further emphasizes the
necessity of completing it in a timely manner. EPA recognizes that the notification of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), the associated Technical Support Documents, and the additional analysis
contained in the docket may take considerable time to review. To that end, we posted the NPRM
on March 10, 2009, the day it was signed by the Administrator. We also opened the docket and
posted other resources such as the Regulatory Impact Analysis and source-specific information
sheets on our website approximately two weeks before the NPRM appeared in the Federal
Register to provide additional time for review. In addition, we provided numerous resources,
including overview briefings and factsheets as well as shorter information sheets for nearly each
subpart of the rule, on our Website (see
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.htmn in order to facilitate review
of the proposed rule. For additional information on the development of the rule and EPA's
outreach activities, see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. For further
information regarding our decision to not extend the public comment period, see Volume 9
(Legal Issues) of this document.
Commenter Name: Robert E. Murray
Commenter Affiliation: Murray Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1577
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Due to the severity of our concerns, we recommend having an extended comment
period or a second draft Rule to ensure that this promulgation is done fairly for all parties, and
more importantly, administered in a cohesive fashion that will prevent groups from using
inaccurate information to develop bad policy.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Sally V. Allen
Commenter Affiliation: Gary-Williams Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0982.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
17

-------
Comment: We request that the comment period be extended for 60 days. The proposed rule is
detailed, comprehensive and complex. Without additional time, we can now comment on only a
few provisions of immediate concern to us.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation: Vice President, Scientific Programs, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0163.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), on behalf of its member companies, respectfully
requests an extension of an additional 30 days (90 days total) to respond to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) request for comments in its notice of proposed
rulemaking for mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,448 (April
10, 2009) (NPRM). Many TFI members are subject to the Clean Air Act and its regulations, and
therefore could fall within the scope of those facilities proposed to be subject to reporting under
the NPRM. Indeed, the NPRM expressly seeks to regulate producers of fertilizers or fertilizer
materials, such as phosphoric acid, nitric acid, and ammonia, and proposes specific requirements
for reporting the nitrogen content of fertilizers (not just greenhouse gas emissions) which would
particularly impact TFI members. The NPRM thus has particular importance and impacts to the
fertilizer industry. Given the important implications of the NPRM for TFI members and its shear
scope (285 pages of preamble language proposed rules), as well as its reliance on extensive and
highly technical background documents, TFI will require at least 90 days to provide substantive
comments, which will assist EPA in appropriately considering the interests of, and potential
impacts to, TFI members related to the substance of the NPRM.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Bryan L. Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0218.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The following organizations ("the Associations") join in urging EPA to extend, by
60 days, the comment period on EPA's Proposed Rule on Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases (GHGs), 74 Fed. Reg. 16448 (April 10, 2009): American Chemistry Council American
Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute American Farm Bureau Federation American Forest & Paper
Association American Iron and Steel Institute American Petroleum Institute American Public
Power Association Canadian Business Cross-Border Climate Advisory Group Corn Refiners
Association CropLife America Edison Electric Institute Institute for 21st Century Energy
National Association of Manufacturers National Automobile Dealers Association National
Oilseed Processors Association National Petrochemical and Refiners Association Rubber
Manufacturers Association Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates We respectfully
believe that the 60 days that EPA has allocated for public comments is plainly inadequate for a
rule of this magnitude and complexity and must be extended. The Proposed Rule raises
significant legal, policy, and economic issues for all sectors of industry as a whole, as well as
very specific, technical, and complex questions for each individual sector that could have
18

-------
ramifications for decades. An extension of the comment period is critically needed so that
potentially regulated parties have a sufficient and fair opportunity to evaluate EPA's broad and
complex proposal, to analyze the large number of issues on which the Agency has sought
comment, and to make constructive recommendations. The Proposed Rule is accompanied by a
detailed preamble, a 260-page regulatory impact analysis, and more than 2,000 pages of
technical support documents. The Associations and their members need sufficient time to
evaluate the information provided by EPA and to determine how the Proposed Rule might
impact their businesses. Given that most of the reporting requirements are at the facility level,
and that the reporting thresholds and methodologies vary by source category, it will require
substantial time for these companies to review their operations and determine how their facilities
might be impacted by the proposed rulemaking prior to being able to provide constructive
stakeholder comments to EPA. Moreover, EPA has requested specific comments on many
subjects. The Associations appreciate the opportunity to provide their views on the general and
specific issues raised by EPA, but given the sheer number of topics on which the Agency has
requested comment and the complexity of the subject matters, the 60-day comment simply does
not provide enough time. We understand that EPA may have established the short comment
period of 60 days in response to deadlines under the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. That Act, which was signed into law on December 26, 2007, directed EPA
to propose a rule by September 2008, and to finalize a rule nine months later. The publication of
the proposed rule, however, was delayed six months past the specified deadline. This delay, due
to no fault of industry, should not prejudice industry's ability to fully analyze, respond to, and
prepare for this rule. EPA should not force industry to shoulder the consequences of delays for
which it was not responsible, imposing shortened comment deadlines to make up for earlier
missed deadlines. Instead, EPA should grant stakeholders the additional time they need to
analyze and comment on the proposed rule, and to postpone implementation given the delays in
the schedule to date. EPA's Proposed Rule arrives at a time when many companies in the United
States are fighting for economic survival in the face of an economic crisis of generational
proportions. Resources are scarce and budgets are stretched. At the same time that EPA is
seeking comments on the Proposed Rule, the Agency is engaged in related administrative
proceedings that demand significant attention from the same Associations and companies,
including the recent proposed endangerment finding for GHGs, issuance of the GHG inventory,
reconsideration of the interpretive memorandum of December 18, 2008, on GHGs and
prevention of significant deterioration, and reconsideration of California's waiver request for
GHGs. Given the interplay among many of these initiatives and the cumulative demands that
they impose, we respectfully request EPA provide an adequate period of time for commenters to
address all of the issues involved.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Steven Carpenter
Commenter Affiliation: Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212d
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Proposed Rule and supporting technical and regulatory documents comprise
thousands of pages of text. It is very unlikely that a thorough understanding in financial,
operational, and regulatory impact of this Proposed Rule could be digested and appropriately
understood by the close of the public comment period anticipated in June 10th. We respectfully
19

-------
ask that additional time be granted to allow industry to fully and adequately understand and
comment on the impacts this rule will have.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Renae Schmidt
Commenter Affiliation: CITGO
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0229.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: CITGO believes that a 60 day comment period does not allow stake holders adequate
time to evaluate the rule in its totality. This complex rule requires review of numerous emissions
calculation formulas, analysis of an extensive set of definitions, investigation of availability of
laboratory services to run required tests, development of and analysis of all cost estimates,
including evaluation of timing and cost for monitoring and metering systems. CITGO is
requesting an extension of the comment period to a full 180 days, until October 9, 2009, in order
to develop comments that will be truly helpful to the Agency as it proceeds with finalizing this
rule.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Karin Ritter
Commenter Affiliation: API
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0204.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Framing a comprehensive reporting rule is a complex undertaking that will require
equally comprehensive input from a variety of interested parties, including regulated entities,
state and federal regulators and scientists. The EPA has an opportunity to create a useful
resource by allowing all interested parties sufficient time to analyze the specifics of the EPA's
extensive proposal. Therefore, API is respectfully requesting an additional 30 days (a total of 90
days), which will provide us with the opportunity to take a measured approach to our comment
development, including a sufficient review of an extremely complex proposal, for a more
comprehensive submission to the Agency.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Mark Sutton
Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association (GPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0283
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We understand that under the Omnibus Appropriation Bill (HR 2764), December
2007, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with proposing and
promulgating a rule to require mandatory reporting of GHG emissions above appropriate
thresholds in all sectors of the U.S. economy and to have completed the proposed rulemaking by
September 2008 and a final rulemaking by June 2009. As EPA is aware of the importance of
20

-------
basing the rule on both sound science and a transparent process, EPA may need to allow
additional time for comments due to the late release of the proposed rule. GPA strongly believes
that a 60 day comment period is inadequate for this important rulemaking and adopts and
supports the comments previously submitted by other stakeholders such as the American
Petroleum Institute in asking for a 30 day extension (90 days total) . GPA looks forward to
working with EPA as the rulemaking process moves forward and appreciates the opportunity to
provide input on the issues contained in the April 10, 2009 notice of proposed rulemaking (74
FR 16448).
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0319
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Please extend the public comment period. I work for a small refinery, and have been
struggling with reading and understanding the 120 pages of proposed rule and 150+ pages of
preamble. In order to comment, I have to determine how it would impact our operations, and
what we would have to do to comply with the proposed rule if finalized. Only then can I
estimate how much it would cost to comply and how long it would take to develop and
implement reporting programs, purchase equipment, train operators, modify software, etc.
Without all this work, I cannot prepare detailed comments on how the rule will impact our
operations and how it could be modified to provide reasonably accurate information at a more
reasonable cost. I haven't had any opportunity to review the supporting docket information and
other references mentioned in the preamble. The proposed changes to the Renewable Fuels
Standard program were published during the comment period, which adds to the burden.
Regardless of one's opinion/view on Greenhouse Gases and Global Climate Change, no one is
arguing that Greenhouse Gases present acute or imminent threats to human health of neighbors
and/or others down gradient of GHG emitters. Therefore, allowing more time to review and
comment on the rule is justified. In addition, the preamble indicates that USEPA is already
calculating GHG emissions of the various segments of the U.S. economy on an annual basis.
For all these reasons and more, please extend the comment period!
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Jerry Call
Commenter Affiliation: American Foundry Society (AFS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0356.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat 1844 (2008),
signed by President Bush on December 26, 2007 required the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to propose and promulgate a rule to require mandatory reporting of GHG emissions by
September 2008 and June 2009, respectively. Due in part to the comprehensive nature of the
proposed regulation, EPA did not publish the proposed regulation until April 10, 2009.
Accordingly, consistent with the mandate from Congress, EPA should issue the final regulation
nine months from the proposed rule in January 2010. Given the magnitude of the proposed rule
21

-------
and the potential impact on regulated industries, EPA needs to allow the public adequate time to
review the proposed regulation and prepare comments. The 60-day comment period provided
for this novel and comprehensive proposed rule did not allow sufficient time for effective
evaluation. EPA should allow for additional time for the public to submit supplemental
comments on the proposed rule.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Paul R. Pike
Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0487.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Ameren appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking proposal.
However, the 60-day comment period was insufficient to allow for a complete review and
development of comments on a number of issues upon which EPA seeks comment. We did not
directly seek an extension, but hoped that the Agency would allow one due to the important
nature of the proposal. Therefore, EPA should not consider a failure to comment on a particular
part of the rule, or to respond to a specific request for comment, as support for the proposed rule
or approach, and our comments will also be limited to the subparts directly affecting Ameren.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: See Table 5
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: In recognition of the unparalleled breadth of the proposal, GPA supports EPA's
decision to have a serious, comprehensive, and deliberative dialogue with the regulated
community regarding the proposed rule's purpose, methods, and timeline. Anything less would
be inadequate and may not result in sound policy based upon reasoned decision-making. In
order to ensure that the proposed regulation is adequately vetted and meets the intended goals,
GPA reiterates its request, as stated in its April 28, 2009 letter to EPA, to extend the public
notice and comment period by an additional thirty days at a minimum, so that the affected
sources may have adequate time to review the proposal, consider its implications, and engage in
further dialogue with EPA as appropriate. The scope and specificity of the comments that follow
are clear indicators that the rule's complexity and novelty require extended review. As EPA
knows, the validity of an inventory rests not merely in its scope, but also in the quality of the
information inventoried. It disserves the purpose of the inventory to risk inadequate vetting of
the rule's many requirements for gathering and reporting information that will ultimately define
the inventory's validity.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
22

-------
Commenter Name: William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation: Vice President, Scientific Programs, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0163
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Please find attached The Fertilizer Institute's request for extension regarding EPA's
recently issued Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Joseph A. D'Amico
Commenter Affiliation: Foundation Coal Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0421.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: We believe that other interested parties were justified in requesting an extension of
time for which to file a comment to the proposed Rule, as the comment period is insufficient to
allow for comprehensive review and EPA interpretation of many aspects of this proposal.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: James S. Loving
Commenter Affiliation: National Cooperative Refinery Association (NCRA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0609.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Request a 60-day extension of comment deadline.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Matt Smorch
Commenter Affiliation: Countrymark Cooperative, LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1081.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Countrymark requests that EPA extend the comment period on the proposed
regulations for at least an additional sixty (60) days if not longer since the proposed regulations
are so complex and involved that additional time is necessary to make a complete review and
determine the impact of the regulations.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Gary F. Lindgren
Commenter Affiliation: Calumet Specialty Products Partner, L.P.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0626.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
23

-------
Comment: EPA needs to extend the public comment period in order to give the regulated
community adequate time to study and determine the resources needed for implementation, if
finalized, and to propose alternative, less costly means of achieving the stated goal. 1. This is a
complex rulemaking, extending across the economy 2. Preliminary review indicates that the
costs of implementation are significantly greater than EPA projections 3. Greenhouse gases do
not pose acute hazards to human health, and do not justify artificially tight timeframes for
regulation 4. EPA is already calculating GHG emissions for various sectors of the economy 5.
The public comment period for this proposed rule overlaps with the public comment period for
another 200+ page proposed rulemaking, specifically, the Renewable Fuel Standard published in
the May 26, 2009 Federal Register.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1. EPA
decided to extend the public comment period for the Renewable Fuel Standard by an additional
60 days until September 25, 2009 (see 74 FR 32091 for the notice extending the public comment
period).
Commenter Name: Paul Glader
Commenter Affiliation: Hecla Mining Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0579.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Additionally, extensions of the comment period were requested by some industries,
and those requests were denied by EPA. The period for public review and comment on this
extensive document has been insufficient.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Additionally, although NMA did not request an extension of the comment period for
this proposal, NMA believes that other interested parties were justified in requesting an
extension and believes that the comment period is insufficient to allow comprehensive comment
on many aspects of this proposal. NMA and its associated members did not have sufficient time
to develop comment on many aspects of the proposed reporting rule, and EPA should not
construe failure to comment on any given aspect of the proposal as support for a particular
approach or program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
24

-------
Comment: Caterpillar respectfully requests that EPA extend, by at least 60 days, its public
comment period on this Reporting Rule. EPA may have established the short comment period of
60 days in response to deadlines under the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Act was signed into law on December 26, 2007, and directed EPA to propose a rule by
September 2008, and to finalize a rule nine months later. Publication of the proposed rule,
however, was delayed six months past the specified deadline. This delay, due to no fault of
industry, should not prejudice Caterpillar's ability to fully analyze and respond to the GHG
Reporting Rule. A rule of this magnitude and complexity, that expands EPA's authority over
virtually every economic activity in the nation, and is supposed to harmonize with international
schemes, deserves more than the agency's standard comment period. EPA should grant
stakeholders the additional time they need (no less than an additional 60 days) to analyze and
comment on the Reporting Rule, and should postpone implementation for the reasons stated in
these comments, the agency's delays in proposing the rule, and the various and significant
inconsistencies with provisions set forth in pending Congressional legislation on this exact
subject matter. In the alternative, Caterpillar respectfully requests that EPA pause the regulatory
march of this rule, and allow Congress to do its job, finalize pending GHG legislation, and
provide a proper legislative framework within which EPA can develop well-ordered regulations.
Response: EPA did not extend the public comment period for this rule. For EPA's reasons for
not extending the comment period, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0211.1, excerpt 1. For the response to the comment on delaying promulgation of the rule, see the
response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above and Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of
this document.
Commenter Name: Lisa Beal
Commenter Affiliation: Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0171.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA), a trade association of
the interstate natural gas pipeline industry, respectfully requests a 90-day extension to the public
comment period for the Proposed Rule, Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (Proposed
Rule) dated April 10, 2009 (74 FR 16448). This request would extend the deadline for
comments from June 9, 2009 to September 7, 2009. The Proposed Rule addresses greenhouse
gas (GHG) stationary source requirements in Title 40, Part 98 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(40 CFR 98). INGAA members operate interstate natural gas transmission facilities, and many
of the compressor stations would be affected by the Proposed Rule, including requirements in 40
CFR 98, Subpart C and Subpart W. As the initial federal rulemaking on GHGs, the Proposed
Rule establishes an important foundation for U.S. GHG actions. INGAA believes that the
proposed 60 day comment deadline is wholly inadequate to assess implications, review
thousands of pages of rule content and background documentation, and develop comments
substantiated with technical data. If a 90 day extension cannot be accommodated, a minimum of
at least an additional 60 days extension is necessary (i.e., 120 days total for comment). The
additional comment period is also warranted due to significant additional EPA proposals that
stakeholders must address in the same timeframe. For INGAA members, proposed revisions to
the RICE NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart ZZZZ) affects the same stakeholders, and failure
to grant an extension will undermine the ability to provide constructive comments and respond
effectively to either rule proposal.
25

-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211. 1, excerpt 1. At this
time, EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems). As we consider
next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information.
Commenter Name: Kathy G. Beckett
Commenter Affiliation: West Virginia Chamber of Commerce
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0956.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Chamber has a concern that the comment period provided is insufficient to allow
for meaningful comment on a number of issues upon which EPA seeks comment. Although the
Chamber did not request an extension of time for comment, it is apparent that other parties were
justified in requesting an extension.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Lauren E. Freeman
Commenter Affiliation: Hunton & Williams LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0493.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: UARG appreciates the opportunity to comment on this rulemaking proposal.
However, UARG does not believe that the comment period was sufficient to allow for
meaningful comment on a number of issues upon which EPA seeks comment. [Footnote: UARG
did not itself request extension of the comment period, but several other organizations did and
UARG is disappointed that the Agency denied the requests. See, e.g., EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0224.] As a result, UARG's comments are of a limited nature and EPA should not construe
UARG's silence in these comments on a particular part of the rule, or in response to a specific
request for comment, as support for the proposed rule or approach. In many cases, UARG
simply did not have sufficient time or information to develop comments.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Angela Burckhalter
Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0386.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed rule is very complex and far reaching and will be used to gather data
that will be provided to policymakers to determine future climate change policies and regulations
for GHG emissions. Though we understand EPA is under a timeline specified in the
Appropriations Act, this is an important issue. Impacted entities have not been provided
appropriate time to review and provide comments on this proposed rule. It should be noted that
this proposed rule overlaps with EPA's proposed rules for national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants for reciprocating internal combustion engines and its GHG
endangerment finding. Many impacted entities are reviewing and preparing comments on these
26

-------
proposed rules at the same time they are reviewing and providing comments on this proposed
reporting rule; however, EPA denied requests for an extension to the comment period. We do
not think EPA's 60 day comment period was adequate or appropriate for such an extensive rule.
At a minimum, impacted entities (especially small businesses like independent oil and gas
operators) should have been allowed at least a 120 day comment period.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Melinda L. Tomaino
Commenter Affiliation: Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0628.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: If finalized, EPA's proposal would "require reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
from all sectors of the economy" in very short order. The proposal identifies several differing
reporting requirements by source category and/or threshold of emissions. AGC members have
not been given enough time to determine if, or to what extent, the proposed rule may impact their
businesses. As a general rule, most facilities have never before measured their GHG emissions.
Accordingly, most facilities (1) do not know whether they fall within the proposed reporting
threshold, (2) do not know how to prepare GHG inventory baselines and collect emissions data,
and (3) do not know how to perform audits and verification; all required under the rule.
Moreover, EPA has requested comment on multiple options associated with varying reporting
thresholds, schedules for reporting, means/methods of reporting, the duration of the program, and
data verification approaches. EPA also has questioned whether to include reporting
requirements for in-use fleets and purchased electricity. EPA has already stressed the time-
sensitive nature of this rulemaking (FY08 Appropriations Act requires EPA to issue a final rule
by June 26, 2009) and the "urgent need to finalize it to allow for 2010 data collection." If EPA
continues to deny industry's request to extend the comment period for the current proposed rule,
then AGC suggests that EPA—at the very least—provide a second opportunity for public
outreach and comment on a version of the rule that includes less unknowns and more certainty.
AGC needs a more complete rulemaking package to fairly and accurately access how the
proposed rule would impact its members, to provide more valuable comment to EPA, and to
more effectively prepare members to meet the new requirements. EPA should remain mindful of
that the Data Quality Act and the agency's own Information Quality Guidelines require all
information that EPA disseminates to meet strict standards pertaining to quality, objectivity,
utility and integrity.
Response: For EPA's reasons for not extending the comment period, see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1 above. EPA has determined that
additional outreach for development of the rule is not necessary. For a summary of EPA's
outreach activities, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1
above. For the response to the comment the Data Quality Act, see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0314.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: Lisa Beal
Commenter Affiliation: Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0171.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
27

-------
Comment: Concerns with fugitive methane emission estimate uncertainty apparently resulted in
proposed Subpart W requirements that would significantly burden the natural gas transmission
sector. These concerns have been acknowledged as INGAA worked with EPA on solutions, yet
it appears that natural gas systems are penalized by these efforts. The additional comment period
will provide the opportunity to work constructively towards solutions that equitably addresses
GHG emission reporting requirements for natural gas systems commensurate with accepted
principles for reporting programs. INGAA and the natural gas transmission industry have a
history of responding to EPA rule proposals with substantive and constructive comments
supported by data and analysis. Our comments have historically provided meaningful responses
to areas where EPA requests comments, and offered sound-scientific alternatives and
constructive comment to issues and problems identified in rule proposals. A sixty day comment
period for the Proposed Rule severely hinders INGAA's ability to comment in a similar manner
for this rulemaking. INGAA's historical comments have been consistent with the administration
goal of science-based decision making. A limited comment period will compromise scientific
integrity in the decision making for the Proposed Rule.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1.
Regarding the concerns specific to the natural gas transmission sector, EPA is not going final
with the oil and natural gas systems subpart. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the
public comments and other relevant information. Thus, we are not responding to comments on
this subpart at this time.
Commenter Name: William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0952.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 45
Comment: On April 13, 2009, TFI requested that EPA extend the comment period on the
NPRM to at least 90 days, given the length of the proposed rule and preamble (over 283 pages,
single-spaced and three columns per page in the Federal Register), the thousands of pages of
supporting technical documents and data, and the highly technical nature of the NPRM and
supporting publications. The Natural Gas Association of America, the American Petroleum
Institute, BP of America and the National Association of Manufacturers (on behalf of several
large national trade organizations and industry groups), all similarly requested extensions of the
comment period. EPA denied all of these requests. In its letter to TFI denying TFI's request for
an extension of the comment period, EPA stated that it could not extend the comment period
"[d]ue to the time sensitive nature of this rulemaking and the urgent need to complete this
rulemaking in order to allow for 2010 data collection." There is no reason why 2010 must be the
first year of data collection. It would be preferable to delay the effective date of the rule in order
to allow for meaningful participation of the regulated community in formulating a workable and
reliable reporting system rather than to expedite an unwieldy, impractical rule in order to meet
some self-imposed, arbitrary goal of reporting 2010 data. If, as EPA states in its response letter
to TFI, the NPRM's purpose is to inform decision-making in Congress and the EPA, the Agency
should ensure that information generated by the rule is reliable, rather than merely available at
the earliest possible date regardless of accuracy, cost or practicability. EPA also cites, in its
response to TFI's request for an extension of the comment period, the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act's deadline for finalizing a GHG reporting rule by June 26, 2009. As noted
above, EPA has already failed to comply with the deadline for proposing a GHG reporting rule
28

-------
by Sept. 26, 2008. If the need for the information generated by the NPRM was so urgent, EPA
should have complied with the statutory deadline for proposing the rule, instead of delaying
proposal and only now claiming expediency as a justification for limiting public participation
and review of the NPRM. In her statement during her confirmation hearings before Congress,
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated that the Agency would operate with "unparalleled
transparency and openness" and that "[sjcience must be the backbone of what EPA does."
Unparalleled transparency and openness calls for adequate public participation in the rulemaking
process and adequate time to review the documents upon which EPA has based its regulatory
decisions. EPA cannot claim openness and transparency when it publishes hundreds of pages of
new rules with unprecedented scope and subject matter in federal regulation, along with
hundreds of pages more in supporting documents, but provides only a few weeks to review those
documents. The time period is hardly sufficient to read that volume of information, much less
analyze it and provide meaningful comments and recommendations. Additionally, for science to
truly be the backbone of EPA action, EPA must allow adequate time for scientists with relevant
experience in affected industries to review their data and technical documents. EPA took months
and years to prepare this information and perform the studies upon which the NPRM is based.
Surely EPA can afford 90 days to allow a thorough scientific review of its decision in order to
ensure that science remains the backbone of EPA's decision-making process.
Response: For the response to extend the comment period, see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0211.1, excerpt 1. Through our review of the various alternative
monitoring options and our extensive outreach activities we have determined that the monitoring
approaches selected for each source category are workable and reliable. For additional
information on EPA's outreach activities, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above. With respect to the request to delay the first year of data
collection, see the preamble for the response on the selection of the initial reporting year and the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1, excerpt 1 above.
2. STATUTORY AND EXECUTIVE ORDER REVIEWS
A. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
Commenter Name: Mark Gibbons
Commenter Affiliation: Dairy Producers of Utah
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1567
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The level of paperwork is extremely burdensome. EPA seems to be maximizing and
not minimizing paperwork contrary to the express requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 USC Section 3501 et seq.
Response: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, the information
collection requirements including in this rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The information collection requirements are not enforceable
until OMB approves them. We disagree that this rule maximizes, rather than minimizes
paperwork. For additional information regarding our analysis of the projected costs and hour
29

-------
burden of this rule, see the Section VIII.B. of the preamble and the Information Collection
Request (ICR).
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Comment: NMA believes that the double reporting that will result from the upstream reporting
requirements of the proposal will violate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PWA). Such
requirements for coal suppliers will impose undue cost and administrative burdens on reporting
entities even though EPA already has ready access to sufficient data regarding fossil fuel usage,
combustion and distribution. NMA addresses the available information in the next section. The
purpose of the PWA is to balance the paperwork burden against the public benefit of the
information being sought. In addition to considering the other existing information available,
EPA must consider the purposes the collected data will serve and identify the elements necessary
to achieve those purposes. Additionally, EPA must identify why there is not a less burdensome
means of collecting the information. Because no regulatory policy has been set, NMA believes
that imposing a mandatory GHG reporting rule that imposes additional burdens and costs on
impacted entities violates the PWA, particularly given the available information EPA has at its
disposal. As previously stated, over 93% of the coal consumed in the United States is combusted
in electric generating units. Because EGU's easily emit in excess of 25,000 tons of CO2 per
year, most electric generating facilities will be subject to the mandatory reporting requirements
of the proposal. Most, if not all of these facilities employ continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) in accordance with the Acid Rain Program, and are already equipped to report
actual CO2 emissions to EPA. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration (EIA) currently receives coal data from every power plant in the country
generating at least one megawatt of power. Power plants report the Btu value, volume, sulfur
content and ash content of delivered coal on form EIA-923. Therefore, EPA already has access
to information regarding how much coal is being produced at each mine, the quantity and quality
of coal supplied to individual utilities, and the heating value of the product. This process is
described by EPA in the Technical Support Document (TSD). EPA notes that heating value is
not the same as carbon content. EPA has, however, routinely used well-established emission
factors to convert heating value to carbon content. The TSD further explains that carbon content
emission factors were developed based on data obtained by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
in its National Coal Quality Inventory conducted in conjunction with the Electric Power
Research Institute and the U.S. Department of Energy. EPA used these factors in the proposed
reporting rule to analyze appropriate reporting thresholds for coal suppliers. 74 Fed. Reg. at
16,565, Table KK-1.
Response: For the response to the comment regarding double reporting of emissions from
upstream and downstream sources, see Section II.D. of the preamble and Volume 9 (Legal
Issues) of this document. At this time, EPA is not going final with subpart KK (Suppliers of
Coal) and subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines). As we consider next steps, we will be
reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on these subparts at this time.
30

-------
Commenter Name: See Table 3
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Double-reporting violates the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PWA) by imposing
undue cost and administrative burdens on entities for reporting, even though sufficient data on
monthly and annual fossil fuel consumption already are provided by the EIA. The final rule
must comply with the PWA. PWA's singular purpose is to balance the paperwork burden
against the public benefit of the information being sought. The justifiable burden for GHG
reporting will depend on the type of policy adopted for mitigating GHG emissions. For example,
a reporting rule requiring real-time monitoring of emissions of GHGs at the point source might
be overly burdensome if the policy adopted is anything other than a cap and trade and no
financial instruments are tied to the emissions. From the standpoint of a GHG Reporting Rule,
EPA must consider the following questions in light of the PWA: 1. What information purposes
is the data collection intended to serve, and what data elements are necessary to achieve those
purposes? 2. Are there other existing sources for the necessary information? 3. Is there a less
burdensome way to collect the information? In terms of the first item, there are four main
purposes that data proposed to be collected by EPA arguably could serve - scientific analysis,
policy assessment, regulatory compliance, and litigation - and each of these purposes requires
differing levels of detail. Because no regulatory policy has been set, imposing a mandatory
GHG reporting rule that imposes additional burdensome costs violates the purpose of the PWA
when existing data sources, such as data series from the EIA and GHG emissions publications
from the EIA and EPA, would suffice. Until a policy requiring a new set of monitoring and
reporting is adopted, we recommend that EPA select monitoring and reporting requirements that
allow reporters to have flexibility and that minimize the costs of reporting.
Response: For the response to the comment on "double reporting" by both upstream and
downstream sources, see the preamble section containing responses on source categories to
report and Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of this document.
During the development of the rule, we considered obtaining data from other Federal
government agencies, such as the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, we
determined that in order to collect facility-level emissions data and supply data that is consistent
across all source categories, the data must be collected and verified directly by EPA. In addition,
almost all of the data EPA will collect under this rule is not currently reported to other federal
agencies. For additional information on EPA's decision not to use EIA data for refineries and
fuel importers/exporters, see Section III.MM. "Suppliers of Petroleum Production" in the
preamble to the final rule.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, the information collection
requirements including in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). For additional information regarding our analysis of the projected costs and hour
burden of this rule, see the Section VIII.B. of the preamble and the Information Collection
Request (ICR).
31

-------
Commenter Name: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: There is no need to require that all reporting sources keep records for five years
onsite or to keep the records open for inspection since EPA already has received the information
electronically. Because EPA has the information electronically, this requirement is unnecessary
and burdensome. EPA attempts to justify the recordkeeping request beginning at 1 .P. 146.
EPA's justification does not meet the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC
Sections 3501 and 3508, because EPA appears to be maximizing not minimizing paperwork EPA
significantly underestimates the burden and cost of its requirements.
Response: EPA has determined that a period of three years will be sufficient to allow EPA to
audit and review records for verification of the annual reports. We have, therefore, changed the
record retention requirement in the final rule from 5 years to 3 years. This change will reduce
the recordkeeping burden for many facilities reporting under this rule. For the response to the
comment on the Paperwork Reduction Act, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-1567, excerpt 5 above.
B. UNFUNDED MANDATES REFORM ACT (UMRA)
Commenter Name: J. P. Blackford
Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0661.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: APPA requests that EPA specifically state that a utility must meet all the conditions
listed in 98.33(b)(5)(ii) to be required to report under Tier 4 methodology, otherwise, they are
permitted to report under Tier 3 or lower, as appropriate. APPA requests EPA consider this
under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Response: The commenter is correct that the Tier 4 methodology in subpart C applies only when
all six conditions listed in §98.33(b)(5)(ii) are met. Facilities that must upgrade existing CEMS
to meet Tier 4 requirements have until January 1, 2011 to complete the upgrade and may use
either Tier 2 or Tier 4 monitoring methods for reporting 2010 emissions. For additional
information on the revisions made to subpart C since proposal, see Section III.C. in the preamble
to the final rule.
Commenter Name: J. P. Blackford
Commenter Affiliation: American Public Power Association (APPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0661.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Suggestions for extending the reporting date are made by APPA at the request that
EPA consider this under SBREFA and Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). More than
32

-------
90% of APPA member utilities are SBREFA qualified. All are entities of local government and
are covered by UMRA.
Response: EPA believes that the reporting deadline included in the rule allows a sufficient
amount of time for submitting annual GHG reports and does not place an unreasonable burned
on small entities. For addition discussion of the reporting deadline, see the preamble response on
the selection of the reporting deadline.
As required (SBREFA), we assessed the potential impacts of the rule on small entities, such as
small businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations). The results of this analysis
indicates that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on small entities. For more
information on the economic impacts of the rule on small businesses, see the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA), Section VII of the preamble, and the volume of this comment response document
titled "Cost and Economic Impacts."
We also assessed the effects of the rule on State, local, and tribal governments as required under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). We determined that this rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments and
does not impose any implementation responsibilities on State, local, or Tribal governments. For
additional information on the UMRA review, see Section VIII.D. of the preamble.
To assist small entities, EPA is conducting an active outreach and technical assistance program
designed to help facilities determine whether they are subject to the rule and to help affect
facilities understand the monitoring and reporting requirements. These materials have been
tailored to the various sectors and target small businesses and those industrial, commercial, and
institutional sectors that are less familiar with air pollution regulation.
3. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE
GHG REPORTING RULE
A. GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE RULE
Commenter Name: Tara Ann Rabenold
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0226.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I think it is a great idea to have nationwide mandatory reporting requirements to
supplement the already existing requirements from both the States and Federal Government. It
would be very helpful and more efficient to have an ideally accurate and complete knowledge of
the amount and type of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the environment. I agree that it is
difficult to obtain accurate and complete data from the plethora of voluntary and mandatory
sources already out there.
Response: EPA appreciates your recognition of the importance of this rule.
33

-------
Commenter Name: E. Levin
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0256.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: GHG's have been feared to be an environmentally systemic problem since the
second half of the 20th century, taking steps, although still regarded as "too little too late" by
many, that can eventually lead to a successful solution to the emission of GHG's is a welcomed
agenda and may even serve as a catalyst to a legitimate "clean coal" initiative.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Robbie LaBorde
Commenter Affiliation: CLECO Corporation (CLECO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1566
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: In section I.B of the preamble, it is stated that human activity in association with the
industrial revolution have also changed the earth's atmosphere and very likely are influencing
the earth's climate. Also in section I.B, it is stated that most of the observed increase in global
average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic green house gas concentrations. Both sentences indicate that the effect of green
house gas concentration on climate change has not yet been finalized. Clew agrees with EPA.
In section I.F it is stated that EPA's proposing the mandatory green house gas reporting rule does
not indicate that EPA has made any final decisions related to the questions identified in EPA's
Climate Change ANPR. Cleco agrees that much more information is needed prior to a final
decision being reached by EPA. As a result, Cleco also agrees with EPA that the MRGG is a
needed program for producing a type and amount of data that should be considered prior to
making decisions regarding cause and control with respect to the theory of climate change.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Larry R. Soward
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0619
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I applaud the EPA's efforts in drafting a rule proposal that prioritizes the need for
comprehensive and accurate data relating to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while minimizing
to the greatest extent practicable the burden on those subject to the rule's provisions. With this
rule proposal, the EPA has taken a critical step in building a meaningful foundation to evaluate
our nation's contribution to climate change. The proposed rule contains no emissions reduction
requirements; it only requires that sources above certain threshold levels report monitored or
estimated GHG emissions. I urge the EPA to adopt rules at least as comprehensive as those
proposed, and refrain from narrowing the scope of the rules, including reporting thresholds,
emissions source categories, GHGs included, required reporters and reporting schedules. For
decades, everyone has been keenly aware of the growing scientific certainty that, to some degree,
our human activities contribute to climate change by emitting GHGs. Industry unfettered has
34

-------
emitted trillions of pounds of GHGs since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and, until
very recently, its response to climate change has been to spend decades — and millions of
dollars — quarrelling over the science, rather than gathering needed data or voluntarily reducing
its GHG emissions.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The reporting threshold and GHGs to
report remain unchanged from the proposal. The initial reporting year is still 2010, but reporters
will be allowed to use best available methods in the first quarter. EPA has decided not to include
subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing), subpart J (Ethanol Production), subpart L (Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Production), subpart M (Food Processing), subpart T (Magnesium Production),
subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems), subpart DD (Sulfur Hexafluoridefluoride (SF6) from
Electrical Equipment), subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines), subpart II (Wastewater
Treatment), subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) and the requirements for industrial landfills. EPA
decided that more time was required to review comments and other relevant information for
these selected source categories.
Commenter Name: Mary Munn
Commenter Affiliation: Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0596
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Band supports the EPA's efforts to develop mandatory reporting. Greenhouse
gases (GHGs) must be tracked so mitigation efforts will be effective. Mitigating the effects of
GHG will be a very complicated challenge but inaction is not an option.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: None
Commenter Affiliation: Idaho Conservation League et al.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0590.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The group of Idaho cities, counties, businesses, and non-profit organizations [See
DCN: No. EPA-HQ-OAR-0208-0508-0590.1 for listed organizations.] support the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to create a reliable, accurate and publically
available greenhouse gas registry. Our organizations believe this to be a positive first step in
understanding our national contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution. We look
forward to working with EPA during the implementation of this rule to ensure it will inform the
public of local, regional and national pollution sources. Climate change affects all facets of
Idaho's economy and way of life - agriculture, forestry, tourism and outdoor recreation such as
hunting, fishing and skiing. More wildfires, hotter and drier summers, and less winter snowpack
are increasingly likely in Idaho because of rapidly changing climactic conditions. As Idahoans,
we live close to the land and are among the first to see the impacts of climate change - from
changing snowpack and river runoff to more frequent droughts and forest fires. Global warming
is already affecting Idaho's landscapes and wildlife, and we are encouraged that the EPA is
creating a greenhouse gas registry that will inform the public and any future policy decisions
relating to the global climate crisis.
35

-------
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Roni Neff
Commenter Affiliation: Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0595
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The proposed plan to make greenhouse gas emissions reporting mandatory is a
crucial step forward, and can provide valuable data tools to support policy and other
interventions and to stimulate new ideas and plans to address emissions. The long experience of
voluntary reporting to a variety of regulatory agencies suggests that a mandatory strategy with
enforcement is much more effective - and that it is necessary in order to obtain a comprehensive,
accurate and unbiased database.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: David Rich
Commenter Affiliation: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0642.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: WRI applauds EPA for developing this proposed rule for the mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gases. With this reporting rule, EPA has taken a significant step forward in the US
policy response to climate change. WRI commends EPA for developing a proposed rule that is
well-designed to support current and emerging climate policy needs.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Larry R. Soward
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0619
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: I strongly support the EPA's decision to propose GHG monitoring and reporting
rules, and urge the EPA to reject all insupportable requests to delay vital data collection due to
alleged "unsettled science" or "mixed science." Naysayers claim that efforts to quantify GHGs
are part of a concerted effort to expand government, and will result in governmental intrusion
into private business; that any such efforts will wreck the economy and have devastating
financial impacts on families; that any efforts we make in the U.S. will be negated by the
absence of commensurate efforts in developing nations; and that our industries and businesses
will move to those developing nations so they can freely emit GHGs unchecked. These "doom
and gloom" arguments against beginning to meaningfully address climate change issues are but a
rehash of the continuing refrain heard every time any major piece of environmental legislation or
policy has been implemented in this country to date. The EPA has rightly initiated action that
will help all of us understand the extent of the GHG emitters' impact on the environment and the
public health and welfare of our citizenry, and has proposed to do so in a fair and balanced
approach —both as to the environment and to our economy.
36

-------
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Larry R. Soward
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0619
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: The EPA has done a very good job of minimizing the burden on those potentially
subject to the rule's reporting provisions. A facility will only have to report on source categories
for which the EPA has proposed methods in the rule, and the EPA proposed methods only for
source categories that typically contribute a relatively significant amount to a facility's total
GHG emissions. For small facilities, where feasible, the EPA proposed simplified emission
estimation methods.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Larry R. Soward
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0619
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: The EPA states that the goals of the mandatory GHG reporting program are: "obtain
data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to support a range of future climate change
policies; balance the rule coverage to maximize the amount of emissions reported while
excluding small emitters; and create reporting requirements that are consistent with existing
GHG reporting programs by using existing GHG emission estimation and reporting
methodologies to reduce reporting burden, where feasible." The EPA rule proposal reasonably
and effectively achieves these goals by prioritizing the need for comprehensive and accurate data
while minimizing to the greatest extent practicable the burden on those subject to the rule's
provisions. It should be adopted substantially as proposed.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Tracy Babbidge
Commenter Affiliation: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0449.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: CT DEP strongly supports a cohesive national GHG program based on sound
science. A GHG reporting rule is a fundamental component of such a national program and
EPA's proposed rule is an excellent starting point from which to begin.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
37

-------
Commenter Name: Arthur N. Marin
Commenter Affiliation: Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0556.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NESCAUM supports EPA's efforts to develop a greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting
program. A robust GHG inventory provides the cornerstone data for developing, monitoring,
and evaluating GHG policies and regulatory programs.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: See Table 1
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0358
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The strong new national emissions reporting system the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) recently proposed is at the center of the fight against global warming.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: J. Carl Maxwell
Commenter Affiliation: The American Chemical Society (ACS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0305
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The American Chemical Society is pleased to support proposed regulations (EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508) to create a national greenhouse gas registry. We applaud your work to
create a system for tracking national greenhouse gas emissions and bringing transparency and
efficiency to any future policies concerning the global climate change. ACS believes that a
strong federal effort to study global climate change is essential to help policymakers understand
the steps that will be necessary to protecting our planet. A national registry, as envisioned in this
proposal, will create a baseline with which lawmakers can properly implement an effective,
consistent, and economically viable climate change policy.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Carol Cook
Commenter Affiliation: Coalition for Health Concern, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2125
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We urge the Environmental Protection Agency to implement the Proposed
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting-Rule. This general region is subject to high humidity and
air inversions. The Calvert City Chemical Complex is a major emitter of green house gases,
including the production of refrigerants and fluorinated gases. We appreciate EPA's attention to
the greenhouse gas emissions, and urge strict enforcement
38

-------
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. At this time, EPA is not going final with
subpart L (Fluorinated Greenhouse Gas Production) to allow additional time to review the public
comments and other relevant information on this source category.
Commenter Name: Christina Yagjian
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1m
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The EPA's decision to create an accurate, reliable, and publicly accessible national
greenhouse gas registry is a critical and urgent first step towards solving our climate crisis.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: C. S. Ramirez
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0258
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I firmly believe the substantive requirements of this regulation are past due. With
our understanding of the effects of human industry on climate change evolving on a near daily
basis, data on when, where and how GHG is being released, and more importantly, who is doing
it, is becoming more and more relevant and necessary. Should the need arise, this data could be
use to develop mitigation plans that address the specific needs, of affected regions.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: P. Horan
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0257.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am writing in support of the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule
relating to the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. I believe this is a great need for a rule
like this, and the EPA's proposed rule is a very good attempt at creating one.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: E. Levin
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0256.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule for Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases is consistent with the statutory authority bestowed upon this agency under the
39

-------
Clean Air Act. The proposed rule is not only well within the confines of the EPA's mandate, but
it is also a consumer intuitive directive aimed not just at more accurately assessing the emissions
of GHG's, but hopefully, will also serve as a stimulant to nation wide "green" initiatives.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.	
Commenter Name: L. Annetta
Commenter Affiliation: George Washington University School of Public Health
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0255.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I support the EPA's proposed rule of mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases
(GHG). While I agree with the current provisions, the EPA needs to do more to regulate the
emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly because of its effects on human health. The EPA
should not wait to determine the amount of GHGs being emitted before regulating them. One of
the main drivers of climate change is the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs. The EPA should
simultaneously propose a rule to regulate GHGs, and that process should begin now. GHGs
contribute to global climate change, and on page 16454 of FR Vol. 74, No 68, the Proposed rule
states that "overall risk to human health, society and the environment increases with increases in
both the rate and magnitude of climate change." Furthermore, on page 16465, the proposed rule
states "Regulations targeting black carbon emissions or ozone precursors would have combined
benefits for public health and climate". The proposed rule goes on to say that "This action is not
subject to EO13045 because it does not establish and environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks." While the mandatory reporting of GHGs does not establish a
standard and therefore does not directly mitigate health risks, I feel support for this measure is
necessary as it paves the way for regulation in the future which would help to protect the public's
health. Public Health Implications Recently, in April 2009, the EPA formally declared that
carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases are pollutants that endanger public health and
welfare. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson stated "This finding confirms that greenhouse gas
pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations". While mandatory reporting will
not do anything directly to affect public health, it is an important first step in protecting the
public's health from global climate change by laying the groundwork for further action.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: James O. Kennon
Commenter Affiliation: Sevier Citizens For Clean Air And Water, Inc. (SCCAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0251.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The United States of America can no longer neglect the issue of greenhouse gases.
The science community has been sounding the alarm for years. While some do disagree with
mans contribution to the warming problem, most agree the earth is warming. With the removal
of the vegetation here at home, and around the world, the clock is ticking. The conversion of
agricultural land to other uses is having its effects right here in our valley. It is time to consider
the impacts on the people in regards to the health care problems. Not only is GHG imposing
needless suffering on several thousand innocent people but the increased cost of health care must
be considered in the costs of moving ahead with regulating greenhouse gases. The regulations as
now enforced have not prevented the increase in health related problems caused by greenhouse
40

-------
gases. Many of our members suffer from the health affects caused by GHG, but nothing in the
regulations protect our citizens due to the small population in the area. The 20,000 or so people
in our county suffer just as a population of 300,000 but the regulations do not protect us. At a
USGCRP Seminar on April 20, 1998, Orie L. Loucks, Miami University, Ohio, reported that he
estimated the cost of increased health care at $12 Billion in 1998 dollars. Now, over ten years
later, we have not stopped the trend. Climate Change increases mans mortality rates, causes
rapid respiration in the lungs and bloodstream. Other symptoms are asthma, and asthma-like
attacks that are difficult to live with.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Jesse Prentice-Dunn
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1o
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The EPA's decision to create a national greenhouse gas registry is the first step
towards addressing our climate crisis. I applaud the EPA's decision and urge you to implement
the proposed Federal Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for several reasons. First, a Federal
registry is desperately needed. It is often said that you can't manage what you don't measure, and
this greenhouse gas registry will form the foundation for reducing our emissions in the future.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Megan Fletcher
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1n
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: One of the first steps in creating an effective system in which to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions is establishing a greenhouse gas registry. I am pleased that the EPA is developing
a nationwide registry system that will provide accurate and reliable information about major
emissions and emission sources. A national registry and the data it will provide are essential for
designing effective emission reduction programs.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Cindy Olson
Commenter Affiliation: EcoCoach
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1p
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: With political direct action, the EPA by actually having a comprehensive national
system for reporting emissions makes America actually become in the forefront instead of
behind most of the rest of the world.
41

-------
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: E. Levin
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0256.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: One of the most pressing environmental concerns is the staggering effects burning
coal has on the environment. Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global
warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates: 3,700,000 tons of
carbon dioxide (C02), the primary human cause of global warming— and as much carbon
dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees; 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (S02), which causes
acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can
penetrate deep into lungs; 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic
bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility; 10,200
tons of nitrogen oxide (NOx), as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars
(NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue
making people more susceptible to respiratory illness); 720 tons of carbon monoxide (CO),
which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease; 220 tons of
hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone; 170 pounds of mercury,
where just l/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat; 225
pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing
50 parts per billion; 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and
trace amounts of uranium. [See http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html.]
The negative derivatives from coal production are enormous; the need for heightened reporting
requirements, while appallingly minute compared to the real physical damage being done, is
equally immense. Coal is a combustible black or brownish-black sedimentary rock composed
mostly of carbon and hydrocarbons. It is the most abundant fossil fuel produced in the U.S.
Over 90 percent of the coal used in the U.S. is used to generate electricity. Coal is also used as a
basic energy source in many industries, including cement and paper. In 2006, the combustion of
coal for useful heat and work resulted in emissions of 2,065.3 million metric tons CO2, or 29
percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Cindy Olson
Commenter Affiliation: EcoCoach
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1p
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EcoCoach agrees with the EPA Administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, that we need
comprehensive and accurate data on greenhouse gases because what we can measure we can
change.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
42

-------
Commenter Name: Megan Fletcher
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1n
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: It is my belief that this registry will be the first step in creating climate change
legislation, and I hope the final draft of the registry is strong and comprehensive.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Jesse Prentice-Dunn
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1o
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: I commend the EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Registry which will serve as the
foundation for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and I am hopeful that the Greenhouse
Gas Registry will be the first in a series of EPA decisions that will reduce global warming,
pollution, and move us towards a clean energy economy.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: R. S. Goods
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0233
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: This proposed rule is an excellent idea and has the potential to result in significant
change for the environment. Institution reporting requirements of GHG emissions will enable
the EPA and Congress to do more research and institute regulations and laws to protect the
environment. Hopefully the recordkeeping and reporting requirements in this proposed rule will
lead to regulatory standards for GHG emissions.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0255.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0227
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I support the proposed rule for the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions
from all sectors of the economy. This rule would get the ball rolling for a nationwide inventory
of greenhouse gases which will in all likelihood be regulated in the near future under some sort
of Clean Air Act scheme or a carbon cap and trade system that the United States will be a party
to. The proposed rule does not impose any greenhouse gas controls but rather just monitoring
and reporting which is a good transition between nothing (which is what we currently have) and
43

-------
a full control scheme. A staggered implementation of methods that will lead to addressing the
climate change issue is the wisest way to proceed.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: B. Gentile
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0231.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I support the proposed rule as published for comment. In particular: having these
facilities report their emissions is an important beginning to halting the environmental crisis.
Although I am not usually for government interference with private businesses, these facilities
seem to be incapable of self-regulation. I believe that this rule, although regulatory in nature,
does not put too much pressure on these facilities.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Noor Osman
Commenter Affiliation: National Petrochemical & Refiners Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0220.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Most evidence indicates that the modification of the atmosphere's chemical
composition due to human emission of greenhouse gases has resulted in surface warming. Given
that the United States is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases globally— and the
incontrovertible evidence that these emissions have lead to global climate change, the proposed
regulation is necessary and timely.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: T. Moore
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University Earle Mack College of Law
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0236
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: With society's increased awareness of global warming effects, I think that it is a
great first step for the EPA to establish mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: J. O. Kennon
Commenter Affiliation: Sevier Citizens For Clean Air And Water, Inc. (SCCAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0240
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
44

-------
Comment: I would very much like to see CO2 regulated as soon as possible. The science is in
and it has been delayed for to many years already. In our area the weather has changed and we
must reverse the changes we see taking place. Many states are looking at their own regulations
and we need all states to be governed by the same regulations, You hear about saving Polar
Bears, which is a worthwhile thing to do, but we must think about saving mankind and the ability
to provide food for the table. I strong support the efforts of the EPA in pursuing these
regulations.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Jeffrey Stacey
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0221
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: It is commendable that EPA ("the Agency") is looking forward. The proposed rules,
"intended to support future policy options," can help us address the problem of global warming
not only in our country but also even on an "international" level. See FR Doc E9-5711 at 16468.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: P. Hill
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0232.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Few would seriously argue in this day and age that GHGs are not a significant threat
to the continued existence of our planet, and most would also agree that the threat must be
addressed for our society and economy to continue to prosper. The proposed rule requiring the
gathering and reporting of information regarding emission of GHGs in order to allow inter and
intra agency comparison of the relative ecological damage done over time seems a necessary first
step to determining how to address the damage GHGs cause.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Ushma N. Domadia
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University Earle Mack College of Law
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0234
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The proposed mandatory reporting of GHG will be helpful in addressing climate
change and reducing atmospheric concentrations of GHG, however this requires tracking
company emissions accurately.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
45

-------
Commenter Name: Laurie Burt
Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212b
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: I really applaud EPA for proposing this rule, and I think following the adage that we
can't reduce what we can't measure, consistent and accurate reporting of emissions nationwide is
absolutely a critical foundation for a successful national climate program.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: J. Norton
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0217
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: I applaud the EPA's efforts in working towards regulation of GHGs through the
initiation of mandatory GHG emission reporting. However, the increasing rates of GHG
emissions and the increasing severity of their impacts on planetary and human health preclude
the option of procrastination in setting GHG emission regulations. Though mandatory GHG
emission reporting is a step in the right direction, and analysis of data on emission patterns will
be helpful in developing regulations, I fear that much damage will occur if we await data from
such reports prior to setting regulations.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0255.1, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: R. A. Jones
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0150
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am submitting my comment in favor of the proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule. Collecting emissions data from industry and large businesses is necessary to
have sufficient information available to proceed with targeted pollution reductions. EPA is the
federal agency best equipped to handle the required scientific approach to lowering climate-
altering gases. I strongly urge your policymakers to speed enactment and enforcement of this
Rule.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: J. Friedmann
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0143
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Please institute the proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule as soon as
is possible. The effects of greenhouse gas emissions are damaging our air, land, and sea. We
46

-------
cannot afford to wait a minute more—you don't need me to tell you that the science couldn't be
much clearer.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: J. Kriendler
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0141
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Thank you EPA for such a level headed proposal. This proposal will bring
transparency to an issue that has been obscured by its sheer size. Collecting information
piecemeal from state agencies and the few industries which do report this sort of data has made it
difficult at best to truly assess the depth of our greenhouse gas emissions on a national scale.
The government will have an easier time understanding the challenges of reducing emissions if
we can clearly see our starting point measured in a uniform way, something which can only be
done at a federal level. This program is years over due and I commend the proposal and I hope it
starts very soon.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. As stated in the preamble to the proposed
rule (74 FR 16488, April 10, 2009), monitoring of emissions will begin in 2010, with the first
reports submitted by March 31, 2011.
Commenter Name: K. Keys
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0159
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I wish to state that I am highly in favor of this rule. It is an excellent step forward
toward regulation of GHG emissions and an eventual cap and trade system both of which I am
also highly supportive. Please continue to aggressively pursue all of these objectives so that we
can finally clear America's air of harmful pollutants and greenhouse gases. We cannot afford to
wait any longer.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Z. Bower
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0155
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Finally. This should not even be up for debate. It should have been regulated all
along. The size of the facilities required to report should be lower.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. For additional information on how the
data collected by this rule will be used, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0255.1, excerpt 1 above. For the response to the comment on the size of facilities subject to the
47

-------
rule, see the preamble for the responses on selection of sources to report and selection of the
threshold.
Commenter Name: B. Karney
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0157
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I want to register my strong support for the proposed rule. We must take strong steps
to stop polluting our atmosphere with GHG.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input.
Commenter Name: Rebecca Henson
Commenter Affiliation: Calvert Asset Management Company, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0375
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Calvert would like to voice strong support for this reporting rule. Calvert sees
climate change as a risk to companies who are not prepared for it. There are numerous ways that
we believe companies can responsibly manage these risks, and many of these efforts are
underpinned by quality disclosure. Disclosure is key to addressing climate risks and to giving
investors the information they need to make informed investment decisions. We have worked
closely with voluntary efforts to encourage reporting, such as the Carbon Disclosure Project
(CDP) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), but we strongly believe that a mandatory
reporting requirement is necessary to help bring a large number of reporting laggards up to
speed. The CDP and GRI play important roles in providing an opportunity for responsible
companies to disclose a range of climate-related information in lieu of the absence of mandatory
reporting, but there are still many companies that face climate change risks that do not
voluntarily report. We think that EPA's rule would create a GHG emissions reporting floor for
reporting, and believe that voluntary initiatives could expand upon these efforts to gather
information on how companies are managing emissions and the effects of climate change. As is
implicit in this proposed rule, what gets measured gets managed. We believe that this rule
encourages companies to measure their emissions, which will then in turn provide them with the
necessary knowledge to develop an emissions reduction strategy. In developing this rule,
Calvert would like EPA to give particular attention to the appropriate scope of entities covered
by the requirement, the scope of emissions (beyond Scope 1) that may be included, the specific
format of company reporting and how that data will be disclosed by EPA, and issues surrounding
data quality. Again, a more detailed response to these issues can be found in the attached
document from SIF. [Note: no attachment was received.]
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. With respect to sources covered under
this rule, see the preamble for the response on selection of source categories to report. With
respect to the scope of GHGs covered under this rule, see the preamble for the response on
selection of GHGs to report. For the response to the comment on the format of reporting and
public access to emissions data, see the preamble section on the collection, management, and
dissemination of GHG emissions data and Volume 11 (Designated Representative and Data
Collection, Reporting, Management, and Dissemination) of this document.
48

-------
B. GENERAL OPPOSITION TO THE RULE
Commenter Name: Michael Carlson
Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: It is apparent that these statements as well as the premise of the proposed rule are
predicated on the United Nations' 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and its earlier 2006 report. However, many of the modeling inputs as
well as findings and conclusions presented in these UN reports have been debunked or refuted by
scientists, including Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, as presented in
various peer-reviewed journals and other scientific publications. Many of these papers are
summarized and cited in a recently published book titled Climate Change Reconsidered,
coauthored by Drs. S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso. In short, there is no evidence that increased
global temperatures over the past 50 years is due to human activity, or that increased carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere are unnatural and anthropogenic in origin. Over 31,000
American scientists- including approximately 9,000 with doctorate degrees- have signed a
manifesto that states in part: There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of
carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future,
cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of Earth's climate. Thus,
MEC Environmental Consulting sees no compelling reason for the agency to pursue
promulgation of this rule to mandate reporting of greenhouse gases (GHGs) by American
businesses.
Response: The commenter suggests that the proposed rule was predicated on the United
Nations' 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Although the IPCC report highlights the
seriousness of climate change, EPA reminds the commenter that we are fulfilling the
requirements of the FY2008 Appropriations Act, which specifically required EPA to "develop
and publish a draft rule not later than nine months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a
final rule not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory
reporting of GHG emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the
United States." (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844,
2128 (2008)). The accompanying joint explanatory statement directed EPA to "use its existing
authority under the Clean Air Act" to develop this mandatory GHG reporting rule, and directed
EPA "to include in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from upstream production and
downstream sources, to the extent that the Administrator deems it appropriate." The reporting
program will provide EPA, other government agencies, and outside stakeholders with economy-
wide data on GHG emissions, which could assist in future policy development. Accurate and
timely information on GHG emissions is essential for informing future climate change policy
decisions.
Several commenters have expressed concern regarding the science of climate change. This rule
is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. EPA proposed findings that GHG emissions
from new motor vehicles and engines contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare (74 FR 18886, April 24, 2009, "Proposed
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of
49

-------
the Clean Air Act"). The endangerment proposal has received over 350,000 public comments,
covering the issues raised by the commenters on this reporting rule and many others. We will be
responding to those comments as part of the process of completing that action.
Finally, several commenters expressed the view that the data collected under this rule would not
be useful in any way. The information gathered by this rule will improve EPA's research and
development program as it relates to GHGs and climate change, as well as the Agency's
nonregulatory approaches to preventing or reducing air pollutants. For additional information on
how EPA will use the data collected, see Section I.D of the preamble and Volume 9 (Legal
Issues) of this document.
Commenter Name: Thomas W. Easterly
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Indiana believes that limitations and contradictions of current scientific evidence
associated with the role of anthropogenic GHG emissions in global climate change warrant
further investigation of GHG science prior to costly and cumbersome regulatory action. For
example, recent global temperature data do not indicate any global warming since 1998 and even
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges that reliable long term prediction
of future climate is not currently possible. Earth has gone through these natural temperature
fluctuations on a regular and generally predictable cycle, and there is overwhelming evidence
that it has been doing this throughout geologic history. The variability of the sun's solar activity
and its effect on Earth's climate is still being evaluating, and according to some scientists, may
be the driving factor in temperature variation. This is supported by observed temperature
increases on the other planets in the solar system proportional to the increased observed on Earth.
Until the extent of warming and increases in the global concentration of GHGs resulting from the
Earth's natural cycle can be determined, it is not possible to accurately measure the impact of
human activity on this cycle, or to determine if human activities have any measureable effects.
The proposed reporting rule does not account for water vapor from either anthropogenic or
biogenic sources. In addition, the proposed rule will only inventory approximately 54.9% of the
remaining anthropogenic GHG emissions from the U.S. and even less of the total amount of
CO2 emitted from all anthropogenic sources. Additionally, the total anthropogenic contribution
of GHGs is dwarfed in comparison to that from biogenic sources. For example, conservatively
assuming that water vapor contributes 70% of the total GHGs emitted, and the proposed
reporting rule only addresses 54.9% of the remaining anthropogenic emissions from sources
within the U.S., only 16% of US anthropogenic GHG emissions would be accounted for through
this rulemaking. It is reasonable to assume that the effect of less than 16% of the GHGs within
the U.S. alone would have a miniscule or even undetectable effect on climate change on a global
scale. Indiana supports environmental protection actions that result in benefits to human health
and the environment and that are achieved at a reasonable cost to society. The U.S. is currently
struggling with serious economic woes. Applying a mandatory reporting rule to U.S. businesses
in order to ultimately address global climate change, outside of any international framework that
brings together all of the world's major economies, both developed and developing, would
simply export economic activity and emissions to less-regulated countries and might not generate
any net reduction in worldwide GHG emissions.
50

-------
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment on why water vapor is excluded from the rule, see Volume 2 (Selection of Reporting
Thresholds, Greenhouse Gases, and De Minimis Provisions) of this document. For more
information on the economic impacts of the rule, please refer to the regulatory impact analyses,
and the volume of this comment response document titled "Cost and Economic Impacts."
Commenter Name: D. A. Huff
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0281
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I find the need for the rule to be unsupported by either the historical estimates of
GHG levels for the past 600 million years or the existing primitive scientific models. Action on
GHGs should be deferred until science provides more verifiable/credible evidence that man-
made GHGs are actually driving climate change and that current climate trends are, in fact,
potentially hazardous to life on this planet. Until, such definitive evidence is forth coming,
implementing rules that will cost the American public billions of dollars is wasteful and betrays
the public trust that the American people should expect from its government agencies.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0501.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Existing climate models are not precise enough to make useful predictions about
earth's future climate. Their accuracy is undetermined. Many climate models have been
developed. For example the graph [[note: see DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0501.1 for graph
showing temperature change vs. year] taken from the website:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/climate-model-predictions-it%E2%80%99s-timefor-a-
reality-check/ One disconcerting feature of these models is that they do not give the same
answer. Predictions based on well establish laws give the same answer. For example Newton's
laws of motion applied to space activity allow everyone to get the same answer. This makes it
possible for any nation to put a satellite into orbit or hit the moon or send an astronaut to the
moon and return. It's not like sometimes you hit and sometimes you miss. No one would
consider sending an astronaut into space without understanding perfectly the physics of motion
to bring him back. I submit that climate models do not contain physical principles of sufficient
precision and accuracy to warrant their use to make Federal regulations.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: R. Cable
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0259
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
51

-------
Comment: Regulating carbon dioxide as a GHG would be quite foolish. First of all, global
warming (climate change as some people now call it) is not a proven science. Many experienced
scientists have expressed doubt at to whether man has anything to do with any type of climate
change. Is it wise to prejudge the issue when so many scientists express doubt with climate
change? With new technology, many industries can ameliorate or even prevent the effects any
type of environmental derogation relating to carbon dioxide. By regulating carbon dioxide as a
GHG, many industries would suffer financially. As a result, massive layoffs would occur.
Furthermore, the average American citizen would have to pay increased energy costs seeing as
how companies pass on higher taxes from excessive government regulations to their customers.
Put America first, not junk science.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: R. Purcell
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0332
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Controlling C02 emissions may be currently politically correct but it's still ridiculous
practically. CO2 regulation will have no effect on climate; it will devastate the USA's economy
and create windfalls for politically connected special interests. Concentrate on getting a practical
regulatory system for methane, oxides of nitrogen, and hydroflurocarbons; eschew the CO2
scam.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. The rationale for
excluding CO2 from the reporting program is not clear from the comment. All of the GHGs
covered by this rule are well-mixed in the atmosphere and are changing the radiative balance of
the atmosphere.
Commenter Name: D. A. Huff
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0281.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Since the underlying premise for requiring mandatory GHG reporting (particularly of
CO2, which accounts for the majority of the GHGs that will require reporting under the proposed
rule) is that human-caused emissions of GHGs are changing the climate of Earth in a way that
will negatively impact life on this planet, the EPA needs to address the following technical issues
prior to proceeding with costly reporting measures that are intended to support even more costly
GHG controls in the future: During the history of life on this planet, the concentration of CO2 in
the atmosphere is estimated to have varied from approximately 7000 ppm during the Cambrian
period and 1800 ppm during the Jurassic period to a low of about 280 ppm during the pre-
industrial portion of the Quaternary period that we now live in. In fact, by historical standards,
the 390 ppm of CO2 that we are now experiencing is significantly lower than what the Earth has
52

-------
normally experienced for most of the past 600 million years. Since life on Earth has thrived
during periods where C02 has been from 5-18 times higher than it is today, what verified and
validated scientific evidence exists that forms the technical basis for concluding that costly GHG
reporting measures are currently necessary?
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: D A. Huff
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0281.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Since 95 percent of the greenhouse effect on Earth is caused by water vapor rather
than the GHGs covered by the proposed rule, what is the scientific basis for concluding that the 5
percent of GHGs resulting from human activities (i.e., 0.25 percent of the total greenhouse
effect) warrant the imposition of costly mandatory reporting of the GHGs that are generated by
human activities? In the past several years, hundreds of respected scientists including noted
climate scientists have begun to seriously question the scientific studies and computer models
that have concluded that man-made GHGs are responsible for the relatively modest climate
changes that have occurred in the last one hundred years. Since a vigorous debate is still going
on in the global scientific community with respect to the actual causes of climate change and the
ability of humans to actually change current climate trends, what is the basis for requiring costly
reporting of GHGs before the science has been settled? An objective review of available
literature on climate science cannot avoid the conclusion that the science of predicting future
changes in climate suffers from a gross lack of representative data and technical understanding of
the highly complex planetary processes that drive local and global climate trends and changes.
Because of this fact, climate science should be regarded as a scientific discipline that is at a
primitive developmental stage which lacks the level of knowledge, data, and computing power
that is needed to create reliable predictive climate models. In light of this fact, what independent
scientific studies have been done that conclude that climate science and models are sufficiently
mature and robust to drive proposed regulatory actions that will cost the American people
billions of dollars to implement? If such studies do not exist, what are the technical and
economic bases for proceeding with the proposed mandatory reporting of GHGs in the absence
of such studies? Since no reputable climate predictions indicate that response to recent climate
trends necessitates any urgent action, the current rush to impose regulatory requirements on
GHGs runs contrary to the common sense approach of allowing more time to better understand
the science behind climate change before requiring costly measures to report and control them.
Before committing large quantities of public money to such endeavors, the American public
deserves reasonable assurances that the associated expenditures are in the public interest and that
they are the best use of the public funds that will be needed to implement them. Where are the
independent studies that provide the American people with such assurances? If they do not exist,
what is the rationale that supports the need for urgent action with respect to reporting man-made
GHGs? Unless there are strong technical reasons for imposing new reporting requirements right
now rather than waiting until climate science is better understood, the proposed GHG reporting
requirements should be shelved until more data and scientific study has been done to verify the
need for them.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
53

-------
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0272
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The proposed rulemaking is unfounded on scientific facts and is dangerous policy.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: L. Frazer
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0323
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Given the diverse opinions within the scientific community, before any costs are
incurred that have negative economic impact, there should be established creditable scientific
evidence that the GHGs resulting from man's industrialization activities in fact have a
controlling causal effect on the earth's climate. Do man a favor, do not be stampeded by
"Chicken Little", invest in real endeavors not falsehoods.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: G. D. Roland
Commenter Affiliation: none
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0708.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: As a concerned citizen I am opposed to the proposed regulations referenced above.
There is no scientific proof cited in your text which justifies the gathering of information and
placing additional burdens on the suppliers and manufacturers which will be affected by these
proposed regulations. On the contrary, the lost jobs, costs in taxes and compliance programs are
not only unnecessary but will impact the economy both immediately and by trickling down to the
consumer, ultimately hitting the mid and low income classes the hardest. The first section of
your preamble includes background information which the writers admit that even though the
data collection will be required, it will not replace the data collection system already in place
(page 16455). What an absolute waste of time, energy and resources by all, including EPA!
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. On page 16455 of the preamble for the proposed rule (74 FR 16488,
54

-------
April 10, 2009), we stated that the Mandatory Reporting Rule would not replace the Inventory of
U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (Inventory). Please see Section I.D. of the preamble for the
discussion of the relationship between this reporting rule and the US Inventory.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0249
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: This move worries me because this is a back door way of getting cap and trade
through without any representation of the people. This a horrible move in an unstable,
fluctuating economy. This will cost the American family thousands of dollars a year. Why do
you people in the EPA think you have the right to push through a politically motivated mandate
that could literally break whatever economy we have left. This wrong, and frankly, this is
happening in an extremely un-American way. Something this big and far-reaching should go
through the American political process.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. Finally, please note that this rule requires only reporting of GHG
emissions and does not establish a cap and trade program or impose any limitations on the
amount of GHG a facility can emit.
Commenter Name: Pat Carlson
Commenter Affiliation: Eagle Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0254
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: All of these new rules are based on the theory that human activity causes global
warming. Human activity consist of only 3% of all CO2 in atmosphere, There is no worldwide
scientific consensus of scientists who agree with the IPCC report (see attachment). 31,478
American scientists (9,000 with PhD's) have signed a petition stating "There is no convincing
scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is
causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate." The Earth has not warmed in the last 10 years and since
2001, CO2 levels have increased in the atmosphere with no temperature rise. Only God controls
the weather. These new rules will cost every American household and will change our lifestyles
forever. It probably will destroy the whole of our economy. Please use common sense and do
not go forward with these rules. They are bad for America and Americans. [The commenter
provided two attachments. In the first attachment, Mr. Carlson summarizes the discussion on
"Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?" held at the Second Heartland International
Conference, in New York (March 2009). The second attachment is a summary prepared by Mr.
Carlson of the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn (April 2009).]
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
55

-------
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: G. H. Holliday
Commenter Affiliation: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0170.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA demonstrated, in the proposed C02 sequestration rule (25 July 2008 at 73 FR
43492-43541), there is no physical evidence to support the contention that increasing
concentrations of greenhouse gases cause climate change warming. In support of the July
proposed rule, EPA relied only upon the IPCC computer climate simulation program. EPA and
Congress are or should be aware from Congressional hearings presentations by Drs. Lindzen, 2
May 2001; Wegman, 19 July 2006 and Christy, 25 February 2009, that CO2 will not cause
significant climate change. Also, EPA knows or should know that the IPCC program does not
fully model cloud moisture. Thus, calculation results are questionable. Clouds are very
complex, because different parts of a cloud can be water vapor and ice crystals at the same time.
No one can predict accurately the percentage of water vapor and ice crystals present in a cloud.
Relying on the IPCC or any other computer generated weather prediction for technical support
for promulgating potentially economically devastating rules is not scientifically justified. EPA
appears to selectively provide data to support the "Chicken Little' concept that the "sky is
falling." The public has the right to expect EPA to be a science oriented Agency. On the
contrary, EPA only provides data and discussion issues supporting the proposed rule. There is
no transparence or objectivity in EPA discussions regarding their rules. EPA considers their
position as the only possible position. Further, EPA is showing signs of dishonesty, because of
the excessive cost and social injustice caused by their rules. Is EPA providing an honest and
unbiased evaluation in this GHG proposed rule? My reading of the proposed rule suggests EPA
is withholding facts!
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. The proposed UIC rulemaking does not state or imply that "there is no
physical evidence to support the contention that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases
cause climate change warming." To the contrary, it refers to the peer-reviewed scientific
literature that demonstrates the seriousness of climate change. Further, all EPA rulemakings are
subject to a transparent process of notice and comment, which has been robust for this and other
rules.
Commenter Name: Daniel J. Mathieu
Commenter Affiliation: Muth Company, LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0210.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I respectfully oppose your GHG reporting proposition. I'm sure your wish is to do
right. However, knowing how difficult it is to understand even simple systems like electronics, I
firmly believe that accurately modeling our entire climate system is not currently feasible.
Simply watching a local weather forecast prove inaccurate or watching the Martian ice cap
56

-------
shrink in sync with ours, should be evidence enough that we have a ways to go. One might
argue that we can't afford to wait, but that's like putting all men on Chemotherapy just because 1
in 3 are destined for prostate cancer. No one would force such an absurd, unnecessary suffering
on the 2 healthy men. Taking the medical analogy further, I suggest adopting the doctor's motto:
"Above all, do no harm". No one can say with certainty that climate change will do harm.
Adopting GHG reporting rules will definitely do harm, to our economy, to our national security,
and to those who loose their jobs when businesses close rather than comply. I urge you to wait
until the models have been irrefutably proved valid and until the repercussions of those models
findings can be fully evaluated before action is taken.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0209
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Until it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that these greenhouse gases cause
global warming, these regulations need to be stopped. The EPA has become the scapegoat to
make these rules to regulate knowing that the majority of Americans do not believe in global
warming and that legislation (Cap & Trade) would never be passed. These regulations will be
oppressive and costly to industries and individuals. In the end, the government will levy taxes
that I can't even imagine and ultimately make the low and middle taxpayers poorer. Moreover, I
do not want a government agency regulating each breath needed for me to live.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. Note that this rule
requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish a cap and trade program or
impose any limitations on the amount of GHG a facility (or any other entity) can emit.
Commenter Name: C. Harman
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0172
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am against this rule. I believe it is another waste of my money.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0182
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
57

-------
Comment: The United States, is currently assigned responsibility for about 4% of all planetary
greenhouse gases. The rest originates in the third world, Europe, China, and India, where no
controls or measurements are in place. The amount produced by U.S. Industrial and vehicular
sources, the subject of this rule, is 20% of the total U.S. amount (4%), or a total of 0.8% of
earth's greenhouse gas emissions on a daily or annualized basis. During the 20th Century, 90%
of all greenhouse gases have been ejected from the random eruptions of volcanoes. There is no
evidence that the costly elimination of the industrial and vehicular emissions of U.S. sources,
would have any effect on the planetary gases continuing to be expelled. In fact, the growth, on
an annual basis, of non U.S. greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, exceeds the entire U.S. total,
of all industrial, transportation and agribusiness sources. No amount of measurement, reporting,
or regulation, limited to U.S. sources, will reduce the annual planetary greenhouse gas
production and emissions.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0213
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Requiring that all sources of greenhouse gas be identified is the first step to the
eventual regulation of American industry by the EPA. If you get this authority, you'll put
American industries out of business just like you did to thousands of old gas stations over
underground storage tanks.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. Note that this rule
requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish a cap and trade program or
impose any limitations on the amount of GHG a facility can emit.
Commenter Name: G. H. Holliday
Commenter Affiliation: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0170.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA knows or should know IPCC reports have turned from presentation of science
into a politically supported discussion of Climate Change dogma, devoid of science. EPA
appears to be participating in continuing this cruel climate hoax, pushed by people who want
power and money. Without physical evidence of greenhouse gases on global climate
temperature increase, there is no need of GHG Inventorying. The current physical evidence [see
DCN:EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0170.1 for graph showing monthly temperature data versus
CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa, HI], which combines measurement from two world recognized
laboratories is ignored by IPCC and governmental Agencies, demonstrates that for the last seven
years the global atmospheric temperature has decreased while the CO2 has increased. Seven
years of data is a short time, but it represents more physical evidence of cooling than IPCC, EPA
or the U.S. Congress has presented demonstration global warming [see submittal for figure
58

-------
provided by commenter showing Earth's Averaged temperature decrease since 2002 as measured
by satellite and interrupted Hedey Laboratory (GB), and University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Assuming EPA desires to demonstrate to U.S. citizens even a modicum of scientific ethics, EPA
must forth-rightly discuss the scientific and physical evidence that reducing greenhouse gases
emissions will or will not significantly modify current climate, since, as shown above by the
Figure, the current observed temperatures decrease is occurring, while C02 concentrations
increase. First, EPA needs to go back to Congress with a Statement of Fact, to the affect that, the
premise used by Congress in developing the inventory request is scientifically not sound and
should be withdrawn. If Congress refuses to withdraw the greenhouse inventory requirement,
EPA must withdraw the current proposed rule, resubmit the proposed rule modified to include
factual information regarding the scientific data supporting the lack of need for the inventory,
eliminate from the proposed all greenhouse gases other than C02, and raise the reporting limit to
at least twice the current proposed limit. Once the inventory is complete, promulgate a
greenhouse gas rule exempting all greenhouse gases from future inventorying and emissions
control.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. For additional information on the selection of GHGs and the 25,000
metric ton CC^e threshold, see volume 2 of this document and the preamble for the responses on
selection of GHGs to report and selection of the threshold.
Commenter Name: R. Young
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0203
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am extremely concerned and opposed to this new regulation. I use the following
comments as a basis for my opposition: 1) CO2 and methane are a natural trace gases that
represent .04% (rounded up) and .00017%, respectively (references: many internet sources
showing trace gas status). These trace gases are lagging indicators of overall atmospheric
conditions. 2) Current IPCC computer modeling simulation software has completely failed to
predict the latest global cooling events, therefore these computer models are deeply flawed.
These models use various so-called green house gases as part of the predictive modeling
software that is largely still experimental software design exercise. The following document is a
strong proof the current modeling methods are deeply flawed,
http://wcrp.wmo.int/documentsAVCRP_WorldModellingSummit_Jan2009.pdf. This paper calls
for an international effort to dramatically improve software computational systems that include
needed weather feedback mechanisms to better predict future climate trends that are impossible
with current computational capabilities. 4) There are no scientifically scaled experiments that
have detailed the actual measured impact of larger concentrations of either CO2 or methane.
Example: no one has yet filled a giant room, say NASA AMES wind tunnels, with atmosphere
then scientifically measured the impact as the trace gas concentrations have increased or
decreased. 5) CO2 safety concentrations have been well documented by several sources as far
back as 1918 (reference: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?
artid=1362235&blobtype=pdf) and other recent sources including the Minnesota Department of
Health (reference: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/indoorair/CO2/carbondioxide.pdf) and
a simple summary of CO2 poisoning at http://www.inspectny.com/hazmat/C02gashaz.htm.
59

-------
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: M. Gordon
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0167
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I oppose any effort to require the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gases. The
entire idea of global warming/climate change is a hoax. The purpose behind this policy is to
further increase the powers of the federal government in this area. The US Constitution does not
grant Congress, or the administrative state, the powers to regulate this area. Further, the only
purpose behind this policy is to make the American people poorer and to provide new benefits to
the political class. For these reasons, I strongly oppose the mandatory reporting of Greenhouse
Gases. Global warming/climate change is a hoax.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: J. Coon
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0154
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I strongly urge the EPA to abandon attempts to implement this rule. There is no
evidence that CO2 released into the atmosphere by industry is having any negative effect. While
the opposite is true beyond any doubt, restricting the release of CO2 by industry limits our
productivity, unnecessarily wastes resources, burdens the population with extra costs, and serves
no practical purpose. The popular opinion of CCVs relationship with Global Warming is
backward, CO2 does not cause Global Warming, CO2 is the byproduct of a warmer planet.
Regulating CO2 in an attempt to influence Global Warming is nothing more than the tail
wagging the dog. Please don't give in to the simplistic notion that atmospheric CO2
concentrations and Global temperature have a direct cause-and-effect relationship. If it were that
simple it would have been reproduced in thousands of high school science classrooms by now.
Even the multi-billion dollar climate models can't explain why the Earth stopped warming 10
years ago, despite the output of CO2 continuing to climb. This proposed rule plays into junk
science, is a waste of my tax dollars, and would unnecessarily burden our country's industry at a
time when we need to be focused on economic recovery, not new rules to make us even less
competitive in the Global Marketplace.
Response: The rule requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish a cap and
trade program, impose taxes on emissions, or limit the amount of GHG a facility can emit. For
the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate science, see the
response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the comment
60

-------
concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: R. E Michaels
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0201
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: How stupid can you be to try to regulate one of the gasses required for ALL life on
Earth!
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: R. Young
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0202
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am a private citizen who has worked in many industries within the USA including:
automotive tooling manufacturing, consumer products tooling manufacturing, aerospace and
defense, telecommunications, computer programming, and project management. I say with great
confidence this broad sweeping proposal is a major mistake for American industry and
commerce. This type of major unfunded mandate of regulations is far beyond the scope of the
EPA and should rightfully be thoroughly discussed, line-by-line, within the halls of national and
state congresses. This regulation will burden industry with crushing new costs that only serve to
export more industrial knowledge to other countries where this type of regulation simply does
not exist. I'm sure agencies of competing countries would love for the USA to install this type
of burden on our economy; they would immediately enjoy the benefit of economic growth as we
export more products and industries to other nations. My simple analysis —> STOP, do NOT do
this regulation.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: A. Williford
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0194
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: So, the EPA is now going to regulate CO2, since Congress doesn't have the guts to
do it. That's just lovely. I have a question; since human beings exhale carbon dioxide, doesn't
that mean that the EPA will have virtually limitless boundaries for exercising control over us?
Anyone care to bet on how long it will be before we have a "one child" policy like China, or at
least some similar restriction on the number of children we are "allowed" to have? After all,
61

-------
those babies will be emitting CO2 with every breath they take, not to mention the size of each
new baby's so called "carbon footprint" over the course of their lives. Allowing the EPA or any
other government agency to regulate CO2 will give them a level of control over our lives that is
nothing short of Orwellian. I could not possibly be more opposed to this madness.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. Nothing in this rule imposes any information requirement related to
respiration and there is absolutely no foundation for the concerns expressed regarding family
size. The focus throughout the rule is fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers and the
largest direct greenhouse gas emitters and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and
engines.
Commenter Name: Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0195
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We are, but a speck on this planet. And we do not change the temperature of the
Earth. We do not need, or, can we afford, your costly plan, to raise utility rates, in the least.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: S. Parker
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0162
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I believe it is time for the EPA to do its job of protecting the public, and to stop
trying to be "Politically Correct" and continuing to implement and enforce regulations that
follow a Political Agenda and continues to defy common sense and good science! A1 Gore's
studies are bad science, as shown by many sources. CO2 and the "greenhouse effect" are little
more than a myth at this point and time, defying logic and scientific facts. One cannot set
policies that are based upon statistics, defy logic, and bend facts. Unless, I guess, you are the
EPA! Please take another look at this. Please examine ALL of the facts. Implementing these
regulations will not only NOT be helpful to the environment, but they will create tremendous
damage to our economy, costing us billions of dollars and millions of jobs. The so-called
"Green" Industry will benefit a select few investors on the "inside track" for this policy, but will
exact punishment on our already struggling industrial base.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
62

-------
Commenter Name: S. Banks
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0197
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I too am against this rule. The EPA should not be given power over congress to
make regulations; especially when it's regulation based on a bunch of phony science. I read
articles about this rule, and EPA Chair Lisa Jackson didn't give one ounce of scientific data,
other than a consensus of uncredited "government scientists".
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0187
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am against this ruling and it's findings. Man-made global warming is a myth, it is
merely mother earth going thru her cycles and it is not man-made and you are just out of touch if
you think man could do anything at all to change her cycles.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: D. Yvars
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0144
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: What is being proposed in the name of "saving the planet" is slow, deliberate,
deceptive indoctrination that will forever change the essence of what this Country was founded
on ... liberty. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.. .is an essential compound among many that has
engineered this planet for life. What you are proposing is a step among many that will dictate all
human activity in the name of science. It is not science. It is the power of the government to tax
and control the entire economy of this Country...Communism by another name.. .the means are
different.. .the ends are the same. American would never give up their freedom without the most
deceptive form of propaganda. In the country that prides itself on allowing all voices to be
heard, your Agency has systematically denied debate...marginalized scientists who dare to
disagree with your conclusions...I just hope that when the ramifications of this totalitarian power
grab on the economy and the citizens of this "last best hope of mankind", Americans will not
allow it.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1 above.
Note that this rule requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish a cap and
trade program or impose any limitations on the amount of GHG a facility can emit.
63

-------
Commenter Name: C. Wilson
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0148
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I wish to offer my voice in opposition to the proposed GHG reporting rule. This will
add considerable expense without any substantive identifiable benefit to the environment. This
environmental bean- counting assumes global warming as proven and undisputable fact. There
are a significant number of scientists and environmental experts who do not agree with the
pseudo-scientists and politicians who relentlessly promote global warming as fact rather than
opinion. The science is anything but conclusive on this matter and certainly not certain enough
for extreme measures such as this. Please resume reasonable environmental protection measures
and focus and please abandon these foolish and expensive earth micro-managing exercises in
wasting money.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: K. Wright
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0147
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: My research into the question of Climate on Planet Earth has discovered that the
largest "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere is WATER VAPOR. 95% of greenhouse gas is
water vapor. This finding is not surprising given that 70% of the surface of Earth is liquid
WATER. Human activity contributes insignificant amounts of water vapor, relative to the size
of the atmosphere, but considerably more water vapor than other compounds such as carbon
dioxide, or methane, which you are seeking to regulate. As a result of this fact, your rules about
the other man-produced gases are in error, and will result in great amounts of economic damage
to our economy, based upon your false assumptions.
Response: For the response to the comment on why water vapor is excluded from the rule, see
Volume 2 (Selection of Reporting Thresholds, Greenhouse Gases, and De Minimis Provisions)
of this document. For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on
climate science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the
response to the comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: T. W. Donze
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0160
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
64

-------
Comment: The Subject proposed rule is unnecessary and a waste of time and money. CO2 is
NOT a pollutant. It is necessary for plant life. It is expelled by humans every time we breathe.
The temperature effect of CO2 declines hyperbolically with increasing concentrations. Fully 95-
98% of temperature effects have already occurred below levels of 380 ppm. We are already
above that now. Please take this into consideration when deciding on any regulations.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: N. Seferos
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0156
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I understand that these companies must report their greenhouse gall emissions if
they're over a certain metric ton but what point does this have? What effect does this have? Do
the companies over x-amount of metric tons get shut down or put on probation or something
else? This really sounds like extra work for the company and if there is no known consequence
what is the point?
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Anonymous public comment
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0186
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The EPA proposed rule concerning greenhouse gases quotes the United Nations
IPCC report and uses the words unequivocal and very likely when discussing the conclusions of
this report. The rule makes no mention of the extensive peer reviewed scientific research that
disputes the observations, results, methodology, and models used by the IPCC. It also makes no
mention that many of the scientists responsible for the study have since stated that they were
misquoted and also now reject the conclusions. The debate over the very existence of global
warming, ne climate change, has never publically taken place among scientists but instead the
public and Congress have been subverted by the courts, the more radical environmental groups,
and government beauracracy. Before debating how to cure a disease you must first be sure if
there is a disease. Longitudinal studies of insufficient duration and computer models are no
substitute for accurate data. Garbage in results in garbage out. Scientific studies consist of a
literature review that is representative of all studies (not just those of a preformed opinion), a null
hypothesis, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions. There is no such thing as a consensus.
Conclusions are in probabilities. As with pharmaceutical research, the funding for all these
studies, both those that support global warming and those that reject it, must be revealed. The
choices being given that either the EPA must regulate these gases or the Congress must pass
legislation that does so through taxes doesn't consider the option that Congress can pass
legislation that prevents the EPA from regulating these gases, since the Supreme Court ruled that
65

-------
they can but this doesn't prevent Congress from limiting the scope of the EPA. This probably
won't happen because of the make-up of Congress but it is truly a shame that good science has
been side-stepped because of a political agenda.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: J. T. Smith
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0149
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am writing this email to register my concerns regarding this proposed regulation. I
do not believe that this regulation is in our nation's best interest. I believe that enacting this
regulation will severely damage our national economy as it will result in a new, excessive, tax on
everything that is produced or consumed. This tax will apply to everyone regardless of
economic status and will destroy jobs and cause the poorest to suffer.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0154, excerpt 1 above.
Commenter Name: T. Coffelt
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0184
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am opposed to the EPA both defining and regulating Carbon Dioxide (a naturally
occurring gas as you well know) as a contributor to "Global Warming". Undoubtedly it's
occurrence in higher concentrations has been man made. The problem I have with you
"regulating" it is that you have gone beyond the scope of your jurisdiction in "monitoring"
Carbon Dioxide to "determining that carbon dioxide emissions directly impact global warming".
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. The rule requires only
reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish any limits on GHG emissions.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0206
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: It would be catastrophic to add unbearable, useless, economic burdens to our society
in the name of unproven science. Please remember that there is no 'consensus' in science, there
is either truth or the truth to be revealed. The truth of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change is
not settled, nor should we take drastic measures to reverse something that we may have no
control over regardless.
66

-------
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: N. W. Botting
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0169
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: For all the reasons in the attached discussion [See DCN: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0169.1 for attachment] and the many science based, peer reviewed articles and the books cited
therein, C02 should be dropped from the EPA regulations regarding reporting and regulation of
GHG. The EPA needs to take a fresh look at the true science on the subject and not be lead by
now outdated and unfounded assumptions and conjecture.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: H. M. Smith
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0183
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Your actions are motivated totally by political ambition. Please revoke this proposed
regulation in the best interests of the United States of America.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: H. D. Cochran
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0153
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The proposed action, when examined in light of observed scientific facts (not
theories or model predictions or empirical correlations), is clearly seen to be a solely political
act. It has no basis in the US constitution, in science, or in law. Fashionable opinion is no basis
for legitimate governmental regulation. The EPA is required by law to base its actions on sound
science.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1.
67

-------
Commenter Name: Chris Greissing
Commenter Affiliation: Industrial Minerals Association - North America (IMA-NA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0705.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We do not believe that a mandatory reporting rule for greenhouse gases (GHGs) is
necessary at this time, and believe that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should
refrain from moving ahead with any proposed regulation that would attempt to impose a
mandatory reporting requirement for GHGs, as the requirement to do so would be overly
burdensome on the impacted industries with little, if any, benefit resulting from the reporting.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the economic
impact of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: Thomas W. Easterly
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Indiana acknowledges that the proposed reporting rule would help to improve the
development of future national inventories for particular source categories or sectors by
advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies. However,
Indiana believes that U.S. EPA must establish a clear link between climate change and
anthropogenic GHG emissions before promulgating such costly and potentially damaging
measures to the U.S. economy.
Response: For the treatment of comments on climate science, see the response to EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the comment concerning the economic
costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. See also
Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of this document regarding EPA's statutory authority to issue this rule
at this time.
Commenter Name: Kenneth Klippen
Commenter Affiliation: Sparboe Farms
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0327
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA is requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from all sectors
of the economy including manure management systems in animal agriculture such as egg
production. The proposed rule would require reporting specifically the annual emissions of
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), and other fluorinated gases (e.g.,
nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers [HFEs]). Although the proposed rule is not
requiring control of greenhouse gases, just the reporting from those sources above certain
threshold levels, the data is a precursor to additional climate legislation and regulation
acknowledged in this proposed regulation for "future climate policies (to) include research and
development initiatives, economic incentives, new or expanded voluntary programs, adaptation
68

-------
strategies, emission standards, a carbon tax, or a cap-and-trade program" (emphasis added). By
definition a "tax" is the mandatory imposition of financial obligations imposed by a regulating
authority. EPA has acknowledged in this proposed regulation the precursor for a tax. With the
scope of industries affected by this proposed regulation and eventually additional regulatory
initiatives, the increased cost of goods will be passed onto to consumers. The net effect of this
"tax" will be added costs for consumers in this struggling economy. We propose market
incentives for the increased costs to offset the necessity of increasing the costs of goods.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1. The rule requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not
establish a cap and trade program, impose taxes on emissions, or limit the amount of GHG a
facility can emit.
Commenter Name: L. Frazer
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0323
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The short and the long of it is that this ruling to add economic cost to monitoring all
GHGs ad nauseam is money wasted that should be more profitably invested for mankind in a
more productive direction.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
Commenter Name: G. D. Roland
Commenter Affiliation: none
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0708.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The fact that there are so many factors contributing to the weather on earth, including
the intermittent energy bursts from the sun and volcanic eruptions (page 16454) makes the efforts
to monitor GHG's an incomplete cache of information. Couple that with the fact that not all
industrialized nations are even in concurrence much less signors of the UNFCCC, let alone third
world countries, means that any data set collected is incomplete and utterly useless to the global
community. The data potentially gathered by these proposed regulations would be neither
comprehensive nor accurate (page 16456). For any purpose! The overburdened of regulations on
industry now reduces profits which in turn contributes to the poor state of the global economy.
Realistically, why do we need more regulations with regard to something as uncertain as climate
sensitivity? And, what's next? Is EPA going to bombard the average 'Joe Citizen' with
burdensome regulations to measure GHG's coming from their cars, homes, yards, pets... how far
does it go? When is enough, enough?
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule and the treatment of comments on climate
science, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1. For the response to the
comment concerning the economic costs of the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0525.1, excerpt 1.
69

-------
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0272
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: This proposal is fatally flawed at every level and must not be adopted.
Response: We disagree for the reasons set forth in the proposed and final rule packages.
Commenter Name: Anonymous
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0313
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Absolutely a stupid idea. Already paying more for gas and food as a result of the ill-
conceived notion. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Go back to ethanol free gasoline!
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1 for EPA's reasons for
developing the rule.
Commenter Name: Jerry Bohn
Commenter Affiliation: Pratt Feeders LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0377
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Pratt Feeders LLC strongly supports and joins in the comments of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. We strongly oppose the regulation as written and hope the
comments of NCBA will be considered in the final regulation.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1 for EPA's reasons for
developing the rule. For our responses to comments submitted by NCBA and other agricultural
groups, please see the other volumes of this comment response document.
Commenter Name: Mark Boos
Commenter Affiliation: Garden City Feed Yard L L C.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0368.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Garden City Feed Yard L.L.C. strongly supports and joins in the comments of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association. We strongly oppose the regulation as written and hope
the comments of NCBA will be considered in the final regulation.
Response: See the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1 for EPA's reasons for
developing the rule. For our responses to comments submitted by NCBA and other agricultural
groups, please see the other volumes of this comment response document.
70

-------
Commenter Name: William Nicholas
Commenter Affiliation: Prime Feeders LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0372
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I am submitting this in full support of the NCBA position of opposition to the
Proposed Rule of Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases.
Response: For the reasons for developing the rule, see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0615, excerpt 1. . For our responses to comments submitted by NCBA and other
agricultural groups, please see the other volumes of this comment response document.
C. OTHER
Commenter Name: Justin T. Schneider
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0583.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: With all of the current discussion on greenhouse gases ("GHG") and the state and
federal legislative action on the issue, it has become difficult for citizens to stay informed of
what various proposals will require. It should be clear that this is a proposal to require reporting
of greenhouse gases. It would not require control measures or result in the regulation of GHG.
Any final rule based upon this proposal will need to be clear that this is solely a monitoring and
reporting rule.
Response: The goal of the reporting program is to provide accurate, economy-wide data on
GHG emissions to inform policy decisions and development of future regulatory programs. The
final rule only requires the monitoring and reporting of annual emissions of the selected GHGs.
It does not require control measures or impose other limits on GHG emissions. For further
discussion of uses of this data, see Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of this document.
Table 1
(OMMI.M I K
All-Ill ATi:
IK N
C. Lish
Sierra Club
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0358
See Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508 for a memorandum listing all members of the Sierra Club who submitted
comment letters identical to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0358.

Table 2
( OMMKYM K
aiiii.iaii:
IK N
Michel R. Benoit
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition (CKRC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0467
Andrew T. O'Hare
Portland Cement Association (PCA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0509.1
Table 3
( OMMIMIK
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Lorraine Krupa Gershman
American Chemistry Council, et al.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Audrae Erickson
Corn Refiners Association
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0519.1
71

-------
Lawrence W. Kavanagh
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0695.1
Table 4
(OMMI.M I K
All-Ill ATT.
IK N
James Greenwood
Valero Energy Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.1
Charles T. Drevna
National Petrochemical and Refiners
Association
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1
EP A-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-043 3.2
Table 5
( OMMI YI I K
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Johnny R. Dreyer
Gas Processors Association (GPA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
William W. Grygar II
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
Table 6



COMMI.M I K
AIIII.IAI 1.
IK N

Craig Holt Segall
Sierra Club
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0635.1

Melissa Thrailkill
Center for Biological Diversity
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0430.1

72

-------