A rnA UnitedSlates
hWf ^ •'£1 Environmental Protection
^ I Agency
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response
to Public Comments
Volume No.: 5
Initial Year of Reporting, Duration of
the Reporting Program and
Provisions to Cease Reporting
-------
September 2009
Initial Year of Reporting, Duration of the
Reporting Program and Provisions to Cease
Reporting
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 regarding the initial year of
reporting, duration of the reporting program and provisions to cease reporting.
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 regarding the initial year of
reporting, duration of the reporting program and provisions to cease reporting 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 initial
year of reporting, duration of the reporting program and provisions to cease reporting.
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. SELECTION OF THE INITIAL REPORTING YEAR 1
2. ONCE IN ALWAYS IN POLICY 126
3. DURATION OF REPORTING PROGRAM 216
v
-------
1.
SELECTION OF THE INITIAL REPORTING YEAR
Commenter Name: See Table 3
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Importantly, even under EPA's view of the deadlines in the Act, nothing in the
appropriations bill requires that EPA begin implementation of the rule by any particular date. See
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). The Act
does not override the well established principle that new regulations must provide adequate lead
time for industry to come into compliance. Cf. Nat'l Ass'n of Independent Television Producers
& Distributors v. FCC, 502 F.2d 249 (2d Cir. 1974) (holding that agency failed to allow adequate
time to prepare for amendment to rule to become effective where television networks had only
eight months' notice of informal report). Adopting a more reasonable effective date also is
critical to providing EPA adequate time to analyze and incorporate the views of commenters,
which is the essential purpose of notice-and-comment regulation. This is an extraordinarily
complex proposed rulemaking and EPA has stated throughout its preamble that the agency is
considering numerous and varied potential alternatives to aspects of the proposal. Undoubtedly,
members of the public will also provide detailed comments that will warrant full consideration
and will help shape the final rule. EPA is obligated to give full and fair consideration to such
comments. See ACLU v. FCC, 823 F.2d 1554, 1581 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("Notice and comment
rulemaking procedures obligate the [agency] to respond to all significant comments, for 'the
opportunity to comment is meaningless unless the agency responds to significant points raised by
the public'"); Rodway v. USD A, 514 F.2d 809, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1975) (agencies have a duty to
"respond in a reasoned manner to the comments received, to explain how the agency resolved
any significant problems raised by the comments, and to show how that resolution led the agency
to the ultimate rule."). There will not be adequate time between a final rule and January 2010 for
companies to begin assessing GHG emissions under the rule. The six weeks lead time EPA
anticipates prior to January 1, 2010, is woefully inadequate and legally unsupportable.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. With respect to
EPA's obligation to give full and fair consideration to all significant comments, there is no
specific time period required for such a task. Given the importance of the data collected under
this rule, EPA prioritized the task and has finalized the rule upon completing our full
consideration and response. With respect to the complexity of the rule, we agree that this is a
complex because it includes reporting requirements for many source categories across the
economy. However, most reporters will be required to report emissions under only one or two
subparts, and do not need to become familiar with the requirements for subparts that are not
relevant to their operations. Table 2, at the beginning of the preamble, provides this information.
In addition, as addressed in the preamble, section II.D on Source Categories to Report, we have
not finalized reporting requirements for a number of source categories at this time. Several of
these source categories (e.g., electronics manufacturing, oil and natural gas systems, industrial
landfills) received many comments and were highlighted by those concerned with the 2010 start
date. No reporting is required for these sources until the relevant subparts are finalized.
Further, EPA is developing guidance materials to both aid potential reporters in understanding
the requirements for each covered source category as well as help potential reporters quickly
identifyi whether specific facilities are likely to have to report. We will also be providing both
1
-------
general and specific training opportunities throughout 2009 and into 2010, through the web and
at locations around the country. For more information on the outreach and guidance materials,
please refer to the preamble sections and comment response documents on applicability
determination and on compliance and enforcement. See the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, regarding the time needed to install monitoring equipment.
See also the response to comments on legal issues for a discussion regarding how the notice and
comment process for the rule was adequate.
Commenter Name: Burl Ackerman
Commenter Affiliation: J. R. Simplot Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The rule requires that information collection start January 2010 with the first report
due in 2011. The schedule to have this rule finalized and published by the end of the year is very
aggressive. This will not leave much time for the effected facilities to implement any required
changes to meet the required methodologies by January 2010. As an example, the rule requires
reporting for each stationary combustion unit. This will require the installation of fuel flow
meters on units that do not currently have individual flow meters. Ordering and installing these
meters will not be possible in the time before this rule becomes effective. We recommend that
the first year of reporting be optional or at a minimum allow for any existing methodology for
data collection for the first year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
This commenter and several others indicated that there is insufficient time to install monitoring
systems required by the rule by January 2010. Under the final rule, few facilities will be
required to install monitoring equipment. Several changes have been made in the final rule to
provide simpler calculation methods and allow use of existing records or monitoring equipment
that is already in place to calculate GHG emissions. For the relatively small number of facilities
that have to install monitoring instrumentation, the best available monitoring methods provisions
described in the preamble allow additional time to obtain, install, and begin using the equipment.
It is reasonable for facilities to begin complying in 2010, given that most facilities will need only
to read the few specific rule subparts that apply to their facility, and in January 2010 begin
keeping the records needed to calculate GHG emissions (many of which they already keep).
Examples of some of the provisions in the general stationary fuel combustion, lime
manufacturing, and petroleum refineries subparts that avoid the need to install new monitoring
equipment are provided here. See the preamble sections and comment response documents for
these and other individual source categories for additional discussion of rule provisions and
changes that allow use of existing records and monitoring instruments and avoid the need to
install new monitoring equipment. Also see a summary memorandum "Example Rule
Provisions and Changes that Reduced the Need to Install New Monitoring Equipment" in the
docket.
Commenters indicated that many combustion sources will need to install fuel flow meters. Under
the rule, combustion units with capacities of 250 mmBtu/hr or less are not required to have flow
meters. We estimate that the majority of combustion units covered by the rule are in this size
2
-------
range. For these units, reporters are allowed to use company records to establish annual fuel use.
Company records include but are not limited to fuel billing meters, direct measurements of fuel
consumption by gravimetric or volumetric means, tank drop measurements, and calculated
values of fuel usage obtained by measuring auxiliary parameters such as steam generation or unit
operating hours. Facilities that already collect fuel data using one or more of these methods will
not need to install monitoring instrumentation. The GHG calculation method for small
combustion units is also simple: multiplying fuel use by an emission factor provided in the rule.
Some combustion units larger than 250 mm Btu/hr may have to install flow meters, but the final
rule provides several alternatives such that many units will not require flow meters. For example,
all units that fire pipeline natural gas or distillate fuel oil can use company records (as described
above). Facilities with oil and gas-fired units that currently measure flow at a common supply
line rather than at each unit can report combined emissions from all units that are fed by the
common line and do not need to install flow meters at each combustion unit.
Some commenters indicated that CEMS cannot be installed by 2010. The rule requires the use of
CEMS only for units that have installed a CEMS to comply with another regulation. Some units
with CEMS will be required to upgrade the CEMS to install either a continuous carbon analyzer
or a continuous flow monitor. In these instances, the rule allows a facility until January 1, 2011
(one year deferral) to install the new meters and begin collecting C02 data using CEMS. For
calendar year 2010, the unit is allowed to report CO2 based on fuel use (determined by various
methods as described above) and measurements of high heating value or carbon content.
For some source categories (e.g., lime production), the measurement location was changed to
avoid the need to install new monitoring equipment. The proposed rule would have required
measurement of the quantities of lime produced (by lime type) for each individual kiln, but
commenters indicated that they currently measure the quantity of lime produced after the storage
silos that contain the products from multiple kilns combined. The final rule was changed to
allow measurement of the quantity produced (by lime type) from all kilns combined, avoiding
the need for facilities to retrofit weigh belt scales between each kiln and the storage silo.
The petroleum refineries source category is another example of where several changes were
made to avoid the need to install monitoring equipment. The final rule allows engineering
calculations, rather than emission monitors, for catalytic cracking units and fluid coking units
below 10,000 bbl/stream day that do not already have CO2/CO/O2 monitors installed. For flares
that do not already have continuous gas flow monitors, engineering calculations are allowed. The
rule was also changed to include a default combustion emissions factor for refinery (still) gas to
allow more combustion sources at refineries to use the simple tier 2 combustion methods instead
of conducting site-specific measurements.
Several subparts have also changed the sampling frequency for a variety parameters measured
through periodic sampling and analyses. This reduces burden and avoids potential issues with
laboratory capacity. For example, iron and steel plants using the carbon mass balance methods
can perform annual analysis of all process inputs and outputs for carbon content rather than
weekly sampling and monthly analyses. For petrochemical plants using the mass balance
method, the measurement frequency for feedstocks and products was changed from weekly to
monthly.
Commenter Name: Carol E. Whitman
3
-------
Commenter Affiliation: National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0483.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA should consider extending the implementation of the rule by one year from
January 2010 to January 2011. The process for comments, review, and finalizing the rule will
extend well into 2009 and, as a result, the available time from finalizing the rule and the
beginning of the required data collection on January 1 will be short. For facilities without a
CEMS, additional time may be needed to develop accounting systems, monitoring, or adding a
CEMS.
Response: See the Preamble Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding
CEMS, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Thomas Siegrist
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0351.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: EPA suggests consideration of reporting using best available data in 2010,
transitioning to full reporting in 2011. The severe certification requirements presented in the
Proposed Rule (proposed § 98.4), requirements that are far more difficult to administer than
certification requirements under EPA's other Clean Air Act programs, create a substantial
obstacle to the best available data approach, as it is not appropriate for certifications to be
required in the absence of certainty as to the procedures and monitoring protocols that will be
necessary to comply with the rule. Consequently, in our view, a best available data approach
would only work if a certification under proposed § 98.4 were not required.
Response: As fully explained in the preamble, EPA is allowing best available monitoring
methods to be used for part of 2010. Reporters using this approach are still required to certify
their 2010 annual reports. Certification is necessary and appropriate because it provides
assurance to EPA and the public that the report has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 98 and that the information contained in the report is true, accurate,
and complete based on the designated representative's personal examination of the information
submitted and their inquiry of the individuals responsible for obtaining the information. Because
the rule specifically allows best available monitoring methods to be used, Designated
Representatives are able to certify that the data reported is true, accurate, and complete to the
best of their knowledge and belief. By accurate, EPA means that the data reported is correct (i.e.,
does not contain errors) and was collected or calculated according the procedures specified in the
rule. Certain data collection and calculation procedures are specified in the rule because EPA
determined that, if they are followed without error, they will yield data that are considered
accurate, given the circumstances under which, and purposes for which, the data are being
developed.
4
-------
Commenter Name: Glenn Hamer
Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The Arizona Chamber is concerned that this proposed GHG rule may be
significantly changed prior to the final adoption or final adoption may be delayed which may
make it difficult to complete accurate reports by the current proposed deadline. In addition, the
measurement methods currently proposed for some industries (e.g. electronics) may require the
installation of new equipment. It is unlikely that this could be installed in time to meet this
reporting schedule. Proposed Solution: The Arizona Chamber believes that the initial year of
GHG reporting should be adjusted forward to reflect the actual date for which the final GHG rule
is adopted for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases. Compiling, submitting and verifying
the required emissions data cannot be assured without the actual details provided by the final
GHG rule adopted in EPA's regulatory program. In the alternative, the Arizona Chamber
suggests that the initial GHG emissions report should not require the proposed
verification/certificate statement and only require a "best efforts" verification/certification
statement. Subsequent years could require the EPA's current verification/certification statement.
Response: See the Preamble Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
For the response to the comment on whether to require the certification statement in the first
year, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0351.1, excerpt 18 above. With
respect to the concern that the rule was significantly changed between proposal and final, please
refer to the preamble, Section II.B for a summary of the major changes since proposal. Many
key elements of the rule (e.g., level of reporting, general monitoring approach) are largely
unchanged. However, a number of changes were made to either clarify requirements in response
to comments or simplify and revise requirements in ways that achieve our objectives but also
reduce burden. For response to comments on individual source categories and the resulting
changes in requirements, please refer the preamble subparts for each category, along with the
accompanying response to comment documents. EPA has also delayed finalizing the reporting
requirements for some source categories; see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-477.1, excerpt
2. One of these is subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing). Emissions from that source category
will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be
reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding
to comments on subpart I at this time.
Commenter Name: Scott Manley
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0728.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: WMC supports EPA's proposal that facility level reports be submitted electronically
to EPA on software provided by EPA. Our concern however would be in the event that issuance
of the software does not occur early enough for facilities to install, learn, use, and work through
any software bugs before the reporting deadline. We therefore request that the first annual report
be due for a calendar year that begins no sooner than 180 days after the software becomes
available to affected facilities.
5
-------
Response: See the preamble, Section V.B.3 on Data Collection Methods for the response on the
development of the data system. EPA plans to make the reporting software available in a timely
fashion in advance of the first reporting date. EPA will provide a Web-based reporting system to
guide reporters through the data entry, emission calculation, and submission process. In addition,
EPA will provide a mechanism for reporters to submit data files directly to EPA using a standard
format. To reduce the burden on reporters and reduce errors, EPA intends to conduct outreach
and training on the electronic reporting system and to provide a hotline to answer questions.
With work already underway on the data system, we anticipate its release in sufficient time for
reporting in 2011.
Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg
Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0557.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: EPA's proposal recommends that monitoring begin January 1, 2010, with the first
reports due March 1, 2011 to report the annual emissions for 2010. That leaves less than six
months from the end of the comment period for this proposed rule until EPA expects sources to
be ready to monitor their GHG emissions. Given that many industries have never measured or
calculated GHG emissions before, and the fact that EPA will still need time to finalize the rule
and begin the outreach programs it has planned, January 1, 2010 is simply too soon. Specifically
for landfills, many will need to install additional monitoring equipment in order to generate the
data EPA claims will be required to calculate GHG emissions. Even for landfills that already
have the necessary equipment in place, or are able to get it installed in time, there will still be a
need for additional time to develop and implement the proper procedures for gathering the data,
calculating the GHG emissions, and preparing the proper records for EPA. Although Republic
understands EPA's urgency, given the need to provide policy-makers with the information
necessary to develop and implement national climate change policy, rushed and potentially
inaccurate information will not serve EPA's purpose. EPA' stated timetable assumes that
monitoring methods are "well-known" and that monitoring devices are "routinely available, in
ready supply." Although perhaps true for some industries, which have monitored GHGs in the
past under other regulatory programs, most sources will have to perform significant work to
prepare for complying with EPA's proposed rule. EPA's preamble recognizes that sources must
go through many steps before it can report, including "studying the final rule, determining
whether it applies to the facility, identifying the requirements with which the facility must
comply, and preparing to monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate and report
GHG emissions." Even if EPA were able to review and incorporate all comments submitted on
the proposal and publish the final rule in three months (an extremely optimistic goal), it would
only leave three more months for sources to prepare, an unreasonably short time for such an
unprecedented program in both scope and substance. As such, Republic recommends EPA
strongly consider one of its other two timing options - either (1) allow sources to rely on "best
available data" for 2010 and prepare for full implementation of the program in 2011, or (2)
simply delay implementation of the program until 2011 to allow all sources time to prepare for
monitoring and reporting GHG emissions.
Response: See the Preamble Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Several changes
made to the landfills subpart will lessen the burden and necessary start up time for monitoring
and reporting for this source. The final rule requires only weekly testing of methane content of
6
-------
landfill gas (for landfills with gas collection). The final rule also provides several options for
determining historic waste disposal at a landfill, including use of the first year of reporting
disposal quantity and use of population data. For more details on changes made in response to
comments for landfills, please refer to the preamble and response to comments document for
Subpart HH.. With respect to assessing change between proposal and final, and reviewing the
final rule, please see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1, excerpt 2. With respect to
EPA's obligation to review all significant comments, please see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0477.1, excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners
Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: EPA's proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule is scheduled to start
monitoring requirements on January 1, 2010 - merely 6 months away - with the first report due
on March 31, 2011. ABA is concerned about the limited time frame for implementing this
program at a smaller facility. The appropriations language mandating EPA's proposal was signed
in December 2007 and EPA was to propose the rule by September 2008. The proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on April 10, 2009, 6 months after the deadline. If included as
part of the mandatory reporting regime, small and large businesses will need additional time to
implement a program at their facilities, to hire engineers and consultants, and to find the extra
operating funds necessary to comply with another EPA program. For example, at some larger
bakeries there may be the need to engineering assessments, vendor selection and budget
approvals. In some cases these activities need at least an additional 15 month lead time. In
particular, many sources in the baking sector are anticipated to be below the reporting threshold;
however, even facilities that are not required to report will need to calculate their emissions (with
the attendant costs and diversion of resources) in order to determine that they are not covered.
Many small businesses will not be able to complete this assessment by 2010, and bakeries in
particular may have emissions that are difficult to quantify such as CO2 emissions from the
baking process. EPA should extend the first monitoring year to 2011. In the alternative, EPA
should consider allowing those sources that would be reporting greenhouse gas emissions for the
first time additional time to meet the requirements and submit their first report. Alternatively,
reporting of 2010 emissions could be considered "transitional" with incomplete reporting
accepted. For example, a facility may be allowed to report only emissions of CO2 in 2010,
instead of the full suite of greenhouse gas emissions. Some larger facilities that are impacted by
the proposed rule may be in a position to begin monitoring requirements at a faster pace than
medium and small entities.
Response: See the Preamble Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
With respect to the comment on the time required to review the rule, please see response to
comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1,
excerpt 2. For the comment on determining whether facilities are covered by the rule, please see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1, excerpt 2. For the comment on
monitoring equipment, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7.
With respect to the comment that the budget process will not be available to implement the
requirements of this rule, it has been clear that this rule was under development since early 2008.
7
-------
EPA has undertaken an unprecedented level of outreach on this rule, and has consistently
communicated the message that our goal is to collect 2010 data to be reported in 2011, and a
target date for signature of October 1, 2009 was included in EPA's Unified Agenda and
Regulatory Plan. Under these circumstances, it would have been prudent for potentially affected
facilities to develop budget contingency plans for the likelihood that data collection would be
required in 2010. At the same time, it is important to recognize that costs incurred by individual
facilities reporting under this rule are not large, and there are limited requirements for new
capital equipment. For EPA's approach to reducing burdens on small business, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0609.1, excerpt 2, in the comment response
document volume on Cost and Economic Impacts of the Rule. In developing the final rule, EPA
gathered additional data on costs and re-examined the costs in each sector, in addition to
considering ways in which to reduce the burden of the rule. Because of changes in the rule and
re-estimated costs, costs per affected entity declined in 22 of the remaining 29 source category
subparts. More details on costs for individual source categories can be found in the Regulatory
Impact Analysis that accompanies this rule, and response to comments received on the economic
impacts of the rule found in Section VII of the preamble.
We received many comments suggesting that 2010 could be a "practice year", "transitional
year", or "pilot year" or that we should phase in reporting requirements. After responding to
comments received on both the general and specific requirements under this rule, and making
many changes that clarify, simplify, and reduce burden, delay the finalization of some source
categories, and provide for use of best available monitoring methods in 2010, we have
determined that such approaches are not required. In fact, it is our view that such provisions
would add an additional level of complexity for affected sources in determining whether they
were required to report, and for the government in implementing the program. Given the
importance of data collection in 2010, EPA has instead developed an approach that imposes
reasonable requirements on the affected facilities and achieves our goal of obtaining the
consistent and accurate data for 2010 emissions that are crucial for the timely development of
GHG policies and regulatory programs.
Finally, with respect to the specific requirements for bakeries, the reporting rule requires
bakeries that meet the applicable criteria in 40 CFR 98.2 to quantify CO2 emissions from
stationary combustion sources, but does not require bakeries to quantify or report CO2 emissions
from the action of yeast in the baking process. The only other GHGs that must be reported from
stationary combustion units are CH4 and N2O and the rule provides emission factors for these
pollutants so the calculation is very straightforward. Also, EPA is not going final with subpart M
(Food Processing), subpart II (Wastewater Treatment), or with the reporting requirements for
industrial landfills at this time, so emissions from these source categories will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. 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: Matt Smorch
Commenter Affiliation: Countrymark Cooperative, LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1081.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
8
-------
Comment: Countrymark requests that any rule allow a three year delay for small refiners after
the adoption and effective date of the rule. This is a precedent that has been followed in other
rule makings by EPA.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. As discussed in
the preamble sections on economic impacts and on the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA's
analysis of the economic impact on small businesses indicates that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on small entities. Although other CAA programs have allowed
facilities a three year compliance period, the requirements of those programs differ significantly
from this rule. For example, a three year period is reasonable and appropriate for NESHAPs
which require existing facilities to meet stringent emission limits and install new control devices
or make other process changes (note that section 112 of the CAA specifically contemplates a
period of up to three years between issuance of the final rule and compliance for existing
facilities; new facilities do not get this flexibility). This reporting rule requires monitoring of
parameters or process emissions using monitoring equipment that is easily installed or already in
place. A three year delay in implementing this reporting rule would not only be unnecessary but
also result in a significant delay in collecting the data necessary to inform ongoing policy and
program development.
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: 2
Comment: EPA needs to delay rule implementation until 2011, with the first report due in 2012.
EPA has significantly underestimated the amount of time, effort, resources, and capital
expenditures needed to implement any GHG reporting rule, much less the very detailed proposed
rule provisions requiring unit-level reporting and no practical deminimis provisions. The
involvement of IT departments in the programming necessary to adequately capture the needed
data, and to perform calculations and report in a format acceptable to EPA in and of itself
justifies a delay in rule implementation to 2012, with a full year between publication of the final
rule and the effective date. EPA's reporting format should be part of the final rulemaking, not
issued later as supplemental information, guidance or technical amendments.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. To facilitate
data submittal, EPA is developing an electronic reporting system that will be available prior to
the first reporting date as described in the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0728.1, Excerpt 8. See the preamble section V.A.3 "Data Collection" for discussion of whether
the reporting system should be part of the final rule or developed separately to allow flexibility to
improve the reporting formats in a timely manner. With respect to the concerns raised about
timing, effort, resources and capital expenditures, please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. For response
to comments on de minimis provisions, please see Section II.K of the preamble and the
accompanying response to comments document.
9
-------
Commenter Name: Claire Olson
Commenter Affiliation: Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0637.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Consideration should be given to extend the implementation of the rule by one year
from January, 2010 to January, 2011. The process for comments, review, and finalizing the rule
would extend well into 2009. The available time from finalizing the rule and collecting the data
on January 1, 2010 is short. For facilities without a CEMS, additional time may be needed to
develop accounting systems, monitoring, or adding a CEMS.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For discussion
of CEMS, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Christina T. Wisdom
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Chemical Council (TCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0638.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: In the event EPA declines to extend the initial reporting date to 2012 for 2011 data,
TCC requests that EPA consider extending the eligibility of the abbreviated reporting option for
reporting year 2010 (i.e., reported in 2011) to the chemical manufacturing industry due to the
complexity of the reports that we will have to submit. This would still enable the reporting of
combustion-related emissions for the year 2010, which are the bulk of the greenhouse gas
emissions from most chemical manufacturing sites.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
In addition, see the preamble sections on the relevant individual subparts (e.g., Subpart C,
General Stationary Fuel Combustion and Subpart X, Petrochemical Production) for discussion of
changes made to individual source category subparts that simplify monitoring procedures for
some units or allow time to install or calibrate various monitoring equipment. EPA received
made several modifications to the requirements that apply to chemical manufacturing sites that
clarify, simplify and reduce burden. For these reasons, we have determined that an abbreviated
reporting option for chemical manufacturing sites is not necessary.
Commenter Name: Edward N. Saccoccia
Commenter Affiliation: Praxair Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0977.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: Praxair feels that reporting of 2010 emissions is too early, particularly since this rule
will likely not be finalized until late summer/fall of 2009. For facilities that may require new
monitoring equipment or calibration of existing equipment, it will not provide sufficient time to
install, calibrate, and establish Q/A procedures to properly operate and maintain this equipment.
EPA should strongly consider beginning the collection of GHG emissions data in January 1,
2011, with the first emissions report due sometime in 2012. If it is determined by EPA that it is
10
-------
critical to begin collecting GHG emissions data in 2010, at a minimum, EPA should allow all
affected facilities to report 2010 data in 2011 using "best available data". Unless monitoring
devices are already installed and calibrated properly on the date of the final rule, other methods
(e.g. fuel use, default emission factors, fuel receipts, etc.) should be allowed to calculate GHG
emissions for 2010. The "best available data" option should also be allowed the first two
reporting years for those facilities that may reach the 25,000 metric ton C02e threshold in a
future year due to a sudden increase in plant utilization (i.e., not due to process changes). Sudden
changes in plant utilization may be unforeseen due to market changes and could occur late in a
calendar year. The monitoring equipment required under this rule would not have been installed
for the first year and, depending on the timing of the increase in plant utilization, may not be
installed for a portion of the second reporting year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. EPA does not
agree with the commenter that facilities should be able to use best available data if they become
subject to the reporting rule after January 1, 2010 due to increases in utilization. Such facilities
are already aware of the reporting rule and have time to plan for appropriate monitoring prior to
increasing plant capacity or utilization. If a potential reporter believes there is a likelihood of
their facility exceeding the 25,000 metric ton threshold during a future calendar year, then it is in
their interest to install the required monitoring equipment and begin collecting the required data
at the beginning of that year. See the Preamble at Section II.H. and the comment response
document volume on Subpart A: Applicability and Reporting Schedule for further discussion of
sources that become subject to the rule after 2010 due to an operational or physical change.
Commenter Name: Susan J. Miller
Commenter Affiliation: The Brick Industry Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0478.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: We join NAM in urging the EPA to develop this inventory in a thoughtful and
transparent manner, and if necessary, extend promulgation of a final rule beyond the
recommended effective date of January 1, 2010, by at least one calendar year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods..
Commenter Name: Rhea Hale
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: AF&PA recommends that the initial reporting year be 2012 based on 2011 emissions
rather than 2011 based on 2010 emissions. Given the short time frame from the likely
finalization of this rule (end of 2009) and when required measurement would begin - January
2010 - it would be unreasonable to expect facilities to meet all of the necessary requirements
outlined in the proposal. As stated above, it will be physically impossible for the required
installation of fuel meters, weigh belts, and CEMs upgrades to be completed in time to take
measurements of 2010 data. Further, EPA has not provided a lot of detail regarding the reporting
11
-------
mechanisms to be utilized. It is important for facilities to understand the reporting framework as
it may drive the decisions of how this data is to be collected and managed.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2. Regarding the data system,
please see the preamble, Section V.B.3 for the response to comments on Data Collection
Method. EPA plans to make the reporting software available in a timely manner prior to the first
reporting date.
Commenter Name: MelindaL. Tomaino
Commenter Affiliation: Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0628.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Under the proposal, a regulated facility owner or operator must collect emissions
data, calculate GHG emissions, and follow quality assurance, missing data, and recordkeeping
reporting requirements. The proposed rule would require such measurement and monitoring to
begin January 1, 2010—a date just slightly more than six months from the date comments are
due on the proposed rule. Facilities covered by the rule would need to submit their first annual
report by March 31, 2011 for the calendar year 2010. This timeframe does not provide adequate
time for outreach and education to small businesses— as well as the potentially affected
homeowners and owners of commercial buildings—to help them determine whether their
facilities are covered by the rule and to establish a framework for monitoring and reporting.
Facilities may need to hire consultants, purchase new equipment, develop standard operating
procedures, and train employees. At the same time the facilities are learning how to comply, they
also could face huge penalties for non-compliance. The proposed rule states "facilities that fail to
report GHG emissions according to the requirements of the proposed rule could potentially be
subject to enforcement action by EPA under CAA [Clean Air Act] sections 113 and 203-205,"
which could lead to fines of up to $32,500 per day (see section G below). AGC suggests that
EPA extend the effective date by a year and use a phased-in approach wherein small businesses
(i.e., small emitters) are given more time to prepare for implementation of the reporting
requirements. Likewise, the proposed rule states EPA intends to provide compliance assistance
materials tailored to the needs of various sectors. The agency itself requires additional time to
develop compliance assistance materials, gather input from the numerous affected industry
groups, and distribute the materials to the newly-regulated businesses.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. With respect to
the comment on the need for outreach and education, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. EPA plans specific outreach for small business, although
the number of small businesses covered by this rule is expected to be small. Also, note that most
of the small businesses potentially covered by the rule are expected to have only stationary fuel
combustion units and none of the other source categories in the rule. Facilities that only have
stationary combustion units are allowed to submit an abbreviated emission reports using simple
methods for 2010. See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14
for more information on small business impacts. Regarding the concern about purchasing new
equipments, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7. Regarding
12
-------
the concerns expressed about compliance and enforcement, please see the response to comments
in the preamble, Section VI. Regarding review of the final rule, and understanding changes
made from proposal, please see EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2. Finally, for the
comment on phasing in the requirements of this rule, please see the response to comment EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
In response to comments received on specific source categories, EPA has made other rule
changes to simplify GHG calculation and reporting for small combustion units and other sources,
as described in the preamble sections and comment response documents on the individual source
category subparts. These changes to the rule will make it easier for small businesses to comply
with the rule during 2010. To assist small businesses and other reporters in understanding the
rule requirements, EPA is developing and implementing extensive outreach and training. EPA
will also provide an electronic reporting system to facilitate reporting. It is important to note that,
contrary to the commenter's statement, homeowners would not report emissions from their
homes under this rule. The applicability thresholds are sufficiently high to exclude most
commercial buildings from reporting, and homeowners are not covered by the rule, which does
not cover stationary fuel combustion for residential use.
Commenter Name: Melvin E. Keener
Commenter Affiliation: Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0446.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: We suggest EPA use 2010 as a voluntary reporting period. That is, during 2010, EPA
could make its staff available to review voluntary submittals ahead of start of the official data
collection period. This would allows those sites that are ready to report (e.g., those facilities that
are already reporting under other programs such as California's AB32, etc.) to submit reports
early. This could lessen EPA's workload for hose sites during the first official reporting year.
The voluntary reporting period could also be helpful to "new GHG reporters " if it allowed
facilities to submit draft or partial inventories for EPA review prior to the mandatory reporting
deadline. The results of the review could be used to adjust/confirm data collection and reporting
prior to the start of the mandatory inventory program. This proposal primarily differs from
EPA's proposed "abbreviated report" in 98.3(d) in that while the proposed abbreviated reports
mandate the reporting of total aggregated facility emissions in March 2011 (which provides very
little relief for facilities during, the initial reporting year) and the 1-year voluntary program
would not subject facilities to mandatory reporting or to the enforcement provisions of 98.8 for
data collecting or reporting errors during this voluntary reporting period.
Response: Regarding the "voluntary reporting period", please see response to comment EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. Although EPA has not implemented the voluntary
reporting period recommended by the commenter, EPA has made changes to the initial reporting
requirements in order to provide facilities with more time to implement the monitoring
provisions. For a description of these changes, see the preamble response on the initial reporting
year and use of best available monitoring methods. See also comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0564.1 excerpt 2 for response to other actions EPA has taken and intends to take in
response to comments on these issues.
13
-------
Commenter Name: Michael Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group (CEG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0479.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The Clean Energy Group respectfully suggests that the requirement to begin full data
collection in January 2010, less than six months from now, is unnecessarily rushed. Additionally,
the rule still needs to be finalized and published, which is expected to take the majority of the
remaining months of 2009. Due to the fact that the proposed rule was delayed significantly, the
Clean Energy Group does not agree with full implementation beginning with 2010 data year
collection. Given the scope and importance of this rule, the Clean Energy Group requests that
EPA allow adequate time between publication of the final rule and full implementation for
reporting entities to fully understand reporting obligations and to develop and implement new
monitoring, data collection, and reporting procedures. The Clean Energy Group believes a
reliable, trustworthy data set is more important than an immediate start date. The Clean Energy
Group supports collection of accurate reporting data through valid methodologies, which may
require phasing in the program more slowly than EPA is proposing. Therefore, the Clean Energy
Group supports EPA's second alternative regarding timing of initial implementation: to report
2011 data in 2012 (with data due June 30, as commented above). Beginning with 2011 data
would provide affected sources an opportunity to evaluate the implications of the final rule on
their individual lines of business, begin to develop appropriate operating procedures for robust
data gathering, and begin contracting discussions with outside vendors to support data-gathering
functions. Another option that the Clean Energy Group requests that EPA consider is phasing in
the reporting of all six greenhouse gases over the first few years of the program, similar to how
The Climate Registry initially collected data. The first several years of reporting under EPA's
mandatory reporting rule could require the reporting of C02 emissions from combustion together
with the manufacture and import of high global warming potential gases (HFC, PFC, and SF6).
Following this initial phase, sources could then report methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions from combustion, as well as other process and fugitive emissions. This would allow
reporting entities to begin with larger sources of greenhouse gas emissions for which there are
more established reporting protocols and procedures, and phase in sources and processes for
which cost-effective reporting protocols are less widely available.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. With respect to
the comment on a phased-in reporting schedule, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. The schedule recommended by the commenter, where
reporting of each GHG would be phased in over a period of two or three years, would further
delay collection of information to inform the many ongoing GHG policy and program
development evaluations. In addition, numerous changes have been made in the final rule that
clarify, simplify and reduce reporting burden. Please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: John Quinn
Commenter Affiliation: Constellation Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0668.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
14
-------
Comment: While EPA's acceptance of the use of existing program data collection and
management methodologies helps a great deal, new additional processes and procedures must be
developed and implemented to compile and report the broad scope of emissions required to be
included under the proposed rule. The proposal solicited a view on whether reporting should
begin in 2011 or 2012. We suggest commencing the reporting in 2012 with calendar 2011 data.
Given the final rule is not likely to be published until the Fall, there will be insufficient time to
develop, implement, and train personnel on new processes and procedures before January 1,
2010. We do recommend, and would likely participate in, and optional pilot submittal of
calendar year 2010 data in 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also the
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1, excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-1641 excerpt 7. Regarding the suggested optional pilot year, see our response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Alexander D. Menotti
Commenter Affiliation: Kelley Drye & Warren et. al LLP on behalf of the Steel Manufacturers
Association (SMA) and Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0656.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: As proposed, the first reports under the rule would be due March 31, 2011 for the
2010 reporting year. SMA/SSINA support delaying the reporting provisions until 2012 for the
2011 reporting year. If the rule is finalized in late summer or fall of 2009 as EPA anticipates,
facilities would have only a few months to become familiar with the extensive obligations of the
rule. Facilities will have to implement new testing and sampling techniques, develop new
recordkeeping procedures, and perform extensive training of personnel, among other things.
Most other rules, such as various steel industry NESHAP rules, have provided for three years of
lead time, rather than the three months or less that EPA has proposed for this rule. In the
alternative, if EPA opts to maintain the requirement to report 2010 emissions, SMA/SSINA
support relaxed requirements that would allow reporting of best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
reference to NESHAP requirements, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-1081.1 excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Sally V. Allen
Commenter Affiliation: Gary-Williams Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0982.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The compliance deadline for SBRs should be three years after the general deadline.
Because EPA proposes to begin monitoring and collecting data by January 1, 2010, SBRs
request additional time to develop a written quality assurance performance, plan, implement the
required monitoring and calculation methods and calibrate and install the equipment necessary
for compliance. This delay will allow SBRs to benefit from the systems and technologies
15
-------
developed by larger, better capitalized companies without having to complete in the early years
for consulting and engineering assistance. An alternative approach might be that SBR emissions
reporting for the first three years could be based on best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
impacts of this rule on small businesses, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-1081.1 excerpt 3. As discussed in the preamble sections on economic impacts and on
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA's analysis of the economic impact on small businesses
indicates that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on small entities. For more
information on changes made in the final rule to address comments on specific source categories,
please see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2. Also, please see Section II.M. for the response to comments
on record-keeping requirements and the written monitoring plan. In the final rule, record-
keeping requirements have been simplified, and significant changes have been made to the
monitoring plan (formerly called the QAPP) to clarify requirements and simplify preparation.
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1741
Comment Excerpt Number: 48
Comment: For owners or operators of electric power systems that are not reporting SF6
emissions under the Voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership, it will take some time to put
in place the protocols to ensure accurate emissions data is collected. Given that EPA intends to
finalize this rule later this year, and assuming affected entities will need to begin collecting data
very shortly thereafter (January 2010), we urges EPA to recognize the potential burden these
requirements will impose. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, EPA should defer
reporting for at least one year or possibly just require CO2 reporting for the first year in order to
provide sufficient time to prepare for appropriate data collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sufur
Hexafluoridefluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this
source category do not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we
will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on this subpart at this time.
Commenter Name: Lisa Jacobson
Commenter Affiliation: Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0632.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The Proposal states that facilities must begin data collection on January 1st, 2010.
While the Council understands the importance for EPA to comply with emissions collection
legislation from Congress, this deadline does not provide an adequate time window for natural
16
-------
gas companies to adjust and calibrate the necessary equipment for data collection. It may well be
logistically impossible for the nation's natural gas utilities to calibrate 70 million customer
billing meters within the next six months. The short time window will complicate and inhibit
natural gas facilities' efforts to provide consistent and exact data. Consequentially, this scenario
increases the likelihood of unintentional errors in reporting figures; subjecting many facilities to
harsh penalties. It may well be better to allow natural gas utilities to report their natural gas
deliveries to customers based on the same measurement and calibration methods already used for
billing purposes. Those methods are reported to DOE EIA and verified, regulated, and audited by
state public utility commissions, the IRS, SEC and pursuant to financial assurance standards
under Sarbanes-Oxley. We hope that EPA is cognizant of the fact that these new requirements
will be uncharted waters for some of our nation's natural gas facilities. Therefore, the Council
strongly advocates for EPA to extend the effective date of the Final Rule by one year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from that source category do not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart W at this time. For responses to the comment on whether customer billing meters must
be calibrated and other specific comments on the monitoring requirements in Subpart NN
(Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs), see the preamble section and comment response document
on Subpart NN.
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: 5
Comment: The preamble to the proposed rule states that the proposed thresholds will result in
covering 85% - 90% of U.S. GHG emissions, with the number of required reporters nationwide
being approximating 13,000. Many of these affected facilities and sources are already reporting
under some existing state or regional programs, and many facilities already have the necessary
monitoring equipment and protocols in place. In Texas, if we are at a disadvantage it is simply
because we have deliberately decided to wait to see what the EPA will do with regard to GHG
emissions. Now that the EPA is finally taking action, some are incongruously arguing for more
time, claiming they are not ready to implement the rule's provisions. If they are not ready, it is
because they have chosen not to get ready. While the science mounted toward this inevitable
outcome, and our sister states and regions took action, Texas decided to wait — and continue to
rival entire countries in GHG emissions.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. We note that
because EPA is not going forward with the rule subparts for some source categories at this time
(see the preamble for a list and further discussion), the final rule covers approximately 85% of
US GHG emissions. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our
response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
17
-------
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 31
Comment: This increase in ultimate analysis samples will significantly overburden current
laboratory capacity, particularly given the proposed monitoring start date. NMA believes that
coal analyzing laboratories will not be able to implement the additional equipment and staff to
meet the increased workload in time to service mines needing to comply with EPA's proposed
January 1, 2010, start date.
Response: EPA is not going final with subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) or subpart KK
(Suppliers of Coal)at this time, so emissions from these source categories will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. 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. Regarding the monitoring start date for source categories in the final
rule, see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7 and EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. Also see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in
this rule.
Commenter Name: Joel R. Hall
Commenter Affiliation: INEOS Fluor Americas LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1525
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Require affected facilities to begin collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submit the
first reports to EPA on March 31, 2012. EPA specifically requested comments on two options
with respect to effective dates for monitoring and reporting (74 FR 16471). One option is that
affected facilities would report 2010 data in 2011 using best available data. The other option is
that affected facilities would begin collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submit the first reports
to EPA on March 31, 2012. The preamble to the proposed rule (p. 16471) states, "Due to the
comprehensive reporting and monitoring requirements in this proposal, the Agency has
concluded that it is not appropriate to require reporting of historical emissions data ..." and
furthermore, ". . .the Agency's focus is on collecting data of known quality that is generated on a
consistent basis." These statements prevent the use of the first option (use of best available data
for 2010). Therefore, if the final rule is not issued in sufficient time to begin monitoring on
January 1, 2010, the only alternative is to require data collection to begin on January 1, 2011 and
report on March 31, 2012. The proposed rule, for example Subparts L and 00, contains specific
accuracy and precision requirements for monitoring devices and also requires that these devices
be calibrated prior to the first reporting year (2010). At the close of the comment period on this
proposed rule (June 10, 2009) less than 6 months will remain before data collection will be
required to begin (assuming data collection begins on January 1, 2010 in the final rule).
Requiring sources with measuring devices that do not meet the proposed accuracy and precision
requirements to install and calibrate new instruments in less than six months could cause undue
economic hardship on these sources in the form of unscheduled shutdowns or unplanned capital
expenditures, Sources subject to Subparts L, in particular, will be required to monitor highly
corrosive streams (e.g., reactants, vents, etc.), In order to maintain the integrity of the process,
18
-------
these measuring devices will need to be manufactured from unique materials (e.g., corrosion
resistant metal alloys). The time required for a source to obtain, install, troubleshoot, calibrate,
and put into service a measuring device that meets the accuracy requirements of the rule and
meets mechanical integrity requirements for safe operation will very likely take longer than 6
months- Subpart L and 00 of the proposed rule require certain streams to be measured using
"flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an
accuracy and precision of 0.2 percent of full scale or better." The Technical Support Document
for Emissions from Production of Fluorinated GHGs references Coriolis type flowmeters and
states that the Coriolis flowmeter is "the most accurate type of flowmeter." However, this
flowmeter does not meet the accuracy and precision requirements of the proposed rule (0.2
percent of full scale or better) for gas streams. Therefore, existing sources subject to the rule that
are required to measure gas vents under the rule will be required to either design and install tanks
with weigh scales or develop, design, and install technology that consists of a combination of
volumetric and density measurements before January 1, 2010 in order to meet the requirements
of the proposed rule. Neither of these feats could be accomplished before January 1, 2010. For
these reasons, INEOS Fluor requests that affected facilities to begin collecting data on January 1,
2011 and submit the first reports to EPA on March 31, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. We disagree that we cannot allow best available
data for part of 2010 and not still collect data of known quality that is generated on a consistent
basis. Reporters will still have to use the same equations in the rule; it is only the data inputs that
may be collected using alternative, reasonable means. Regarding the specific comments on the
Subpart L monitoring requirements, EPA is not going final with subpart L (Fluorinated
Greenhouse Gas Production) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to
be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart L at this time. For responses to the comments on the accuracy and precisions
specification and other monitoring requirements in Subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial GHGs)
and discussion of changes made to reduce the burden, see the preamble section and comment
response document on Subpart OO.
Commenter Name: Kim Dang
Commenter Affiliation: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L P.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA's proposal to begin monitoring GHG emissions on January 1, 2010 and require
the first annual report to be submitted by March 31, 2011 is likely to lead to poor data collection
in general and poses severe logistical problems for Kinder Morgan. While there may be a
tremendous amount of pressure to finalize GHG reporting rules, it is more important to ensure
that the data collected is accurate and useful. Collecting bad data could lead to faulty conclusions
and misdirected policies. From Kinder Morgan's perspective, the proposed monitoring and
reporting in several areas goes significantly beyond existing requirements and business practices.
Almost every aspect of the human and physical infrastructure needed for Kinder Morgan to
implement the Proposed Rule remains undeveloped as of mid-2009. While this challenge is true
across the different Kinder Morgan business units, it is most evident with regard to Part W
19
-------
because the Proposed Rule does not provide simplified or well-defined methods through which
fugitive GHG emissions can be calculated from readily available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For additional
information, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions
from this source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider
next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore,
we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this time. Comment excerpts and responses
to specific comments on the requirements of other subparts mentioned in the comment letter are
contained in the comment response document volumes for each relevant subpart.
Commenter Name: Patrick J. Nugent
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0460.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Unlike other industry groups who are able to establish their 2010 emissions through
estimation methodologies, the natural gas industry is subject to direct measurement of fugitive
emissions under Subpart W. This burden would not fall only upon those sites that are subject to
the reporting provisions. Rather, every oil and gas site would have to prepare for the detection
and measurement of fugitive emissions by January 1, 2010, just to determine if the site triggers
the reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons/year. The burden is tremendous. The natural gas
industry, its material suppliers, and labor contractors need at least a full year budget cycle in
order to allocate resources to prepare to comply with the emission data gathering and reporting
requirements as they are currently proposed. Accordingly, the current deadlines are unrealistic
and largely unachievable.
Response: See comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to
comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with
subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category
will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be
reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding
to comments on subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: Kim Dang
Commenter Affiliation: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L P.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: If EPA insists on maintaining the proposed dates of January 1, 2010, for monitoring
and March 31, 2011, as the deadline for the first annual report submission, then Kinder Morgan
believes that EPA's alternative "best available data" approach would be preferable to the
proposed timetable. The alternative "best available data" approach, however, has several
drawbacks. This approach would yield uncertain and inconsistent data for facilities where there
20
-------
is considerable disagreement over what constitutes "best available data." GHG emission
estimates based on "best available data" will not be comparable to figures for 2011 and
subsequent years, making that data of limited use to EPA. Efforts to gather "best available data"
for the 2010 monitoring year would divert time and resources that could better be applied to
preparing personnel, equipment, and data management systems for emissions monitoring in
2011. Ultimately, EPA's regulatory efforts would be best served by allowing all sectors, and
especially the gas transmission sector on which it is imposing significant new monitoring
obligations, an additional year to provide for a smooth transition to GHG monitoring.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. 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.
With respect to the comment that use of "best available data" would yield uncertain and
inconsistent data, please see the preamble discussion. After a review of options, we determined
that the "best available monitoring method" approach, which requires use of the required method
with specific flexibility provided in the data used in the method for a defined period of time, will
meet our needs for a consistent and accurate data set and also timely reporting. We also disagree
that this approach will divert time away from preparation for 2011. Options are provided that
enable reporters to determine the most appropriate approach for their circumstances, and the data
needed to use one or more of the approaches should be readily obtained or developed with
minimal burden.
Commenter Name: None
Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0597
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: For companies that do not currently report SF6 emissions it will take some time to
put in place the protocols to ensure accurate emissions data is collected. Given that EPA intends
to finalize this rule this year, making it incumbent companies to start collecting data within
weeks of the publication of a final rule, Vectren urges EPA to recognize the potential burden
placed on those companies that do not currently report SF6 emissions. EPA should not require
reporting until 2012 to provide sufficient time to prepare for appropriate data collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sufur
Hexafluoridefluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions for this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
21
-------
Commenter Name: Charlie Burd and Nicholas DeMarco
Commenter Affiliation: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia (IOGA-WV)
and West Virginia and Natural Gas Association (WVONGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0516.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The WV Associations are concerned that the proposed effective date of January 1,
2010 does not provide adequate time for effected facilities to determine applicability and prepare
to meet the reporting obligations. This is particularly true for the oil and natural gas industry that
will be required to monitor and measure fugitive emissions using new methodologies and
equipment that have limited availability in the industry. In order to report emissions by March
2011, much of the equipment procurement and installation as well as testing, quality assurance
and database management systems needed to measure, calculate, record and report emissions
will need to be in place by January 1, 2010. With the likelihood that EPA will not be able to
issue a final rule before September/October 2009, a few short months will not offer sufficient
lead-time for affected entities to prepare for, much less implement, the requirements of this
program. EPA suggested in the preamble to the rule that, as an option, the rule could be delayed
for one year. The WV Associations strongly support this option and urge EPA to delay the
implementation of this program for at least one year (reporting of 2011 emissions with
submission of the first report in 2012). A one-year deferral would provide affected entities with
much needed additional time to develop the required systems to monitor GHG emissions. In the
alternative, EPA's "best available data" approach would be preferable to the proposed 2010
timetable. However, should EPA decide to either go forward with the schedule as currently
proposed or its alternative "best available data" approach, we would urge the Agency to consider
adding a provision in the rule that would allow facilities, particularly those subject to the onerous
measurement and reporting requirements of Subpart W, to use established emission factors for
the determination of applicability and for the first year's reporting to allow time to implement a
fugitives monitoring and measurement program. This approach would allow the agency to begin
collection of data for 2010 and to alleviate what is likely to be a very high demand for needed
services to meet monitoring requirements and address concerns that there is currently a paucity
of companies and technicians with expertise in the proposed monitoring methods.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: Michael W. Stroben
Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0407.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: EPA's proposal to start data monitoring on January 1, 2010 will not allow adequate
time following promulgation of the rule for stationary fuel combustion facilities to be ready to
22
-------
begin data monitoring on January 1, 2010. Compliance with this rule will not be a trivial matter.
To begin monitoring, companies will need to assess the final rule, and then, where appropriate,
install and certify emissions monitoring equipment; fuel meters and fuel sampling devices,
develop or purchase, test and implement software programs to support electronic filing; develop
internal reporting procedures and guidance; and finally train personnel in the use of the new
equipment, software, and reporting procedures and guidance. This will take time. Even for
electric generating facilities currently reporting under Part 75, this rule will introduce totally new
requirements to monitor and quantify greenhouse gas emissions from sources that to date has not
been required. According to EPA's Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan for this rulemaking the
Agency plans on finalizing the rule on October 1, 2009. Even if EPA manages to meet this date it
will not provide the time that will be required for facilities to be ready to comply on January 1,
2010. This is also true for electric power systems that are not currently reporting SF6 emissions
as part of EPA's Voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership. In the preamble, EPA asks for
comments on two options for the start of data collection and the start of reporting. The first
option would be to report data from calendar year 2010 in 2011 using best available data; the
second option is to report 2011 data in 2012. Duke Energy supports requiring data collection to
start January 1, 2011, with the first data submissions due to EPA in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also the
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-1641 excerpt 7. See the preamble and related response to comments document for
Subparts C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) and D (Electricity Generation) for
response to specific comments on these source categories. EPA is not going final with subpart
DD (Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this
source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps,
we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Phillip McNeely
Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, AZ
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0374.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The January 1, 2010 start date for data collection does not allow adequate time for
many industries to comply. The proposed requirement to begin collecting data on January 1,
2010 does not allow adequate time for landfill owners to prepare for procurement of the new
monitoring equipment, installation, calibration, and testing of the new monitoring equipment,
and formal data collection protocols. A start date of January 1, 2011 would be more reasonable
for many industries to comply.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For more details
on changes made in response to comments for landfills, please refer to the preamble and
response to comments document for Subpart HH and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0557.1 excerpt 16.
23
-------
Commenter Name: Fredrick Palmer and Dianna Tickner
Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0552.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: First, EPA requests comments on the commencement date for reporting. 74 Fed.
Reg. at 16471. Peabody recommends the second option set forth by EPA. Peabody does not
believe that the 2010 date for commencement of reporting is realistic. Even on the most
expeditious path imaginable, assuming EPA gives due regard to the comments it receives from
the very large number of entities and sectors to which the proposed regulation applies, the rule
cannot be made final until the last quarter of 2009. We cannot be ready, therefore, to make the
investments in equipment, labor and training that will be necessary to comply with the rule by
January 1, 2010. Moreover, there is likely to be a considerable shortage of laboratory capacity to
undertake daily ultimate analysis for all or many coal mines exceeding a 100,000-ton per year
production level. Peabody suggests a January 1, 2011 start date. This is consistent with the fact
that, at least for coal suppliers, EPA already has the data and tools it needs to analyze C02
regulatory scenarios, and therefore there is no pressing need for the new data EPA seeks. EPA
states that the disadvantage of its second option is that it delays receipt by EPA of "critical data,
even basic data, necessary to inform future policy and regulatory development." Id. That is not
the case with coal supplier reporting.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart FF
(Underground Coal Mines) or subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) at this time, so emissions from
these source categories will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. 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: Wesley L. McNealy
Commenter Affiliation: Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0547.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: PHI supports data collection beginning with data year 2011 for submittal in 2012.
PHI does not support reporting beginning January 1, 2010, following promulgation of a final rule
no earlier than September 2009, under the previously described conditions. Under any
circumstances, reporting in 2010 would not allow adequate time for PHI to design and
implement systems and procedures necessary for accurate data collection. Given the scope and
importance of this proposed rule, PHI requests that EPA allow adequate time between
publication of the final rule and full implementation for reporting entities to fully understand
reporting obligations and to develop and implement new monitoring, data collection and
reporting procedures. While the proposed greenhouse gas emissions reporting requirements for
electric generating units build on existing programs for which methodologies and data gathering
procedures are in place, several areas of the proposed rule (especially regarding sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from electric power systems and oil and natural gas source
categories) will likely require the development of new operating procedures and staff training in
order to collect and report the data in the manner that EPA proposes. A few months, or even
24
-------
weeks, from publication of the final rule to full implementation is simply not enough time to
implement new data management systems and procedures required by this rulemaking.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Robert J. Martineau, Jr
Commenter Affiliation: Counsel, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0414.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA has proposed to start the mandatory reporting rule in 2010. Nissan is concerned
that if the details of the final rule, including finalizing all monitoring, recordkeeping
requirements, and calculation methodologies, are not finalized until late in 2009, it will not
provide adequate time to allow large stationary sources that may have to report emissions for
multiple source categories under the rule to develop recordkeeping necessary to ensure accurate,
complete reporting by January 1, 2010. Nissan disagrees with EPA's view that by beginning in
January 2010 "this schedule would give existing facilities lead time after the date the rule is
promulgated to prepare for monitoring and reporting." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,471 (Col. 1). EPA
specifically requested comment on alternative options. The best option would be to simply delay
implementation of the rule and report data in 2012 for 2011. If, however, EPA feels compelled to
begin requiring sources to collect data in 2010 and report in 2011, EPA should explicitly
recognize 2010 as a "shakedown" year, to allow sources time to ensure they have established
sufficient recordkeeping and reporting methods to ensure accurate reporting. Many companies
certainly will have difficulty ensuring complete and accurate GHG emissions tracking
immediately on January 1, 2010. If EPA requires reporting for CY 2010, it should make clear in
the rule that it will not bring enforcement actions for inadequate or incomplete data in the initial
report, and that enforcement will be reserved only for those who fail to file at all.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For additional
information, see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7 and EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. Also see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14 for the response to the suggestion that 2010 be a practice or "shake-down" year. With
respect to the compliance and enforcement issues, please see the Preamble, Section VI.
Compliance and Enforcement, and the comment response document volume on compliance and
enforcement.
Commenter Name: See Table 13
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0709.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
25
-------
Comment: We are concerned that the proposed effective date of January 1st, 2010 for 2011
reporting, does not allow sufficient lead-time for implementation (establishing a budget, setting
up a compliance program, collecting data, testing, calculating emissions, developing and
managing a database, performing quality assurance, recordkeeping, etc.) - particularly given that
the final rule may not be issued until October or November 2009. If EPA moves forward with a
January 1st, 2010 effective date, it would be advisable to design a phased-in system where the
initial years would be a "pilot" period before any enforcement actions are taken. This is
consistent with the approach taken by the European Union (EU) (3 year pilot phase) and
California (1 year of "best available data"). An alternative would be to consider pushing the
compliance schedule to January 1st, 2012 and reporting 2011 data rather than 2010 data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For the response
to the comment on phasing in the rule, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. This comment also addresses the budgeting issue. For response to other
issues raised regarding beginning data collection 2010, see comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-0564.1 excerpt 2. See also the preamble, Section M. on General Record Keeping
Requirements for response to comments on record-keeping and the monitoring plan.
Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor
Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: While the EPA rule does not require facilities and suppliers to begin collecting data
until January 1, 2010, the deadline for the first emissions report (March 31, 2011) is impractical
from several aspects. Firstly, EPA's proposed rule-making schedule is incredibly aggressive for
legislation of this magnitude. The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee
seriously questions whether EPA can sufficiently review and consider all comments submitted
by potentially affected parties prior to finalizing this reporting rule by the stated 2009 goal.
Furthermore, the NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee believes that EPA has
significantly underestimated the time and resources it will take for the regulated community to
comply with this new reporting rule. Given the complexity of the proposed rule, the regulated
community needs sufficient time to read, understand, and assess the applicability of the
provisions to its operations and, for the impacted facilities, to implement the required compliance
program before the January 1, 2010 effective date. The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite
EHS Committee believes EPA should instead consider 2011 to be the first reporting year. Should
EPA, nevertheless, complete such an aggressive schedule and require 2010 to be the first
reporting year, as proposed, the NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee
beseeches EPA to consider the submitted 2010 GHG emissions data as "practice", allowing for
subsequent revisions should any reporting errors be discovered by EPA or the regulated facility,
and invoke a one-year moratorium on enforcement action.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For additional
information on the feasibility of compliance in 201, see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7. With respect
26
-------
to the concern about EPA's ability to respond to comments received on the proposed rule, see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. With respect to the concern
about the time required for affected facilities to review the rule, see the responses to comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2.
Regarding the suggestion that 2010 should be a "practice" year, see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. See the preamble section and comment response
document volume on compliance and enforcement for the response to the comment on
enforcement during the first year.
Commenter Name: Stephen E. Woock
Commenter Affiliation: Weyerhaeuser Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0451.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: Weyerhaeuser's experience reporting through the Climate Disclosure Project and
other activities suggest new reporting programs of this scale have extensive learning curves, and
in this case, where EPA is proposing for the Forest Product Industry and others that facilities
implement many novel methodologies and equipment, we expect an even longer lead time is
necessary and warranted. However EPA is proposing in most categories a data collection start
date of January 1, 2010, less than a year following rule proposal. We strongly suggest this date
be modified. Many facilities will not be ready to initiate sampling and information/data
collection per the proposed methodology by EPA's proposed start date of January 1, 2010,
especially if the more complex methodologies and those requiring added sampling equipment
and personnel training are adopted. Additional calibrated solid fuel metering devices may need to
be purchased and installed. For example, if a CEMS for monitoring C02 emissions from
combustion sources or a new truck scale for weighing materials transported to a landfill is
required, the acquisition of capital, procurement, and installation of the project and the related
QA/QC of the equipment and development of procedures and personnel training, will require
many months to well over a year to complete. This is especially problematic where capital is
tight -which is universally the case as a result of the recent recession. The need for capital
planning for this rule, which typically takes place a year before capital is allocated, could not
have been foreseen. EPA provides for some temporary data collection approaches in the event of
equipment not being ready; however, we believe this will be an inefficient approach and believe
instead data collection and reporting under the rule should not commence until ample time to
implement all methodologies is given to reporters. Assuming a final rule is issued by mid-
December 2009, Weyerhaeuser proposes starting data collections in January 2011, with initial
reporting in 2012. In the event EPA is unable to accommodate a change from the 2010 start they
proposed, we believe the Agency should explicitly provide a three-year phase-in of enforcement
so that industry can prepare the data collection equipment and conduct shake-downs of their new
data gathering/reporting systems with confidence they will not suffer enforcement consequences
due to an inability to meet EPA's unusually short implementation schedule and the stringent
certification requirements EPA proposes in the rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for response to comments on outreach and, the
timing of finalizing some source categories included in the proposed rule. See comment EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2 for response to comments on the content and complexity
of the final rule. See comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14 for response to
27
-------
comments on budgeting for this rule as well as phasing in the requirements of the rule. See the
preamble section and comment response document volume on compliance and enforcement for
the response to the comment on enforcement during the first year. Also note that EPA is not
going final with the reporting requirements for industrial landfills at this time, so emissions from
this source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next
steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we
are not responding to comments on the reporting requirements for industrial landfills at this time.
Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley
Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdings Inc. Company (GrafTech)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0686.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: While the EPA rule does not require facilities and suppliers to begin collecting data
until January 1, 2010, the deadline for the first emissions report (March 31, 2011) is impractical
from several aspects. Firstly, EPA's proposed rule-making schedule is incredibly aggressive for
legislation of this magnitude. GrafTech seriously questions whether EPA can sufficiently review
and consider all comments submitted by potentially affected parties prior to finalizing this
reporting rule by the stated 2009 goal. Furthermore, GrafTech believes that EPA has
significantly underestimated the time and resources it will take for the regulated community to
comply with this new reporting rule. Given the complexity of the proposed rule, the regulated
community needs sufficient time to read, understand, and assess the applicability of the
provisions to its operations and, for the impacted facilities, to implement the required compliance
program before the January 1, 2010 effective date. GrafTech believes EPA should instead
consider 2011 to be the first reporting year. Should EPA, nevertheless, complete such an
aggressive schedule and require 2010 to be the first reporting year, as proposed, GrafTech
beseeches EPA to consider the submitted 2010 GHG emissions data as "practice", allowing for
subsequent revisions should any reporting errors be discovered by EPA or the regulated facility,
and invoke a one-year moratorium on enforcement action.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
concerns over EPA's ability to responds to significant comments, see our response to comment.
Regarding the time required to review and comply with the new rule, see the response to
comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1
excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7. Regarding the suggestion that 2010
should be a practice year, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14. Regarding the approach to compliance and enforcement for this rule, see the
responses to comments in the preamble, Section VI. on Compliance and Enforcement and in the
associated comment response document volume. Also see the preamble for the response on
making corrections to annual reports.
Commenter Name: Laurie Burt
Commenter Affiliation: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0453.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
28
-------
Comment: Under Section IV E of the Preamble, Rationale for Selecting the Reporting Year,
EPA requested comment on alternative effective dates if EPA is unable to issue a final rule in
sufficient time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010. If EPA is unable to meet its goal of a
final rule in sufficient time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010, Massachusetts suggests that
EPA require facilities to report for 2010 using the best available data. We would like to
encourage reporting at the earliest possible date in order to inform federal and state policy
decisions. Indeed, Massachusetts facilities are required to report their GHG emissions under the
Massachusetts GHG Reporting Rule beginning with 2009 emissions of carbon dioxide; in
calendar year 2010 all six Kyoto GHG emissions are required to be reported. Reporting 2010
GHG emissions using the best available data would allow facilities to ease into the reporting
program by installing any necessary equipment and implementing the required methods before
the full reporting requirements apply for reporting 2011 GHG emissions. It should not be overly
burdensome to facilities required to report because sources covered in Section 98.2(a)(1) and (2)
are largely already participating in some voluntary or mandatory GHG reporting program.
Additionally, many of the required monitoring methods are already employed by facilities for
process management and accounting reasons. For sources covered under Section 98.2(a)(3),
there would be no change in the reporting requirements for 2010 GHG emissions because they
are allowed to use the best available data in the proposed rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Nicole Mcintosh
Commenter Affiliation: Consumers Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0584.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The EPA has solicited comment on two options for the implementation of data
collection and the effective date of reporting. The first option is to implement data collection
beginning in 2010 and report that data in 2011 and the second is to implement data collection in
2011 and start reporting in 2012. We believe the first option; collecting data beginning in 2010
and reporting that data to the EPA in 2011; does not give our company or industry at large
adequate time for preparation. Once a final rule is promulgated, we will require time to assess the
rule and where necessary, purchase and install monitoring equipment, implement software or
systems to support emissions reporting and train our employees on the use of new equipment and
reporting protocols. This is especially true for the natural gas side of the business, where many of
the instruments as required by the proposed rule are not currently used to monitor and measure
fugitive emissions. Consumers Energy, along with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the
American Gas Association (AGA) support the implementation of data collection beginning in
2011 and the reporting for that data in 2012 for the aforementioned reasons.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
time required to review and comply with the rule, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for
our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not
going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from that
source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps,
29
-------
we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: See Table 12
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: EPA has requested comment on alternative timelines if the proposed schedule is not
achievable, and it has proposed two alternatives: (1) report 2010 data in 2011 using best
available data or (2) report 2011 data in 2012. Of these two alternatives, GPA prefers requiring
affected facilities to begin collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submitting their first reports to
EPA in 2012: GPA believes that EPA's proposal to begin collecting data on January 1, 2011
would provide industry with the appropriate lead time to determine which sources must report,
assess any equipment deficiencies, order any requisite equipment, install the equipment, and
train personnel. Providing industry with this additional time is necessary to ensure that the data
reported meets QA/QC methods, so that EPA can be properly informed when making policy
decisions and so that disparities in data-quality across reporting years are not misinterpreted in
the marketplace or by regulators. In the alternative, if EPA determines that some type of data is
needed earlier than 2012, EPA should consider adopting a phased approach similar to the State
of New Mexico's approach by setting different deadlines for different types of emissions. Under
such an alternative, reporting GHG emissions subject to Subpart W could be delayed to allow
additional consideration of whether and how to monitor or estimate fugitive emissions. The
reporting of Subpart W emissions should be delayed at least until 2012 for 2011 emissions, if
required at all, while other GHG emissions (e.g., fuel combustion sources subject to Subpart C)
could be reported in 2011 for 2010 using best available data. This timetable recognizes that fuel
combustion emissions are more readily estimated in the near term than other emissions, such as
fugitive methane. Under this proposed alternative, the 25,000 mtpy threshold would apply only
to emissions from covered subparts of the rule required to report during each year of the phase-in
period. Furthermore, the once-in-always-in status of a source would not be finally confirmed
until 2012, when all emissions data from all sources can be reliably reported to EPA. Taking
such a tiered approach to regulation sensibly provides regulated sources at least one full year
cycle for planning, engineering and budgeting to conform with the monitoring requirements in
the regulation. Although not included in EPA's proposal, GPA notes that it would oppose any
alternative that involves reporting data for a portion of 2010 and then using extrapolation
methods to estimate a source's annual emissions. Such a method would not further EPA's goal of
obtaining accurate data because extrapolation would not take into account operational variability
(e.g., decreases and increases in throughput - a hallmark of the natural gas processing business)
at times outside of the reporting period. Extrapolated partial year data would raise too many
questions regarding the inventory's accuracy and how to interpret data on a comparative basis.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
time required to review and comply with the new rule, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, andEPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions
from that source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider
30
-------
next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore,
we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
With respect to the suggestion that the final rule phase in reporting requirements, please see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. Note also that the "once in
always in" provisions have been modified; please see the preamble Section II.H for response to
comments on this issue. Finally, we agree with the commenter regarding the extrapolation of
partial year data, and do not plan to take this approach. The best available monitoring method
approach implemented in 2010 makes such a practice unnecessary.
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: EPA proposes to require facilities impacted by this rulemaking to begin monitoring
requirements January 1, 2010, and to file initial reports by March 31, 2011. Assuming that EPA
finalizes a reporting rule, it would be optimistic to think that at this late date, impacted entities
would become aware of the final regulations to which they would be subject prior to the end of
2009. NMA trusts that EPA will devote adequate time and attention to the comprehensive
comments it will receive on this proposal, and adjust the rule accordingly to ensure a fair and
productive program. NMA does not believe that the 2010 commencement date identified in the
proposal is realistic. NMA recognizes that for a portion of regulated entities that would become
subject to a finalized proposal, electric generating units subject to the Acid Rain Program for
instance, existing monitoring and reporting procedures are already in place, and compliance with
a reporting rule for those entities will be relatively straightforward. Many NMA members that
will become subject to new regulation, however, will have a much steeper climb in order to
comply. Given that affected entities will need time to read and understand a final rule, identify
questions and obtain clarifications, conduct training and implement appropriate monitoring
programs or install data collection equipment, NMA does not believe that a January 1, 2010, start
date will offer sufficient time to prepare for the collection of meaningful data. NMA
recommends that EPA consider requiring regulated entities to begin monitoring January 1, 2011,
at the earliest.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to the timing of
finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart FF (Underground Coal
Mines) or subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) at this time, so GHGs from those source categories
will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. 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: Michael W. Stroben
Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0407.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
31
-------
Comment: The proposal to begin data monitoring on January 1, 2010 does not allow adequate
time for transmission and distribution (T&D) systems that are not participating in EPA's
Voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership to develop and implement all programs and
procedures needed to meet that schedule. The monitoring of the data necessary for reporting SF6
emissions under the proposed rule will require the owner/operator of a T&D system to undertake
numerous activities before it is in a position to be able to begin data monitoring. For example, a
utility must accurately determine every bit of SF6 in their inventory as of January 1, 2010 and
then track every bit of gas that enters or leaves their system throughout the entire year.
Implementation will require identifying and procuring equipment to measure the amounts of gas
in inventory (e.g. numerous scales of sufficient capacity and accuracy); developing and
implementing internal processes and practices for measuring the inventory of gas, tracking and
reporting gas entering or leaving the utility's system, etc.; and/or negotiating with possibly
numerous suppliers of SF6 gas and/or gas-containing equipment and subsequently developing the
required data reporting methods and interchanges to obtain gas volumes from these vendors.
Duke Energy believes an absolute minimum of six months will be needed to complete these
activities and be ready to begin complying with the rule. It's unlikely that companies that joined
the EPA Voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership had their program up and running in
only three months, the amount of time that would be provided if EPA manages to finalize this
rule on October 1, 2009 as indicated in EPA's Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan for this
rulemaking. The only way that a T&D system owner/operator that is not currently participating
in EPA's voluntary SF6 partnership could be in a position to begin data monitoring on January 1,
2010 would be to begin undertaking the necessary preparation work now, before the rule is
finalized. Duke Energy does not think it is reasonable for EPA to establish a schedule that
requires entities to begin taking steps to comply with a rule before the rule is finalized and before
the final requirements are known. Duke Energy therefore recommends that the date to begin data
monitoring be moved to January 1, 2011 with initial reporting to occur 2012. Duke Energy does
not support the option of reporting for 2010 using "best available data." It is not at all clear what
this would be and it is not clear what value would be gained from such reporting.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Paul R. Pike
Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0487.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: In subpart DD, EPA provides for the reporting of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) (or
perfluorocarbons (PFCs)) from the "electric power system source category," which includes
"transmission and distribution systems that operator gas-insulated substations, circuit breakers,
other switchgear, gas-insulated lines, or power transformers" containing SF6 or PFCs. EPA
proposes to require emissions reporting if the total nameplate capacity of equipment containing
SF6 exceeds 17,820 lbs. Proposed §§ 98.300 & 98.301. EPA states that this threshold is
32
-------
equivalent to that used for other source categories and was based on emissions reported by
members of EPA's voluntary SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems
(Partnership), many of whom are also members of EEI. To calculate SF6 emissions, EPA
proposes that owners of electric power systems use the mass balance approach (§ 98.303) that is
similar to the one currently used by the Partnership. 74 Fed. Reg. 16549. For companies not
currently reporting SF6 emissions, it will take some time to put in place the protocols to ensure
accurate emissions data is collected. Given that EPA intends to finalize this rule this year,
making it incumbent upon facilities to start collecting data within weeks of the publication of a
final rule, Ameren urges EPA to recognize the potential burden placed on those companies that
do not currently report SF6 emissions. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, EPA should
not require reporting until 2012 to provide sufficient time to prepare for appropriate data
collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Wesley L. McNealy
Commenter Affiliation: Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0547.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: PHI is concerned with the cost of implementing the proposed direct measurement
monitoring methods and procedures, especially in the timeframe in which EPA proposes they be
implemented. Given the aggressive implementation schedule proposed by EPA, most utility
companies would need to enter into contracts with consulting firms providing leak detection with
high-flow sampling devices, which would substantially increase compliance costs. In addition,
PHI is concerned that there are too few consultants to conduct the leak surveys in the time
allotted under the proposed rule and insufficient time to negotiate contracts for such services to
satisfy EPA's proposed requirement to report greenhouse gas emissions beginning January 1,
2010. PHI encourages EPA to consider phasing in the direct measurement elements of this
source category to make it more manageable and cost effective.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. The leak surveys the commenter is referring to
are a component of proposed subpart W. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural
Gas Systems) at this time, so the commenter will not be required to report emissions for this
source category for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the
public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments
on subpart W at this time.
33
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 7
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0455.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Comment: Under the Proposal, facilities would be required to begin collecting data on January
1, 2010, and the first emissions report would be due on March, 31, 2011. The Class of'85
believes that this schedule does not allow adequate time for affected facilities to prepare for the
Proposal's burdensome obligations. The Class of '85 urges the Agency to allow enough time
between the publication of the final rule and its full implementation for affected facilities to gain
a full understanding of their reporting obligations and to prepare for such obligations. Under the
proposed implementation schedule, promulgation of the final rule in the September 2009
timeframe would allow only three months to develop internal reporting procedures, quality
assurance methods, software for electronic filing, and to acquire necessary hardware (e.g.,
certified scales for weighing SF6 equipment). Although the proposed GHG emissions reporting
requirements build off of existing programs for which methodologies and data gathering
procedures are in place, several sections of the proposed rule require new monitoring procedures.
This would require affected facilities to develop new operating procedures and train their staff
accordingly, and three months is inadequate for this purpose. Thus, the Class of '85 supports an
alternative implementation schedule for the Proposal. If EPA requires the reporting of 2010
emissions data in 2011, the Group urges EPA to accept GHG emissions reporting based on a
facility's "best available data" from 2010. Alternatively, the Group supports establishing 2011 as
the initial reporting year, with the first report due in March 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
time required to review and comply with the new rule, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, andEPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt
2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not
going final with subpart DD (Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time,
so emissions from this source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As
we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant
information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Skiles W. Boyd
Commenter Affiliation: DTE Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0606.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Implementation Timing DTE Energy supports delaying the implementation date of
the rule to 2011. On behalf of the Electric Generating Units (EGU) which have been subject to
Acid Rain Reporting, implementation of a GHG addendum will require a minor amount of
additional monitoring and reporting. However, even a minor change will require time for
analysis of the new requirements, changes to internal procedures and software and finally,
training personnel on the new reporting regime. If the rule becomes final in October of 2009 with
the inventory process to begin in 2010, EPA has not only imposed a significant time crunch for
compliance but budgets for 2010 would have already been finalized and would not include any
expenditures for compliance with the new rule in 2010. This timeframe is simply unreasonable
34
-------
and we request EPA acknowledge the time needed and postpone the effective date to 2011. The
gas distribution and transmission side of DTE Energy which has not historically reported GHG
emissions faces a much larger implementation and cost burden. The proposal requires, not only
an inventory of combustion sources, but also proposes new leak testing requirements for fugitive
emissions on a scale that has never been contemplated before. If the rule is finalized in October
2009 and emissions inventory reporting begins in 2010, EPA must recognize that compliance
with the new rule would not be scoped in the 2010 budget, an inventory of all components
subject to leak detection would not be prepared (which could easily be thousands of
components), leak detection equipment would not be purchased, personnel would not be trained
on the new equipment and internal procedures would not be developed to meet compliance
obligations. DTE Energy is committed to full compliance and providing EPA with quality data,
in return, EPA must allow us time to prepare for these new, potentially arduous requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
time required to review and comply with the new rule, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. The leak testing the commenter referred to is a
component of subpart W. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems)
at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be reported for calendar year
2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant
information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this time. For the
responses to specific comments on reporting by EGUs subject to the Acid Rain Program, see the
preamble section and comment response document volume on electricity generation.
Commenter Name: Dennis R. James
Commenter Affiliation: North American Coal Corporation (NAC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1082.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The larger issue will be laboratory capacity. The proposed rule will significantly
increase the ultimate analysis load on coal laboratories and most will require additional
equipment and staff to meet the increased workload. The equipment used for performing ultimate
analyses is highly technical and is not readily available, off the shelf. Instrument companies build
the analysis units when they are ordered. Thus, a rule finalized in late 2009 may be impossible to
comply with by January 1, 2010 because equipment could be backordered. It will also take time
to train staff to properly operate and maintain the equipment, further complicating the timing
issue.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. This comment pertains to subpart KK. EPA is not
going final with subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) at this time, so GHG reporting for this source
category will not be required for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be
reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding
to comments on subpart KK at this time.
35
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 12
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Reporting should begin in 2011. GPA supports EPA's proposal to refrain from
requiring the reporting of historical emissions prior to 2010 in order to avoid imposing an undue
burden on affected sources. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,471. Furthermore, GPA supports EPA's
recognition that existing facilities need adequate lead time to prepare for achieving compliance
with the monitoring and reporting requirements that are eventually promulgated. As EPA notes,
this preparation would require "studying the final rule, determining whether it applies to the
facility, identifying the requirements with which the facility must comply, and preparing to
monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate and report GHG emissions." Id. Despite
the absence of historical data and notwithstanding EPA's recognition that the final rule will
require significant study and preparation, EPA has proposed an effective date of January 1, 2010.
Id. GPA believes it is unrealistic to expect facilities to comply with an effective date of January
1, 2010. The proposed rule is an unprecedented undertaking, and, as previously noted, few if any
natural gas processing facilities are currently monitoring emissions in the manner proposed in
EPA's inventory rule. These facilities cannot begin planning and budgeting for the many efforts
required to comply with the rule (e.g., equipment purchases and installation, conducting
additional training, establishing recordkeeping systems, and establishing proper QA/QC) until
the final rule is issued sometime around November 2009. That leaves a paltry two months -
November and December 2009 - in which to put in place and test uniformly high-quality data-
gathering and reporting systems. A more realistic timeline would be to require initial reporting in
2012 for calendar year 2011, thus ensuring data-gathering uniformity and quality for the entire
reporting year. A further complication is that the market for monitoring equipment and technical
expertise is not reliably large enough to support full compliance with the rule starting as early as
January 2010. For example, the great majority of GPA's membership lacks an optical imaging
camera, which is one of two options provided to conform with the requirements of Subpart W in
the proposed rule. Furthermore, the highly technical nature of the camera requires additional
training and testing and may require hiring new personnel or contracting with outside resources
for support. Similarly, it is doubtful that enough high flow samplers, which are even less
prevalent than optical imaging cameras, would be available in the marketplace to meet the
proposed 2010 deadline.
Response: EPA thanks the commenter for their input on reporting of historical emissions. The
final rule, like the proposed rule, does not require reporting of historical emissions. For the
response to the comment on the initial reporting year, see the Preamble at Section II.G. for the
response on the initial reporting year and provisions in the final rule that allow use of best
available monitoring methods. Regarding the time required to review and comply with the new
rule and budgeting issues, see the response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1
excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. See also comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing
some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems)
at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be reported for calendar year
2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant
information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
36
-------
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1741
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Program Implementation Timeline - EPA Should Defer Implementation of the
Program for One Year Of most concern is the proposed effective date of January 1, 2010 for the
commencement of this program. Although actual reporting of 2010 emissions would not be
required until March 2011, affected entities will need to begin an extensive amount of up-front
work to be in a position to begin collecting the necessary data by January 2010 to measure,
estimate or calculate 2010 GHG emissions. This will include having to inventory all potential
emission sources of GHGs at each facility, establishing mechanisms (estimation methods, use of
historical data) by which to determine whether smaller facilities exceed the reporting threshold,
and for those that do exceed the threshold, determining what type of new or additional
measurement or monitoring equipment may be needed. In addition, much of the equipment
procurement and installation as well as testing, quality assurance and database management
systems needed to measure, calculate, record and report emissions will need to be in place by
January 1, 2010 to make reporting possible. Personnel will need to be trained in the use of new
equipment, software and reporting procedures. This is particularly true for the oil and natural gas
industry that will be required to monitor and measure fugitive emissions using new
methodologies and equipment that have limited availability in the industry. The proposed
rulemaking approach appears to rest on the premise that robust and viable commercial
infrastructure exists to fulfill the implied obligations for instrument manufacturing, installation,
training, etc. However, this market is very limited and is not sufficient at this time to support the
requirements of this rule, [footnote: The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)
indicates that there may be fewer than 5 companies in the U.S. with significant monitoring and
measurement experience in the natural gas transmission industry.] This is also an issue for the
electric utility industry which will be subject to reporting emissions of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
for the first time. With the likelihood that EPA will not issue a final rule before
September/October 2009, there will not be sufficient lead-time for affected entities to prepare
for, much less implement, the requirements of this program. For these reasons, we strongly urge
EPA to adopt one of the following alternatives: * Delay the implementation of this program for
one year (reporting of 2011 emissions with submission of the first report in 2012), a concept the
Agency itself suggested in the preamble to the proposed rule. A one-year deferral would provide
affected entities with additional time to develop the required systems to monitor and calculate
GHG emissions. * Include a C02-only requirement or option for the initial year of reporting (of
2010 emissions) that would apply to stationary source combustion and delay the reporting of
other GHGs and reporting of fugitive emissions for one year. * Implement EPA's "best available
data" approach under which facilities would be allowed to use established emission factors for
the determination of applicability and for the first year's reporting to allow time to implement a
workable fugitive monitoring and measurement program. However, should EPA decide to either
go forward with the schedule as currently proposed, we would urge the Agency to consider
adding a provision in the rule that would allow facilities, particularly those subject to the onerous
measurement and reporting requirements of Subpart W, to begin monitoring prior to January
2010 (for 2010 emissions) in order to alleviate what is likely to be a very high demand for
needed services to meet monitoring requirements and address concerns that there is currently a
paucity of companies and technicians with expertise in the proposed monitoring methods.
37
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For additional
information, see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641, excerpt 7 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2. Regarding the comment on requiring reporting of
only C02 in the first year and phasing in other GHGs, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-0479.1 excerpt 4. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt
2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not
going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) and subpart DD (Sulfur Hexafluoride
(SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not
need to be reported for calendar year 2010. 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: Kim Dang
Commenter Affiliation: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L P.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: Like other owners and operators of natural gas transmission facilities, Kinder
Morgan does not possess (1) the necessary equipment to carry out leak detection and
measurement on the scale required; (2) trained personnel to operate that equipment; (3) data
management systems to collect, archive, interpret and transmit emissions information; or (4)
quality control procedures to ensure the integrity and completeness of emissions information.
Contractors competent to perform the necessary detection and measurements are also in short
supply, and likely to remain so for at least one to two years. The time required to properly train
contractors and personnel cannot be overlooked, especially since some of EPA's proposed
measurement methods - such as the use of high-volume samplers and infrared remote fugitive
emission detection instruments - can only be mastered through experience. In light of these
logistical challenges, Kinder Morgan strongly recommends that EPA consider an alternative to
direct measurement.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: See Table 8
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0480.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: EPA Should Defer Implementation Of The Rule For One Year. EPA's proposal to
begin monitoring GHG emissions on January 1, 2010 and require the first annual report to be
submitted by March 31, 2011 would pose severe and likely impossible logistical problems for
38
-------
the natural gas transmission industry. Unlike other industry sectors, such as electricity-generating
facilities, the natural gas transmission industry is being required to monitor and measure GHG
emissions by implementing new procedures that have not been previously required by other
applicable Subparts of the Clean Air Act. Moreover, the Proposed Rule does not provide
simplified methods through which fugitive GHG emissions can be calculated from readily
available data. As a result, almost every aspect of the human and physical infrastructure needed
for the natural gas transmission industry to implement the Proposed Rule remains undeveloped
as of mid-2009. Most of our members lack the necessary equipment to carry out leak detection
and measurement on the scale required; trained personnel to operate that equipment; data
management systems to collect, archive, interpret and transmit emissions information; or quality
control procedures to ensure the integrity and completeness of emissions information.
Contractors competent to perform the necessary detection and measurements are also in short
supply, and likely to remain so for at least one to two years. [Footnote: EPA has estimated there
are approximately 1,944 gas transmission facilities in the U.S, all of which would have to
undergo fugitive emissions measurement in order to determine the applicability of the proposed
Subpart W. NOPR, 74 Fed. Reg. at 16532 (Table W-2). The number of individual components
within each facility that would require monitoring under Subpart W can be conservatively
estimated at approximately 2,000. Because a well-seasoned crew can monitor two facilities of
that size per week, at least 972 crew-weeks would be required in order to monitor all of these
facilities once (this figure would be higher if re-measurement is required to remedy missing
data). INGAA estimates that for the 2010 monitoring year, approximately thirty to fifty crews
would be required to carry out the methods prescribed in subpart W assuming that data
reduction, reporting and other administrative duties will reduce field time to half of the available
year. However, there are limited experienced corporate or contractors with sufficient knowledge
in North America to carry out provisions related to monitoring and reporting.] The time required
to properly train contractors and personnel cannot be overlooked, especially since some of EPA's
proposed measurement methods, such as the use of high-volume samplers, can only be mastered
through experience. In light of these logistical challenges, INGAA supports the full
postponement of the rule for a year, as suggested by EPA. Alternatively, INGAA requests EPA
postpone the Subpart W effective date by one full year as those requirements have
disproportionately high compliance challenges. A one-year deferral of the Proposed Rule would
provide the natural gas transmission industry with additional time to develop the required
systems to monitor GHG emissions. Finally, EPA's alternative best available data approach
would also be preferable to the proposed timetable for commencing monitoring. [Footnote:
Compared with the proposed implementation schedule, even the best available data alternative,
id., would be preferable. However, this approach would yield uncertain and inconsistent data for
gas transmission facilities, because there is considerable disagreement over what constitutes best
available data in this sector. In addition, GHG emission estimates based on best available data
will not be comparable to figures for 2011 and subsequent years, making that data of limited use
to EPA. Lastly, efforts to gather best available data for the 2010 monitoring year would divert
time and resources that could better be applied to preparing personnel, equipment, and data
management systems for emissions monitoring in 2011. Ultimately, EPA's regulatory efforts
would be best served by allowing the gas transmission sector an additional year to ensure a
smooth transition to GHG monitoring.]
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
39
-------
reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: Jay Hawkins
Commenter Affiliation: Micron Technology, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0437.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: EPA specifically requested comment on the implementation date for the proposed
rule. SIA and Micron believe EPA should adopt one of two alternative approaches to
implementing the GHG reporting rule. First, EPA should allow submission of "best available
data" beginning with calendar 2010 and continuing for an "interim" period until a national
regulatory program is established, or up to three (3) years, whichever is sooner. At that point,
EPA should re-evaluate the necessity and consistency with federal legislation of data collection
and reporting going forward. "Best available data" would be data already available to facilities or
suppliers and data that could be readily obtained using established methodologies at no capital
cost. Alternatively, EPA should delay data collection and reporting for at least one (1) year in
order to give facilities and suppliers adequate time to implement systems and practices necessary
to monitor GHG emissions and calculate and submit required information to EPA. In addition,
EPA should allow facilities and suppliers more time than the current three (3) months to report
prior calendar year data. That period is insufficient to collect, analyze, prepare, and certify data
for submission to EPA. Other reporting programs allow longer time intervals for reporting —
EPA's Toxic Release Inventory allows six (6) months and California's mandatory GHG
reporting program allows five (5) months.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
comment that EPA should allow use of "best available data" for an interim period of up to three
years, EPA is not allowing the use of best available monitoring methods beyond the initial
reporting year. This reporting rule requires monitoring of parameters or process emissions using
monitoring equipment that is easily installed or already in place. Data collected by consistent
methods, accurate, and verifiable (and is therefore comparable across facilities for a given source
category) is crucial for the development of GHG policies and programs. Given the many changes
in this rule to clarify, simplify and reduce burden, most reporters should be prepared to
implement the full methods in the 2nd quarter or 2010 and in no case later than 2011. See the
response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2 for further discussion of these
issues. For the response to the comment on the reporting deadline three months after the end of
each calendar year, see the preamble section on the submittal date for annual reports.
Commenter Name: See Table 14
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1021.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Comment: Some, but not all EEI members that own or operate electric power system are
members of the Partnership. Those that are not members currently do not report SF6 emissions.
40
-------
For these companies, it will take some time to put in place the protocols to ensure that accurate
emissions data are collected. Given that EPA intends to finalize this rule this year, making it
incumbent upon EEI members to start collecting data within weeks of the publication of a final
rule, EEI urges EPA to recognize the potential burden placed on those companies that do not
currently report SF6 emissions. As discussed elsewhere in these comments, EPA should not
require reporting until 2012 in order to provide sufficient time to prepare for appropriate data
collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Dennis R. James
Commenter Affiliation: North American Coal Corporation (NAC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1082.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed rule could present several
problems. At best, coal suppliers will have 6 months or less from the rule's promulgation date
until the requirements for data collection begin. The proposed rule's stringent equipment
standards will require major equipment installations and modifications. This timing is grossly
inadequate to meet the proposed rule's expectations and requirements. Scales, samplers and
analyzers are all types of equipment that have extended delivery times. It is also quite possible
that major facility outages will be necessary for the equipment to be installed. Many facilities
schedule major outages only every third year and any intermediate outages need a lot of planning
and coordination. A provision must be added to provide a process whereby coal suppliers can
show EPA a good faith effort and receive a time extension, without penalty. This will likely
mean that EPA will not receive a complete 2010 report from all coal suppliers; but they cannot
be expected to cause major equipment changes to occur almost overnight.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart KK
(Suppliers of Coal) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart KK at this time.
Commenter Name: Lawrence W. Kavanagh
Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0695.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 34
41
-------
Comment: The proposed rule requires initial reports to be filed by March 31, 2011, for
emissions in 2010. A three-month period to compile data and prepare and submit reports dictated
by the proposed rule is entirely inadequate, particularly given the level of detail specified in the
proposal and the likelihood that a final rule will not be published until late 2009. Unless the
methodology for iron and steel reporting is greatly simplified in the manner described elsewhere
in these comments, the March 31 deadline is untenable. Moreover, we wish to call to EPA's
attention the fact that the deadline for annual reporting under the CERCLA Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) is July 1 for the previous calendar year and is a useful and relevant precedent.
The reporting complexities for the GHG reporting rule, even if simplified as suggested, will be at
least as complex as TRI reporting. Accordingly, we call upon EPA to establish July 1 as the
annual reporting deadline for GHG emission reporting. With respect to the first date for filing
reports, the preamble requests comments on two options: (1) beginning reporting in 2012 for
2011 emissions, or (2) providing the opportunity for use of a simplified estimating methodology
for 2010 emissions followed by the more detailed reporting methodology described in the
proposal for 2011 emissions, the latter which is an option provided by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) under that state's reporting requirements. Presuming the publication of
a final rule in the fourth quarter of 2009, it will not be possible to carry out all of the necessary
management functions to comply with the proposed requirements beginning in January 2010. It
will be necessary to digest the contents of the final rule; design compliance strategies for every
unit; identify where quality control, monitoring, metering, or other improvements may be
necessary; develop engineering specifications for equipment; appropriate capital; procure
equipment; install equipment; and develop quality assurance plans, including data management
systems. In particular, given the complexity of sampling, analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting
required under the proposal, companies who may elect the Facility-Wide Emission Factor option
for reporting will need a substantial amount of time after publication of the final rule to establish
management practices, to develop standard operating practices, sampling, and analytical
procedures and protocols, to acquire necessary analytical equipment where required, and to
schedule and conduct testing, etc. For these reasons, collecting data at the beginning of 2010
emissions for reporting in early 2011 is unrealistic. AISI and ACCCI support the option of
setting the date for first reports in 2012 for 2011 emissions. In the alternative, given the
complexities and detail proposed for the sector-specific reporting methodologies, we support the
CARB option to allow estimates for reporting 2010 emissions using a simplified method,
followed by the more prescriptive methodology for 2011 emissions. However, as we argue
above, we believe a simplified method is appropriate for all future years. As support for a more
deliberate phase-in of the reporting requirement, we call EPA's attention to the European
Union's reporting requirements, which we should note is in parallel with an already existing cap-
and-trade system. Through Phases I and II of the EU Emission Trading System (2005-2012),
companies were able to submit a single CO2 number for each facility using a mass balance
calculation. Phase III reporting requirements, which will not begin until 2013, are still under
consideration. Thus, European companies have more time to report using a facility-wide carbon
balance than is being proposed in the U.S. This also suggests that timing of a more rigorous
reporting methodology be delayed until a cap-and-trade system is functioning in the U.S.
Moreover, the EU 2013 data collection methodology is still under development, and given the
problems envisioned with continuous emission monitoring (noted elsewhere in these comments),
some form of reporting using a carbon balance approach is envisioned as a likely compromise.
For example, instead of unit-by-unit reporting, a proposal by Eurofer (the European steel trade
association) envisions reporting for broad areas of steelmaking (five areas for integrated plants,
two for EAF producers) to provide information to allow establishment of benchmarks of
performance.
42
-------
Response: For the response to the comment on the reporting deadline, see the preamble section
on the submittal date for annual reports (II. J). See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response
on the initial reporting year and provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available
monitoring methods. For the responses to the comments on the calculation methods used for iron
and steel production and discussion of changes made to the final rule to simplify these methods,
see the preamble section and the comment response document volume for subpart Q. Regarding
the concerns expressed with implementing the final rule, please see the response to comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7, EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. For
response to comments on the quality assurance plan, please see the response to comments in the
preamble, Section II.M on General Recordkeeping Requirements. Our response on the issue of
phasing in requirements, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. Note the
methods proposed in this rule are not as rigorous and burdensome as those required for a cap and
trade system, and have been designed to be appropriate to the information collection and policy
purposes of this rule.
Commenter Name: See Table 14
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1021.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Mandatory data collection should start in 2011, with the first data submissions due to
EPA in 2012. Starting data collection on January 1, 2010, following promulgation of a final rule
in October 2009, does not allow adequate time for companies to prepare. To begin reporting,
companies will need to assess the final rule, and then, where appropriate, install and certify
emissions monitoring equipment; develop or purchase, test and implement software programs to
support electronic filing; develop internal reporting procedures and guidance; and finally train
personnel in the use of the new equipment, software, and reporting procedures and guidance.
Allowing what will likely be 90 days from the promulgation of the final rule to the start of the
compliance period is simply inadequate. The foregoing is especially true where utilities are for
the first time reporting emissions from categories not required by the ARP, as codified at 40
C.F.R.Part 75, such as SF6, or where new fossil-fueled combustion units that are exempt under
the ARP provisions of title IV are for the first time subject to a CO2 emissions reporting
requirement under the proposed rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For additional
information, see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7. See also comment EPA-HQ-0AR-2008-0508-
0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this
rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical
Equipment) at this time, so these SF6 emissions will not need to be reported for calendar year
2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant
information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
43
-------
Commenter Name: Fiji George
Commenter Affiliation: El Paso Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0398.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: The EPA has proposed under §98.3(b) that owners or operators of affected facilities
shall submit annual emission reports by March 31st for the previous year's emissions starting
with the emissions report using the 2010 data by March 2011. EPA justifies this schedule at
pages 16470-73 of the proposed rule. Essentially, EPA concludes that initiating the monitoring
programs in January 1, 2010 and submittal of the annual emissions reports by March 31, 2011 is
adequate time for industry to ensure compliance. Based on our experience with developing
facility level emissions reports under CCAR, DoE 1605(b) and New Mexico, we disagree with
this conclusion and recommend, especially for sources covered by Subpart W, that EPA consider
an alternative compliance date with the initial annual emissions reports covering 2011 annual
emissions by June 30, 2012. Subsequent annual reports will be submitted on or before June 30th
of each year to represent emissions from the prior year. Our reasons are as follows: As
mentioned earlier, El Paso is the only natural gas company to have certified its US emissions
from natural gas production, processing and transmission facilities with CCAR and DOE. We
currently operate 217 compressor stations, two processing plants and 40 offshore production
facilities and 69 onshore production fields one Liquefied Natural gas (LNG) import terminal. Of
these, over 140 facilities will be subject to the proposed rule. Most natural gas facilities are
located in remote locations and comprise of thousands of relatively small sources (especially
those subject to Subpart W). These facilities often lack the automation to facilitate data
collection, retention, analysis and quantification of the GHG sources (especially Subpart W).
Therefore, GHG accounting in our sector will continue to rely primarily on manual processes for
the intermediate future. El Paso has taken over 4 years and expended over $ 1.5mm to develop a
"verifiable grade" inventory for DOE and CCAR for our US Operations [See Figure 1 and Table
1 in DCN: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0398.1 showing El Paso's GHG emissions inventories].
These costs relate primarily to developing emissions estimates and reporting and do not include
comprehensive monitoring program proposed by the EPA under Subpart W. Several features
required by the EPA proposal call for development of policies and procedures that will need to
provide the Designated Representative a "reasonable assurance" of compliance. Compliance
with the rules will, therefore, require the development of internal control systems and policies in
addition to the monitoring and reporting programs required by the EPA. Companies may, for
example, need to develop robust inventory management plans (for monitoring and reporting of
emissions), internal audit, QA/QC plans, and similar control systems, in support of the
Designated Representatives' certification of companies' inventories. Our CCAR submittal in
2008 required over 2700 staff hours to complete the necessary data gathering and analysis,
despite three consecutive years of having prepared US GHG inventories for CCAR. This level of
effort shows that while we can expect efficiency improvements as we gain experience with GHG
reporting, the resources and the time required to complete an emissions inventory are still
substantial even after a number of years. Given that EPA's reporting protocol differs both from
the CCAR and the DOE programs, new policies, procedures and systems need to be planned and
developed for compliance with the EPA reporting rule. This planning will take significant time
for even experienced companies like El Paso. GHG accounting is fairly new for most companies
outside the electric sector and most companies will require significant resources and time to
comply with the regulations. Even if EPA finalizes the reporting rule by the fourth quarter of
2009, it is impossible for the regulated community to set up systems and programs within a few
months of a final rule nor can the regulated community set up the program early due to
uncertainties as to what will be included in the final rule. Contrary to EPA's statements in the
44
-------
preamble, parameters for the sources covered by the proposed Subpart W are not currently being
monitored for "process management and accounting reasons". El Paso is one of only a few
natural gas companies to carry out voluntary monitoring and research of fugitive monitoring
methods. Moreover, there is no approved, standardized protocol to carry out such monitoring.
Therefore, once the monitoring methods outlined in §98.234 are finalized, industry will need to
ensure that it is familiar with the requirements and that appropriate monitoring and compliance
plans are developed to ensure compliance. El Paso does not believe that this work can be
accomplished by January 1, 2010. Currently the human and technological resources required to
carry out comprehensive monitoring required by Subpart W are limited. Very limited personnel
within El Paso are currently familiar with the monitoring equipment and trained to carry out such
measurements. In addition, outside contractors familiar with the monitoring devices and in a
position to carry out extensive monitoring at El Paso facilities are limited to a handful. Per the
PRCI report, over 1500+ components can be expected to be monitored per facility under the EPA
proposal. The proposed schedule is, therefore, impossible to meet considering practical resource
constraints.[Footnote: PR-246-9526, T. Howard, R. Kantamaneni, and G. Jones December 1998]
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. For the response to the comment on the March 31
date for annual reports, see the preamble section on the submittal date for annual reports. EPA is
not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this
source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps,
we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: Chris Hobson
Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1645.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Southern Company feels that it will be difficult to undertake this ambitious reporting
program on the current schedule that would require the first reports of 2010 data in early 2011.
Preparations to report 2010 data in 2011 must begin immediately, for a rule that won't even be
final (presumably) until later this year. New equipment must be procured across the electric
utility industry, calibration procedures must be implemented, and an accurate beginning
inventory must be established in late 2009. The first reporting year for this ambitious new
program should be 2011, with submission of 2011 data by June 30, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G.for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
suggestion to submit reports in June, see the preamble response on the submittal date for annual
reports. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to
comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. One of the subparts discussed in
the commenter's letter is subpart DD. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so these SF6 emissions will not need
to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public
comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on
subpart DD at this time.
45
-------
Commenter Name: David R. Case
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0664.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Given the difficulties that hazardous waste incinerators will face if covered by this
reporting program, as described in these comments, starting the monitoring and reporting
requirements on January 1, 2010, is unrealistic and unreasonable. Even if EPA promulgates the
final rule on schedule, the time remaining for hazardous waste incinerators to install CEMS for
C02e emission monitoring, or to develop some kind of sampling and analysis plan for carbon
content of waste feeds for purposes of C02e emission calculations, would not be sufficient or
reasonable. EPA recognizes this problem, and suggests that if a facility does not have any of the
source categories listed in § 98.2, the facility will tend to be smaller and in a diverse industrial
sector (such as hazardous waste incineration) that "may require some extra time to implement the
requirements of the rule." 69 Fed. Reg. at 16472 col.l. EPA's proposed solution of requiring
such facilities to use "simplified emission estimation methods for the first year" does not help
hazardous waste incinerators, however, because there are no "simplified" methods that apply or
that will yield useful data. While we appreciate EPA's desire to obtain data as soon as possible,
implementing the reporting program on an unrealistic schedule will simply result in inaccurate
and misleading data. The ETC strongly urges EPA to start the monitoring and reporting
requirements one year later, on January 1, 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Also, see the
preamble section and comment response document for subpart C (General Stationary Fuel
Combustion Sources) for responses to comments about whether hazardous waste incinerators are
covered by the final rule and if so, what monitoring methodologies are used.
Commenter Name: Robert E. Murray
Commenter Affiliation: Murray Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1577
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: This Rule was supposed to be out in September, 2008, yet came out in May 2009.
This 8-month gap shows the complexity of developing such a Proposed Rule. It will require at
least the time it took to create the rule as it will to implement it. If EPA had released this Rule on
time, then perhaps the required monitoring requirements could be realized by the start date of
January 1, 2010, but as no rule has been finalized as of June 9, 2009, this start date is completely
unreasonable. As mentioned in the previous section, Murray Energy must custom-order the
appropriate equipment and hire talented individuals to monitor the mines. The technology barely
exists in commercialized form and the talent is limited to scholars and scientists, so Murray
Energy recommends that the start date be pushed back two (2) years to ensure that we can
purchase and correctly install the proper monitoring equipment, as well as hire adequately-
trained individuals. We do not allow untrained miners into underground coal beds, and this
philosophy of properly training individuals extends to non-mining personnel as well. As a result
of our recommended two-year delay in monitoring requirements, we further urge that the date to
file initial reports be pushed back two years to March 31, 2012.
46
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart FF
(Underground Coal Mines) and subpart KK (Suppliers of Coal) at this time, so GHG information
for these source categories will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. 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: Thomas Siegrist
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0351.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: The 2010 effective date suggested in the Proposed Rule is not workable. The
Proposed Rule would require GHG emission data collection at existing facilities using the
proposed methodologies of the various subparts to begin on January 1, 2010. EPA has proposed
as alternatives either a use of best available data, or a one year delay in monitoring and reporting.
EPA has requested comments on alternative effective dates. Id. at 16613 (proposed § 98.3(b)(1)).
The specific measurement and sampling/analytical requirements that currently appear in the
Proposed Rule would require the purchase and installation of monitoring equipment for
commencement of monitoring on January 1, 2010. Because of the lead times required for many
of the monitoring units that would be required in the Proposed Rule, a January 1, 2010 effective
date would mean that regulated entities would have to make substantial commitments of capital
and resources immediately to ensure the equipment is installed and operational in 2010, in
advance of learning what the final rule will require. For this reason, the 2010 effective date is not
reasonable.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Renae Schmidt
Commenter Affiliation: CITGO Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0726.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: CITGO understands and supports the timely roll out of GHG reporting. However,
CITGO believes that a reasonable phased approach should be applied for reporting details,
monitoring requirements and quality control requirements. A phased approach with practical
implementation deadlines would allow facilities to use existing monitoring data for initial
reporting and allow time to develop reliable systems and controls for monitoring, quality control,
and reporting. A phased approach would also allow reporting requirements to "match up" with
the future GHG management program.
47
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Thomas Siegrist
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0351.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: EPA suggests consideration of an effective date for the GHG reporting program,
including commencement of monitoring, of January 1, 2011, allowing time for the Agency to
consider comments on the Proposed Rule and issue the final reporting rule. KNC supports this
approach. This schedule would allow time for finalization of the rule, and then for regulated
facilities to plan capital expenditures and production scheduling with the confidence that those
efforts are correctly targeted at the requirements of the final rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Nancy N. Young
Commenter Affiliation: Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0522.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: ATA supports EPA's proposal to commence monitoring requirements in January of
2010, provided the Final Rule retains the option of using either the proposed monitoring
requirements set forth in the 40 C.F.R. Part 98, or the best available data. Assuming that option is
retained in the Final Rule, reporting of that data by the end of the first calendar quarter of 2011
also would appear to be reasonable and manageable from a reporting perspective. Similarly,
transition to the Part 98 requirements exclusively for the 2011 monitoring period appears
workable, although ATA believes that, given the overall scope of the proposal, the Final Rule
should include provisions for receiving additional stakeholder input prior to 2011 and allow for
continuation of the 2010 reporting provisions through 2011, should that become necessary to
provide sufficient time to ensure a smooth transition to the new Part 98 requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
48
-------
Commenter Name: Craig Segall
Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0228n
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: From some folks today I am sure you are going to hear 2010 is undoable. Lots going
on. In our view, we are pushing right up against serious greenhouse gas thresholds in the
atmosphere. If we are going to make sensible policy, we really do need to see the data now. One
way to address this is to become sensitive to industry needs. EPA has already recognized, which
is considering should the rule go into effect later than we all think it is going to. Maintaining the
2010 reporting year date which is just central, but doing some form of best available data
provisions which EPA suggested in the rule to take care of that. But no one should get a pass on
reporting. The data year should not be sacrificed even if we come to terms of somewhat — move
some of the more uncertain and less precise data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Gary Moore
Commenter Affiliation: Pensacola Plant of Ascend Performance Materials LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0366.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: The issues raised concerning definitions, approaches and clarifications to compliance
with this proposed rule and the fact that actions can not be implemented until many of these
concerns are finalized indicates that full compliance with the rule should be delayed.
(Compliance planning moving forward including possible design and capital equipment
purchases of CEMS and/or process GCs, sampling systems and required analytical method
development) Ascend Performance Materials LLC proposes that this rule be fully implemented
during the calendar year beginning at least 12 months after promulgation. As an interim step,
Greenhouse Gas emissions could be estimated to the best of a facility's ability using the methods
in the proposed rule or other methods until full implementation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Sam Chamberlain
Commenter Affiliation: Murphy Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0625
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
49
-------
Comment: Murphy supports the API and NPRA comments regarding this onerous burden on the
refinery industry and others. Murphy has determined that this reporting rule will require
significant additional capital for new flow measurements and new instrumentation. The level of
additional equipment cannot be purchased, installed, calibrated and proven to be effective by
January 1, 2010. Murphy recommends the EPA allow best professional judgment (BPJ) for
emission calculations, using readily available instrumentation and flow measurements for
reporting of Calendar Year 2010. Where EPA has specified detailed sampling and/or
measurement requirements, these should become effective January 1, 2011, ONLY for those
individual sources generating greater that 25,000 tonnes of C02e. All other emission sources
should be able to use BPJ and/or existing sampling frequency and instrumentation calibrated per
the manufacturer's recommendations.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. If a facility meets the applicability criteria in the rule (e.g., facility-wide
25,000 metric ton threshold) then they must report GHG emissions from all source categories
located at the facility for which there are methods in the rule, regardless of whether an individual
emission unit exceeds 25,000 metric tons. After 2010, the full monitoring methods in the rule
must be used for all emission sources. See the preamble section on de minimis reporting for the
response to comments on reporting of emissions from small individual units/emission sources
within a facility.
Commenter Name: MarkNordheim
Commenter Affiliation: Western States Petroleum Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0228k
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: With this program being finalized late in the year, there is absolutely no way our
industry, with the possible exception of those of us here in California who started, can comply
with the data requirements in this rule. We have design equipment to get installed. The
underlying programs, the program management systems that have to be in place, the data, the
logs for maintaining accuracy of your instructions, all those have to be designed, implemented
and our operators have to be trained. When we get up and running, we have to debug it. As the
gentleman from Arizona says, 1st of January 2010 we have to be in compliance. And some of the
data, particularly the carbon content data that we have to gather, if you don't get data as it
happens, you cannot reach back and get it. So we are DOA in the water. Either providing data or
being subject to a huge sum, what is it, the $32,500 a day for each data point that is missing.
California was faced with the same problem. Their solution that worked for us was allowing first
year's data to come in on the best available information. With third party verification element
being a voluntary element in that.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For response to comments on compliance and enforcement, please see
Section VI. of the preamble and the associated comment response document.
50
-------
Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen
Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: EPA indicates that it intends to issue the final rule in sufficient time to begin
monitoring on January 1, 2010, but that it may be unable to meet that goal. 74 Fed. Reg. at
16,471. Sufficient time is needed to develop the monitoring, recordkeeping and quality assurance
programs required to comply with the rule, particularly for smaller sources. In particular,
facilities may need to perform an operation review and measuring devices may need to be
installed to ensure compliance with the requirements. Of the options noted in the Proposed Rule,
RFA supports EPA's proposed alternative date of reporting 2011 data in 2012, delaying
implementation by one (1) year to allow sufficient time for facilities to prepare. A better
approach, however, would be to have EPA phase in reporting requirements over time, with larger
sources beginning to report 2011 emissions in 2012, and the rest of the sources subject to the rule
beginning to report over the next several years. EPA should begin with the major sources of
GHG emissions (e.g., those listed under Proposed Section 98.2(a) (1)) and suppliers of industrial
greenhouse gases and fossil fuels (e.g., those listed under Proposed 98.2(a) (4)), not some
arbitrary threshold. EPA has provided insufficient information to identify these major sources,
but these sources generally have no threshold indicating EPA believes them to be significant
sources. EPA could then phase in industrial sources under Proposed Section 98.2(a)(2) and (a)(3)
generally, based on decreasing thresholds, starting at no less than 100,000 down.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding
phasing the rule, see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on
the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
Commenter Name: Kathleen M. Sgamma
Commenter Affiliation: Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0521.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: IPAMS members request more time than the EPA estimates it will allow (subsequent
to the announcement of the final rule) for planning how to accurately gather and manage the data
required under Subpart C. EPA estimates that it will allow two (2) months for planning. IPAMS
members request EPA to consider extending such time-frame.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
51
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 27
Comment: EPA must allow at least a one-year implementation period to design, procure, install
and calibrate the new monitoring equipment required by §98.253. It is not feasible for facilities
to accomplish this prior to January 1, 2010, the date on which EPA has stated it intends the
monitoring for mandatory GHG reporting to begin to establish 2010 as the first reporting year
under this rule. Simply procuring this monitoring equipment typically mandates a 12 to 16 week
delivery time, which does not include time needed to design and specify the equipment. The time
required to finalize this rule (which will presumably be late 2009 even under the most optimistic
scenario) will not allow this equipment to be in place in time to provide the monitoring data
required under this section.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: See Table 4
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: EPA has proposed a January 2010 commencement date for monitoring and 2011 for
reporting (74 Fed. Reg. 16463). Even if the agency is somehow able to finalize the proposed rule
this summer, imposing January 2010 as a commencement date is premature to begin because it is
already too late in corporate budget cycles to account for the costs expected to be incurred to
implement the rule. In that regard, there should be a one year delay in starting monitoring and
reporting. Such a delay would allow companies the opportunity to budget properly for these
expenses and establish appropriate operational protocols.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: WM is also concerned that many landfills would not have sufficient time to purchase
and install the needed equipment to meet the proposed deadlines for collecting and reporting
emissions data for 2010.
52
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For response to
comments on landfills, please see the preamble and related response to comments document on
Subpart HH. (Landfills) and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0557.1,
excerpt 16.
Commenter Name: Sam Chamberlain
Commenter Affiliation: Murphy Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0625
Comment Excerpt Number: 33
Comment: The compliance requirements cannot be installed on or before January 1, 2010,
therefore Murphy recommends submitting best professional judgment for the first reporting
period of GHG emissions for 2010.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0425.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment: According to Section IV.E of the proposal Preamble, submission of the first annual
report would be due March 1, 2011 to represent monitored, calculated, and quality assured data
from Jan. 1, 2010 through Dec. 31, 2010. This reporting timeframe is unreasonable. It does not
allow adequate time for businesses which have never submitted reports of this nature to
understand and comply with the new regulations. In addition, given the volume of comments that
EPA is likely to receive on this proposal and the need for deliberate discussion and/or
reconsideration of numerous aspects of this rule, it is hard to imagine how EPA would be able
adopt a final rule early enough in 2009 to allow affected facilities to initiate provisions required
under it by Jan. 1, 2010. CLA recommends that EPA initiate the provisions of this rule no sooner
than two full calendar years after the effective date of the final rule. For example, if EPA adopts
the final rule in Nov. 2009, it would be appropriate for the initial monitoring year for this rule to
commence on Jan. 1, 2012 with the first report due March 1, 2013. If EPA adopts this rule, it is
in the best interest of EPA and the facilities affected by the rule that all parties be given adequate
time to fully study, prepare for, and implement the provisions in full compliance with the
regulation as a reporting database created without the opportunity for due diligence will produce
no useful results.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
53
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Blake Jeffery
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Cast Metals Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0321.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: INCMA believes that given the magnitude of the proposed reporting obligations
additional time for impacted facilities to prepare should be incorporated into the rule. The
abbreviated report required for the first year is helpful but more time will likely be necessary to
adequately prepare.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts
Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0504.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: If the proposal is finalized, facilities would begin collecting data on January 1, 2010,
and the first reports would be due on March 31, 2011. EPA solicits information about the
acceptability of these reporting deadlines. NED A/CAP submits respectfully that these goals
might be achievable, but only if EPA removes in the final rule unnecessary requirements for
direct emissions monitoring, calibration and QAPP plans, which as we explain above are
unnecessary for the purposes of this program and are extraordinarily expensive and in some
situations, less accurate than engineering calculations. NEDA submits that it would be infeasible
for most facilities to begin to collect GHG monitoring information by January 1, 2010, much less
file and certify GHG emission reports by March 31, 2011 if the requirements of the rule are not
known by January 1, 2010. First, an inventory will take several months or more, particularly if
the requirements for companies to create systems to report and verify the calculation of GHG
emissions are not known in advance of the start date of the recordkeeping requirements. Second,
if EPA were to promulgate a rule requiring more than certification of emissions calculations by a
responsible official at a facility, additional safeguards and legal requirements for designating
responsible officers would be required. (Below, NED A/CAP explains why EPA should only
require "responsible officials" to certify the truth and accuracy of emissions reports, as is
provided in existing regulations implementing other Clean Air Act programs under Titles I and
V, as well as other environmental laws such as TRI reports. If no new instrumentation, no new
legal systems for designation of responsible officials, and simpler QA/QC systems are included
in the final rule, we believe emissions information can be reported within a year of promulgation.
Because of the way the proposed rules are written and interact with the proposed industry-
category subparts, NED A/CAP members feel that they need to be very specific about their
concerns about the deadlines for compliance and submission of certified reports if new
instrumentation, legal systems for designation of representatives to submit compliance reports,
54
-------
and AQ/QC systems have to be put in place. If EPA requires in the final rule, the installation of
continuous emissions monitors or continuous parametric monitors, it will not be possible to
collect emissions information, much less certify the emissions information collected for
submission to EPA for at least several years. As EPA has accommodated the need for
instrumentation, venders, qualified installation companies, and production down-time in other
rulemakings, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the NOx SIP call, so too must the Agency
weigh the availability of equipment, qualified electrical engineers, etc. for the installation of
CEMs, COMs and the apparatus including sampling ports and platforms that would be necessary
if the Agency finalizes this reporting rule with such requirements, in addition to the time needed
to develop the detailed instrument calibration plans and other QA/QC procedures proposed in the
QAPP sections of the proposed rule. If these provisions are retained, we believe that it would be
unreasonable to implement the program for at least 4 years.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. This reporting rule requires monitoring of parameters or process emissions
using monitoring equipment that is easily installed or already in place. Methodologies for some
individual source categories has been revised in the final rule in response to comments on the
individual rule subparts, and additional time has been allowed for installation and calibration of
some types of monitoring equipment where EPA determined this was appropriate. A 4-year
delay in implementing the GHG calculations and submitting reports would not only be
unnecessary but also would not achieve our goal of obtaining data for 2010 emissions that are
crucial for the timely development of GHG policies and regulatory programs. For the response
to comments on the monitoring plan and recordkeeping requirements, see the preamble Section
II.M. General Recordkeeping Requirements. For the response on "responsible officials" see the
Preamble Section V, Collection, Management, and Dissemination of GHG Emissions Data.
Commenter Name: See Table 11
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 22
Comment: EPA proposes to start data collection for calendar year 2010 with initial reporting
due on March 31, 2011. EPA has requested comments on alternative schedules if the original
goal cannot be met. EPA solicits specific comments on the following two options: "Report 2010
data in 2011 using best available data: use either proposed methods or best available data for
reporting; or Report 2011 data in 2012: delay rule implementation by a year". (74 FR 68,
page 16472) API comments As stated above, API backs collecting data that supports a specific
policy development goal, and is of finite scope at this time. For such an approach, collecting best
available data starting with 2010 calendar year operations, and lasting for no more than 3 years,
would be acceptable. It is anticipated that final rulemaking for this reporting regulation will be in
late 2009. The required systems and facilities to meet the currently proposed requirements cannot
be in place to begin data collection at the start of 2010. API is concerned that the proposed
effective date of January 1, 2010, when the rule would probably be promulgated in the
October/November 2009 timeframe, will not allow sufficient lead-time for implementation. If
EPA insists on a January 1, 2010, effective date, it ought to design a phased-in system where the
initial years would be a "pilot" period. This is consistent with the approach taken by the EU
55
-------
(three years pilot phase) and California (one year of 'best available data'). API cautions EPA that
as written, compliance with the rule requirements and schedule is not possible and EPA must
take some action to enable "day 1" compliance. EPA should consider industry's inability to
install, test and calibrate all flow meters and other required instrumentation, including data
archiving systems, within the short time that is expected between promulgation and effective
dates. EPA should also note that reporting emissions in 2010 based on "best available"
information would not divert resources and attention from the work necessary for full rule
implementation in the longer term.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: P. Hill
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0232.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Although some may say that the timing of the proposed rule is too slow, it seems to
me to be reasonable to expect that it will take producers some time to develop systems to collect
data. I prefer the option where companies report the best data they have available by 2011,
instead of waiting to get information until 2012. The President's policy focus on developing
green industry with stimulus money argues for availability of information as soon as possible, so
that policy can be based on the information collected. At the minimum, those industries which
are already collecting this information should be required to report it in the earlier timetable,
since they can reasonably do so without undue burden.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Randall R. LaBauve
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Power & Light (FPL) Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0624.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Finally, FPL Group requests that EPA consider phasing in the reporting of all six
GHGs over the first few years of the program, similar to how The Climate Registry initially
collected data. The first several years of reporting under EPA's mandatory reporting rule should
require the reporting of CO2 emissions from combustion together with the manufacture and
import of high global warming potential (GWP) gases (HFC, PFC, and SF6). Following this
initial phase, sources could then report CH4 and N20 emissions from combustion, as well as
other process and fugitive emissions. This would allow reporting entities to begin with larger
sources of GHG emissions for which there are more established reporting protocols and
56
-------
procedures, and phase in sources and processes for which reporting protocols are currently less
widely applied.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See comments
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0479.1 excerpt 4
for the response on phasing in the requirements of this rule. Regarding the comment that
reporting of CH4 and N20 emissions from combustion units should be a later phase, subpart C of
the rule provides emission factors for these two GHGs, so calculating their emissions from
combustion sources is simple and can be easily implemented in the first reporting year. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
Commenter Name: Steve Donatiello
Commenter Affiliation: Laclede Gas Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0763.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: As proposed, 40 CFR 98.3(b) requires reporting "...no later than March 31 of each
calendar year for GHG emissions in the previous calendar year." EPA is surely aware that the
reporting requirements of this rule are complex and burdensome, and would cause most
companies to recruit additional personnel and/or consultant services to assemble and document
the data in an appropriate format for submittal to EPA. Due to the extreme strain on both internal
and external manpower resources that gearing up to comply with this rule would impose, it is
strongly recommended that the effective date and the first reporting year both be deferred by at
least one year from the current proposal.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For the response to comments on the report submittal date, see the preamble
section II. J.
Commenter Name: Keith Overcash
Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0588
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: It is unknown when the final rule will be released. The affected industry should be
given sufficient time to analyze the rule requirements and assess the approaches it will use for
data gathering, calculations and reporting. If EPA promulgates the rule by December 31, 2009 as
expected, industries have very little time to familiarize themselves with the applicability and
reporting requirements before the data collection for the 2010 operating year is instituted into
their daily operation. It is also not sufficient time to develop an approved quality assurance
project plan that integrates complex measurement techniques, analytical routines, data reduction
techniques, and emission reporting procedures as required in the rule.
57
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Also note that
EPA has clarified in the final rule that a monitoring plan (rather than a quality assurance project
plan) is required. It does not need to be approved. See the preamble section on general
recordkeeping requirements for responses to comments on the monitoring plan.
Commenter Name: Sean Atkins
Commenter Affiliation: Crosstex Energy Services
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1131.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Under Section III - Summary of General Requirement of the Proposed Rule - B.
Schedule for Reporting [FR, Vol. 74, No. 68, p. 16462], the EPA proposes that the affected
facilities and suppliers begin collecting data on January 1, 2010 and the first emissions report due
on March due date because of the impracticality and inability of meeting such short timeline. The
primary reasons are: A) The inability to restructure customer contracts timely enough in order to
account for increased operating costs; B) The inability to incorporate the unexpected financial
burden in a normal annual budget cycle. We believe this is increasingly significant during the
recessed economic markets where most industry sectors have already experienced double digit
losses; and C) Inability to retain equipment and/or required resources needed to conduct direct
monitoring due to the limitation of contractors specialized in providing such services. Because
the data required for reporting has never previously been monitored nor recorded, Crosstex will
be required to do the following, each of which will require a significant amount of time and
resources:
1. Purchase and/or develop programs to track and calculate the emissions.
2. Purchase and install equipment to be able to conduct monitoring.
3. Train personnel and develop procedures to collect the data needed.
4. Retain the necessary contractors capable of conducting such monitoring.
Crosstex requests that EPA considers changing the initial effective date of the rule to January 1,
2011 and the annual reporting date as June 30th with the first annual report to be submitted June
30, 2012. Altering EPA's timeline will provide Crosstex and other affected companies the time
needed to plan for and comply with the proposed rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For the response to the comment on the March 31 reporting deadline, see the
preamble response on the submittal date for annual reports.
Commenter Name: None
Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0597
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
58
-------
Comment: Vectren is concerned that the proposed effective date of January 1st, 2010 for 2011
reporting, does not allow sufficient lead-time for implementation (collecting data, calculating
emissions, testing, database management, setting up a compliance program, quality assurance,
recordkeeping, establishing a budget, etc.) - particularly given that the final rule may not be
issued until October or November 2009. If EPA moves forward with a January 1st, 2010
effective date, it would be advisable to design a phased-in system where the initial years would
be a "pilot" period. This is consistent with the approach taken by the European Union (EU) (3
year pilot phase) and California (1 year of "best available data"). An alternative would be to
consider pushing the compliance schedule to January 1st, 2012 and reporting 2011 data rather
than 2010 data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: David P. DiBoyan
Commenter Affiliation: International Carbon Black Association (ICBA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0678.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The rule is not likely to be finalized for several months as EPA addresses comments
submitted to the proposal. This leaves little time for sources to develop and perfect
methodologies for reporting, and to prepare and implement the required written quality assurance
performance plan. Given the importance of this rule, the ICBA recommends that EPA delay
implementation of the rule for one year so that the initial report is required on March 31, 2012,
for 2011 GHG emission data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Michael Garvin
Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 20
Comment: In the preamble at 74 FR 16471, EPA recognizes that it may be unable to issue a
final rule in sufficient time for facilities to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010 and solicits
comments on two alternative options. PhRMA believes that it is unreasonable to expect facilities
to have all of the compliance implementation activities completed prior to January 1, 2010.
Some, but not all, of the activities that must be completed prior to implementing the proposed
rule include: 1. Develop procedures for data collection and emission calculations; 2. Train
employees on procedures; 3. Purchase, install, and calibrate fuel flow meters and other
instrumentation; 4. Purchase, install, and certify continuous emission monitoring systems (or
59
-------
upgrade existing CEMS to enable measurement of CO2); 5. Develop Quality Assurance
Performance Plans (QAPP); and 6. Train employees on EPA's electronic reporting tool which
has yet to be released to the public. Even if the final rule were published in the third quarter of
this year, there would not be sufficient time to review the final rule and implement the activities
listed above. Therefore, PhRMA strongly recommends the Agency pursue the second alternative
option that EPA describes on page 16471 of the preamble. Under this option, the final reporting
rule would require sources to begin collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submit the first
reports to the EPA on May 31, 2012 (instead of March 31, 2012).
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. See also the preamble Section M. on General Recordkeeping Requirements
for our response on the Quality Assurance Performance Plans, and Section V.B.3 on Data
Collection Methods.
Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick
Commenter Affiliation: The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0647.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: RMA recommends that EPA postpone implementation of the GHG Reporting Rule
until January 1, 2011 at the earliest, to provide adequate lead time for compliance The proposed
rule would require tens of thousands of sources to monitor emissions under the rule beginning
January 1, 2010 - barely weeks after EPA is expected to finalize this complex rule late in 2009.
EPA denied requests for an extension of the comment period on the NPRM "due to the time
sensitive nature of this rulemaking and the urgent need to complete this rulemaking in order to
allow for 2010 data collection." (4/29/09 Letter from EPA, Director, Office of Atmospheric
Programs to the National Manufacturers Association). However, nothing in the appropriations
bill requires that EPA begin implementation of the rule by a particular date. (See Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, P.L. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008)). TheNPRM's exclusion
of formatting requirements for emission reports demonstrates the rush of this proposed
regulation. It is important that this proposed rule provide adequate lead time for industry to come
into compliance. As a result, RMA recommends that EPA postpone implementation of this rule
until January 1, 2011. EPA requests comment on the proposal to report 2010 data in 2011 using
best available data. (74 Fed Reg. 68 at page 16471). RMA opposes this implementation schedule.
Reported data under the rule should be accurate and uniform. If this data is to be used as a
benchmark for future legislation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, it is vital that emission
reports are consistent, accurate and uniform. In addition to this reporting option, EPA also seeks
comment on reporting 2011 data in 2012. RMA supports this approach to begin data collection
beginning January 1, 2011 and submitting the first reports to EPA on March 31, 2012. (Id.) EPA
acknowledges in the preamble of the NPRM that this reporting schedule will enable affected
facilities to have an adequate amount of time to prepare for this reporting rule. (Id.)
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
60
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0952.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 65
Comment: EPA solicits comment on alternatives for reporting dates in the NPRM. 74 Fed. Reg.
at 16,470. TFI supports the "Report 2011 Data in 2012" option for several reasons. TFI does not
agree with EPA's conclusion that a Jan. 1, 2010, start date for monitoring and data collection
would allow sufficient time to create and implement a monitoring program. While some of the
data is already collected and additional monitoring devices are routinely available, TFI feels that
additional time is necessary to ensure that a monitoring program meets the data quality
requirements of the NPRM, that additional monitoring devices can be purchased and installed
correctly and in compliance with other federal statutes such as the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration's (OSHA) Process Safety Management program, and that covered
facilities and EPA can determine adequate sampling and monitoring methods for specific aspects
of data collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: R. Skip Horvath
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0594.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NGSA understands EPA's need to respond to Congressional appropriations
legislation regarding emissions collection; however the implementation date for the final rule
should not be rushed, and should consider the practical realities of the significant reporting
obligation created by the Proposed Rule. The proposed implementation date places respondents
and consequently shareholders at unacceptable compliance risk. The schedule for
implementation for reporting 2010 data in 2011 is overly ambitious.3 Putting in place the
required collection devices and systems, business processes and procedures, and training
personnel to accurately gather the necessary data for the Proposed Rule is extensive, will take
months to complete and cannot be achieved by January 1, 2010. To ensure accurate data
collection and a sound framework for climate initiatives, NGSA strongly urges EPA to select the
second of its two proposed alternatives for an effective date which requires operators to report
2011 emissions in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
61
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Randy Armstrong
Commenter Affiliation: Shell Oil Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0651.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA proposes that existing facilities would begin report emissions for year 2010.
Shell is concerned with this effective date. EPA explains in section IV.E of the preamble that the
first year of monitoring for existing facilities would begin on January 1, 2010, that existing
facilities would have enough lead time after the date of rule promulgation to prepare for
monitoring and reporting, and that preparation includes studying the final rule, determining
whether it applies to a facility, identifying the requirements with which the facility must comply,
and preparing to monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate and report GHG
emissions. Shell understands EPA anticipates the rule to be promulgated in October or
November 2009. Shell does not believe two to three months between rule promulgation and the
monitoring start date of January 1, 2010 is sufficient time to implement the monitoring and
QA/QC procedures. Contrary to EPA's contention that the monitoring devices proposed are
already required by other air quality programs, Shell facilities will need to install new monitoring
systems. The installation of monitoring systems will require design, funding approval, equipment
procurement, permitting in some cases, Management of Change evaluations, and process unit
shutdowns in some cases. As discussed in the preamble EPA recognizes the final rule may not be
promulgated in time to allow sufficient time to begin monitoring by January 1, 2010 and requests
comment on the effective date. Shell supports a phased in approach allowing best available data
to be reported in the initial years.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Timothy O'Connor
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0228h
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: I was very heartened to hear at the outset of today that EPA was dedicated to starting
reporting in 2010 — or emissions monitoring in 2010 and with reporting in 2011. That is a critical
component of the structure, and we really would urge you to rededicate and recast this light in
how important it is to start this emission monitoring and reporting as soon as possible.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
62
-------
Commenter Name: Christina Yagjian
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.ini
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The EPA's decision to allow some facilities which might not be able to comply with
all registry requirements, to instead offer their best available data during the first reporting year
is then far preferable to delaying data collection for even one year more.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: FilipaRio
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0630.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: In order to properly address comments received during this public comment period
and to assure a successful and sustainable reporting program, the Alliance recommends the
schedule for reporting and rule implementation be delayed by one year beyond the current
proposal. EPA clearly recognized in the Preamble to the proposed rule the potential implications
of enforcing an effective date of January 1, 2010. The Alliance supports the alternative effective
date of January 1, 2011 suggested by EPA in the Preamble. This would allow potential reporting
entities sufficient time to evaluate reporting applicability, implement monitoring and
recordkeeping systems, and complete the first reports due to EPA by March 31, 2012. This
schedule would also provide EPA additional time for technical assistance and outreach.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Leah Donahey
Commenter Affiliation: none
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0620.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Global warming is one of the greatest problems facing our society, and we cannot
afford to drag our feet as Big Oil and Big Coal prolong this fight. The EPA should resist efforts
to slow down implementation,
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
63
-------
Commenter Name: Kelly R. Carmichael
Commenter Affiliation: NiSource
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1080.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NiSource believes that starting the program with initial full reporting in January
2010, which is less than six months from now, forces implementation under an unnecessarily
aggressive schedule. The rule still needs to be finalized and published, and with an anticipated
large number of comments on the rule, it will likely take the majority of the remaining months of
2009 before reporting industries have the final rule. NiSource believes that attempting a full
implementation beginning with the 2010 data year will be an extremely difficult transition.
Given the scope and importance of this rule, NiSource requests that EPA allow adequate time
between publication of the final rule and full implementation for reporting entities to fully
understand reporting obligations and to develop and implement new monitoring, data collection
and reporting procedures that may differ significantly from the methods currently used for
existing programs in which we and other industries participate. NiSource supports the following
EPA proposed alternative option regarding timing of initial implementation: Report 2011 data in
2012. Beginning the program with 2011 calendar year data would provide affected sources the
best opportunity to evaluate the implications of the final rule on their individual lines of business,
begin to develop appropriate operating procedures for robust data gathering, and begin
contracting discussions with outside vendors for supporting data gathering functions. However,
even under this option, reporting entities would likely be developing and refining reporting
processes during the first years of the program, leading to variations in data quality from year to
year and even between sectors and facilities. NiSource supports collection and reporting of
accurate data through valid methodologies, which will require ramping up the program more
slowly than EPA has proposed. NiSource believes that a reliable and accurate data set is more
important than an immediate start date.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: William Yanek
Commenter Affiliation: Glass Association of North America (GANA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0586.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: GANA believes the proposed start date is, under the circumstances, too ambitious
and too speculative. It would, in turn, require glass manufacturers to undertake potentially very
expensive collection and reporting adjustments if their speculation as to the precise shape and
form of the final mandatory reporting rule turns out to be inaccurate. Instead, GANA respectfully
requests EPA to designate 2011 as the first emissions-reporting year with emissions monitoring
to begin January 1, 2011. This roll-out date allows EPA adequate time to carefully evaluate all
public comments received in response to its NPRM and craft a revised final rule, responsive to
those comments, and it also allows industry sufficient time to make all adjustments necessary in
its GHG emissions collection-and reporting systems to conform to the revised final reporting rule
64
-------
when issued. EPA candidly admits it may be unable to issue the final rule in sufficient time for
industry sources to begin GHG emissions monitoring and collection on January 1, 2010. See 74
Fed. Reg. at 16471. That uncertainty alone is sufficient reason to push the monitoring-year start
date forward to 2011. In addition, EPA overestimates the capability of flat glass manufacturers,
and probably other industry participants, to make last-minute adjustments in their current
emissions data collection-and-verification processes or to initiate such a process in order to
accommodate whatever changes EPA elects to make in the proposed rule when finally issued in
mandatory form. For the reasons EPA states in the preamble, the glass manufacturing industry
does not believe it is practicable, without imposing substantial additional financial and
operational burdens on industry, for the glass industry to go back and capture, measure, verify,
and then report historical emissions data, including the 2010 data, in the event EPA does not
release its final reporting rule until late 2009 or early 2010, too late to capture actual 2010
emissions, in whole or in part. EPA plans to use the reported data as a basis for developing
national GHG emissions reduction policy. EPA should make those critical policy decisions based
upon accurate, complete data, not upon merely the best information and methods available at the
time, one option EPA offers in lieu of monitoring, collecting, and verifying actual emissions
data. Glass producers do not operate facilities that "are already implementing the methods
required by proposed 40 CFR part 98," as EPA presupposes some industries do (47 Fed. Reg. at
16471), and they can not anticipate with a sufficient degree of accuracy the specific parameters
of the final mandatory methodologies for monitoring, collecting, and verifying GHG emissions
data to justify investing the scarce resources necessary to begin that monitoring and collection
process in advance of the final-rule publication date.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty
Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Turning to the first year of reporting, Tyson contends, the first submittal of GHG
reporting due in 2011 for the year 2010 is an overly ambitious deadline. Many companies will
have additional metering/monitoring devices to install or tracking systems to prepare in gathering
data. Budgets for the 2009 calendar year will not have included additional cost for resources
needed to track and compile data starting January 1, 2010. Tyson requests EPA use the 2010
calendar year as a test year and push regulatory data gathering back by one year therefore
allowing the first report to be due in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
65
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 3
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The proposed rule would require tens of thousands of sources to monitor GHG
emissions under the rule beginning January 1, 2010—barely weeks after EPA plans to finalize
this extraordinarily complex rule late in 2009. This is fundamentally inadequate and unfairly
penalizes the regulated industry for EPA's delays in developing the rule. A more realistic
schedule for implementation of the rule is essential. EPA should delay implementation of the
rule for one year so that monitoring would be required no sooner than 2011, with the first annual
report due in 2012. EPA claims to have an "urgent need to complete this rulemaking in order to
allow for 2010 data collection." See Letter of EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs Director
Brian J. McLean to The National Association of Manufacturers Energy and Resources Policy
Director Bryan L. Brendle dated April 29, 2009 ("Extension Letter") (denying request for
extension of time to file comments). According to EPA, the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (the "Act") requires EPA to issue a proposed rule by September 2008 and a
final rule by June 26, 2009. Id. EPA already is at least six months behind this schedule, and
should not penalize industry for delay for which industry is not accountable. Instead, to be fair
and provide sufficient lead time, EPA must extend the implementation date. Even if EPA were to
publish its final rule by June 26th (based on EPA's reading of the Act), industry would only have
about six months to prepare for a January 2010 implementation date. But with a comment period
closing on June 9, EPA acknowledges that it will not meet that date notwithstanding the so-
called "deadline." Rather, EPA states that it plans to issue a final rule some time around mid-
November. This would provide only six weeks for affected entities to prepare for implementation
of the rule. Six weeks is a completely unrealistic and unworkable time to prepare for
implementation of the rule, as proposed. Such a schedule would unfairly and unnecessarily place
regulated parties at great risk despite best efforts. Nor do any of EPA's stated purposes for the
rule justify a need for implementation in 2010 versus 2011, especially when those purposes are
weighed against the burden that industry would face in compliance with the rule and the fact that
EPA already has access to huge amounts of the data that would be collected under the rule. For
example, the Administration recently announced that it will pursue GHG regulation of cars and
light duty trucks, based on estimates detailing the contribution of emissions from vehicles to the
nation's and the world's overall GHG footprint. See White House Office of the Press Secretary,
President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy (May 19, 2009). Clearly, the
Administration believes itself to be in a position to decide a regulatory framework for GHG
regulations at this time without the data that would be provided in this rule. Further, because
EPA has indicated that the final rule may depart from the proposed rule in key aspects, the
facilities impacted by this rule will need fair and reasonable time to review the final rule, analyze
any changes that have been incorporated as a result of the public process, and assess how it will
impact their operations as well as install any necessary equipment, train personnel, and set up
other needed internal infrastructure to ensure compliance with the rule. Installing necessary
equipment to comply with the rule may require time-consuming and costly process shutdowns
for some facilities. For example, if a final rule were to require that certain facilities install fuel
monitors, it would be extremely difficult at best to have such equipment installed, tested, and
calibrated by January 2010. These types of engineering installations must happen while a facility
is shut down, an infrequent and expensive occurrence. Similarly, it would be difficult to have
other required instrumentation, such as data archiving systems, within such a short time frame.
Facilities in many source categories would also need to establish management practices, to
develop standard operating practices, sampling and analytical procedures and protocols, to
66
-------
acquire necessary analytical equipment where required, and to schedule and conduct testing.
Notably, even abbreviated reporting of 2010 emissions would divert resources and attention
away from the work necessary for full rule implementation in subsequent years. For these
reasons, even where the installation of new equipment would not be necessary, there will not be
adequate time between a final rule and January 2010 for companies to properly begin assessing
GHG emissions under the rule. The approximately six weeks lead time that EPA anticipates prior
to January 1, 2010, is woefully inadequate. Finally, regulated parties must be afforded the time to
implement programs with care, not haste, in consideration of the potential enforcement
consequences if implementation is not done correctly. Because there are no set deadlines for
implementation of this rule, EPA should not rush forward with implementation before the
regulated industry is ready and able to fully comply. If, despite these objections, EPA selects an
earlier implementation date, then at a minimum EPA should allow for a "phase-in period" of at
least one year where best engineering estimates and best available data may be used until more
robust systems are in place for full data collection and compliance. A phased approach to
implementation, such as the one included in the California Air Resources Board's AB-32
reporting rule, would lessen the burden on industry somewhat while still allowing for near-term
data collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Also see the
responses to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, regarding EPA's review of
public comments, the time for reporters to review the rule, install any needed equipment, and
begin complying with the rule, and the timing of finalizing some subparts of the rule. Also see
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14 for the response on phasing and industry
burden. Regarding the comment that reporting for 2010 would divert resources, see the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3. Regarding the comment on light duty
vehicles, the final rule does not require reporting for light duty vehicles because they will be
handled as part of a separate action, as discussed in the preamble section on mobile sources.
While the information collected by this rule will allow EPA to undertake a comprehensive
review of CAA options for addressing GHG emissions and climate change, that does not mean
that there are not some sectors for which EPA has sufficient information and/or a responsibility
to address earlier.
Commenter Name: John Robitaille
Commenter Affiliation: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1603
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: EPA should note that reporting emissions in 2011 for the 2010 emission year will
divert resources and attention from the work necessary for full rule implementation in
subsequent years.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. With respect to the comment on the possible diversion of resources, see
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3.
67
-------
Commenter Name: Helen A. Howes
Commenter Affiliation: Exelon Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0373.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Exelon recommends the EPA require reporting in 2011 of best available 2010
emissions data and totals. Understanding EPA's need to begin compiling data as soon as
possible, we support the proposed reporting start date of 2011. However, it is unreasonable to
expect all facilities to have the necessary monitoring equipment in place by January 1, 2010 if
the final monitoring requirements will not be published until the third or fourth quarter of 2009.
Therefore, we support reporting of 2010 data using best available data and estimation methods
and the full monitoring and reporting requirements becoming effective for 2011 data collection.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: John M. Batt
Commenter Affiliation: Airgas, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: According to the proposed rule, facilities and suppliers would begin collecting data
on January 1, 2010, with the first emissions report due on March 31, 2011, for emissions from
2010. Airgas believes that reporting of 2010 emissions is too early particularly since this rule
will likely not be finalized until late summer/fall of 2009. Individual companies/facilities will
have to review the final rule and determine whether it is applicable to their facility/company and
establish procedures to collect this data in a very short time frame. For facilities that may require
new monitoring equipment or calibration of existing equipment, it will not provide sufficient
time to install, calibrate, and establish Q/A procedures to properly operate and maintain this
equipment. As a result, we strongly urge EPA to consider beginning the collection of GHG
emissions data January 1, 2011, with the first emissions report due sometime in 2012. If it is
determined by EPA that it is critical to begin collecting GHG emissions data in 2010, at a
minimum EPA should allow all affected facilities to report 2010 data in 2011 using "best
available data". For example, where required under this proposed rule, unless monitoring devices
are already installed and calibrated properly on the date of the final rule, other methods (e.g. fuel
use, default emission factors, fuel receipts, etc.) should be allowed in calculating GHG emissions
for 2010. This should enable EPA to obtain valuable information concerning the types, locations,
GHG emissions and fuel consumption from facilities in 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
68
-------
Commenter Name: Paul R. Pike
Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0487.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Ameren is concerned with the proposed effective date of January 161, 2010 for 2011
reporting, while the final rule would possibly not be issued until the October/November 2009
timeframe. This timing does not allow sufficient lead-time for implementation (collecting data,
calculating emissions, testing, database management, setting up a compliance program, quality
assurance, recordkeeping, establishing a budget, etc.). We believe that it would best for EPA to
push the effective date to January 1st, 2011 and reporting on 2011 data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: John L. Wittenborn et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) and Specialty Steel Industry
of North America (SSINA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0518.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: As proposed, the first reports under the rule would be due March 31, 2011 for the
2010 reporting year. SMA/SSINA support delaying the reporting provisions until 2012 for the
2011 reporting year. If the rule is finalized in late summer or fall of 2009 as EPA anticipates,
facilities would have only a few months to become familiar with the extensive obligations of the
rule. Facilities will have to implement new testing and sampling techniques, develop new
recordkeeping procedures, and perform extensive training of personnel, among other things.
Most other rules, such as various steel industry NESHAP rules, have provided for three years of
lead time, rather than the three months or less that EPA has proposed for this rule. In the
alternative, if EPA opts to maintain the requirement to report 2010 emissions, SMA/SSINA
support relaxed requirements that would allow reporting of best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding NESHAP timing, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0508-1081.1 excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0395.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
69
-------
Comment: According to the proposal, the submission of the first "annual" report would be due
March 1, 2011 to represent monitored, calculated, and quality assured data from Jan. 1, 2010
through Dec. 31, 2010. TCFA submits that this reporting timeframe is woefully unreasonable. It
does not allow adequate time for businesses which have never submitted reports of this nature to
understand, much less comply, with the regulations. In addition, given the volume of comments
that EPA is likely to receive on this proposal and the need for serious discussion and/or
reconsideration of numerous aspects of this rule, it is hard to imagine how EPA would be able
adopt a final rule early enough in 2009 to allow affected facilities to initiate provisions required
under it by Jan. 1, 2010. In fact, it is already too late this year for many facilities to prepare for
and implement the requirements of this significant rulemaking. TCFA recommends that EPA at a
minimum initiate the provisions of this rule no sooner than two full calendar years after the
effective date of the final rule. For example, if EPA adopts the final rule in Nov. 2009, it would
be appropriate for the initial monitoring year for this rule to commence on Jan. 1, 2012 and the
first report would be due March 1, 2013. If EPA adopts the final rule in March 2010, the initial
monitoring year would begin on Jan. 1, 2013 and the first annual report due March 1, 2014. If
EPA adopts this rule at all, it is in the best interest of EPA and the facilities affected by the rule
that all parties be given adequate time to fully study, prepare for, and implement the provisions
in full compliance with the regulation. A reporting database created without the opportunity for
due diligence will produce "garbage in - garbage out" results.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Shannon Broome
Commenter Affiliation: Air Permitting Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0524.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The Proposed Rule would require covered entities to begin monitoring and
recordkeeping on January 1, 2010 and to submit reports of 2010 GHG emissions no later than
March 31, 2011. Proposed Section 98.3(a)(1). EPA indicates that it intends to issue the final rule
in sufficient time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010, but that it may be unable to meet that
goal. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,471. Sufficient time is needed to develop the monitoring, recordkeeping
and quality assurance programs required to comply with the rule, particularly for smaller
sources. Of the options noted in the Proposed Rule, the Forum supports EPA's proposed
alternative date of reporting 2011 data in 2012, delaying implementation by one (1) year to allow
sufficient time for facilities to prepare.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
70
-------
Commenter Name: Kevin Fay
Commenter Affiliation: International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0490.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The Agency has proposed to begin data collection on January 1, 2010 and to require
submission of the first annual report by March 31, 2011. ICCP does not believe adequate time
exists for promulgation of final rules in order to provide proper private sector preparation for
compliance as of January 1, 2010. It is appropriate to relax data gathering requirements for
purposes of the first reporting period to ensure that good faith efforts are not turned in to
compliance violations due to lack of an adequate implementation period.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For responses to comments on the enforcement approach see preamble
section VI, Compliance and Enforcement, and the associated comment response document
volume.
Commenter Name: Lloyd Stone
Commenter Affiliation: Westlake Chemical Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0442.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Because all of the Westlake affected facilities will be reporting greenhouse gas
emissions under the new rule for the first time, Westlake requests that EPA delay the initial
reporting from 2011 reporting (for 2010 data) to 2012 reporting (for 2011 data). In order to
comply with the proposed 2011 data submission deadline, we will need to have systems and
processes for data collection in place by the end of this year. Given the complexity of this new
reporting burden including the accompanying recordkeeping requirements, Westlake feels
strongly that the remaining time left in 2009 is not adequate time for these systems and
procedures to be properly written (e.g., the quality assurance performance plan), engineered,
purchased, installed, calibrated, and implemented. The development and approval of capital
projects for equipment (including but not limited to flowmeters, stream analyzers, laboratory
analysis equipment, sampling points, and CEMS) need to be identified before budget monies can
be made available through the annual budget process. Westlake's annual budget process
coincides with the probable adoption date for the rule making it impossible to implement the rule
as it has been proposed beginning in 2010. Due to the nation's recent economic downturn, some
of our facilities have already undergone maintenance outages making it more difficult to install
the required equipment, even if it could be purchased and delivered in time to meet the January
2010 implementation timeframe. These outages take months of planning and are expensive to
undertake. It seems that a reporting deadline of 2012 for 2011 data would be more reasonable
and will ensure greater accuracy in the data that is submitted to EPA.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
71
-------
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the concerns on budgeting and costs, see the response to comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. In response to public comments, the GHG
methodologies for some source categories have been revised to allow more flexibility in
monitoring methods and equipment, and allow time for upgrades and calibration, thereby
reducing costs relative to the proposed rule as.
Commenter Name: Maureen Beatty
Commenter Affiliation: National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0434.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Coordination of timing is also critical. The Reporting Rule first requires reporting in
year 2011 of year 2010 data. Those dates should he made consistent with the applicable dates
contained within any federal legislation, which may be later in time. NRI supports EPA's
determination that pre-2010 data need not be reported, but NRI also believes that entities, at least
those covered by the industrial GHG sector, should also be given one year from promulgation of
final regulations to gather and assess data and methods for doing so, before final obligations
under the Reporting Rule begin. In other words, assuming 2012 is the first year of the reporting
program under the final Reporting Rule, actual reporting should begin in 2012 based on data
collected in 2011. Entities should be required to collect readily available 2010 data and make
reasonable estimates to determine if they are covered by the Reporting Rule. [Footnote:
Moreover, in order to determine whether an entity meets the regulatory threshold, it should be
allowed to rely on "readily available data" and "reasonable estimates" as allowed under the Toxic
Release Inventory ("TRI") program. See 42 U.S.C. § 11023(g)(2).] This "floater" year ensures
that regulated entities derive the necessary experience to report high quality data, rather than
lowering the level of accuracy for 2010 reporting. This timing may also better fit with any
program developed under federal climate legislation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
comment suggesting timing that fits better with pending and/or future climate change legislation,
the purpose of the rule is to collect GHG emission data to help inform EPA's evaluation of
existing CAA options for addressing GHG emissions and climate change. Although the
information may also prove useful for assessment of future statutory requirements, that is not the
purpose for collecting the data at this time. Regarding the "floater" year, please see also the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Chris Hobson
Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1645.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment: Southern Company does question the ability of the industry to undertake this
ambitious program on the current schedule. Preparations to report 2010 data in 201 1 must begin
immediately. Scales must be procured across the industry, calibration and calibration procedures
must be implemented, and an accurate beginning inventory must be established in late 2009 in
order to comply with a rule that will not be final until near the end of 2009.
72
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Curt DeMille
Commenter Affiliation: Titanium Dioxide Stewardship Council (TDSC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0486.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The TDSC agrees with the American Chemistry Councils comments regarding the
timeframe for implementing the Rule. In its comments, the Associations state: The proposed rule
would require tens of thousands of sources to monitor GHG emissions under the rule beginning
January 1, 2010 — barely weeks after EPA plans to finalize this extraordinarily complex rule late
in 2009. This is fundamentally inadequate and unfairly penalizes the regulated industry for
EPA's delays in developing the rule. A more realistic schedule for implementation of the rule is
essential. EPA should delay implementation of the rule for one year so that monitoring would be
required no sooner than 2011, with the first annual report due in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In particular, EPA's plans for extensive outreach on the rule are discussed in
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-477.1 excerpt 2. Note also that this rule
will cover approximately 10,000 reporters, not "tens of thousands" as the commenter states.
Commenter Name: See Table 5
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0367.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: We would support the use of "best available data" in the first year of reporting by
affected facilities, if the Agency chooses to keep a January 1, 2010, effective date.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0513.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 46
Comment: Covered stationary sources will be required to report GHGs for calendar year 2010
by March 31, 2011. This is unrealistic. To comply, facilities required to report will need to install
calibrated flow meters, other monitoring devices and develop a formal methodology for
73
-------
collecting data prior to the final promulgation of this rulemaking. While EPA "plans" to issue a
final rule by January 1, 2010, this is not likely considering that the comment period will
inevitably bring to light pertinent issues that the Agency will need to consider and the delay
created by the legal action that will likely follow. Even if EPA meets its deadline, it will not have
had the time to work out the myriad implementation details prior to sources having to commence
compliance with fuel flow meters, CEMS, etc. This imposes an irrational burden on sources that
face the full force of CAA penalties for not complying, even where issues remain unresolved by
EPA. With this in mind EPA should delay the initial reporting deadline from March 31, 2011
until March 31, 2012 for calendar year 2011. If EPA insists on reporting in 2010, there should be
some less stringent provisions available for reporting in 2010.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Olon Plunk
Commenter Affiliation: Xcel Energy Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0444.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: We are concerned with the proposed effective date of January 1, 2010 for 2011
reporting, when the final rule would be issued in September 2009, at the earliest. This timeframe
would not allow sufficient time for data collection, emission calculations, testing, database
management, setting up a compliance program, quality assurance, and recordkeeping. If EPA
moves forward with a January 1, 2010 effective date, Xcel Energy supports AGA's proposal that
the Agency should design a phased-in system where the initial years would be a "pilot" period.
As AGA sets forth in its comments, this is consistent with the approach taken by the EU (3 year
pilot phase) and California (1 year of "best available data"). Regardless, phase-in of the reporting
requirements should correspond and be consistent with the timeframes sets forth in the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), if that bill is enacted, or any other climate
legislation finally enacted.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In particular, the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14 discusses issues related to "phasing-in" the program. Regarding the comment
suggesting timing that fits better with pending and/or future climate change legislation, the
purpose of the rule is to collect GHG emission data to help inform EPA's evaluation of existing
CAA options for addressing GHG emissions and climate change. Although the information may
also prove useful for assessment of future statutory requirements, that is not the purpose for
collecting the data at this time.
74
-------
Commenter Name: Henry Derwent
Commenter Affiliation: International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0512.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Emission reports should be unambiguous, transparent, clear, and timely. IETA is
concerned that the timing currently foreseen is not achievable for facilities that still require
installation and calibration of metering equipment to demonstrate compliance.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
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: 8
Comment: IDEM believes it will be difficult for U.S. EPA to have a final reporting requirement
in place and effective by 2010. Indiana recommends that data collection efforts begin no sooner
than 2011, and the reporting program begin no sooner than 2012. The additional time would
allow U.S. EPA to finalize the rulemaking and emission estimation tools, and give facilities the
time necessary to develop accounting mechanisms in order to meet the new U.S. EPA
requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: James B. Martin
Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0554.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Colorado urges EPA to strictly adhere to the dates outlined in the proposed rule by
providing for data gathering beginning in 2010, with reporting of the 2010 data by March 31,
2011. The nation must promptly get started in undertaking the critical work to account for
greenhouse gas emissions since good data is the foundation for effective public policy. EPA is
well-positioned to adhere to its proposed timetable through reliance on the extensive work
already done by The Climate Registry.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
75
-------
Commenter Name: Willie R. Taylor
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Department of the Interior
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0474.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: MMS supports the option to report 2011 emissions in the year 2012. We believe that
the reporting of 2010 emissions does not allow adequate time for facilities to obtain the
necessary equipment and implement the needed procedures to collect quality data, MMS does
not recommend the option of reporting 2010 emissions using best available data. This might
result in questionable data quality and would not satisfy the goal of providing useful data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: David Stirpe
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (ARAP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0527.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The Alliance believes that the level of detail for 2010 reporting should be less than is
required for 2011 to encourage initiation of the process. The improved level of accuracy should
be required by 2011 at the earliest only if existing formulas such as TRI and the Clean Air Act
are allowed, and relevant instrumentation and procedures exist.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. The comment is not clear what it means by "existing formulas such as TRI
and the Clean Air Act." The statutory authority for the rule is discussed in depth in the response
to comment documents for legal issues.
Commenter Name: Rich Raiders
Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 75
Comment: Due to the complexity of the proposed Part 98 and implementation schedule
problems, EPA should consider finalizing a temporary regulation only covering the first three
years of the GHG reporting system, while simultaneously developing, for later promulgation,
permanent GHG reporting rules. EPA used this approach concerning several LDAR provisions
in the MACT program with the temporary 40 CFR 63 Subpart I LDAR regulation, which has
since been phased out as EPA finalized the underlying MACT standards for each subject source
category. EPA also has promulgated temporary regulations for RCRA permitted facilities, where
76
-------
the "interim" standards at 40 CFR 265 govern facility operations until a facility receives a RCRA
permit, when it must then comply with the "permanent" RCRA standards at 40 CFR 264. This
approach, with temporary and permanent regulations, will allow EPA to start 2010 reporting
with the best available information and build up to the permanent system, likely by the 2013
reporting year, providing the agency and the regulated community adequate time to address the
concerns raised in the comment process and respond to Congressional mandates that are
expected over the next few years.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. EPA is not
allowing the use of best available monitoring methods beyond the initial reporting year. See the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14 for discussion of phased in
requirements. See the section of the comment response document on Duration of the Reporting
Program for the response to the comment that this program should be temporary. Regarding the
MACT and RCRA interim standards, these are pollution control standards and the specific
technical issues that resulted in the interim standards do not exist for this reporting rule.
Commenter Name: Lynn D. Westfall
Commenter Affiliation: Tesoro Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0669.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: If the use of existing methodologies for calculating C02 emissions is not allowed, as
an alternative EPA must allow at least an one-year implementation period to design, procure,
install and calibrate the new monitoring equipment required by §98.253. It is not feasible for
facilities to accomplish this prior to January 1, 2010, the date on which EPA has stated it intends
the monitoring for mandatory GHG reporting to begin to establish 2010 as the first reporting
year under this rule. Simply procuring this monitoring equipment typically requires a 12 to 16
week delivery time, which does not include time needed to design, specify and install the
equipment. The time required to finalize this rule (which will presumably be late 2009 even
under the most optimistic scenario) will not allow this equipment to be in place in time to
provide the monitoring data required under this section.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Carl H. Batliner
Commenter Affiliation: AK Steel Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0337.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Because of the enormity of the issues to address regarding this proposed rule and the
time it will take to publish a final rule, AK Steel believes it is impractical and inappropriate to
expect the regulated community to be prepared to implement the requirements of a final rule by
January 1, 2010. Accordingly, AK Steel implores EPA to consider giving the regulated
77
-------
community sufficient time to evaluate and consider its options in addressing the requirements of
the final rule and to establish and implement procedures to do so by making the effective date of
the final rule January 1, 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Robert P. Strieter
Commenter Affiliation: The Aluminum Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0350.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: EPA requests comment on two potential options to initiate reporting especially if the
promulgation timeline for the reporting protocol is delayed. Of the two options presented (Option
1: initial reporting based on best available data in 2010, or Option 2: delayed reporting for 2011),
the Aluminum Association supports Option 2 for new data. Many facilities owned/operated by
Association members, including numerous small and medium facilities affected by the reporting
requirements such as some secondary aluminum recycling operations, will need to develop a data
inventory management plan. Based on the experience of our members in the VAIP and Climate
Leaders program, it takes considerable time and effort to develop these reporting mechanisms.
Due to the time necessary to develop a sufficient data inventory management plan, Option 2 is
preferable for our members to allow additional time for developing and implementing the
various programs necessary for reporting. Option 1 would require reporting prior to when
effective and accurate data development methodologies are in place at many facilities,
potentially resulting in emissions reporting of limited accuracy at certain facilities. The
Association is concerned that a program that requires the collection of data pursuant to a hastily
developed plan may result in the collection of data that is not accurate. In addition, the other
issues raised with the certification requirements for such reporting would result in a conflict of
interest and problematic data releases that could diminish the programs credibility and are
therefore not be beneficial to the goals of the GHG protocol or to the industry.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Joseph A. D'Amico
Commenter Affiliation: Foundation Coal Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0421.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: It is far too soon for the entire fossil fuel industry in the USA to be ready with any
accurate diligence. 1. Skilled and experienced workers will not be available for the newly
enacted Rule's deadline. 2. There will be a shortage of measurement equipment. Demand for
78
-------
equipment will spike and equipment vendors are not prepared to meet that demand in the time
available. 3. The industry will need more time to read through and understand the true impact of
the Rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our
response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule.
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Kiley
Commenter Affiliation: Northeast Gas Association (NGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0558.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: We concur with AGA's concern about the proposed effective date of January 1st,
2010 for 2011 reporting. In our view, there will not be sufficient time for companies to establish
and implement reporting procedures and mechanisms by January 1st. We would encourage a
phased-in schedule or a compliance schedule start date of January 2012 rather than January
2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In particular, see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14 on phasing in the requirements.
Commenter Name: See Table 5
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0367.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The rule is expected to be finalized by late 2009, and to be effective by January 1,
2010. AXPC supports the second of EPA's proposed alternative options for an effective date:
that operators report 2011 data in 2012. The proposed rule requires a tremendous amount of
direct measurement of oil and gas fugitives, including installing meters on flare stacks and tanks
which are not currently in place, and would require some time to order and install if EPA is
unresponsive to the industry's comments on using engineering estimates of GHG emissions from
these sources. Moreover, it will take companies some time to develop the procedures for
collecting the required information, communicate those procedures, and perform QA/QC on the
data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. In particular, regarding the comment on
79
-------
measuring oil and gas fugitives, EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas
Systems) at this time. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and
other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this
time.
Commenter Name: John Robitaille
Commenter Affiliation: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1603
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Industry is concerned with the proposed effective date of January 1st, 2010, when the
rule would probably be promulgated in the October/November 2009 timeframe, not allowing
sufficient lead-time for implementation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Angela Burckhalter
Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0386.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA proposes that facilities and suppliers would begin collecting data on January 1,
2010 with the first emission report due on March 31, 2011. Assuming EPA will finalize this rule
in late 2009, we think this is too short a time frame for small businesses to begin this effort by
January 1, 2010. More time would allow small businesses to better understand the requirements,
obtain funds for this effort, hire personnel as needed, and establish procedures and protocols to
meet EPA's requirements. In addition, it will allow EPA time to develop easy to use reporting
electronic formats for the various industry sectors, small businesses, and to conduct much needed
outreach and education for this effort. We request EPA delay the beginning of data collection
and begin no sooner than calendar year 2011 where the first report submittal would be in
calendar year 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. As discussed in
the preamble, EPA has added provisions to the rule that allow use of best available data during
part of 2010. For response on small business impacts, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In response to comments received on specific source categories, EPA has
made other rule changes to simplify GHG calculation and reporting for small combustion units
and other sources, as described in the preamble sections and comment response documents on
the individual source category subparts. These changes to the rule will make it easier for small
businesses to comply with the rule during 2010. To assist small businesses and other reporters in
understanding the rule requirements, EPA is developing and implementing extensive outreach
and training. EPA will also provide an electronic reporting system prior to the first reporting date
to facilitate reporting.
80
-------
Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) andNFIB Small
Business Legal Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0587.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The target dates of 2010 for monitoring and 2011 for reporting do not provide
adequate time for businesses to review and comply with new GHG reporting requirements. The
alternate schedule is preferable because it will provide the agency and industry groups with
additional time to conduct outreach and compliance assistance campaigns. Currently only a few
states maintain voluntary GHG registries. This means that most businesses are unfamiliar with
GHG reporting. EPA's proposed timeline does not provide the agency with adequate time to
educate all affected entities from diverse industries on what is effectively a brand-new, and
significant, reporting requirement. If a business does not learn in the next six months whether the
firm must report and how to properly monitor GHG, the business will fall behind on the 2010
monitoring. Penalties under the CAA can be severe, up to $32,500 a day, with each day of a
violation constituting a separate offense. Businesses may also be subject to additional civil and
criminal penalties. Small businesses unfamiliar with the reporting process could easily miss
deadlines or fail to comply properly due to a lack of education. In addition, the required
equipment for monitoring and reporting GHGs is new and largely untested. Small businesses will
largely rely on specialized outside consultants and new technology, both of which may not be up
to the task. The EPA should take this into consideration when promulgating the final rule and
establishing its fine and penalty structure. EPA should also provide small firms a six-month
grace period to make necessary changes.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For response to
comments on small business impacts, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt
14 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0386.1, excerpt 8. For the response to concerns regarding
timing, outreach and requirements, see comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14. Also see the preamble Section VI and the
associated comment response document for discussion and responses on compliance and
enforcement.
Commenter Name: Ron Downey
Commenter Affiliation: LWB Refractories
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0719.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 39
Comment: The Proposed Rule requires facilities to start collecting data on January 1, 2010 and
submit the 2010 emissions report by March 31, 2011. 40 C.F.R. 98.2. Additional time may be
needed for many small, family-owned businesses to understand and comply with the
requirements of this complex Rule. There is an increased risk of inaccurate GHG emissions
reporting if sources are not given adequate time to collect and report data. EPA should revise 40
C.F.R. 98.2 to require facilities to start collecting data on January 1, 2011.
81
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See the response
to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14 for additional discussion regarding
small businesses.
Commenter Name: Bryan L. Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0572.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The proposed rule requires facilities to begin monitoring and collecting data needed
to calculate and report GHG emissions on January 1, 2010. As a result of EPA's delay in issuing
the proposed rule, and the anticipated delay of the final rule, the NAM recommends that federal
regulators extend promulgation of the rule by one year. Not only will there will be insufficient
time for facilities to implement the required methods, but industry must calibrate and install the
equipment necessary to meet all the requirements of 40 CFR Part 98. To provide sufficient
implementation time, another option would be for EPA to adopt an approach similar to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandatory GHG reporting rule and allow facilities the
option to report 2010 emissions in 2011 based on best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Traylor Champion
Commenter Affiliation: Georgia-Pacific, LLC (GP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0380.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: EPA has proposed that the monitoring and reporting requirements would commence
on January 1, 2010. EPA has recognized (74 Fed. Reg. 16471) that, although it intends to issue
the final rule in sufficient time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010, it may be unable to meet
that goal and is requesting comment on either (1) reporting 2010 emissions using best available
data with the first full data collection and reporting being required for 2011, or (2) beginning the
program on January 1, 2011, with calendar 2011 as the first year of reporting and the first reports
being due March 31, 2012. Regardless of the outcome in the final regulations of the "tiered"
approaches, there will be significant added burden to reporters including possible installation of
additional CEMS, implementation of calculation methods different from those currently in place,
beginning or increasing the frequency of certain monitoring and measuring requirements, etc. It
will take considerable time and effort to adjust present practices to the requirements of the new
rule once it is finalized. Especially in light of current economic conditions, it is difficult to
allocate capital for such requirements based on a proposed rule given the potential for changes
prior to the finalization of the data collection and reporting requirements in the final rule. Given
the fact that a final rule is not likely to be issued until late 2009, GP urges EPA to delay
implementation and enforcement of the reporting program until January 1, 2011, with 2011
82
-------
emissions being reported in 2012, to give reporters adequate time to prepare for and comply with
the reporting requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: John Robitaille
Commenter Affiliation: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1603
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: If EPA insists on a January 1st 2010 effective date, it ought to design a phased-in
system where the initial years would be a "pilot" period. This is consistent with the approach
taken by the EU (3-years pilot phase), and California (1 - year of 'best available data').
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For the response
on a phased approach, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: John Robitaille
Commenter Affiliation: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1603
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: As written, compliance with the rule requirements and schedule is not possible and
EPA must take some action to enable "day 1" compliance. EPA should consider industry's
inability to install, test and calibrate all flow meters, and other required instrumentation,
including data archiving systems, within 1-year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Kathleen M. Sgamma
Commenter Affiliation: Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0521.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: IPAMS members are concerned with the proposed effective date of January 1, 2010
As the rule will likely be promulgated in the Fall of 2009, industry is concerned that there will
not be enough lead-time for implementation. Should EPA insist on a January 1, 2010 effective
date, it should design and implement a system whereby the initial years of required reporting
83
-------
would be considered a "pilot" period. Compliance with the rule requirements (as written) will
impose significant hardship and undue burden on industry, and EPA should consider industry's
ability to install and test the equipment necessary to comply with reporting requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: [name not given]
Commenter Affiliation: European Semiconductor Industry Association (ESIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0707.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA specifically requested comment on the implementation date for the proposed
rule. ESIA believes EPA should adopt one of two alternative approaches to implementing the
GHG reporting rule. First, EPA should allow submission of "best available data" beginning with
calendar 2010 and continuing for an "interim" period until a national program is established, or
up to three years, whichever is sooner. At that point, EPA should re-evaluate the necessity and
consistency with federal legislation of data collection and reporting going forward. "Best
available data" would be data already available to facilities or suppliers and data that could be
readily obtained using established methodologies at no capital cost. Alternatively, EPA should
delay data collection and reporting for at least one year in order to give facilities and suppliers
adequate time to implement systems and practices necessary to monitor GHG emissions and
calculate and submit required information to EPA. In addition, EPA should allow facilities and
suppliers more time than the current three months to report prior calendar year data. That period
is insufficient to collect, analyze, prepare, and certify data for submission to EPA. Other
reporting programs allow longer time intervals for reporting - EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
allows six months and California's mandatory GHG reporting program allows five months.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. For the response
to the comment on the deadline to submit reports 3 months after the end of each calendar year,
see the preamble response on the submittal date for annual reports. For the response a three year
interim period, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0437.1 excerpt 18. See also comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of
finalizing some subparts of the rule. In particular, EPA is not going final with subpart I
(Electronics Manufacturing) at this time. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the
public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments
on subpart I at this time.
Commenter Name: John Piotrowski
Commenter Affiliation: Packaging Corporation of America (PCA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1029.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
84
-------
Comment: Due to the extensive effort and cost required to gather data, develop tracking
mechanisms, install additional monitoring equipment and prepare/submit reports required by the
Rule, PCA urges the Agency to delay Rule implementation by at least one year (i.e., until 31
March 2012 for 2011 emissions) to allow companies adequate time to develop these systems and
budget for the associated costs.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: If the timeline as proposed is followed, and EPA promulgates the final rule in
November 2009, less than 2 months will be available to install required equipment and put the
systems in place to comply with this reporting rule. Two months is not sufficient lead time for
compliance with this reporting rule. One of the most difficult requirements to meet in this time
frame will be the calibration of instrumentation, equipment installation, and QA/QC procedures
by January 1, 2010. Marathon's current system of monitoring and calibrating these flow meters
cannot address all meters before the first of the year due to the number of meters that may be
brought in under this rule and due to a shortage of available man-power. Additionally, because of
safety reasons, there arc some meters that will be unable to be calibrated, repaired, or replaced
unless the process is off-line. Marathon proposes an exemption be given for these meters until
the next scheduled process shutdown. The equipment required for production operation data
collection to meet the rule requirements is either currently not installed, or the equipment that is
installed will not meet the required levels of QAPQC. For example, some of our facilities do not
have flow meters on fuel gas being used for tank heating at asphalt tanks. Currently, fuel usage is
being estimated using best available data and engineering estimates. To install these meters for
the pipe going to the tank farm, the rule would likely require this to happen in November or
December of this year (when the final rule is published). Marathon's regulated facilities may not
be able to shut the heaters off on these tanks long enough to install the flow meter required.
Additionally, other equipment will not be able to be installed until a scheduled shutdown. In
these and other cases, Marathon proposes that discretion be given to the facility to determine the
best time to install this equipment. To obtain quality data by allowing facilities to implement
good management systems, calibrate and install required equipment, and follow the procedures
outlined by the proposed rule, EPA should extend the first date of data collection to January 1,
2011. However if EPA chooses to not allow this necessary additional time, Marathon requests
that regulated facilities be allowed until January 1, 2011 to calibrate and install all equipment
subject to this rule while exempting those meters and equipment requiring a shutdown to be
brought into compliance until a shutdown occurs. During data collection for 2010, Marathon and
other regulated entities would submit best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
85
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the comments on installation and calibration of flow meters,
provisions have been added to subpart A of the final rule that allow additional time for
calibration. Changes have also been made to some of the source category subparts that allow
more flexibility in the types of monitoring instrumentation and additional time for upgrades. See
the preamble and comment response documents for the relevant subparts for discussion of these
changes.
Commenter Name: Patrick J. Nugent
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0460.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The initial compliance date for the collection, detection and gathering of data for
GHG emissions should be January 2011. not January 2010. Similarly, the first mandatory
reporting date for GHG emissions should be in 2012, not 2011. Industry simply needs more time
to prepare for compliance and to obtain the necessary equipment to detect and measure its GHG
emissions. Not only must the natural gas industry obtain the necessary detection equipment, but
it must set up internal systems to support this program. Staff must be hired and/or trained.
Systems need to be developed. Equipment must be purchased. All of this must take place before
the rules can be complied with. With a compliance deadline so close in time to the rule's final
adoption, industry groups must, in effect, anticipate the components of the final rule before it is
finally adopted in order to be ready to comply with an effective date only months away.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Kay L. Nelson
Commenter Affiliation: Northwest Indiana Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0689.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: At this difficult economic time for our nation, the Forum respectfully submits that
the accelerated compliance time frame for the reporting could place undue hardships on affected
businesses. The proposed rule was initially published on April 10, 2009 with a target
implementation date of January 2010. The proposed rule is very prescriptive and requires
facilities subject to reporting under this rule to establish a new monitoring program with a quality
assurance program in less than 9 months. Given the level of resources required to achieve this
goal and the demands on the currently available resources, we believe that this time frame places
an unreasonable burden on industries in the Northwest Indiana area. We respectfully request that
EPA either delay the implementation of this rule to allow more time for implementation or
significantly reduce its scope.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
86
-------
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: See Table 9
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0530.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: NGC urges EPA to defer implementation of the rule for at least one year, and to shift
the timing of reporting requirements to the end of the second financial quarter. Some key sectors,
such as the gas transmission industry, have never been required to monitor greenhouse gas
emissions. It will take time for such sectors (and others) to develop the human and physical
infrastructure necessary to comply with the specific requirements of the Proposed Rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
comment about moving the report submittal date to the second financial quarter, see the
preamble for the response on the submittal date of the annual report. See also comment EPA-
HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the timing of finalizing
some subparts in this rule. Regarding the comment on gas transmission monitoring, EPA is not
going final with subpart W (Oil and Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this
source category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps,
we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: To obtain and report the high quality emission estimates EPA seeks, a management
system must be developed. Two months is not sufficient time to complete this activity. As the
reporting rule is proposed, a tremendous volume of data and information is required to be
collected, analyzed, and evaluated in order to calculate emissions. In addition, the proposed rule
includes extensive QA/QC requirements and record-keeping requirements. All of these new
requirements, to be properly completed, require the implementation of a well developed
management system. The proposed schedule does not allow the time necessary to implement and
verify a quality management system. The management system needs to be built upon a
foundation of knowing that the proper equipment is installed and maintained according to the
proposed requirements, the equipment is providing information of sufficient quality, required
samples meet the necessary data quality requirements, systems are in place to properly evaluate
for missing or low quality data, and that the methods for using all of the data to complete
estimates are sound and reliable. More than two months are required to develop and implement
such a system As part of this management system, a project plan will have to be written and a
manual prepared to describe how data is collected, the calculations are conducted, emissions are
reported, and how appropriate QA/QC information will be compiled. Marathon proposes that
regulated facilities be given until January 1, 2011 to begin complying with the rule. At this time,
87
-------
the new management system would be implemented to address the requirements of this
mandatory reporting rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding a data management system, the rule allows reporters to keep
records in any type of hard copy or electronic format they choose, as long as it is in a form
suitable for expeditious inspection and review. This flexibility will allow facilities to use or adapt
their current data management systems, and reduce the time needed to develop any new systems.
In response to comments, the monitoring requirements in the final rule have been simplified so
that most of the rule subparts allow the use of current monitoring systems or records that
facilities already have. Many facilities already have electronic recordkeeping systems for the
parameters used to calculate GHG emissions under the final rule, and such facilities can alter
their current systems to keep the records needed for this rule. Furthermore, most of the smaller
facilities covered by the rule have only general stationary combustion sources. Most of these can
use simple Tier 1 calculations that rely on existing fuel use data multiplied by an emission factor
in the rule. Given the simplicity of this calculation, the recordkeeping system will not need to be
complex. In addition, EPA has clarified and simplified the requirements of the monitoring plan,
as described in the preamble response of general recordkeeping requirements. Regarding
reporting, EPA is developing an electronic reporting system that will simplify reporting and
avoid the need for facilities to develop their own reporting systems, as discussed in preamble
section V. In light of these factors, EPA has concluded that the implementation schedule allows
sufficient time.
Commenter Name: Linda D. Sullivan
Commenter Affiliation: National Grid
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0608.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: National Grid is concerned with the aggressive time-table established in the proposed
rule. Given the complexity of the reporting requirements and the number of National Grid's
operations that will be subject to the reporting requirements, it will be extremely difficult to have
in place the proposed metering, monitoring, and recordkeeping systems necessary by January 1,
2010 in order to report by March 31, 2011. The electricity generating sector has been reporting
CO2 emissions as part of the Acid Rain Program for many years, and the reporting of methane
and NOx should not add appreciably to this reporting burden. However, National Grid has many
stationary sources (other than generating facilities) and gas transmission and distribution systems
that are not currently subject to similar reporting requirements. Under the schedule as proposed,
National Grid would have only two months to determine facility applicability and amass the data
for multiple stationary sources at a facility (e.g. large operations centers) that previously have not
been subject to reporting requirements. This will be time- consuming and very likely cannot be
completed in order to report 2010 emissions. As a more reasonable alternative, National Grid
supports US EPA's alternative proposals. The first year of reporting should be pushed back to
2011, with the report due March 31, 2012. This would allow National Grid and other companies
sufficient time to evaluate how best to install equipment to monitor emissions, follow the
necessary budgeting process, install and test the equipment and work out any problems.
88
-------
Alternatively, National Grid could live with the alternative option of using best available data for
the 2010 reporting.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Geoffrey Cullen
Commenter Affiliation: Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0703.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA is proposing that data collection would begin January 1, 2010 and the first
emissions report would be due March 31, 2011. It is unclear if EPA will be able to issue a final
rule by January 1, 2010, creating uncertainty for facilities about whether they will be covered
and, if so, what final data collection and other reporting requirements will apply. To provide
facilities with adequate time to prepare, CMI supports the effective date for the beginning of data
collection starting 180 days after the final rule is issued.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Leslie Bellas
Commenter Affiliation: National Lime Association (NLA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0520.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 45
Comment: The Proposed Rule requires facilities to start collecting data on January 1, 2010 and
submit the 2010 emissions report by March 31, 2011. 40 C.F.R. § 98.2. Additional time is
needed for industry to respond to this Rule. Industry must plan, change operations, prepare new
procedures, and hire staff to implement this program. Additionally, many small, family-owned
businesses will need additional time to understand and comply with the requirements of this
complex Rule. There is an increased risk of inaccurate GHG emissions reporting if sources are
not given adequate time to collect and report data. Revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.2 to require facilities to
start collecting data on January 1, 2011 and submit by May 31, 2012 the first emissions report
for 2011 emissions.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1081.1 excerpt 3 for a
response on small business impacts.
89
-------
Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1527
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: The proposed rule requires facilities to begin monitoring and collecting data needed
to calculate and report GHG emissions on January 1, 2010. As a result of EPA's delay in issuing
the proposed rule, and the anticipated delay of the final rule, the NAM recommends that federal
regulators extend promulgation of the rule by one year. Not only will there will be insufficient
time for facilities to implement the required methods, but industry must calibrate and install the
equipment necessary to meet all the requirements of 40 CPR Part 98. To provide sufficient
implementation time, another option would be for EPA to adopt, an approach similar to the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandatory GHG reporting rule and allow facilities the
option to report 2010 emissions in 2011 based on best available data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Jeff A. Myrom
Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0581.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: The purpose of an emissions inventory is to create credible, accurate, and consistent
data for comparative purposes. The use of "best available", and thus likely incomplete and
inconsistent, data in 2010 does not achieve the objectives desired of an emissions inventory. To
the contrary, it may in fact create false and misleading trends between the 2010 "best available"
data and more credible, accurate, and consistent 2011 data derived from EPA mandated
procedures. Thus, option 2, where 2011 data would be reported in 2012 is the recommended,
preferred and practical reporting alternative.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding concern that data reported in 2010 will be "incomplete and
inconsistent", see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3.
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: 8
90
-------
Comment: The Department supports the proposal to commence implementation of the
requirements in 2010. As discussed in the proposed rule, many states have already established, or
are in the process of developing, their own rules. Affected facilities (those facilities identified
under state programs that are consistent with EPA's proposed reporting thresholds) in these
states likely have some type of records or structure for determining GHG emissions in place, or
soon to be in place, to meet the requirements of those state rules. The Department believes that
collection of data should commence during the 2010 year using the best available information.
Fuel consumption and process activity data can be reported, along with basic data to define the
facility and used to estimate GHG emissions for a large amount of sources. Methodologies to
estimate GHG emissions from a wide variety of sources have existed for over 10 years and
emission estimation methods are continually improving. The Department believes that it is
important to establish a GHG inventory sooner rather than later and revise it if necessary over
time, as has typically been done with other emission inventories.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
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: 15
Comment: EPA should give automatic extensions of time to facilities that will be required to
shut units down to install any equipment not already in place, or to upgrade equipment that does
not meet EPA standards of precision and accuracy. Alternatively, such refineries should be
allowed flexibility in methods of estimating the variable for which direct measurement is sought
or desired.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For responses to comments on the general monitoring requirements and
changes to the rule that allow facilities to postpone calibration of some existing monitoring
equipment until the next scheduled maintenance outage, see preamble section II.L. For
responses to specific comments on refineries, see the preamble section and comment response
document volume on Subpart Y, Petroleum Refineries.
Commenter Name: Mary J. Doyle
Commenter Affiliation: BG North America, LLC (BG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0714.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: As BG's generation units are currently subject to the ARP reporting requirements,
submitting the first report in March 2011 does not present a problem provided that the
91
-------
requirements do not materially change. However, BG is concerned that if there are new
requirements or substantial changes to the existing requirements, it will be difficult to have the
appropriate systems in place to begin collecting data in January 2010. In view of the importance
of this effort and rather than postpone the collection of the data for a year, it would be more
practical to adopt EPA's first alternate, i.e. facilities and suppliers should report in 2011 with
best available data and use actual data for the next year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Matthew G. Paulson
Commenter Affiliation: LLP on behalf of BCCA Appeal Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0649.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: EPA should adopt one of two approaches to implementing the GHG reporting rule.
First, EPA should allow submission of "best available data" beginning with calendar 2010 and
continuing for an "interim" period until a national program is established, or up to three (3)
years, whichever is sooner. At that point, EPA should re-evaluate the necessity and consistency
with federal legislation of data collection and reporting going forward. "Best available data"
would be data already available to facilities or suppliers and data that could be readily obtained
using established methodologies at no capital cost. Alternatively, EPA should delay data
collection and reporting for at least one (1) year in order to allow facilities and suppliers
adequate time to implement systems and practices necessary to monitor GHG emissions and
calculate and submit required information to EPA.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See comment
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0437.1 excerpt 18 for response on a three year interim period. Please
see also responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: James Sims
Commenter Affiliation: Western Business Roundtable
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1038.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Roundtable does not believe a 2010 start date offers sufficient time for regulated
entities to comply — particularly within those sectors which have not previously been required to
report emissions and, thus, do not have monitoring and reporting procedures in place. We
recommend that EPA consider having mandatory data collections begin in 2011, with the
submittal of data due to the Agency beginning in 2012.
92
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Marcelle Shoop
Commenter Affiliation: Rio Tinto Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0636.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Even if EPA were to finalize the mandatory reporting rule by June 2009, a timeframe
of less than 6 months is insufficient time for all facilities to prepare for the detailed and complex
reporting program proposed by EPA. Such a short timeframe could make it challenging to
implement internal systems for data collection and QA/QC and ensure that they meet the
standards of the proposed rule. A limited implementation period in which to develop internal
data assurance systems also raises concerns for the certification process in the face of serious
enforcement possibilities. Adopting Option 2 (delayed reporting until 2012) would allow
reporting entities and the Agency to be better placed to ensure the robustness of the reporting
systems and ensure that there is an electronic reporting format for data collection. At a minimum,
EPA should require no more than what it proposes for Option 1, which requires reporting only
best available data to be reported for 2010 in 2011. In that circumstance, criteria for best
available data should include facility emissions reports made to, or data based on methodologies
from, other voluntary or mandatory reporting registries for the year 2010.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Craig S. Campbell
Commenter Affiliation: Lafarge North America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0674.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: At 74 Fed. Reg. 16463 the question is raised of practical achievability of the
effective dates for initial data collection and submittal of the initial annual reports. As EPA
states: EPA is proposing 2010 data collection and 2011 reporting, however, we are interested in
receiving comment on alternative schedules if we are unable to meet our goal. Lafarge
recommends that the effective date for the rule be modified by one year, from January 1, 2010 to
January 1, 2011. Given that the rule will not be finalized until 3rd or 4th quarter 2009, facilities
will not be able to establish all of the required procedures and quality assurance measures
prescribed in the proposed rule to be in-compliance by January 1, 2010. We do not support the
option described by EPA of allowing a simpler report requirement for 2010, to be followed by a
more detailed requirement for 2011. It would be unduly burdensome to apply two different
reporting systems in just a two-year span. In each case a great deal of management rigor would
need to be applied up-front and during each implementation to ensure compliance. In essence,
93
-------
two implementations would require substantial duplicative efforts for each of the two reporting
systems. At 74 Fed. Reg. 16471 EPA discusses its rationale for its belief that regulated entities
could comply with a January 1, 2010 effective date. As EPA states: A beginning date of January
1, 2010 would allow sufficient time to begin monitoring and collecting data because many of the
parameters that would need to be monitored under the proposed rule are already monitored by
facilities for process management and accounting reasons (e.g., feedstock input rates, production
output, fuel purchases). In addition the monitoring methods specified by the rule are already well
known and documented; and monitoring devices required by the rule are routinely available, in
ready supply (e.g., flow meters, automatic data recorders), and in some cases already installed.
Lafarge is recommending the proposed rule's effective date be moved back one year to January
1, 2011. Although some of the types of required sampling and analysis are done at cement plants
the proposed regulation would require an entire re-evaluation of existing practices at each plant
and changes to these practices to ensure strict conformance with EPA requirements. The scope of
this detailed review and updating will include sampling, analysis, measurement, calibration,
quality assurance, recordkeeping, and reporting procedures. We anticipate a minimum of 6
months would be required to implement these changes.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For a response to the potential for doing "best available monitoring methods"
in 2010 to distract resources, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3.
Commenter Name: Melvin E. Keener
Commenter Affiliation: Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0446.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In Section 98.3(b) of the proposal, EPA suggests that facilities and suppliers begin,
collecting data on January 1, 2010, and that the first emission report would be due on March 31,
2011'. We understand and support EPA's effort to move without delay to develop an inventory
of greenhouse gases. However, we are concerned that neither EPA nor industry will be ready to
begin reporting on January 1, 2010. EPA is unlikely to publish the final rule until late in 2009. In
order to comply with the final rule, facilities will be need a few months to review the rule and
develop an implementation plan; which will (for most of our operations) include arranging staff
to manage the program, reconfigure current monitoring equipment (or if inadequate, require
additional monitoring equipment), and development and training on the new reporting program
(including data collection and use of EPA's reporting system). Facilities will need more that a
couple of months to complete the activities and begin monitoring in accordance with EPA's
requirements. As such, we suggest that facilities begin collecting data on January 1, 2011, for
reporting on March 31, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
94
-------
Commenter Name: Kimberly S. Lagomarsino
Commenter Affiliation: Mississippi Lime
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1568
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In Section III.B of the Preamble, "facilities and suppliers would begin collecting data
on January 1, 2010. The first emissions report would be due on March 31, 2011, for emissions
during 2010." Suggestion: To ensure facilities have sufficient time to understand and implement
the requirements of the proposed rule, please revise the beginning date of data collection and the
date the first emissions report is due by an extension of 2 years. Additionally, installation of new
C02 monitoring equipment will require time to procure, install, and integrate existing data into a
data acquisition system. Extractive CO2 monitoring instrumentation that would be required for
Mississippi Lime Company will not be commercially available until late-2009.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Also see the preamble section and comment response document on subpart S,
Lime Manufacturing, for responses to comments on monitoring methods for lime manufacturing
plants and discussion of changes made to the rule in response to comments.
Commenter Name: Patricia A. Meehan
Commenter Affiliation: New York Power Authority (NYPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1569
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: We recommend that EPA delay the commencement of the greenhouse gas reporting
program until calendar year 2012. Given the time involved to inventory, track, write operating
procedures, establish agreements with third parties who perform maintenance on our equipment,
purchase new equipment to accurately track the greenhouse gases, and other logistical issues, we
do not anticipate that we will be able to have all of the resources in place to begin tracking the
GHG emissions in calendar year 2010.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Marc J. Meteyer
Commenter Affiliation: Compressed Gas Association (CGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0981.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: According to the proposed rule, facilities and suppliers would begin collecting data
on January 1, 2010, with the first emissions report due on March 31, 2011, for emissions from
95
-------
2010. The CGA believes that reporting of 2010 emissions is too early particularly since this rule
will likely not be finalized until late summer/fall of 2009. Individual companies/facilities will
have to review the final rule and determine whether it is applicable to their facility/company and
establish procedures to collect this data in a very short time frame. For facilities that may require
new monitoring equipment or calibration of existing equipment, it will not provide sufficient
time to install, calibrate, and establish Q/A procedures to properly operate and maintain this
equipment. As a result, EPA should strongly consider beginning the collection of GHG
emissions data in January 1, 2011, with the first emissions report due sometime in 2012. (Note:
CGA also believes a March 31 Annual Due Date is too early, which is discussed later.)
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the comment on the March 31 reporting deadline, see the
preamble response on submittal date for annual reports.
Commenter Name: Caroline Choi
Commenter Affiliation: Progress Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0439.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: In the preamble, EPA asks for comments on two options for the start of data
collection and the start of reporting. The first option would be to report data from calendar year
2010 in 2011 using best available data and then to begin full reporting using applicable
methodology for 20 II in 2012. The second option is to begin reporting with 2011 data in 2012
using applicable methodology. Progress Energy supports the first option, which will provide a
one-year transitional period prior to full reporting.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Rich Raiders
Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: EPA has proposed a very aggressive reporting schedule, with reporting to begin for
calendar year 2010. However, EPA has also proposed extensive requirements for a wide variety
of source categories that cannot be implemented without substantial planning. EPA traditionally
has provided the regulated community a three-year period to implement substantive Clean Air
Act requirements. For example, in the maximum achievable control technology ("MACT")
standards in 40 CFR 63, EPA provides three years for facilities complying with the standards to
develop compliance plans, install equipment, monitoring devices, data collection and analysis
tools, and reporting systems before the compliance date for each substantive requirement. In one
96
-------
situation, the Hazardous Organic NESHAP ("HON") at 40 CFR 63 Subparts F, G, H, and I, EPA
required early compliance using the best available data during the three-year implementation
period. EPA phased in a variety of requirements based on the regulated community's ability to
implement compliance systems during the implementation window. We comment that EPA
should adopt a similar phased-in approach for mandatory GHG reporting, where facilities report
the best available data for the first three years while implementing the substantive requirements
proposed in Part 98 over a three year period. The proposed standard contains many substantive
data collection, calculation, missing data, and reporting procedures that many reporting facilities
cannot accommodate without conducting engineering design studies, ordering long lead-time
equipment, conducting the appropriate safety reviews required by several Occupational Safety
and Health Administration ("OSHA") programs, installing instrumentation and support
equipment in the field, managing the various process changes required to facilitate reporting, and
inventing reporting systems for new parameters never before monitored in American
manufacturing. For many manufacturing units, including fluorinated GHG manufacturing units,
placement and installation of process stream sampling systems and instrumentation monitoring
systems must only be installed after careful consideration of process safety considerations. Many
of the streams that Arkema manages in its manufacturing processes exhibit one or more safety
hazards, such as high temperature, high pressure, and adverse indicator qualities (odor,
corrosivity, dermal damage) that must be considered before modifying any process unit. All of
these activities take time, significant resources, and, in some cases, a substantial amount of
money to implement. EPA should follow its historical precedent and allow adequate
implementation time for Part 98.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For response on parallels to NESHAPs, see comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-
0508-1081.1 excerpt 3. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our
response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts of the rule. In particular, EPA is
not going final with subpart L (Fluorinated GHG Production) at this time, so emissions from this
source category will not need to be reported in 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be
reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding
to comments on subpart L at this time.
Commenter Name: Marc J. Meteyer
Commenter Affiliation: Compressed Gas Association (CGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0981.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: If it is determined by EPA that it is critical to begin collecting GHG emissions data
in 2010, at a minimum, EPA should allow all affected facilities to report 2010 data in 2011 using
"best available data". For example, where required under this proposed rule, unless monitoring
devices are already installed and calibrated properly on the date of the final rule, other methods
(e.g. fuel use, default emission factors, fuel receipts, etc.) should be allowed to calculate GHG
emissions for 2010. This should enable EPA to obtain valuable information concerning the types,
locations, GHG emissions and fuel consumption from facilities in 2011. In fact, CGA
recommends that EPA allow use of "best available data" in subsequent years of the reporting
97
-------
program and not require Continuous Emissions Monitoring or other expensive/resource intensive
equipment unless it is determined that the quality of this data is inadequate.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the response to the comment on the monitoring methods, see the
preamble for the response on the general monitoring approach.
Commenter Name: Robert Rouse
Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Subparts C and X both require that the owner/operator complete an initial calibration
of existing flow meters prior to the first reporting year. Dow routinely calibrates flow meters and
other instruments; however, completion of all calibrations prior to January 1, 2010 presents
significant challenges. In some cases, it is necessary to shut down the associated process and to
remove the meter from service in order to properly calibrate the device. Many of the facilities
subject to this proposed rule are large scale chemical plants that have very infrequent (2- 5 year
frequency) prescheduled shutdowns. Dow suggests that the requirement to complete all existing
meter calibrations be revised to January 1, 2011, or the next scheduled shutdown and that the
owner/operator be allowed to use existing instrumentation for the 2010 reporting year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Regarding the
comment on calibration of flow meters, in response to comments, EPA added provisions to
subpart A of the final rule to allow additional time for calibration when it would be necessary to
shut down the process in order to perform the calibration.
Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: We are concerned that compliance with this complex rulemaking will be required
immediately so that 2010 GHG emissions can be gathered and reported. For sources that must
comply with the rule, systems and mechanisms to gather data must be put in place, emissions
estimates must be compiled, and reporting systems must be established before the end of 2009.
Furthermore, reporting entities do not know how such reports are to be made to the EPA, other
than the reports will be submitted electronically. Under the best of circumstances, it is unlikely
that a final rule would be published until mid-late October 2009. If EPA chose to require
reporting for CY 2010, entities would only have 30 to 45 days to develop and implement data
gathering and management systems. We would like to call attention to EPA's rulemaking
activities associated with another data gathering activity - the TRI reporting rules. On June 4,
1987, EPA published a draft of TRI reporting rules. It was not until February 16, 1988 - eight
months later - that EPA published the final TRI reporting rules. The proposed rule contained the
98
-------
TRI reporting form and interpretive requirements for reporting, thus affording the regulated
community the opportunity to review and prepare for specific reporting obligations. No such
information is contained in the proposed GHG rulemaking. Note also that the TRI reporting rules
did not require the use of specific calculation methodologies, but rather allowed a regulated
entity to rely on existing engineering practices, estimates and judgment. Conversely, the
proposed GHG reporting rules have set forth specific and comprehensive data gathering and
management requirements, including in some instances, the installation of continuous emission
monitors (CEMS), calibration of existing CEMS, etc. Given the complexity of this rule, we
recommend that entities be required to submit detailed reports no earlier than 2012 for calendar
year 2011 emissions. Any reporting required for 2010 emissions should rely solely on the use of
existing engineering practices, estimates and judgment.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For responses to comments on the electronic reporting system, see the
preamble section and comment response volume on data collection.
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Marathon voluntarily reports GHG emissions data from a corporate perspective and
estimate internally at a facility level, not a unit level, and our estimates are based on emission
factors and accounting data rather than specific carbon content of fuel from samples and
analysis. The requirements of this rule would completely change the way Marathon is estimating
and reporting emissions. Marathon, therefore, requires extended time to implement a new
management system and address the changes to our emissions estimation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Michael G. Cashin
Commenter Affiliation: Minnesota Power
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1139.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: MP also supports establishing first year reporting in 2012 for calendar year 2011
emissions to allow utilities time to ensure proper reporting systems are in place and that utilities
are collecting all the required compliance data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
99
-------
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: NPRA believes that there is not enough time for participants to interpret the rule and
completely prepare for its implementation in the initial reporting year of 2010. It is more than
120 pages (16606 to 16731 in the Federal Register) with the Preamble more than 158 pages
(16448 to 16606). In addition, the summary information, Regulatory Impact Analysis and docket
information are also lengthy. EPA denied a request to extend the comment period, compressing
the time which regulated entities had to study the proposed rule and its lengthy docket, develop
comments, and establish compliance plans. The latter aspect is particularly onerous, in that the
proposed rule would require regulated entities to essentially establish compliance plans without a
final rule. The proposed rule requires substantial facility upgrades, measurement improvements,
and recordkeeping changes in order to compile the necessary data at the prescribed quality
levels. Proposed §98.3 (b)(1) requires existing facilities to begin monitoring and collecting data
needed to calculate and report GHG emissions on January 1, 2010. As a result of EPA's six
month delay in issuing the proposed rule, and the anticipated subsequent delay of the final rule,
there will be insufficient time for facilities to develop a written quality assurance performance
plan, implement the required monitoring and calculation methods, and engineer, procure, install
and calibrate the necessary equipment to meet all the requirements of 40 CFR part 98 before
January 1, 2010. To ensure that facilities have adequate time to prepare for data collection and
reporting, EPA should adopt an approach similar to California's AB-32 reporting rule allowing
the initial emissions report to be based on best available data for the first reporting period. The
calendar simply does not allow enough time to comply by 2010. Establishing a QAPP and
making the required changes to prepare for compliance cannot be done until after EPA issues the
rule as final. This will not occur until the second half of 2009 at the earliest, which does not
allow enough time for compliant data collection to begin on January 1, 2010. Therefore EPA
should allow flexibility in reporting during the first reporting cycle. Finally, EPA has not and
will not issue the reporting format until after the rule becomes final.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For response on the monitoring plan (formerly the QAPP), see the preamble
Section M. on General Recordkeeping Requirements. See also the response to comments
document for legal issues for further discussion regarding the adequacy of the public comment
period.
Commenter Name: Karen St. John
Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
100
-------
Comment: As proposed, EPA would require reporting entities to begin monitoring and
collecting data needed to calculate and report GHG emissions on January 1, 2010. As a result of
an anticipated issuance of the final rule into November 2009, there would be insufficient time for
facilities to develop a written quality assurance performance plan, implement the required
monitoring and calculation methods, and calibrate and install the necessary equipment to meet all
the requirements of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 98. BP recommends
that EPA extend the effective date of the rule to provide sufficient time for reporting entities to
put in place new systems and infrastructure. As EPA requested comment on the option of
extending the rule by one year, BP supports a one year extension given the depth and breadth of
the rule's coverage and what would be a very late publication of a final rule in late 2009. BP
recommends that EPA streamline the reporting requirements to allow the use of best available
data (e.g., facility engineering estimates) at least for the early years, and focus the reporting on
facility GHG emissions only.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the comment to focus on facility GHG emissions, see the
preamble responses on the level of reporting and general content of the annual GHG report. For
response on requirement for a written quality assurance performance plan, see the preamble,
Section II.M on General Recordkeeping Requirements.
Commenter Name: Michael Carlson
Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The agency's goal to promulgate the mandatory GHG reporting rule by the third
quarter of 2009 in order to inform facilities about compliance with the rule, give them time to
determine applicability, procure and install CO2 monitors in CEMS, require collection of data
beginning on January 1, 2010 (16470), and require reporting of 2010 emissions by March 31,
2011 is most unrealistic. Nevertheless in the Preamble the agency contends (16471): This
schedule would give existing facilities lead time after the date the rule is promulgated to prepare
for monitoring and reporting. Preparation would include studying the final rule, determining
whether it applies to the facility, identifying the requirements with which the facility must
comply, and preparing to monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate and report
GHG emissions. We beg to differ with the agency, and argue that much more lead time is
necessary before data collection efforts can possibly begin. We wish to remind the agency that
this is one of the most voluminous and complex regulation issued by the agency since rules
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The first reporting year should be 2011 or
2012 once a proper outreach program has been completed by the agency, and the industrial and
commercial facilities have had an opportunity to become familiar with the many facets of the
GHG reporting rule and determine its applicability to their operations.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
101
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA is incorrect in their assumption that all the required data is currently being
generated and compiled according to the proposed methods and monitoring requirements. EPA
states on page 74 FR 16471 of the preamble, "the monitoring methods specified by the rule are
already well known and documented; and monitoring devices required by the rule are routinely
available, in ready supply, and in some cases already installed" Additionally, EPA is mistaken
that equipment that is not currently installed will be easily found and installed. Because this rule
will require many facilities to purchase necessary equipment, it is possible and likely that a
shortage may occur for certain pieces of equipment. Although much data is currently gathered
and compiled, it does not meet the (PDX requirements EPA is proposing. The type of data that
EPA assumes that Marathon and other refineries have and submit for other reports is process
data. The quality assurance requirements and other requirements under this proposed rule would
drastically alter the way our data is collected and the type of data that is collected. Because EPA
is incorrect in their assumption that all required data is currently generated and compiled
according to their proposed methods and monitoring, Marathon recommends that if EPA
determines that this level of detail is needed, then regulated facilities should be given until
January 1, 2011 to meet these new requirements.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In response to comments, several changes have been made to the rule to
allow use of existing monitoring equipments or provide additional time to install and calibrate
monitoring equipment. For discussion of rule changes and responses to specific comments on
monitoring requirements for individual source categories, see the preamble sections and
comment response document volumes on Subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) and other applicable
subparts.
Commenter Name: George H. Berghorn
Commenter Affiliation: Michigan Forest Products Council (MFPC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0721.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Postpone the enactment of the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule
until greater certainty is reached through the passage of federal climate policy, in order to collect
the best information in the most efficient and cost-effective way to support furtherance of policy
goals. We recommend postponement until 2012 (reports for emissions in 2011) to address policy
uncertainties.
102
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Note, EPA has determined it is not appropriate to delay this rule due to
"policy uncertainties" in part because the commenter does not elaborate. The data collected
under this rule are required to help us assess CAA options for addressing GHG emissions and
climate change. See response to comments document for legal issues for further discussion of
the various CAA policies and programs under evaluation.
Commenter Name: Sarah B. King
Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0604.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Under the proposal, it appears that compliance with this complex and comprehensive
rulemaking will be required immediately so that GHG emissions that occur in 2010 can be
reported in 2011. In order to comply with the rule, systems and mechanisms to gather data,
compile emissions estimates and undertake reporting therefore would have to be established
before the end of 2009. Yet, reporting entities will not know the final requirements of the rule
until about the last quarter of 2009, at the earliest. Given the complexity of the rule, it is
unreasonable to expect that monitoring devices could be identified, purchased and installed (or
that existing devices could be modified and calibrated for C02 monitoring); that monitoring,
sampling and analysis protocols, schedules and contracts could be established; that data
management systems could be developed; and that personnel could be trained - all prior to the
start of 2010. Given the complexity of this rule, we recommend that the first required year for
entities to submit detailed reports be 2012 for calendar year 2011 emissions. The phased-in
emissions thresholds as recommended in comment II. A above could help determine which
entities would be required to submit data in 2012. Entities with the necessary systems in place
that wish to begin reporting in 2011 for 2010 emissions could do so on a voluntary basis. Where
practices and facilities are not in place that would fully comply with the final rule, reporting
should rely on the use of existing engineering practices, estimates and judgment.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In particular, the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
excerpt 14 addresses the phase-in comment.
Commenter Name: [name not given]
Commenter Affiliation: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0701.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Under the proposed rule, the reporting requirements for all affected facilities would
start on Jan. 1, 2010. Given the fact that we are in the proposal stage now, with a final rule not
likely until the end of the year - an implementation date of January 1, 2010 is not appropriate.
103
-------
With a final rule not expected until a couple of months before the implementation date, a January
1, 2010 does not give facilities a sufficient amount of time for preparation. EPA's contention that
many of the parameters that need to be monitored and much of the data that needs to be collected
are already being accomplished by facilities is erroneous. The simple fact of the matter is that
there simply not enough understanding of the EPA's proposed rulemaking throughout the
general business community and there will be a tremendous lead time necessary to educate
industry and develop the administrative infrastructure (staff, reporting tools, etc.) necessary to
accurately track and report its GHG emissions. Since the goal of this rule is to collect
comprehensive and accurate data to inform future legislation and regulation it is all the more
important to give facilities enough time to analyze the rule, purchase and install analytical
instruments, and begin collecting the required data correctly. The GAC requests a start date of
January 2011, with the first report due in 2012. As EPA states, the advantage of this approach is
that it would give affected facilities substantial time to prepare for the impacts of the Rule. In
light of the far reaching implications of this Rule on industry, we disagree that delaying this by
one year would have significant impacts on future policy and regulatory development and urge
EPA to give affected entities enough time to adequately comply.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Paul Glader
Commenter Affiliation: Hecla Mining Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0579.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The timing is inadequate for comprehensive review and comment on this proposed
rulemaking. For EPA to adequately review and address all comments received on June 9, 2009 ,
it is likely the final regulations cannot be provided until late in the second half at 2009. It is
unrealistic for industry to commence monitoring January 1, 2010, and report by March 31, 2011,
as stated in the proposed rulemaking. Affected industries will need sufficient time to read and
understand a final rule, identify questions and obtain clarifications, conduct training and
implement appropriate monitoring programs or install data collection. It would be much more
realistic for EPA to require that monitoring begin January 1, 2011 and the first report due March
31, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
104
-------
Commenter Name: Robert N. Steinwurtzel
Commenter Affiliation: Bingham McCutchen LLP on behalf of Association of Battery
Recyclers (ABR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0660.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The Proposed Rule at §98.3(a)(1) requires existing facilities subject to reporting to
begin monitoring and recordkeeping on January 1, 2010 and to submit reports of 2010 GHG
emissions no later than March 31, 2011. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,613. On page 16,471 of the Proposed
Rule EPA states that while it intends to issue the final rule in sufficient time to begin monitoring
on January 1, 2010, it may be unable to meet that goal and is interested in receiving comments
on alternative effective dates. Id. at 16,471. A reasonable amount of time to develop the
monitoring, recordkeeping and quality assurance programs required to comply with the rule will
vary significantly depending on the nature and size of a subject facility and its available
personnel and funding resources. Therefore, even if EPA is able to promulgate the final rule
prior to the end of 2009, there will not be sufficient time for many facilities to prepare. Two
options for alternative effective dates are suggested on page 16,471 of the Proposed Rule. The
first is to report 2010 data in 2011 using best available data. Id. The ABR does not support this
option. While it would relieve the burden of implementing the monitoring, recordkeeping and
quality assurance requirements of the Proposed Rule, EPA indicates that the types of best
available data allowed to be used would have to be defined. Establishing and complying with
defined best available data is likely to be as burdensome as following the requirements of the
Proposed Rule, and therefore provides no benefit. EPA's second option is to report 2011 data in
2012, delaying implementation by one (1) year to allow sufficient time for facilities to prepare.
Id. The ABR supports this option. Alternatively, should EPA not choose to delay the effective
date for one (1) year to allow sufficient time for facilities to prepare, the ABR recommends that
reporting under the rule be phased in over time, with larger sources beginning to report 2010
emissions in 2011, and the rest of the sources subject to the rule beginning to report the
following year. This would be an equitable approach because, in general, larger facilities should
have more available resources to address the requirements in the Proposed Rule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Linda Farrington
Commenter Affiliation: Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0680.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Lilly disagrees with the EPA's proposal to begin monitoring and data collection on
January 1, 2010. The proposed rule is detailed and complex, and we believe a sufficient amount
of time should be allowed for facilities to review the final rule, ensure that all required
monitoring equipment is in place, and develop procedures for data collection and emission
calculations. In addition, some facilities will need additional time to install CEMS or upgrade
existing CEMS in order to measure CO2. Therefore, we recommend the final rule defer the start
of data collection and monitoring to January 1, 2011, which represents the second of two
105
-------
alternative options described in the preamble. Under this scenario, facilities would begin data
collection on January 1, 2011 and submit the first reports to EPA on March 31, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Frederick T. Harnack
Commenter Affiliation: United States Steel Corporation (USS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0681.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed time for implementation is unreasonable. Considering the detailed
procedures proposed, it is technically and logistically unreasonable and untenable to begin
reporting in 2011 for 2010 emissions when the final rule is not expected until shortly before the
2010 reporting year. Requiring reporting of 2010 emission will exert undue burden on all
reporting facilities regardless of size and complexity.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Jeff A. Myrom
Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0581.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: It is impossible for all facilities covered under the proposed rule to complete all the
quantitative certifications and emissions monitoring equipment (e.g. CEMS) necessary to begin
collecting mandatory reporting data, pursuant to the proposed rule, before January 1, 2010.
Given that the final version of the mandatory GHG reporting rule is unlikely to be published
until late 2009, it would be extremely challenging for reporting facilities to analyze the final rule
and implement the numerous GHG quantification procedures required prior to January 1, 2010.
Moreover, for facilities that would have to install new CEMS systems, it is already too late to
order, install, and certify such CEMS prior to January 1, 2010. Thus, EPA should delay the
implementation of GHG emissions data collection until January 1, 2011, with reporting of 2011
data in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. In particular, the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641
excerpt 7 addresses CEMS.
106
-------
Commenter Name: [name not given]
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Association of Business
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0698
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: In the event that a schedule for data collection beginning in January of 2010 is not
maintained, EPA has identified specific options, including the use of "best available data" from
reporting facilities for 2010, with initial reports due March 31, 2011, or delaying data collection
until 2011, with initial reports due by March 31, 2012. While either approach would provide
some relief to reporting facilities, EPA should consider allowing the use of "best available data"
beginning in 2010 and continuing until any national program contained in federal legislation has
been established. This approach will minimize costs and regulatory burdens to reporters, provide
EPA an opportunity to evaluate the data, and ensure consistency with any future statutory
directives. In any event where new data collection requirements are to be imposed, EPA should
allow more than the proposed three months for reporting of prior calendar year data. EPA should
also consider whether biennial reporting, rather than annual, would not equally serve the broad
policy implementation needs of the agency.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For the response to the comment on the March 31 reporting deadline, see the
preamble section on the submittal date for annual reports. For the response to the comment on
the biennial reporting, see the comment response volume for subpart A.
Commenter Name: Sam Chamberlain
Commenter Affiliation: Murphy Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0625
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The effective date should be delayed for at least one year to allow the regulated
community sufficient time to create new program requirements, train all applicable personnel,
and budget any necessary expenses.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Dean C. DeLorey
Commenter Affiliation: Beet Sugar Development Foundation (BSDF) Environmental
Committee
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0559.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
107
-------
Comment: The first year of reporting should be for the calendar year 2012 to allow industry
adequate time to prepare for the data gathering, storage and compilation effort which will be a
significant challenge, especially for the first year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Scott Davis
Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Public Service (APS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0639.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: The rule currently requires that "monitoring and reporting requirements would start
on January 1, 2010. The first report to EPA would be submitted by March 31, 2011, and would
cover calendar year 2010." EPA is seeking comments on whether or not EPA should select an
alternative reporting date including the options listed below: Option 1 - Report 2010 data in 2011
using best available data. Under this scenario the rule would be effective January 1, 2010,
allowing affected facilities to use either the methods in proposed 40 CFR 98 or best available
data. As in the current proposal, the report would be submitted on March 31, 2011 and then full
data collection, using the methods in 40 CFR 98 would begin in 2011, with that report sent to
EPA on March 31, 2012. Option 2 - Report 2011 data in 2012. Under this scenario the rule
would require that affected facilities begin collecting data January 1, 2011 and submit the first
reports to EPA on March 31, 2012. The method in the proposed rule would remain unchanged
and the only difference is that this option would delay implementation of the rule one year. APS
recommends EPA reconsider the monitoring and reporting deadline and implement Option 1 as
described above. APS believes that this approach allows facilities to make upgrades to
equipment, calibrate monitoring equipment, and complete QA/QC requirements to meet the
conditions of the rule in a timely manner.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Bill Grygar
Commenter Affiliation: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA should delay implementation of the rule by one year to allow industry time to
mobilize the necessary resources to collect and report accurate data. The Proposed Rule requires
existing facilities to begin monitoring and collecting data needed to calculate and report GHG
emissions on January 1, 2010. Anadarko is concerned that the proposed effective date does not
108
-------
allow sufficient lead-time for implementation (interpret the rule, determine applicability,
collecting data, calculating emissions, testing, database management, setting up a compliance
program, quality assurance, recordkeeping, establishing a budget, etc.), particularly given that
the final rule may not be issued until November 2009. To ensure that facilities have adequate
time to prepare for data collection and provide accurate reporting, EPA should delay
implementation of the rule by one year, pushing the compliance schedule to January 1, 2011 and
reporting 2011 data rather than 2010 data. In the event EPA declines to delay implementation of
the rule, EPA should allow the initial emissions report for 2010 data to be based on best available
data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Randall R. LaBauve
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Power & Light (FPL) Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0624.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: FPL Group suggests that EPA's proposal to begin implementation of the mandatory
GHG reporting program in January, 2010, following promulgation of a final rule in September
2009, allows inadequate time for companies to prepare for compliance. To begin reporting,
companies will need to assess the final rule, and then, where appropriate, install and certify
emissions monitoring equipment; develop or purchase, test and implement software programs to
support electronic filing; develop internal reporting procedures and guidance; and finally train
personnel in the use of the new equipment, software, and reporting procedures and guidance.
Allowing what will likely be 90 days from the promulgation of the final rule to the start of the
compliance period, is simply inadequate time. The forgoing is especially true where utilities are
for the first time reporting emissions from categories not required by 40 CFR Part 75, such as
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), or where new fossil-fueled combustion units that are exempt under the
Acid Rain provisions of Title IV of the CAA are for the first time subject to a CO2 emissions
reporting requirement under the proposed rule. In the preamble of the proposed rule, EPA
requests comments on two options regarding the timing of initial implementation of the GHG
reporting program: 1. report 2011 data in 2012; or 2. report 2010 data in 2011 using best
available data, similar to the approach adopted by the California Air Resources Board (ARB)
mandatory reporting rule. FPL recommends that EPA adopt the first option of requiring the
initial report (of 2011 data) be submitted in 2012. However, if this option is ultimately rejected
by the Agency, then FPL Group recommends that EPA adopt the second option of requiring the
reporting of 2010 data in 2011 using the best data available. Beginning with 2011 data or best
available 2010 data and methods would provide affected sources an opportunity to evaluate the
implications of the final rule on their individual lines of business; install and certify necessary
emissions monitoring equipment; develop or purchase, test and implement new software
programs to support electronic filing of data; develop internal reporting procedures and
guidance; and train personnel in the use of new equipment, software, and reporting procedures
and guidance.
109
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart DD (Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6) from Electrical Equipment) at this time, so emissions from this source
category will not need to be reported for calendar year 2010. As we consider next steps, we will
be reviewing the public comments and other relevant information. Therefore, we are not
responding to comments on subpart DD at this time.
Commenter Name: Chris Hornback
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0566.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: NACWA believes that EPA's schedule for implementing the proposed reporting rule
may be too ambitious. With data collection slated to begin on January 1, 2010 and the first report
due March 31, 2011, there will be little time to establish the systems necessary to facilitate the
reporting and ensure that those systems are running reliably. More importantly, covered entities
will have little if any time to analyze the final rule before they are expected to begin collecting
data. It will be several months, well into the Fall of 2009, before EPA can address public
comments on the proposal and issue a final rule. NACWA understands that the California Air
Resources Board used the first year of its reporting regime as a trial run to roll out its program,
and recommends that EPA consider doing the same. If these reports are to be used as the basis
for a future cap-and-trade program, the initial set up of the reporting system must be done
carefully.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone
Commenter Affiliation: Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0717.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Because it is already June 2009, and a final rule is not expected until September
2009, the rule will result in facilities having to rush to gather information for reporting purposes.
To begin reporting, facilities will need to assess the final rule, and then, where appropriate,
install and certify emissions monitoring equipment; develop or purchase, test and implement
software programs to support electronic filing; develop internal reporting procedures and
guidance; and finally train personnel in the use of the new equipment, software, and reporting
procedures and guidance. Therefore, Tampa Electric supports requiring data collection to start in
2011, with the first data submissions due to EPA in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
110
-------
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1 excerpt 2.
Commenter Name: John H. Skinner
Commenter Affiliation: Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0659.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The proposed requirement to begin collecting data on January 1, 2010 may be
appropriate for industries who are already reporting on other air quality emissions. However, it is
too early for many facility operators who will need to train staff, and install new monitoring
equipment, etc. SWANA recommends that EPA have a start date of January 1, 2011 with this
first year constituting a phase-in period to establish and confirm sampling and analysis protocols,
and January 1, 2012 the date when inventories will bear the full scrutiny of EPA. This is the
approach that has been taken in the California AB-32 program. Secondly, WTE facilities must
start sampling and testing C02 for biogenic and non-biogenic fractions starting in 2010. This
may not provide sufficient time for all facilities to develop procedures and purchase and install
the hardware needed for the sampling. It is our recommendation that this part of the reporting
begin with the 2012 reporting year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For responses to comments on the monitoring the GHG calculation
methodologies for waste to energy facilities, see the comment response document for subpart C
"General Stationary Combustion Sources."
Commenter Name: Keith Adams
Commenter Affiliation: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1142.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Air Products recommends EPA delay the initial reporting to 2011. Subject facilities
will not have time to perform the comprehensive interpretation of a final reporting rule, make the
applicability determinations, establish data collection work processes compliant with the rule's
requirements and specify, purchase, install and calibrate needed instrumentation to meet a
January 1, 2010 starting date. If EPA is compelled to begin collecting data for calendar year
2010, provisions must be added, similar to those under California's reporting rule, that allow the
first year reporting to utilize "best available" data sources and methods.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Ill
-------
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA suggested two alternatives in the preamble in the event that the rule is not
finalized in a timely fashion. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,471. NMA supports the option that would provide
for reporting 2011 data in 2012. The other option that EPA raised was allowing affected facilities
to use best available data to report for the year beginning in 2010. Id. NMA does not support the
use of best available data because this data tends to be inaccurate and misleading. To the extent
that this rule is designed to collect meaningful data for policymaking, allowing the use of best
available data could be extremely counter-productive. As we have seen in regard to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI), the use of best available data can result in emissions reporting that is
very inaccurate, and that can be easily misinterpreted both by policy makers and the public.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding the comment that the data collected in 2010 will be "inaccurate
and misleading", please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3.
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: 3
Comment: EP should delay the GHG reporting compliance deadline for NCRA and other SBR's
for 3 years beyond the general deadline. Alternatively allow use of best available data during this
transition time period. Lessons can be learned and cost efficiencies developed by major refiners
that will be helpful to NCRA, and the engineering expertise will be more available. NCRA is
especially concerned about being able to calibrate monitoring devices to yield meaningful data
by January 1, 2010. At a minimum, initial reporting should be based on best available data.
Consider incentives to reward SBR's who move forward with early adoption (similar to the
diesel desulfurization rule).
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. EPA is not allowing the use of best available monitoring methods beyond the
initial reporting year. See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt 14
regarding small businesses and phasing of the rule, and the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508-1081.1 excerpt 3 regarding a 3-year delay.
112
-------
Commenter Name: Keith A. Nagel
Commenter Affiliation: ArcelorMittal USA and Severstal North America
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0496.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Under the Proposed Rule, monitoring requirements would be effective on January 1,
2010. Even if EPA were to promulgate the rule in final form today, it would be impossible for
complex sources to begin required monitoring on January 1, 2010. Large steel plants have
literally hundreds of units that use varied raw materials and fuels to create steel in a batch
process that involves ever-changing levels of carbon. Such facilities cannot, in just four or five
months: (1) digest the extensive final rule; (2) design compliance strategies for each and every
unit; (3) identify where quality control, monitoring, metering and other improvements are
required; (4) develop engineering specifications for the requisite equipment; (5) complete the
necessary internal capital appropriations process; (6) procure the equipment from an array of
different vendors; (7) install the equipment at the plant; (8) train employees on proper and safe
use of that equipment; and (9) develop an intricate quality assurance plan, including the requisite
data management system, to comply with the rule. [Footnote: These timing problems are
exacerbated by the prior Administration's failure to meet Congress' instructions to issue the
Proposed Rule in September 2008 (which would have allowed issuance of a final rule by now).
The regulated community should not be forced to bear additional compliance burdens and
noncompliance risks due to delays that were wholly beyond their control.] An example from just
one part of one facility illustrates the impracticality of this timeframe. The powerhouse at
ArcelorMittal's Burns Harbor facility utilizes six boilers that each burn coke oven gas, blast
furnace gas, natural gas and oil in fluctuating amounts. Thus, these boilers would need at least 18
monitors (e.g., 6 boilers and 1 monitor for each of the gaseous fuel sources). In order to comply
with the requirements specified in the Proposed Rule, many of the existing monitors would
require repair, calibration and/or replacement. After the final rule is issued, it will take months to
design a compliance strategy for these boilers, develop technical specifications for the necessary
improvements, and to order and acquire the needed parts (indeed, this last step alone will likely
take two or three months given typical vendor schedules). After all plans are made and all
necessary parts have been acquired, each of the six boilers would then need to be shut down to
install and/or repair its meters. Since these boilers are in continuous use (and vital to operation of
the steel plant), only one boiler can be taken down at a time - and even then only after careful
planning. According to the experts who run this operation, that successive repair/replacement
process alone will take at least 8 months and likely longer. Apparently recognizing the potential
for such problems, the Proposed Rule requested comment on two alternatives to a January 1,
2010 start date: (1) beginning monitoring on January 1, 2011 (a one-year delay) or (2) allowing
the use of "best available data" for 2010 emissions. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16471. Given the intricacies
of applying the rule at complex sources, we believe the "one-year delay" option is preferable for
two reasons. First, a one-year delay will allow those facilities to focus on developing longterm
measures to fully comply with the rule instead of diverting significant attention to immediate
transitory reporting. Second, this approach will avoid potential disputes regarding how the
ambiguous term "best available data" should be interpreted. Accordingly, we request that EPA
defer monitoring requirements at complex sources like integrated steel mills until at least January
1, 2011. In the alternative, if EPA declines to defer monitoring until January 1, 2011, the "best
available data" approach (although imperfect) is preferable to the current unworkable deadline.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
113
-------
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt 3, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0712.1 excerpt 2. The best available monitoring methods approach allows additional time for
installation of new monitoring equipment. For responses to specific comments about
combustion sources and iron and steel industry monitoring methods and discussion of changes
made to these requirements since proposal, see the preamble sections and comment response
documents on Subparts C (general stationary combustion sources) and Q (iron and steel
production). For the response to the comment on developing a quality assurance plan, see the
preamble section and comment response document volume on general recordkeeping
requirements.
Commenter Name: J. Michael Kennedy
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0473.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: FCG supports requiring data collection to start in 2011, with the first data
submissions due to EPA in 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Meg Voorhes
Commenter Affiliation: Social Investment Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0657.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: We fully endorse the year and frequency of reporting as it is currently expressed
within the Proposed Rule. With regard to EPA's presentation of two options that may be chosen
given a delayed implantation of the Proposed Rule, we support the first option, which would still
provide data for emissions from 2010 using the 'best available data.'
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: David Rich
Commenter Affiliation: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0642.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: WRI supports EPA's proposal to begin collecting data in2010. Emissions data must
be reported as soon as possible in order to support rapidly emerging policy needs, including
regulatory GHG programs (e.g., cap and trade) expected to begin in 2012. To meet these needs,
the first emissions reports should be due on March 31, 2011, as proposed. The timeline is
114
-------
realistic since affected facilities are already collecting the necessary data to report under this rule
and would not have to install any significant new monitoring equipment. In the event that the
regulation is not issued in time for monitoring to begin on January 1, 2010, WRI supports EPA's
proposal that best available data be reported for the 2010 calendar year by March 31, 2011. Best
available data should be used instead of introducing any delay in the reporting schedule.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Darren Smith
Commenter Affiliation: Devon Energy Corporation (Devon)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0485.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The rule is expected to be finalized by late 2009, and to be effective by January 1,
2010. Devon supports the second of EPA's proposed alternative options for an effective date:
that operators report 2011 data in 2012. The proposed rule requires the collection of a
tremendous amount of data and direct measurement of oil and gas fugitives will involve the
installation of meters on for instance, flare stacks and tanks. Because the majority of this data
isn't being collected by oil and gas companies, it will take a considerable amount of time to
develop a process for collecting the data, to communicate the process, and field test it.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. See also
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our response to comments on the
timing of finalizing some subparts in this rule. EPA is not going final with subpart W (Oil and
Natural Gas Systems) at this time, so emissions from this source category will not need to be
reported in 2010. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other
relevant information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on subpart W at this time.
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: 9
Comment: The EPA's proposed "housekeeping" requirements are also reasonable. GHG
emission data collection would begin on January 1, 2010, with the first annual report due March
31, 2011. The reporting program would exist on an ongoing, annual basis. Some sectors of GHG
emitters claim the schedule to be unreasonable, unrealistic, and even impossible. The EPA
should disregard such unfounded arguments and avoid rewarding GHG emitters that have chosen
to put themselves at a disadvantage by implementing delay and obstructionist tactics, attempting
to argue the science and/or obfuscation of their significant anthropogenic contributions of GHG
emissions into the Earth's atmosphere. The proposed reporting schedule, including the
requirement for annual reporting of GHG emissions, is reasonable and appropriate and should
not be revised. In Texas, many of those potentially subject to the rule's reporting provisions are
national and global corporations, to which these emissions monitoring and reporting concepts are
not new since state and regional reporting programs are currently in place elsewhere. The EPA
reiterates throughout the rule proposal its fundamental foundation — existing voluntary and
115
-------
mandatory programs. The EPA incorporated experiences and lessons learned from existing
programs; for example, using California's mandatory GHG reporting rule as the basis for
perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the rule, the 25,000 metric tons per year facility emission
level threshold. In California, affected facilities are already required to collect the GHG emission
data, with the first reports due in 2010. Unfortunately, Texas has no programs from which
meaningful experiences and lessons learned could be shared with the EPA in the development of
the proposed rule. There are some logical distinctions between the EPA's proposal and the
existing programs, necessary to achieve an enhanced understanding of the nation's role in
climate change, and to "improve the development of future national inventories for particular
source categories or sectors by advancing the understanding of emissions processes and
monitoring methodologies." However, it cannot be reasonably claimed that these distinctions
constitute any unfair surprise.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Deborah Seligman
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0603.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Allowing the regulated community to provide GHG emission estimates using
existing methodologies for the first few years of a pilot program would greatly reduce the
burden. Additional elements including measurements, reporting and data certification
requirements should be addressed if and when the GHG policy framework is established and an
emissions management program is defined.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. EPA is not
allowing use of best available monitoring methods beyond the initial reporting year or a pilot
program for reasons discussed in other comment responses. Please see also responses to
comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641 excerpt
7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1 excerpt
14.
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Ward
Commenter Affiliation: Novelis Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0561.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA requests comment on the two options proposed to initiate reporting especially if
the promulgation timeline for the reporting protocol is delayed. Of the two options presented
(Option 1: initial reporting based on best available data in 2010, or Option 2: delayed reporting
for 2011), Novelis Corp. supports Option 2 for new data. Our company gained much first-hand
experience in developing data collection and reporting tools, and we have found it to be a
116
-------
resource-consuming and time-intensive effort to develop and put such systems in place and then
provide the implementation support to train and validate data. Even with these efforts, while the
existing data systems satisfy our commitment as a member of Climate Leaders, they are not
prepared to fully meet the needs of this rule. It is likely that a majority of stakeholder companies
impacted by this rule, who may not have proactively pursued related voluntary initiatives, will
find it extremely difficult to have reliable reporting mechanisms in place for Option 1 reporting
let alone having in place a data inventory management plan. In addition, best available data
defeats the purpose of one of EPA's prime objectives to have accurate and trendable data.
Therefore, we are firmly in favor of Option 2 as being the most satisfactory approach for most
stakeholders to allow for program implementation for reporting. Pressing for an early launch of
the reporting may result in the collection of data that is not accurate. In addition, the other issues
raised with the certification requirements for such reporting would result in a conflict of interest
and problematic data releases that could diminish the programs credibility and are therefore not
beneficial to the goals of the GHG protocol or to the industry.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. See also the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1 excerpt
3 regarding whether Option 1 can provide accurate data.
Commenter Name: Christina T. Wisdom
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Chemical Council (TCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0638.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Because the majority of Texas-based sources will be reporting greenhouse gas
emissions under the new rule for the first time, TCC requests that EPA delay the initial reporting,
at a minimum, from 2011 (for 2010 data) to 2012 (for 2011 data). This is critical from both a
compliance and enforcement standpoint. In order for the tens of thousands of sources to comply
with the proposed 2011 data submission deadline, they will need to have systems and processes
for data collection in place by the end of this year. This will be only weeks after EPA finalizes
this very complicated rule. Given the complexity of this new reporting burden for many large
and small sources in Texas, including the accompanying monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements, TCC feels strongly that mere weeks is not adequate time for these systems and
procedures to be properly established. Most companies will have to analyze the requirements of
the final rule, install any necessary equipment, train personnel and establish the necessary
internal infrastructure to ensure compliance with the rule. It is completely unrealistic to expect
all this to be successfully accomplished in a matter of weeks. It seems that a reporting deadline
of 2012 for 2011 data seems much more reasonable and will ensure greater accuracy in the data
that are submitted to EPA.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
117
-------
Commenter Name: John M. McManus
Commenter Affiliation: American Electric Power
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0725.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: AEP has no problem with the reporting requirements starting on January 1, 2010, to
be reported by March 31, 2011 as long as no additional emission monitoring equipment is
required at our non-acid rain units - which is our understanding of the draft rules. However, if
additional emission monitoring equipment is needed for a facility, a later initial reporting period
will be needed that should begin no earlier than January 1, 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For responses to comments on monitoring requirements for non acid-rain
combustion units, see the preamble section and comment response volume for Subpart C
(General Stationary Fuel Combustion).
Commenter Name: Alison A. Keane
Commenter Affiliation: National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc. (NPCA/FSCT)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0593.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The Proposed Rule's reporting requirements start on January 1, 2010, with the first
report due in 2011. Given the fact that we are in the proposal stage now, with a final rule not
likely until the end of the year - an implementation date of January 1, 2010 is not appropriate. As
EPA states, preparation alone "would include studying the final rule, determining whether it
applies to the facility, identifying the requirements with which the facility must comply, and
preparing to monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate and report GHG
emissions." Thus, with a final rule not expected until a couple of months before the
implementation date, a January 1, 2010 does not give facilities a sufficient amount of time for
preparation. In addition, EPA's statement that many of the parameters that would need to be
monitored and much of the data that would need to be collected are already being monitored and
collected by facilities is erroneous. While monitoring methods may be well documented and the
monitoring devices routinely available and in ready supply - this does not mean that the facilities
that will now be mandated to use these methods and purchase this equipment are well versed in
their utilization. Since the goal of this rule is to collect comprehensive and accurate data to
inform future legislation and regulation it is all the more important to give facilities enough time
to analyze the rule, purchase and install analytical instruments, and begin collecting the required
data correctly. Thus, NPCA request a start date of January 2011, with the first report due in
2012. As EPA states, the advantages of this approach is that it would give affected facilities
substantial time to prepare for the impacts of the Rule. In light of the far reaching implications of
this Rule on industry, we disagree that delaying this by one year would have significant impacts
on future policy and regulatory development and urge EPA to give affected entities plenty of
time to get it right.
118
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Ram K. Singhal
Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0600
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: EPA solicits information about the acceptability of the reporting deadlines. EPA
submits that it will be extremely difficult for many sources in this industry to begin to collect and
verify data from GHG emission sources beginning on January 1, 2010, if the rule is not finalized
and effective several months before that date, even if this industry is only required to submit the
information in the first year of the program in an abbreviated form. First, systems will have to be
created by each company to collect and record such information. Secondly, our lawyers will have
to register the designated representatives and establish whatever mechanisms are necessary
internally to protect the company's and the individual's rights. Thirdly, replicable methods for
verifying and certifying emissions information that is collected also will need to be developed
and management must train individuals to collect and manage that information. For these
reasons, EPA believes that these tasks will require a longer period of familiarization and
therefore we recommend that the starting date of the program should be January 1 of the year
following the year of the effective date of the GHG reporting rule. Given the fines and penalties
associated with the proposed mandatory GHG reporting rule, EPA should begin reporting
emissions beginning on January 1, 2012.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For the response to comments on the timing for registration of designated
representatives, see preamble Section V.B (under the subheading on certificate of
representation).
Commenter Name: Michael A. Palazzolo
Commenter Affiliation: Alcoa, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0650.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The GHG reporting rule proposes to require emissions reporting in March 2011 for
the year 2010. We are concerned that even if EPA finalizes the rule in late 2009, it may not be
feasible for many industrial facilities to comply beginning on January 1, 2010. For example,
some facilities will need to install equipment to monitor fuel usage or emissions based on
requirements in the final rule and it may not be feasible to purchase and install this equipment by
January 1, 2010. The proposed rule also requires aluminum smelter-specific Tier 3 slope
coefficients to be measured within the past 36 months. Some smelters have not developed Tier 3
slope coefficients and others only have data that is older than 36 months. Measuring slope
119
-------
coefficients by January 1, 2010 may not be possible. We therefore recommend that EPA either
allow "emissions estimating" for 2010 or delay the first mandatory reporting year to 2011.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. For the response to comments on specific monitoring requirements for the
aluminum source category, see the preamble section and comment response document volume
on Subpart F, Aluminum Production.
Commenter Name: Ryan K. Miltner
Commenter Affiliation: Miltner Law Firm, LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0508.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The reporting year should be delayed to accommodate the integration of NAEMS
data: Given that data analysis from the EPA NAEMS will likely not be completed until after
January 1, 2010, monitoring for manure management facilities should not begin until such data is
fully collected, analyzed, and reviewed. The data gathered by the NAEMS will be of superior
quality and specificity to that currently available. In addition, reporting using NAEMS data
factors would likely lower the costs of reporting for affected manure management facilities.
Reporting under the proposed mechanism and then later reporting using the NAEMS data factors
could result in inconsistent emissions reports that will not be comparable. If the goal of the
mandatory reporting rule is to compile an accurate ongoing survey of GHG emissions, then
waiting until the full development of the NAEMS data offers the real probability of more
accurate and consistent data compilation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. The commenter does not explain why collection of additional data from
some facilities with manure management systems should not even begin until the collection of
data regarding other emissions is complete. It is entirely reasonable to collect data related to
GHGs at the same time information regarding criteria pollutants is being collected and analyzed.
The purpose of both efforts is to fill a data gap regarding agricultural emission and further delay
impedes this goal. See also the preamble and response to comments document for Subpart JJ.
Commenter Name: Skiles W. Boyd
Commenter Affiliation: DTE Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0606.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: From a logistical standpoint, the industry is simply not in a position to begin
collecting fugitive emissions data on January 1, 2010. This data will apparently be used to
determine if a facility even falls subject to reporting. DTE Energy could consider hiring a
contractor to implement these requirements however at this time there is a very limited number
120
-------
of competent contractors (only two we would consider) who can perform the testing required. In
order to do the testing with in- house staff, DTE Energy would need to purchase the appropriate
equipment. This purchase would need to be accounted for in the 2010 budget. 2010 budgets will
be final and approved at about the same time EPA proposes to finalize this rule. DTE Energy
personnel would need to be trained on the equipment and its application. If the training is rushed,
technicians will not gain the needed expertise to conduct the testing with accuracy and precision.
Software would need to be purchased or developed to handle an inventory of literally thousands
of components on the natural gas system. Training would also be needed to interpret the results
of the testing and decisions whether the facility would fall subject to reporting. Finally, personnel
would need to be trained on the electronic reporting which EPA has yet to develop. Again, all
this effort and cost to determine a facility is not subject to reporting and to be completed within
the 3 months before the 2010 start date is unfairly burdensome.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. See also comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2 for our
response to comments on the timing of finalizing some subparts of the rule.
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: 8
Comment: EPA recognizes that although it plans on issuing the final rule in sufficient time to
begin monitoring on January 1, 2010, they may not be able to achieve that goal. Therefore, EPA
is interested in receiving comments on alternative effective dates and provided two alternative
options. The first option uses the same reporting dates and timeline but allows the facilities to
use best available data. The second option delays the first reporting year to 2011 and having it
reported in 2012. The Proposed Rule is lengthy and complex, with its text comprising 592 pages,
and an 818-page explanatory preamble. The Proposed Rule will create substantial compliance
obligations for covered sources. This short deadline does not leave facilities ample time to
prepare the required Quality Assurance Performance Plans (QAPP); or purchase and install
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) if required. To ensure the accuracy of the
reporting and integrity of their QAPP and emissions inventories, SD DENR recommends the
second option. SD DENR believes this option will give businesses the time they need to install
the appropriate mechanisms and meet the objective of the rule to collect comprehensive and
accurate data for developing future policies on global warming and climate change legislation.
The decisions Congress and the nation must make in the coming years should not be
compromised or adversely affected by using one year of best guesses.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Also, see the preamble, Section II.M General Recordkeeping Requirements
for response to comments on the Quality Assurance Performance Plans.
121
-------
Commenter Name: John R. Evans
Commenter Affiliation: LyondellBasell Industries
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0718.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA has proposed that monitoring for existing facilities begin on January 1,
2010. The EPA states that this schedule would "give existing facilities lead time after the date the
rule is promulgated to prepare for monitoring and reporting" (74 Fed. Reg. 16471). However,
given that the proposed rule was issued on April 10, 2009 and comments are due by June 9,
2009, it appears unlikely that EPA could receive; review and evaluate the comments; prepare
responses; and revise and issue the final rule before late in 2009. This scenario was anticipated
by EPA in the preamble to the proposed rule, "We recognize that although the agency plans to
issue the final rule in sufficient time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010, we may be unable
to meet that goal." LyondellBasell requests that the first reporting year for covered facilities be
calendar year 2011. As stated by EPA, "the advantages of this approach are that affected
facilities would have a substantial amount of time to prepare for this reporting rule, including
implementing the method and installing equipment" (74 Fed. Reg. 16471). It is our belief that
this option would allow existing facilities adequate and sufficient time to: review the final rule;
identify changes from the proposed rule; determine the applicability of the final rule to the
facility; identify the requirements with which the facility must comply; specify, purchase and
install monitoring equipment, as necessary; identify and calibrate all existing required
monitoring equipment; and prepare to monitor and collect the required data needed to calculate
and report GHG emissions. LyondellBasell believes that the advantages state above far outweigh
a delay in implementation and help to assure the collection of accurate GHG emission data.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: David A. Buff
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Sugar Industry (FSI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0500.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA's final rule should adopt Option 2 with respect to the initial reporting year. This
option will be especially important if the final promulgation of the rule occurs later this year or is
delayed. If there is any delay in the promulgation of the proposed rule, there will be very little
time to implement data gathering protocols and quality assurance procedures, monitoring
equipment and procedures, or a data inventory management plan. It will take some time and
effort to develop these reporting mechanisms. These concerns are particularly acute for the FSI,
because the sugarcane harvest and the sugar mill operations are conducted on a seasonal basis.
New monitoring requirements cannot be easily implemented by the FSI during the
processing/grinding season, which typically lasts from October through March. Consequently,
new monitoring requirements will be more readily accommodated during the next off-season
(i.e., April - September). Option 1 would mean reporting prior to when efficient and accurate
122
-------
data measurement and recording methodologies are in place. This could lead to reporting less
accurate emissions, which in turn could be a compliance issue, given EPA's intent to bring
enforcement against those who must correct a report due to errors or inaccuracies.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Dan F. Hunter
Commenter Affiliation: ConocoPhillips Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0515.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule (page 16471), EPA recognizes the final rule
may not be issued in time to begin monitoring on January 1, 2010. Therefore, EPA is interested
in receiving comments on two options. The first option is to report 2010 data in 2011 using best
available data. The second option is to report 2011 data in 2012. ConocoPhillips agrees the final
rule will not provide adequate time to understand the rule requirements and make any
modifications necessary to begin data collection in January 2010. Therefore, we support the
option to report 2010 data in 2011 using best available data and calculation methodologies.
Allowing the use of best available data the first year will enable us with important additional
time to 1) install, modify, and calibrate monitoring/measurement systems required to comply
with the final rule and 2) train employees on the very significant requirements of the regulation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Deborah Seligman
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0603.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: NMOGA member companies are concerned with the proposed effective date of
January 1, 2010. The proposed rule would probably be promulgated in the October/November
2009 timeframe, and this would not allow sufficient lead-time for implementation. If EPA insists
on a January 1, 2010 effective date, it ought to design a phased-in system where the initial years
would be a "pilot" period. This is consistent with the approach taken by the European Union
(EU) (which included a 3-year pilot phase) and California (1 - year of 'best available data'). As
proposed, NMOGA asserts that compliance with the rule requirements and schedule is not
possible and EPA must take some action to enable "day 1" compliance. EPA should consider
industry's inability to install, test, and calibrate all flow meters, and other required
instrumentation, including data archiving systems, within less than a year.
123
-------
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
Commenter Name: Julie Ellingson
Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Stockmen's Association (NDSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0592
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: According to the proposal, the submission of the first "annual" report would be due
March 1, 2011, to represent monitored, calculated and quality assured data from Jan. 1, 2010,
through Dec. 31, 2010. The NDSA believes that this reporting timeframe is unreasonable. It does
not allow adequate time for businesses that have never submitted reports of this nature to
understand, much less comply, with the regulations. Also, given the volume of comments that
EPA is likely to receive on this proposal and the need for serious discussion and/or
reconsideration of numerous aspects of this rule, it is unlikely that the EPA will be able to adopt
a final rule early enough in 2009 to allow affected facilities time to comply with provisions by
Jan. 1, 2010. We recommend that people be given two years to comply with the rule after its
final effective date.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14.
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: 10
Comment: Under proposed § 98.3(b), existing facilities would begin collecting data on January
1, 2010 and, if the rule applies, submit reports for the prior calendar year by March 31 each year
starting in 2011. New facilities that commence operation after January 1, 2010, and facilities that
become subject to the rule because of an "operational change," would be required to report
emissions starting with the first calendar year in which they operate or in which the change was
made, "beginning with the first operating month" or "month of the change" and ending on
December 31 of that year. Proposed § 98.3(b)(2) and (3). Because some facilities may be
required to install and certify the monitoring equipment that will be used to estimate emissions,
the Chamber shares in the comment that the rule must provide an alternative start date for
reporting by such units. Given that affected entities will need time to read and understand a final
rule, identify questions and obtain clarifications, conduct training and implement appropriate
monitoring programs or install data collection equipment, the Chamber does not believe that a
January 1, 2010 start date will offer sufficient time to prepare for the collection of meaningful
data. The Chamber recommends that EPA consider requiring regulated entities to begin
monitoring January 1, 2011, at the earliest. EPA suggested two alternatives in the preamble in
124
-------
the event that the rule is not finalized in a timely fashion. 74 Fed. Reg. 16471/2. The Chamber
supports the option that would provide for reporting 2011 data in 2012. The other option that
EPA raised was allowing affected facilities to use best available data to report for the year
beginning in 2010. Id. The Chamber does not support the use of best available data as compared
to actual data would be inconsistent with subsequent years' reporting.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods. Please see also
responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1 excerpt 2, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
1641 excerpt 7, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1 excerpt 2, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-
0497.1 excerpt 14. Regarding reporting by entities that become subject to the rule due to an
operational change, see the comment response document volume on Subpart A: Applicability
and Reporting Schedule.
Commenter Name: Kusai Merchant
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Defense Fund
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1h
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: A second topic is commence mandatory reporting in 2010. EPA must commence
mandatory reporting requirements in 2010. Promptly finalizing this proposal is essential to
ensure large emitters begin mandatory reporting in 2010. We should also build from today's
existing foundations.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Jesse Prentice-Dunn
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1o
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The proposed registry would move quickly to measure emissions, with data
collection beginning in January of 2010. The quicker the data is gathered, the sooner EPA can
act to constrain emissions. The benefits of collecting data as soon as possible significantly
outweigh the cost of an incomplete dataset, if some facilities may not be able to comply
immediately.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Christina Yagjian
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1m
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
125
-------
Comment: I commend the EPA's proactive decision to create this registry and its decision to
collect registry information beginning in January of 2010. The more quickly that the registry is
assembled, the more quickly and effectively the EPA can begin to limit emissions. Although the
EPA and interested members of the public will no doubt find ways to improve the registry,
finalizing and implementing the rule now is an essential beginning to this process.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: Lauren Trevisan
Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212u
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The Sierra Club applauds EPA's determination to begin collecting registry
information in January 2010. EPA is right to move quickly. The more quickly the registry is
assembled, the more quickly and effectively EPA can act to constrain emissions. Although EPA
and interested members of the public will no doubt find ways to improve the registry, finalizing
and implementing the rule now is essential to begin the learning process. EPA's decision to allow
some facilities which might not be able to comply with all registry requirements, to instead offer
their best available data during the first reporting year is then far preferable to delaying data
collection for even one more year.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
Commenter Name: See Table 1
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0358
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: I therefore strongly support the EPA's determined effort to ensure that reporting
begins in 2010.The EPA should resist any efforts to slow down implementation.
Response: See the Preamble at Section II.G. for the response on the initial reporting year and
provisions in the final rule that allow use of best available monitoring methods.
2. ONCE IN ALWAYS IN POLICY
Commenter Name: Richard A. Leopold
Commenter Affiliation: State of Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0336.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The Department recognizes that it will be difficult to track facilities whose emissions
fluctuate above and below 25,000 mt C02e per year. However, EPA's proposal of "once-in,
126
-------
always-in" in 40 CFR §98.2(g) does not provide an incentive for facilities that reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions. The Department encourages EPA to allow facilities in source
categories listed in 40 CFR §98.2(a)(2) and 40 CFR§98.2(a)(3) whose emissions drop to less
than 25,000 mt C02e per year for two consecutive years to no longer be required to report
emissions. These facilities should be required to notify EPA that their emissions are less than
25,000 mt C02e per year and provide a description of the measures taken to reduce their
emissions below 25,000 mt C02e per year.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Burl Ackerman
Commenter Affiliation: J. R. Simplot Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1641
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: The current rule requires a facility to always report once they are subject to the
requirements of this rule regardless if they drop below the reporting threshold in future years. We
recommend at a minimum that EPA implement an option to allow a facility to discontinue
reporting if they are below a reporting threshold for two consecutive years. This would provide
an incentive for facilities to reduce their GI-IG emissions and also reduce regulatory burden on a
facility that is an insignificant emitter of GHG.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Steven J. Rowlan
Commenter Affiliation: Nucor Corporation (Nucor)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0605.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: There is no justification for a once-in, always-in policy for an emissions reporting
rule. EPA has adopted a high threshold for reporting. This builds substantial error into the system
initially. EPA has further decided to exclude substantial portions of the GHG inventory of the
United States from sources such as farms, communities, and mobile sources except through
petroleum and fuels tracking. This introduces additional, substantial error. Furthermore, because
GHGs are a global phenomenon, there are no "hot spot" issues that would justify more intensive
tracking. Even assuming a facility operating at 24,999 tons/year to stay just below the threshold,
this would amount to only 6.5x10-5 percent of the global, and 0.004 percent of the U.S.
inventory, which is insignificant. Having chosen to exclude farming and other sources
accounting for 53.1 percent of the U.S. inventory, EPA cannot argue that tracking changes at
sources below the 25,000 ton threshold is critical to its statutory mandate. Further, "future needs"
do not justify tracking this information. The program may be revised to account for those needs
when they arise.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. The reporting rule is estimated to cover approximately 85% of the U.S. GHG
emissions. To reduce the burden on smaller emitters, EPA specifically selected industries known
127
-------
to be large emitters of GHG emissions and suppliers of products that produce GHG emissions
when used. For additional information on EPA approach to selecting source categories to report,
see Section IV.B of the preamble for the proposed rule (74 FR 16465, April 10, 2009). For
information on why a specific source category was selected, see the technical support document
for the specific source category. For an explanation of the changes to the list of source categories
selected for reporting, see the preamble section II. D for the response on selection of source
categories to report.
Commenter Name: Shannon Broome
Commenter Affiliation: Air Permitting Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0524.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA should eliminate the "once in, always in" proposal. The Proposed Rule would
require that once a facility becomes subject to reporting, it must continue to comply with all of
the reporting rule requirements, including the requirement to submit reports (proposed Section
98.2(g)). Even though a facility's emissions fall below the reporting thresholds established in the
Proposed Rule, the facility must continue to make reports to EPA. This "once in, always in"
policy is not appropriate, given the stated purpose of the Proposed Rule to be to focus on
significant sources of GHG emissions. EPA indicated that it has sought to exclude small
facilities and "small emitters" from the proposal. 74 Fed. Reg. at 6,456, 16,467. The purpose of a
threshold is to ensure that the larger sources are covered, but also to give incentives to entities to
reduce their emissions below that threshold. As EPA recognizes, a once in, always in policy
provides disincentive for sources to implement measures to reduce their emissions to below the
thresholds. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,470. This policy also penalizes facilities that may have made
errors in their initial calculations or that have an abnormal year in GHG emissions. In addition,
EPA should recognize that reductions in emissions may also come from reduced operations due
to a loss of resources. These facilities should not continue to be subject to the burden of
complying with the Proposed Rule. EPA states that the purpose of the once in, always in policy
is to track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence emission levels. 74 Fed. Reg.
at 16,470. Providing for exemptions for facilities that can show their emissions have fallen below
the threshold and are likely to stay below that level, such as through improved efficiencies or
removal of emission sources, would still provide EPA information on these trends and would
provide concrete examples of effective methods to achieve such reductions. As such, exemptions
are not inconsistent with EPA's stated need. Moreover, such facilities could still be reinstated
into the program if the emissions rise again due to significant changes in operations.
Fundamentally, facilities should be able to exit the program if they reduce emissions below the
threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert D. Bessette
Commenter Affiliation: Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0513.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
128
-------
Comment: This requirement creates an unjustified burden on small facilities. The rule should
provide an incentive for companies to reduce their emissions below the regulatory thresholds.
EPA should adopt one of the following alternatives, which should be self-implementing without
a need for the reporting entity to petition EPA for an exemption, to minimize burden on the
reporting entities and EPA: Allow facilities to report voluntarily, but do not require reporting if
they fall below the reporting threshold for three consecutive years. Such programs as the WCI
and California Air Resources Board (CARB) have approved an exit ramp approach. Do not
require reporting for facilities that drop below 10,000 MT C02e /year for any single year. If such
facilities subsequently exceed 25,000 MT C02e /year, require them again to report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert E. Murray
Commenter Affiliation: Murray Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1577
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: The draft Rule implements a "once in, always in" policy that creates enormous
compliance burdens. Business supply and demand is not static, plus current legislative and
regulatory proposals will eventually change the business of coal. Facilities will idle, production
lines or processes will halt, facilities could shut down, businesses may fold, mining may slow to
under the reporting threshold and facilities will undoubtedly change ownership at some point.
The draft Rule says that even in the event of these occurrences, the original owner must continue
reporting indefinitely. This means, for example, if Murray Energy is in fact required to file
separately for all eight mines, if one mine were to close we would still be forced to report
indefinitely the zero emissions of the closed mine, adding an additional and unnecessary cost.
EPA must incorporate additional entry and exit provisions similar to how the California
reporting program incorporates them.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Pamela F. Faggert
Commenter Affiliation: Dominion
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1741
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Although we understand the complexities of allowing a facility's reporting
applicability to change annually, EPA should provide a mechanism that would allow a facility to
stop reporting if its emissions over several years fall below the reporting threshold. Applying
such a mechanism could provide some facilities incentive to reduce emissions. It would also
allow new, smaller facilities that discover after one or several years of operation that their
emissions are below the reporting threshold to opt out of the program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
129
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 11
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 257
Comment: The rule should provide a mechanism for facilities making permanent changes, such
as removing equipment from their site, to notify EPA and end reporting. Should later
modifications to the facility result in emissions greater than the applicability threshold re-entry
would be handled as described in the proposed rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Mary J. Doyle
Commenter Affiliation: BG North America, LLC (BG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0714.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Does the Proposed Rule's "once in, always in" apply to source categories within a
particular facility? In other words, is the requirement that a facility that meets the reporting
threshold in one year and then subsequently falls below the threshold but continues to be
required to report also apply to source categories that are included in a particular facility?
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. The provisions to cease reporting apply to the facility or supplier as a whole,
and not to individual source categories.
Commenter Name: Matthew G. Paulson
Commenter Affiliation: LLP on behalf of BCCA Appeal Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0649.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The duty to report as currently set forth in the proposal would continue even when
the facility or supplier no longer meets rule applicability requirements. A program exemption
would provide an incentive for facilities and suppliers to reduce their GHG emissions, as
opposed to the disincentive offered by the inflexible "once-in, always in" approach. For example,
California's GHG reporting rule allows a facility that has emissions under the applicable
threshold for three (3) consecutive years to be exempt from the reporting program. EPA should
adopt a provision that allows a facility or supplier to exit the reporting program once its
emissions are below applicable thresholds. An exemption provision could require, for example,
that certain criteria be met and that any facility that becomes exempt from reporting remains
subject to the "duty to re-evaluate" provisions as set forth in the proposal.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
130
-------
Commenter Name: Keith Epperson
Commenter Affiliation: American Feed Industry Association (AFIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0399.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: AFIA strongly opposes EPA's proposal that once a facility is subject to the reporting
requirement, it would be required to continue to submit reports even if it falls below the
reporting thresholds in future years. Although there may be some value in EPA being able to
track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence emission levels for the purpose of
policy analysis, we believe that EPA's reporting rule must include exit provisions, rather than the
proposed "once in, always in" policy. There are a variety of circumstances under which "once in,
always in" could result in compliance burdens far greater than the value of the information
gained. Such circumstances could include facilities that idle or decommission major production
lines or processes; facilities that shut down; companies that go out of business; and facilities that
change ownership. In an industry that is under consolidation, reduced margins, tight cost
controls, the listed circumstances are currently happening in our industry and are likely to
continue in the future. As an alternative, AFIA recommends that EPA alter its proposed rule to
offer a facility that has emissions under the reporting threshold for three consecutive years the
opportunity to be exempt from the reporting program - as the state of California has done within
its reporting rule. We further recommend that this process be automatic and not require
qualifying facilities to formally apply to EPA for an exemption.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly
Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management (WM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Comment: EPA proposes that once a facility is subject to the rule, it would have to continue to
submit annual reports even if it falls below reporting threshold in later years — a "once in always
in" term. 74 Fed.Reg. at 16470. Waste Management recommends that EPA abandon the "once in
always in" approach because it is a disincentive for sources to reduce GHG emissions. And, for
landfills, it would require reporting even after a landfill has been closed and capped for many
years and no longer has the capacity to generate methane at reporting threshold quantities, let
alone emit significant amounts of methane, a result that is counterintuitive. EPA's rationale for
the "once in always in" approach is that for sources triggering the thresholds in the rule, "it is
important for the purpose of policy analysis to be able to track trends in emissions and
understand factors that influence emission levels. The data would be most useful if the
population of reporting sources is consistent, complete and not varying over time." Id. While
these goals are important, Waste Management believes that they are overridden here by the
burden such reporting imposes on sources, such as landfills, that close after a finite lifetime, and
by the disincentive it establishes for sources to reduce their emissions. Indeed, EPA appears to
recognize this burden with the one exception it has created — for abandoned coal mines. Id. See
also 74 Fed. Reg. at 16553-555, and proposed Part 98 Subpart FF. Landfills close after their
capacity to accept waste is exhausted just as coal mines close after their capacity to produce coal
is exhausted. In both cases, GHG emissions are reduced over time to de minimis levels. So, at
the very least EPA should create an exemption for closed and capped landfills whose capacity to
131
-------
generate methane has dropped below the reporting threshold. [Footnote: As far as we are aware,
there is only one program under the entire Clean Air Act that contains a "once in always in"
policy — the Section 112 MACT standards. And, the reporting rule obligations here in no way
compare with the substantive air toxics control requirements that the policy was designed to
protect under Section 112.]
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. Please see preamble section III. HH for the provisions that apply to municipal
solid waste landfills, including reporting requirements for closed landfills. Landfills are a unique
source category in that they can continue to generate methane above the reporting threshold for
many years after closure as the waste already in the landfill continues to decompose. Therefore,
closed landfills must continue to submit reports until they qualify to stop reporting due to
reduced emissions. Also note that at this time EPA is not going final with the subpart for
industrial landfills. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and
other relevant information related to industrial landfills.
Commenter Name: John H. Skinner
Commenter Affiliation: Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0659.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
Comment: The proposed rule does not have a provision for landfills to be removed from
reporting when emissions fall below the 25,000 tons C02e reporting trigger. Many older small
landfills with declining GHG emissions will with time drop below the 25,000 tons C02e. These
landfills do not have a reasonable expectation that emissions will increase once they have
declined below the 25,000 tons/year level. Therefore, the regulation should allow owners to
cease reporting on landfills that drop below the reporting level. We believe EPA should adopt
similar language to the CARB AB-32 reporting program which allows facilities that drop below
the threshold for three years to no longer be required to report.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1, Excerpt 28,
above.
Commenter Name: Phillip McNeely
Commenter Affiliation: City of Phoenix, AZ
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0374.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Recommend that the rule should allow owners to cease reporting on landfills when
the emissions drop below the reporting level threshold for some reasonable period of time. The
proposed rule does not have a provision for landfills to be removed from reporting when
emissions fall below the 25,000 metric tons of C02e /year reporting threshold. The rule should
recognize that landfill emissions are unique and all landfills with declining GHG emissions will
eventually drop below the reporting threshold. At this point, owners should be allowed to stop
reporting.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1, Excerpt 28,
above.
132
-------
Commenter Name: Marcelle Shoop
Commenter Affiliation: Rio Tinto Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0636.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Rio Tinto supports discontinuation of reporting GHG emissions to EPA under
several circumstances:
(1) If a facility falls below the reporting threshold for two or possibly three consecutive years
(similar to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) rule), continued reporting should not
be required. If such a facility's emissions increase above the applicable reporting threshold
in a subsequent year, the facility would need to initiate reporting again.
(2) If a triggering source (e.g., industrial fossil fuel combustion source) at a facility is modified,
eliminated or decommissioned, such that the emissions and emission source are fully or
substantially eliminated, the facility/entity should be relieved from continued reporting in the
first year thereafter. However, the reporting framework should provide the entity a means to
submit an explanation of the reason it falls below the requisite threshold and no longer is
subjecting to the reporting requirements.
(3) If the reporting entity permanently doses a relevant facility (not just the emissions source),
such that the facility no longer operates relevant emissions sources, the entity should no
longer be required to report on emissions. (However, we note this approach might not be
applicable for large dosed landfill sources that continue to vent methane after closure.)
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1, Excerpt 28,
above.
Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg
Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0557.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: In addition, Republic disagrees with EPA's decision to adopt a "once-in-alwaysin"
policy for its proposed GHG reporting program. For some industries, the requirements may be
effective in ensuring a more consistent sample of sources from which to receive data. However,
the "once-in-always-in" will not achieve that result in the context of landfills, given that landfill
emissions slowly increase over time as waste is added, and then, after the landfill is closed,
slowly decrease over time. Once a closed landfill drops below the reporting threshold, it will
never rise back above the threshold unless it is reopened. Therefore, when the CH4 emissions
from a closed landfill drop below the proposed threshold, EPA should allow the landfill to
withdraw from the program so long as it remains closed. Doing so would further EPA's stated
purpose of minimizing the burden to sources that do not present a significant source of GHG
emissions.
Response: Please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0376.1, Excerpt 28,
above.
133
-------
Commenter Name: Karen St. John
Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: BP recommends that EPA sunset the GHG reporting obligations when a facility's
emissions drop below the required reporting threshold. This approach would be consistent with
EPA's TRI inventory program. EPA's final rule should be structured so that if a facility falls
below the threshold for a specified period of time (e.g., 2-3 years), it would not be required to
report, unless at some point a significant change at the facility results in emissions rising once
again above the reporting threshold. Facilities should provide a notice to EPA of significant
facility changes, for example, when facilities take equipment permanently out of service —
common for the oil and gas sector — and end a facility's reporting obligation. A similar process
is included in the California Air Resource's mandatory reporting rule, whereby a facility that
triggers the reporting requirement would only have to report until its emissions drop below the
prescribed level for three consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jeffrey L. Clark
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Coordinator, Teck Alaska Incorporated
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0142
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: I am opposed to the "once in - always in" rule. This type of rule offers no incentive
to improve environmental performance. I like the California idea of reporting only three years
after falling below the threshold. The EPA would be assured that the facility has fallen below the
threshold and at the same time such a modification to the rule would lower the burden and cost
of the regulation.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert N. Steinwurtzel
Commenter Affiliation: Bingham McCutchen LLP on behalf of Association of Battery
Recyclers (ABR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0660.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: The Proposed Rule at §98.2(g) requires that once a facility is subject to reporting,
that facility must continue for each year thereafter to comply with all requirements of the rule,
including the requirement to submit GHG emissions reports, even if the facility's emissions drop
below the reporting thresholds established in the Proposed Rule. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,613. On page
16,470 of the Proposed Rule, EPA states that the purpose of thresholds is to exclude small
sources from reporting. Id. at 16,470. This being the case, it makes no sense to continue to
134
-------
require a facility to report GHG emissions after it has fallen below a threshold set to define small
facilities. To do so will defeat the purpose of having thresholds in the first place. EPA claims that
this "once in, always in" provision is important for the purpose of policy analysis to be able to
track and understand GHG emission levels. Id. The ABR disagrees. To the extent that GHG
policy makers use any of the data developed from the reporting program under the Proposed
Rule, because of the reporting thresholds established in the rule the policy makers will assume
that the data comes from only the most significant emitters. If the "once in, always in" provisions
is retained, the data from the Proposed Rule will be easily misconstrued, and of little value. It
must also be considered that, for some facilities reporting under the Proposed Rule, future
reductions in actual GHG emissions may result from increased efficiencies or substitute sources
of energy. However, for many other facilities such emissions reductions will reflect a downsizing
of operations and activity, along with an associated loss of available resources. It is unreasonable
and unfair to continue to burden such a facility that has transitioned from a large source to a
small source, when similar small sources have been exempt from the Proposed Rule all along. To
assure that the GHG reporting program under the Proposed Rule provides standardized
information and is administered fairly, EPA should eliminate the "once in, always in" provision
and add a provision to automatically exempt facilities that reduce GHG emissions to below the
reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Alexander D. Menotti
Commenter Affiliation: Kelley Drye & Warren et. al LLP on behalf of the Steel Manufacturers
Association (SMA) and Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0656.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: SMA/SSINA believe that EPA should eliminate the Once-In-Always-In ("OIAI")
policy of the proposed reporting program. Such a structure serves as a significant disadvantage
for facilities to pursue incremental efficiency improvements, especially in the early years of the
program when such improvements will not be affected by potential legislative mandates. We
therefore strongly encourage EPA to utilize the potential reduction in reporting obligations as
leverage to achieve early GHG reductions. If EPA believes that continued reporting is necessary
to prevent facilities from cycling in and out of the program, we encourage adoption of a phase-
out provision that would require continued reporting from facilities that fall below emissions
thresholds for a certain period, depending on how far below the threshold a facility falls. For
example, EPA could phase-out facilities that fall 10% or less below the threshold for three
consecutive years. Facilities that fall more than 10% below the threshold could benefit from an
immediate cessation of reporting obligations.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Michael A. Palazzolo
Commenter Affiliation: Alcoa, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0650.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
135
-------
Comment: We believe that proposed "once-in-always-in" requirement for sources with
emissions that drop below the 25,000 ton threshold is unnecessary and counterproductive. As an
incentive, EPA should allow these facilities to immediately drop out of the reporting program if
they reduce their emissions below the annual threshold. The residual emissions from these small
facilities will be negligible with respect to GHG emission trends on a National scale and will
thus not impact climate policy decisions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 2
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0509.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The notion of "once in, always in" reporting provides an additional disincentive for a
facility to reduce its emissions below the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Susan J. Miller
Commenter Affiliation: The Brick Industry Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0478.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Eliminate the so-called "once-in, always-in" reporting requirement for emitters who
fall below the mandatory reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: J. Michael Kennedy
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0473.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Under proposed § 98.2(g), once a facility is subject to the rule, it must continue
reporting even if in any year its emissions are not sufficient to trigger applicability. Although
FCG agrees that the rule should not allow a source's applicability to change annually, a
mechanism should be provided to allow a facility to stop reporting if its emissions over several
years fall below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
136
-------
Commenter Name: Traylor Champion
Commenter Affiliation: Georgia-Pacific, LLC (GP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0380.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: As proposed, any facility that exceeds the reporting threshold in any year would be
required to continue reporting regardless of whether future emissions fall below the reporting
threshold. In lieu of this approach, GP supports a process similar to that proposed by the
California Air Resources Board (California ARB) for its mandatory reporting rule under which a
facility that has emissions less than the 20,000 MT C02e for three consecutive years, it is exempt
from future reporting until such time as emissions again exceed the reporting threshold.
However, GP would propose that if a facility has emissions less than the actual threshold for two
consecutive years it becomes exempt from the reporting requirements until emissions again
become greater than the threshold. Providing for a reduced reporting burden would provide
facilities emitting at levels just above the reporting threshold an incentive to reduce GHG
emissions below the threshold. GP believes this exemption should be automatic after the second
consecutive year of emissions less than the reporting threshold and facilities should not be
required to reapply annually thereafter. In the case of permanent operational shutdowns, a
statement indicating that fact should suffice for the reporting requirement and should not be
required annually. GP requests a specific provision be added to the rule providing for such cases.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Mark Maslyn
Commenter Affiliation: American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0693.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: One puzzling aspect of the proposed rule requires that facilities that have reported
emissions must continue to report, even if their emissions fall below the threshold. This "once in,
always in" approach goes beyond the mandate of the authorizing legislation. The provision in the
FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires a rule "to require mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds..The explanatory statement
accompanying the provision says "the Administrator shall determine appropriate thresholds of
emissions above which reporting is required, and how frequently reports shall be submitted to
EPA." EPA is proposing in this rule that an appropriate threshold is 25,000 tons of C02e per
year. The scheme should be simple—if a facility is over the threshold, it must report and if not, it
would not report. Livestock operations have a number of available options to reduce methane
and nitrous oxide emissions in their manure management systems. Installation of methane
digesters and covering manure lagoons are two such practices that reduce GHG emissions.
Facilities that have installed one or both of these practices and fall below the threshold level
should not be required to continue monitoring or filing reports pursuant to this rule. If EPA has
any questions as to why an entity that filed a report in a given year did not file a report the next
year, it can follow up with that entity to determine why no report was made.
137
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. Also, see section III. JJ for the reporting requirements for manure
management systems.
Commenter Name: Bryan Vickers
Commenter Affiliation: The Glass Packaging Institute (GPI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0670.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The proposed GHG Reporting Rules would apply only to facilities which emit more
than 25,000 MT C02e per year. There should be an incentive for each facility to reduce its GHG
emissions to the maximum extent possible. If a facility is able to reduce its emissions to 20,000
MT C02e per year, it should be exempt from further monitoring and reporting, in the same
manner as a facility which has always emitted at less than the 25,000 MT threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kim Dang
Commenter Affiliation: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L P.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0370.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: Kinder Morgan strongly supports amending the Proposed Rule to allow reporting
facilities that fall below the emissions threshold for two consecutive years to discontinue
reporting until and unless the facility emissions exceed the reporting threshold. As EPA
recognizes, the proposed "once in, always in" rule creates disincentives for emission reductions,
and imposes reporting costs on facilities that EPA has determined are not significant enough to
warrant reporting.7 "Once in, always in" is particularly problematic for facilities that are idled,
inactivated, or dismantled. Moreover, the data collection benefit that EPA attributes to the "once
in, always in" rule - that it is "important... to be able to track trends in emissions and
understand factors that influence emission levels"8 - is unconvincing. In most sectors, the
factors that drive GHG emissions are well-understood and, in any event, a two-year exclusion
rule would still provide EPA with an abundance of detailed data from which to draw policy
conclusions.
New language for Section 98.2(g):
1) Once a facility or supplier is subject to the requirements of this part, the owners and
operators of the facility or supply operation must continue for each year thereafter to comply
with all requirements of this part, unless the condition in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph
is satisfied. If the condition in subparagraph (2) is satisfied, the facility or supplier may
discontinue reporting emissions as provided in this part. However, the facility or supplier
shall reevaluate applicability as provided in paragraph (f) of this section. [Final sentence of
original text moved to subparagraph (3) below],
2) A facility or supplier subject to the reporting requirements of this part may discontinue
reporting if the facility or supplier fails to meet the applicability requirements of paragraph
138
-------
(a) of this section in two consecutive monitoring years. If reporting is discontinued pursuant
to this subparagraph, the designated representative for the facility or supplier shall provide an
appropriate notice accompanying its final report to EPA.
3) If a GHG emission source in a future year through change of ownership....
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Michael Garvin
Commenter Affiliation: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0959.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed rule contains a once in/always in provision at Section 40 CFR 98.2(g).
PhRMA believes that this provision would create a disincentive for facilities to reduce their
GHG emissions, which whould ultimately run against the goal of this rulemaking effort. The
SARA TRI program has been very successful at reducing the country's emissions of those
regulated compounds; eliminating the once in/always in disincentive in this rulemaking would be
expected to help achieve this same result for GHG emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Keith Adams
Commenter Affiliation: Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1142.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA has proposed a "once in, always in" requirement for the GHG reporting rule.
This means that once a facility is subject to reporting under this rule, the facility would always be
required to report even if it reduces emissions below the reporting thresholds. We believe this
policy is a disincentive for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. The costs associated with
reporting should not be imposed on facilities which reduce their emissions to levels the agency
has already defined as not significant enough to report. To help ensure that reporting is no longer
required and to properly track reporting entities, EPA should allow a certified notification to be
submitted indicating that the reporting obligation no longer applies. This notification could
require that the company/facility identify the specific reasons why reporting is no longer
required. This could be accomplished by EPA developing a simple "notification form" providing
a checklist of reasons why a report is no longer necessary (with the option for further text) that
would need to be certified by any reporting entity instead of submitting a report. We believe this
approach should provide EPA with appropriate knowledge of why a company or facility is no
longer reporting. While we understand EPA's concerns about consistency and tracking trends,
assuming the thresholds established by EPA are appropriate, lack of emissions data for sources
that no longer exceed reporting thresholds should not significantly impact the GHG emissions
reporting program and ultimate policy decisions. This is particularly true since new sources will
continually be added when thresholds are exceeded changing the number of reporting sources,
139
-------
while other sources that are consistently below but near the reporting thresholds, would never
report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: [name not given]
Commenter Affiliation: Graphic Arts Coalition (GAC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0701.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA is proposing that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would
continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
The GAC opposes this provision and it is contradictory with EPA's stated intent of collecting
data from consistent and complete populations and not those that are varying over time. In
addition, it is not consistent with EPA's policy of Pollution Prevention (P2), source reduction
and lower emissions. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that "there are significant
opportunities for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost-effective
changes in production, operation, and raw materials use. The opportunities for source reduction
are often not realized because existing regulations, and the industrial resources they require for
compliance, focus upon treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction; and existing
regulations do not emphasize multi-media management of pollution." The Act declared P2 to be
national policy and directed EPA to establish and promote P2 activities. Despite this mandate,
and the overarching goal of reducing air pollution, this rule provides facilities with no incentive
to reduce emissions. As EPA states in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the provision acts as a
disincentive for facilities to reduce their emissions, since even if they fall below threshold levels
(i.e., become minor sources), they will still be subject to costly and burdensome testing,
recordkeeping and reporting provisions. And, as this rulemaking is intended to provide EPA with
baseline GHG emissions from major sources in order to craft future emission standards, it is
likely that these sources will either be used to set standards when they are not truly reflective of
major sources and/or be regulated even though they are below major source thresholds. Neither
outcome is appropriate. The GAC strongly suggests that EPA not adopt a once-in, always-in
policy in the final reporting rule and instead only collect data on those sources that are actually
above the emissions threshold in the calendar year for which the report is due.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kelly R. Carmichael
Commenter Affiliation: NiSource
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1080.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: In accordance with the proposed rule Section 98.2(g), once a facility is subject to the
rule, it must continue reporting even if in any year its emissions are not sufficient to trigger
applicability. Although NiSource agrees that the rule should not allow a source's applicability to
change annually, potentially allowing a source to move in and out of the program in consecutive
years. However, some provision should be provided to allow a facility to discontinue reporting if
140
-------
its emissions fall below the threshold. NiSource supports the alternative option provided by EPA,
which is similar to the California ARB mandatory reporting rule and offers a facility that has
emissions under the threshold for three consecutive years the opportunity to be exempt from the
reporting program. NiSource supports this option, particularly in cases where a permanent
change or a GHG emissions reduction has occurred which would likely prevent the facility from
again triggering the threshold. Similar to the statement provided above on simplified
quantification methodologies, NiSource suggests that EPA provide the same guidance as well as
clarity on records requirements for facilities to assess whether emissions remain below reporting
thresholds once exempt from the program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: John S. Hayden
Commenter Affiliation: National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0853.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: NSSGA encourages EPA to provide some type of exit provision in the final rule.
There are a variety of circumstances under which "once in, always in" would result in
compliance burdens far greater than the value of the information gained. Situations other than
simple steady-state operation should be considered to ensure that facilities are not subjected to a
perpetual reporting responsibility in circumstances where there is no corresponding benefit.
Situations of concern include facilities that successfully reduce emissions below the threshold
levels and idled or decommissioned facilities. In cases of facility shutdown, the proposal would
create circumstances under which the owner of a facility that exceeds the reporting threshold
once (in a given calendar year) would be perpetually responsible for emission reporting in the
future, even if a facility were later fully decommissioned. While it may be desirable to capture
the emissions decrease that occurs as part of the change, there is no reasonable benefit to
requiring facilities to quantify and report trivial emissions well below the threshold long after
fundamental changes in the facility have occurred. To allow for some degree of consideration for
these circumstances without sacrificing necessary information collection, EPA should adopt a
clear exit provision. As EPA notes, a similar provision exists in the California reporting program,
where after three years of reporting emissions below the entry threshold, reporters may exit the
program. Under such a system, affected facilities could exit in the event that reductions are
sufficiently substantial to no longer meet the purposes of the reporting program, such as in the
case of an idle or closed plant. Such an approach would provide the data that EPA needs on a
continuing basis, eliminate reporting of relatively useless data and encourage facilities to adopt
voluntary emission reduction programs.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jeffrey A. Sitler
Commenter Affiliation: University of Virginia (UVA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0675.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
141
-------
Comment: On page 16470 in the Preamble Section IV.C. Rationale for Selection of Thresholds.
It is proposed that once a facility is subject to the reporting rule, it would continue to submit
annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years. If a facility takes
dramatic steps to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and fall below the reporting limit, they
should be rewarded by removing the burden of reporting. Rather than allowing facilities to cease
reporting if they fall below the threshold, they should be required to send a request to cease
reporting. In the request they should explain why their emissions have decreased. If a facility
only reduced below 25,000 MTeC02 because they had a malfunction for several weeks, that
would not be a good reason. If they reduced to 20,000 MTeC02 because they invested in
significant pollution controls or made a major process change, they should be rewarded. A
threshold value of emissions reduction, possibly 5,000 MTeC02 should be established to allow a
facility to apply to be removed from reporting. It may be unlikely, but it would provide the
opportunity for a facility to get out in the event they truly become a small source.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: David R. Case
Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Technology Council (ETC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0664.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The ETC strongly disagrees with EPA's approach that once a facility becomes
subject to the reporting rule, it would continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the
reporting thresholds in future years. EPA's rationale is that "it is important for purposes of policy
analysis to be able to track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence emission
levels." However, there is no good reason why EPA cannot track trends and analyze relevant
factors based on information that certain facilities have fallen below thresholds that require
reporting. EPA has not explained how reporting of de minimis emissions is necessary to track
trends, or why EPA cannot identify facilities that have been allowed to stop reporting and
determine the factors that led to decreased emissions. Most importantly, EPA would be
discouraging facilities from implementing technologies and practices to reduce C02e emissions
if the reporting burden remains the same.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Scott Davis
Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Public Service (APS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0639.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: EPA states in the preamble that "once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it
would continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reported thresholds in future years."
APS opposes this provision and believes that this creates a disincentive for reduction of GHG
emissions. Although APS does not believe that a facility's reporting status should be allowed to
change annually, APS does recommend that a mechanism be provided to recognize facilities that
manage to reduce GHG emissions below the threshold. A facility should be allowed to stop
142
-------
reporting if it can demonstrate that its emissions have remained below the applicable threshold
for several successive reporting periods.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Mike Aire
Commenter Affiliation: Newmont Mining Corporation (NMC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0378.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: "Once in always in" in Regards to Reporting Newmont supports an allowance to opt
out of reporting if emissions are reduced to below the 25,000 tonne threshold for three years in a
row. Otherwise, EPA is taking away a strong incentive to reduce emissions to below the
threshold. Further, this requirement should be waived if a facility can prove that it will not, for
the foreseeable future, emit at levels near the threshold for inclusion. Examples of such
circumstances include facilities idled; retired, or that undertake emission reduction project such
as fuel switching, efficiency or install control technology, etc. This provision would be difficult
to modify for units that fall above or below the reporting threshold for reporting year to year
based on operational fluctuations. However, if a facility can document that they will, for an
extended period of time, fall below reporting thresholds Newmont requests that the Final Rule
exempt these facilities from reporting requirements during that time.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Patricia A. Meehan
Commenter Affiliation: New York Power Authority (NYPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1569
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: It is our recommendation that an owner should not be required to continue to report
the GHG emissions if it no longer meets the criteria for reporting. The ability to stop reporting, if
the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted is below the threshold level, gives an. incentive to
entities to reduce their emissions and avoid the cost of tracking and reporting those emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: James McNew
Commenter Affiliation: Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (OPEI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1036.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The provision that requires a facility to continue reporting for the duration of the
program once a reporting determination has been established creates a disincentive for reducing
the environmental impact of a facility. Although EPA desires to create a consistent reporting
143
-------
process, the fact that new entrants will be added to the inventory over the life of the program
creates a randomness of results. Therefore, if there were participants exiting the program, as a
result of implementing reductions in C02e emissions, the program would not be any less
consistent. Having the incentive to report accurately should be the primary goal of this program.
Under the current suggested "once in always in" reporting requirement, the incentive to stay
below the reporting threshold, especially for those facilities that do not have an automatic trigger
process or that are close to the threshold, should be the ability to reduce emissions and stop
reporting. Environmental improvements should be rewarded with a reduction in the economic
burden of reporting. The purpose of the reporting program is to accurately develop an inventory
of C02e emissions for informing U.S. policy and regulatory activities. Having an accurate view
of facilities that are above the threshold would seem to be of great importance.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Sean M, O'Keefe
Commenter Affiliation: Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (HC&S)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1138.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA has proposed that once a facility is subject to mandatory greenhouse gas
reporting it would continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting
thresholds in future years. EPA contends that it is important for the purpose of policy analysis to
be able to track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence emission levels, and
that the data will be most useful if the population of reporting sources is consistent, complete,
and not varying over time. EPA recognizes, however, and A&B agrees, that this "once in, always
in" provision may act as a disincentive for some facilities to reduce their emissions, since they
would have to continue to report even if their emissions fall below the threshold. Regardless of
whether the "once in, always in" provision is retained in the rule, A&B believes that the
population of reporting sources is likely to vary from year to year due to some existing facilities
discontinuing operations while other facilities become newly subject to the reporting rule (e.g.,
by commencing operations or by increasing their emissions above reporting thresholds). A&B
feels that a provision similar to that found in California's mandatory reporting rule may strike the
appropriate balance between concerns about maximizing the utility of the data and the desire to
both minimize unnecessary reporting and maintain an incentive for facilities to reduce emissions.
Accordingly, A&B supports including a provision in the proposed rule that would offer a
reporting facility that has reduced emissions below the threshold for three consecutive years the
opportunity to be exempt from the reporting program. We believe that once a facility has reduced
emissions below the reporting threshold for a period of three years, it can reasonably be assumed
that emissions will remain below the threshold (of course, facilities would need to resume
reporting if their emissions do not remain below the threshold). We do not believe that facilities
should have to apply to EPA for this exemption, but rather should be automatically exempted
upon notification to EPA that the facility's emissions have been below the threshold for the
requisite period and that the facility therefore qualifies for and intends to avail itself of the
exemption. This notification could be made as part of the annual emissions report covering the
facility's third consecutive year below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
144
-------
Commenter Name: [name not given]
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Association of Business
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0698
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: It is appropriate to review the proposed requirement under which a facility required
to report would presumably never be relieved of that obligation, regardless of the status of the
facility as an emission source. The rule should contain a provision that once a facility falls below
a certain de minimis threshold, the requirements for routine reporting can be waived, perhaps
with some obligation to register as an inactive or de minimis reporter with some periodic re-
evaluation.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Edward N. Saccoccia
Commenter Affiliation: Praxair Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0977.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Comment: Praxair believes that once a facility or company is no longer above the reporting
threshold(s), reporting should no longer be required. To help ensure that reporting is no longer
required and to properly track reporting entities, EPA should allow a certified notification to be
submitted indicating that the reporting obligation no longer applies. This notification could
require that the company/facility identify the specific reasons why reporting is no longer
required.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Sally V. Allen
Commenter Affiliation: Gary-Williams Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0982.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: SBRs believes that the "once in always in" policy proposed in the rulemaking is
inappropriate and contradicts a key objective of EPA and the US Congress. It undermines any
incentive to reduce emissions in order to avoid having to report in future years. We suggest that
if a facility falls below the regulatory threshold for a period of at least two consecutive years, it
should be exempt from the reporting requirements in subsequent years. Such an exemption
should be automatic and should not be dependent upon a formal application and review process
which would be subject to the inevitable administrative lag time.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
145
-------
Commenter Name: Christina T. Wisdom
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Chemical Council (TCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0638.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Under EPA's proposal, once a facility is subject to the rule's reporting requirements,
the facility must continue to report, even if the facility no longer meets the emissions threshold
criteria. TCC strongly disagrees with this "once in, always in" approach because it imposes
significant ongoing regulatory burdens with no apparent rational benefit, and it is in direct
conflict with EPA requirements in other programs, such as TRI. TCC believes that the emissions
threshold should trigger reporting, not a perpetual applicability of the rule. For each annual
reporting period, facilities should only be required to report if they meet the rule reporting
requirements for that reporting period. Furthermore, the proposed "once in, always in" reporting
burden acts as a disincentive for taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Facilities that
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below the reporting threshold should no longer be
required to report their emissions unless and until their greenhouse gas emissions once again
exceed the reporting threshold. EPA's final rule should be amended such that a facility is no
longer required to report its greenhouse gas emissions if it falls under the reporting threshold for
one year, or a consecutive number of years, as determined by EPA.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Claire Olson
Commenter Affiliation: Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0637.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: EPA is proposing that the GHG reporting program would require the reporting of
GHG emissions data on an annual and ongoing basis. EPA is seeking comment on this approach.
Basin Electric urges EPA to allow a facility that has had total GHG emissions below the
threshold (25,000 MT) for two consecutive years to cease reporting under the proposed rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Thomas Siegrist
Commenter Affiliation: Koch Nitrogen Company LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0351.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment: The Proposed Rule provides that once a facility exceeds the GHG reporting
threshold in a given year, that facility would be required to continue to report GHG emissions in
all subsequent years, even if that facility later falls below the applicable reporting threshold in
future years. Id. at 16613 (proposed § 98.2(g)). KNC believes that a "once in, always in"
approach does not provide appropriate incentives to a source to take action to voluntarily limit its
emissions to drive them below applicable triggers to opt out of a program. Notwithstanding this
146
-------
comment, if EPA chooses to retain a "once in, always in" provision, we suggest that EPA adopt
an approach similar to that selected by the California Air Resources Board, whereby if a
facility's emissions fall below the reporting threshold for three consecutive years that facility
would be exempt from reporting until such time as its emissions exceed the reporting threshold.
This would provide EPA with adequate emissions information while also offering an incentive
for facilities to reduce their emissions below applicable reporting thresholds. Such an exemption
should be automatically granted to the facility after the third year of emitting less than the
applicable reporting threshold, and the facility should not be required to reapply for continuation
of the exemption in subsequent years, assuming its emissions continue to fall below the reporting
threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment: In the preamble to the Reporting Rule, EPA states that one of its principal goals is to
"[keep] reporting burden to a minimum and [exclude] small emitters." 74 Fed. Reg. at 16467.
Requiring reporting from facilities or supply operations that do not meet the threshold of the
Reporting Rule would be a superfluous, yet significant, burden for relatively small emitters of
GHGs, and unnecessary to further any legitimate regulatory purpose. Maintaining costly and
complex reporting requirements for facilities that were once above 25,000 t C02e, but
subsequently achieved de minimis status, undermines this goal. The proposed OIAI provision is
also contrary to EPA's past practice. In the Toxics Release Inventory ("TRI") program, for
example, facilities are only required to report for listed chemicals that have exceeded the relevant
thresholds in that given year. [Footnote: EPA also uses the same approach in its other regulatory
programs. For example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations for large
quantity generators are only applicable to generators of greater than 1,000 kg of waste in a
calendar month. See generally 40 C.F.R. Part 262 and § 261.5(e).] See 40 C.F.R. §372.22 ("A
facility that meets all of the following criteria for a calendar year is a covered facility for that
calendar year and must report...). As such, facilities have incentive to decrease their toxic
chemical use and releases. In contrast, the proposed OIAI policy would eliminate the possibility
for a similar incentive to reduce GHG emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0395.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: EPA has proposed a "once in, always in" provision that would never allow a facility
that has reduced emissions below the reporting threshold to no longer be subject to the annual
reporting requirements. We are strongly opposed to this provision. Not allowing a facility to be
147
-------
rewarded for efforts to reduce GHG emissions would create a huge disincentive for undertaking
such efforts. We recommend that EPA change the expensive and time consuming reporting
obligation to require facilities to submit an initial report. If a facility continues to trigger the
reporting threshold on an annual basis within a range that is not more than 25% of the initial
estimate, no further annual actions should be required by the facility. If changes in production
techniques or numbers of cattle in a facility are such that changes in GHG emissions would be
more than 25% above initial estimates, then an annual report should be submitted for the year the
change was made. Again, no subsequent reports should be required unless emission levels
increase an additional 25% above the second report, and so on. Finally, and importantly, any
facility that can document annual emissions that are less than the reporting threshold should be
given the option of notifying EPA that they are no longer subject to the reporting requirement.
To require otherwise would be to subject reporting facilities to needless and expensive regulatory
burdens that provide little or no benefit to the EPA or society. Regulatory burdens should have
important, real, and substantive regulatory purposes. Absent such purposes, regulation is
inappropriate.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The "Once In, Always In" concept is not good policy, as it would not provide an
incentive for facilities to reduce their emissions to levels below the reporting threshold in future
years. Every effort should be made to reduce reporting burdens and costs and a "once in, always
in" policy will not achieve either of these goals.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Scott Manley
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0728.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: WMC is particularly concerned by the punitive and unnecessary requirement to
continue to report emissions, even after a facility has dropped below mandatory reporting
thresholds. This "once-in, always-in" policy would eliminate incentives for manufacturing
operations to reduce their GHG emissions in order to reduce the paperwork and personnel
requirements that will accompany mandatory reporting. By providing a disincentive to reduce
emissions, the proposed rule undermines the broader policy objectives of eventually slowing,
stopping and reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. We are also concerned that a "once-in,
always-in" policy will create unwarranted additional personnel and regulatory costs for
manufacturers at a time when they can least afford it. Forcing a company that has recently
downsized or shut-down a production line to report emissions that EPA would otherwise
consider to be insignificant is unnecessary and punitive.
148
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Helen A. Howes
Commenter Affiliation: Exelon Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0373.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: Exelon recommends that a provision be included in the rule to allow facilities that
have not emitted at levels at least equivalent to the reporting threshold to stop reporting after a
period of three years. The three- year period is consistent with the provision in the mandatory
California program, but the time period could be shortened to two years. The facility should be
able to automatically stop reporting rather than petitioning EPA for approval. EPA can easily
verify that the facility no longer needs to report by reviewing the information in its database and
this approach would reduce the administrative burden on both the reporting facility and EPA.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Linda Farrington
Commenter Affiliation: Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0680.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Lilly does not support the once-in, always-in reporting of GHG emissions. We agree
with the Agency's concern that the once-in, always-in provision will serve as a disincentive for
facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. Facilities with GHG emissions below the applicability
thresholds for a particular calendar year should not be required to submit a report for that year.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Myron Hafele
Commenter Affiliation: Kohler Co.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0761.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Kohler Co. opposes the proposal that once a facility is subject to reporting under this
rule that, if they reduced their actual emissions to below applicable reporting
thresholds/requirements, would still continue to have to report. Having the option to get out of
mandatory reporting is an incentive to reduce GHG emissions. However, as would be the case
under a "once-in always-in" policy, not having an option to get out of rule would be a
disincentive. As California has done in their GHG reporting rule, we support the approach of
exempting facilities from mandatory reporting when their actual emissions are below the
reporting threshold for a period of 3 consecutive years. This option provides good assurance that
149
-------
the reductions are real while still rewarding the facility that has done a good job of reducing their
emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 13
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0709.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Under EPA's proposal, once a facility triggers the reporting threshold, it can never
escape the burden of reporting, even if it successfully reduces GHG emissions below the
threshold in a later year. We believe the agency is missing a golden opportunity to encourage
GHG reductions even before the start of a mandatory cap and trade program. Instead, we urge
EPA to allow facilities that reduce emissions below the reporting threshold continuously for
three consecutive years to be no longer subject to reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Reed B. Hitchcock
Commenter Affiliation: Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0794.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: EPA has proposed to require a facility that has reported emissions over the threshold
reporting quantity to continue to report in subsequent years even if it takes action to reduce GHG
emissions in those years and falls below the reporting threshold. ARMA disagrees with this
position, and urges EPA to reverse it. This type of "once in, always in" requirement completely
removes the incentive for a facility to reduce its GHG emissions through energy efficiency
measures or other means. EPA should be creating such an incentive in the reporting rule, given
that the ultimate aim is to decrease GHG emissions. Moreover, changes in a facility may include
the shutting down of production lines or other significant modifications that have a major impact
not only on GHG emissions but also on the number of employees located at a facility. Thus,
there may be reduced capacity to calculate and report emissions. For these reasons, EPA should
change the proposed rule so that a facility that has reported GHG emissions is not required to
continue reporting in subsequent years if its emissions fall below the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Edgar O. Morris
Commenter Affiliation: Mosaic Fertilizer Company LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0687.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
150
-------
Comment: EPA has invited comment on the durational requirements of the NPRM. See 74 Fed.
Reg. at 16,470. The proposed reporting requirements extend into the indefinite future. Id. Once a
facility is subject to reporting requirements it must report indefinitely, even if it demonstrates
over a period of time that it has reduced its emissions below the 25,000 metric ton ("mt") carbon
dioxide equivalent ("C02e ") threshold. Id. Mosaic recognizes EPA's stated interest in tracking
facilities that reduce emissions below the 25,000 mt threshold. Once that reduction is achieved
and sustained, however, Mosaic submits that EPA would not have a permanent interest in
tracking any modest further variations or reductions below that threshold into the indefinite
future that warrant the burden of permanent reporting under a "once in, always in" rule.
Accordingly, Mosaic suggests that a facility that demonstrates that it has reduced its emissions
below 25,000 mts C02e for three consecutive years should be able to stop reporting, or at the
very least petition EPA to approve such cessation on reasonable terms. This is consistent with the
proposed exclusion of all facilities that emit less than 25,000 mts C02e annually from the outset.
This approach is also consistent with reporting requirements of the Toxic Release Inventory
("TRP'), where reporting obligations apply only to facilities that meet the TRI reporting criteria
in the preceding calendar year See 40 C.F.R. § 372.22. Finally, this approach would provide
additional incentive for facilities to reduce emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Paul L. Carpinone
Commenter Affiliation: Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0717.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: The once-in-always-in requirement does not provide any incentive for a facility to
reduce its GHG emissions, and consequently remove its associated reporting burden. Tampa
Electric supports the creation of a mechanism that would allow a proactive facility to exit from
the monitoring and reporting requirement, provided the facility meets a below an established
minimum threshold, to lessen its regulatory burden.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Michael A. Caldarera
Commenter Affiliation: National Propane Gas Association (NPGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1031.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The preamble of the NPRM addressing the schedule for reporting states that "...once
subject to this reporting rule, a facility or supply operation would continue to submit reports even
if it falls below the reporting threshold in future years." {74 FR 16462} NPGA is concerned
about this provision of the proposed rule as it offers no incentives for businesses that initially are
required to report to actually take steps to reduce their overall emissions or their inventories as
suppliers. Ultimately, the goal of EPA is to reduce GHG emissions, but this "once-in always-in"
approach in this proposal is completely counter to that concept, and NPGA urges EPA to
eliminate this approach to reporting.
151
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Dale Backlund, Regulatory Affairs Leader, The DOW Chemical Company
and Victoria Evans, National Practice Leader for Greenhouse Gases, URS Corporation
Commenter Affiliation: none
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1338
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The rule has a "once-in, always-in" provision, and this is a disincentive for a facility
to reduce GHG emissions to a level below EPA's mandatory reporting threshold. The rule could
be more effective if it offered ways that emitters could avoid mandatory reporting, and perhaps
also, avoid higher-tier reporting for smaller sources. The "always-in" reporting provision in the
draft rule also unnecessarily complicates emissions inventory adjustments when facilities are
sold or shut down.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kevin Fay
Commenter Affiliation: International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0490.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The rule makes no provision to discontinue reporting if a facility that exceeded the
threshold level and then reduces its emissions below the threshold. If the facility-level reporting
is to be adopted, then an entity should be able to opt out a facility if it remains below the
threshold for a reasonable period of time, e.g. three years (as is done in the California program.)
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert Naerebout
Commenter Affiliation: Idaho Dairymen's Association, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0314.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: EPA's requirement that once a source reports, it must continue to report even if
conditions change (114) is arbitrary and needlessly burdensome.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
152
-------
Commenter Name: Carl H. Batliner
Commenter Affiliation: AK Steel Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0337.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: AK Steel objects to EPA's "Once-In-Always-In Concept. This discourages facilities
from reducing emissions below the reporting threshold and it penalizes those facilities that
achieve that goal after the effective date of the final rule. In addition, that concept does not apply
to other reporting requirements. If a facility is below the reporting threshold, then it should not
have to report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Marathon strongly opposes the "once in, always in" requirement (§98.2(g)). By
requiring a facility that exceeds the threshold only one time to continue to submit reports for the
duration of the reporting rule would implement a huge burden onto the facility for little or no
benefit. EPA recognizes that this would be a significant disincentive for facilities to reduce their
GE EG emissions once they have surpassed the threshold. Although the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) allows for a facility to fall out of reporting after three years of coming under the
threshold, Marathon requests that the evaluation of reporting be taken on a reporting period
basis. Marathon proposes that a facility that is over the threshold for any reporting cycle but is
under the threshold for the next reporting cycle, he automatically excluded from reporting.
However, they should be required to submit to EPA a notification letter, alerting them of the
situation and explaining the changes that occurred at the facility that reduced emissions below
the threshold of the reporting rule. If this alternative is not accepted Marathon proposes the
allowance of an exit strategy like that given under the California rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Blake Jeffery
Commenter Affiliation: Indiana Cast Metals Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0321.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: INCMA opposes the requirement for facilities that are initially subject to the
applicable reporting requirements will always be subject to the reporting requirements. There are
likely a significant number of facilities that will be just over the minimum reporting standard and
should therefore be given a period of time to reduce their emissions and opt out of the reporting
requirements. EPA should not underestimate the cumulative burden of regulations placed on
facilities with little significant gain to the regulatory system.
153
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jessica S. Steinhilber
Commenter Affiliation: Airports Council International North America (ACI-NA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1063.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The rule proposes that facilities continue to submit GHG reports, even if their
emissions fall below the 25,000 ton-per-year threshold. Facilities that succeed in reducing their
GHG emissions below the threshold should be rewarded for their efforts, and should not have to
bear the burden of continued reporting. ACI-NA proposes that a facility that shows emissions
below the threshold for two years in a row be exempt from future reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 14
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1021.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The proposed rule would require that a facility continue to file annual GHG
emissions reports once it become subject to the reporting requirements, regardless of whether the
facility's emissions fall below the proposed thresholds in future years. EPA recognizes that the
continued reporting burden may serve as a disincentive to reduce emissions. While tracking
trends in emissions may be of interest to EPA, no other justification for the ongoing imposition
of the administrative costs and burdens associated with annual reports is provided. Moreover, in
the proposed rule, EPA fails to recognize that some facilities may cease operations, making
continued reporting superfluous. At minimum, EPA should clarify the proposed rule to exempt
facilities that have been closed or retired from the obligation to continue filing annual reports.
EPA could model such an exemption on the Retired Unit Exemption in the ARP. EPA also
should develop a process for exempting from continued reporting units that fall below the
threshold level of emissions for a certain number of consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: James Sims
Commenter Affiliation: Western Business Roundtable
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1038.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: Under the proposed rule, once a facility is subject to the reporting rule, it would be
required to continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting threshold in
future years. This sort of inflexible inclusion, with no off-ramp, makes no sense to us. It removes
an incentive that could encourage facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. It could lead to
154
-------
confusion regarding the actual GHG emissions profiles of certain sectors. Certainly, it would
exact an unnecessary regulatory burden on affected entities. A reasonable solution would be to
provide some off-ramp mechanism whereby, if a facility falls below the reporting threshold for
specified period of time, that facility's reporting obligations would cease, unless and until the
threshold is once again exceeded.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Tim Higgs
Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0759.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: "Once In, Always In" Policy for Reporting GHGs is Counter-Intuitive The Proposed
Rule takes a "once in, always in" approach whereby companies or facilities would be required to
continue to have to monitor and report GHG emissions even after a facility's emissions fall
below the applicability threshold. Companies or facilities that lower emissions below thresholds
should no longer be required to monitor and report those emissions. Requiring those facilities to
continue reporting will act as a disincentive to lowering GHG emissions. This same concept was
a subject of discussion during the development of the permitting rules under Title V of the Clean
Air Act. In that case, it was decided that companies could be released from Title V requirements
when emissions had been reduced below the threshold. There are many examples of facilities
that later became minor sources, illustrating the effectiveness of this approach as an incentive to
reduce emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Juanita M. Bursley
Commenter Affiliation: GrafTech International Holdings Inc. Company (GrafTech)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0686.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: GrafTech understands the EPA's intent to collect annually GHG emissions data to
accurately assess the effect such aggregated emissions have on the environment and public
health. However, GrafTech opposes the requirement in Subpart A, §98.2(g) which states that
"once a facility or supplier is subject to the requirements of this part, the owners and operators of
the facility or supply operation must continue for each year thereafter to comply with all
requirements of this part, including the requirement to submit GHG emissions reports, even if the
facility or supplier does not meet the applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of this section in
a future year." This section also requires continued reporting for GHG-emitting sources even if
the facility changes ownership. This "once in, always in" approach offers facilities no way to opt
out of the GHG emissions reporting program if they reduce emissions below the reporting
threshold. This may actually be a disincentive for facilities to reduce the amount of GHGs
emitted in advance of a nationwide climate program. While a future cap-and-trade regime to
reduce GHG emissions may offer incentives for early cuts (e.g., the allocation of extra emission
155
-------
credits), the EPA's proposed GHG reporting requirements do not offer any incentives to facilities
for reducing GHGs now.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Lee Lemke
Commenter Affiliation: Georgia Mining Association (GMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0276.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: GMA encourages EPA to consider including some degree of exit and transfer
provisions in the final rule, rather than the proposed "once in, always in" policy. There are a
variety of circumstances under which "once in, always in" would result in compliance burdens
far greater than the value of the information gained. Situations other than simple steady-state
operation should be considered to ensure that facilities are not subjected to a perpetual reporting
responsibility in circumstances where there is no corresponding benefit. Situations of concern
include facilities that idle or decommission major production lines or processes; facilities that
shut down; companies that go out of business; and facilities that change ownership. Once-in
always-in could become burdensome in these cases without providing any incremental benefit to
data collection. In cases of equipment or full facility shutdown, the current language of the
Proposed Rule would create circumstances under which the owner of a facility that exceeds the
reporting threshold once (in a given calendar year) would be perpetually responsible for emission
reporting in the future , even if a facility were later fully decommissioned. While it may be
desirable to capture the emissions decrease that occurs as part of the change, there is no
reasonable benefit to requiring facilities to quantify and report trivial emissions well below the
threshold at which. To allow for some degree of consideration for these circumstances without
sacrificing information collection excessively, GMA encourages EPA to consider an alternative
with separate entry and exit thresholds for the mandatory reporting program. Under such a
system, affected facilities would tend to remain affected, but could exit in the event that
reductions were substantial enough to no longer meet their respective mandated threshold
applicability, such as in the case of an idle or closed plant. Such a system would capture
emissions from significant emitters, while assuring that those that cease reporting can be
presumed to have become insignificant sources. It is worth noting that similar provisions exist in
the California reporting program, where after three years of reporting emissions below the entry
threshold, reporters may exit the program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Rhea Hale
Commenter Affiliation: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0909.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 26
Comment: AF&PA recommends that if a facility's emissions fall below the 25,000 tons per year
threshold that it only be required to report emissions in the first year it falls below the threshold
and not be required to report emissions in subsequent years in which emissions remain below the
156
-------
threshold. To do otherwise penalizes facilities that have made improvements to reduce their
GHG emissions or that have had to reduce production due to financial and/or market concerns
(e.g. the current recession).
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: L. Selbst
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0253.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: I found an aspect of the reporting requirements to be problematic. While, I agree that
the annual reporting of emissions will provide sufficient information to evaluate climate change,
I question the logic in imposing this obligation on the facilities that are Initially subject to
reporting requirements, and fall below the emissions threshold in subsequent years. Shouldn't the
EPA be rewarding emitters that correct their actions and pollute less? I understand the need for
consistency in information, but I question whether that's more important than taking significant
action. Perhaps both goals can be better effectuated if the reporting requirements for such a
facility were reduced. Instead of compelling annual reports from these emitters, I would
recommend the EPA require reporting every other year (or preferably every third year). This
way, the EPA would have a pattern to track information from these emitters, while providing an
incentive for those that achieve tangible benefits.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 11
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Comment: EPA proposes that once a facility is over the applicability threshold and is included
in the program it will continue to report even though if the facility GHG emissions might drop
below the applicability threshold. EPA requests comment on whether it should develop a
process, similar to that available in the California GHG mandatory reporting program:
"Comments should include specifics on how the exemption process could work, e.g., the number
of years a facility is under the threshold before they could be exempt, the quantity of emissions
reductions required before a facility could be exempt, whether a facility should formally apply to
EPA for an exemption or if it is automatic, etc". (74 FR 68, page 16470) API Comments API
alerted EPA to the fact that facilities might inadvertently find themselves over the threshold
based on the initial applicability determination, and the absence of a screening tool that can be
used for those facilities that might be on the margins of applicability. EPA ought to account for
the fact that companies have on-going programs to increase efficiency and reduce GHG
emissions, and that emissions might be declining naturally due to the dynamic nature of a
resource based industry. Inclusion of the "once in always in" provision in the rule would act as a
disincentive to voluntary emissions reductions, since facilities that did lower their emissions
below the threshold would have to continue to report. API would support establishing a process,
157
-------
similar to that provided by California regulations, which offers a facility an option for exiting
from the reporting program. The rule should incorporate exit criteria, such as facility emissions
that are reported to be under the applicability threshold for two to three consecutive years. Re-
entry to the program should modifications to the facility or operations cause emissions to rise
above the applicability threshold would be handled as described in the proposed rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Lawrence W. Kavanagh
Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0695.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Comment: EPA proposes that once facilities qualify for reporting, they be required to report
even if their emissions fall below the 25,000 metric tons/year proposed reporting threshold in
subsequent years. Although most iron and steel and cokemaking facilities are unlikely to drop
below the proposed reporting threshold, some smaller processing facilities within the industry
may be able to take steps to reduce or eliminate emissions by changing practices for combustion
sources, in which case they may fall below the reporting threshold. The once-in-always-in
reporting requirement provides a disincentive for companies to reduce their emissions and
creates an inequity between facilities that initially fall below the threshold and those that make
conscientious efforts to lower their emissions below the threshold. AISI and ACCCI support
elimination of the once-in-always-in reporting requirement. In the alternative, we support the
option of dropping the reporting requirement if reports in two successive years show emissions
to be below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: William C. Herz
Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0952.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 59
Comment: As presently drafted, the NPRM appears to regulate facilities in perpetuity once they
have exceeded the 25,000 metric ton C02e threshold, even if their annual emissions fall below
the threshold in subsequent years. To avoid regulating small businesses and minor sources, EPA
should revise the NPRM so that any facility which does not emit over the annual threshold may
submit a certification that it falls below the threshold, without having to report emissions data
during that calendar year. TFI also supports a provision that offers a facility with three years of
emissions data below the applicable threshold to petition for exemption from the reporting
program. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,470.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
158
-------
Commenter Name: Gregory M. Adams
Commenter Affiliation: Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0710.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The requirement to compel entities captured by the program to forever remain in the
program even if they have reduced their GHG footprint consistently below the reporting
threshold is counter-productive to administrative efficiency and the larger goal of emissions
reduction. EPA should follow the example of the CARB and allow those facilities with
emissions held for three consecutive years below the reporting threshold to opt out of the
program. Only facilities captured in the covered sector of a mandatory cap and trade scheme
should be permanently retained.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert P. Strieter
Commenter Affiliation: The Aluminum Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0350.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Once-in Always-in Reporting Provision is an Excessive Reporting Requirement that
Needs Revision The EPA GHG reporting protocol includes provision for all eligible sources to
commence reporting emissions in 2011 for the 2010 calendar year, or whenever a facility first
becomes eligible thereafter. There is no provision proposed for facilities to stop reporting either
when (a) emissions fall below the threshold for reporting (for non-listed industries), or (b) when
a facility is curtailed. As written, the rule could be interpreted to mean that once a facility begins
reporting, annual reports are always required thereafter regardless of the state of emissions from
the facility, or even its existence. We believe the once-in-always-in rule is an extremely
burdensome and unnecessary provision. Facilities that no longer exceed the reasonable threshold
of emissions for reporting would never-the-less be bound to report, while other exempt
competitors would not be required to report. Not only is this provision inequitable, it could also
have the perverse effect of being a disincentive for facilities to cut emissions if the extra cost
provides no benefits in reporting or reducing regulatory burdens. In addition, legal questions
remain for the once-in-always-in reporting requirement if facilities are permanently shut-down,
dismantled or converted to other types of business. What happens under the proposed rule then?
Is the new 'owner' bound to report for a non-existing emission from a non-existing source? In
light of the above, The Aluminum Association recommends that EPA revise the reporting
provisions to include a provision that exempts reporting facilities from future reporting when
emissions fall below threshold reporting levels for some specified period of time. For example,
under the California Mandatory GHG Reporting requirements, facilities that demonstrate three
consecutive years of lower than threshold emission reporting are then exempt from further
reporting, unless emissions increase again above threshold levels. We endorse such a provision
in the EPA protocol, although believe the reporting exemption should be triggered when facility
emissions drop below threshold levels for a period of one year. The proposed rule should be
further revised to clarify that facilities which are permanently shutdown should be exempt from
reporting.
159
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Donald R. Schregardus
Commenter Affiliation: Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0381.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The proposal to require a facility that is subject to the rule to continue to submit
annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years does not encourage
changes in operations or the use of innovative technologies in order to reduce emissions below
the reporting threshold levels. In § 98.2(g) regarding facilities that must report, the rule states
that once a facility or supplier is subject to the reporting requirements, the owners and operators
of the facility or supply operation must continue for each year thereafter to comply with the
requirements, including the requirement to submit GHG emission reports, even if the facility or
supplier does not meet the applicability requirements in a future year. However, Section IV.C of
the preamble page 16470 recognizes that the provision of 'once in, always in' could "potentially
act as a disincentive for some facilities to reduce their emissions because under this proposal
those facilities that did lower their emissions below the threshold would have to continue to
report." EPA notes that California's mandatory reporting rule offers a facility that has emissions
under the threshold for three consecutive years the opportunity to be exempt from the reporting
program and requests comment on whether EPA should develop a similar process for this
reporting program. DoD believes that the "once in, always in" provision does act as a
disincentive for reducing emissions and that EPA should develop a process for this rule whereby
facilities that reduce their emissions may be exempted from further reporting. Relieving facility
owners and operators who have actively pursued emission reduction efforts of the obligation of
continuing to comply with the GHG reporting requirements provides a tangible incentive for
facilities to pursue existing and innovative techniques and technologies to reduce emissions. We
recommend EPA allow facilities that reduce their emissions below threshold levels and maintain
them below the thresholds for three consecutive years to be exempt from further reporting as
long as emissions remain below the thresholds.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jerry Call
Commenter Affiliation: American Foundry Society (AFS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0356.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The proposed regulation provides that once a facility is subject to the reporting rule it
must continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting threshold in future
years. Proposed 40 CFR §98.2(g). As EPA has previously recognized, the application of the
"once in, always in" principle is a significant disincentive for facilities to reduce their emissions.
This provision should be revised so that a facility that has emissions under the threshold for three
consecutive years would not be required to report.
160
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Laurie Zelnio
Commenter Affiliation: Deere & Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0355.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Deere believes the current "once in, always in" provision could act as a disincentive
for facilities to reduce emissions in order to reduce the paperwork and personnel requirements
that accompany mandatory reporting. In addition, the "once in, always in" provision does not
consider scenarios whereby a facility has downsized, retrofitted, or significantly altered the
nature of its operations. EPA should develop a process similar to the California Air Resources
Board, which offers a facility with emissions below the applicable threshold for three
consecutive years the opportunity to be exempt from the reporting program. If a facility can
maintain its emissions below the threshold for three years, such performance more adequately
reflects sustainable emissions changes, rather than resulting from fluctuating production levels.
Once a facility has submitted its third annual report to the EPA below the threshold, they should
be automatically exempt from reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
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: 7
Comment: The California Air Resources Board's mandatory reporting rule offers a facility that
has emissions under the threshold for three consecutive years the opportunity to be exempt from
the reporting program. EPA has requested comment on whether EPA should develop a similar
process for this reporting program. The Department believes that an exemption process may be a
beneficial aspect to this reporting rule. The exemption may be limited or bring facilities back in
if they begin to emit above the threshold. A facility that temporarily shuts down or goes into cold
storage, however, should not qualify for an exemption if it is not permanently reducing GHG
emissions below the reporting threshold. EPA should consider a reporting sunset provision to
encourage reductions that result in a sources emissions falling below the reporting thresholds,
unless a source wishes to document reductions for the creation of emissions credits or
allowances.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Shannon Lucas
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Mining and Reclamation Association (TMRA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1028.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
161
-------
Comment: Facilities that have lowered their GHG emissions below 90% of the reporting
threshold for three years should be exempted from the reporting requirements. If EPA applies a
"once in, always in" policy to the reporting requirement, facilities near the threshold will have
less incentive to reduce their GHG emissions below the 25,000 MT threshold. TMRA
recommends that EPA provide an exemption for facilities that have reduced their emissions to
90% of the 25,000 MT reporting threshold for three consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
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: 8
Comment: As proposed, the rule would require ongoing annual reporting even after information
sufficient to inform future decisions has been collected. To the extent that EPA finalizes a
regulation that only requires reporting from facilities that emit in excess of 25,000 metric tons
CC>2e per year, the Chamber proposes a release from reporting for facilities if they demonstrate
that emissions fell under the threshold for a certain period of time (see the California Air
Resources Board's mandatory reporting rule). Given that this regulation, if promulgated, may be
of limited duration and that EPA may re-evaluate the need for this regulatory program after
legislative policy decisions are made, the Chamber joins others in recommending that if a facility
reports below the threshold for two consecutive years, it should no longer be subject to reporting
obligations.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Laurie A. Lehmberg
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Instruments Incorporated (TI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0682.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: On page 16462 of the proposed rule, EPA has requested public comments on
possible options for continued annual reporting to EPA for facilities that initially meet the GHG
reporting threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions but that
subsequently fall below the GHG reporting threshold in following years. Annual reporting
requirements for facilities that no longer meet the reporting threshold is an additional,
unnecessary regulatory burden and subjects the facility to potential enforcement action. Facilities
that fall below the GHG reporting threshold due to consistent decreases in GHG emissions or
closures should be required to report that fact to EPA in the applicable reporting year on a
separate EPA form that must be submitted, signed and certified by the designated representative
in accordance with usual GHG Reporting Form. After the submission of the separate EPA form,
no other GHG Reports would be due from the facility unless and until the GHG reporting
threshold is subsequently exceeded.
162
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: J. P. Cativiela
Commenter Affiliation: Dairy Cares
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1014.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: We are strongly concerned that the rule, as proposed, requires that if a facility is ever
subject to reporting that it must continue to report even if its emissions drop below the threshold.
This is a burdensome requirement since many dairies may reduce the number of cows due to
economic constraints and current herd-reduction efforts. We request that this requirement be
removed for dairies (e.g., manure management).
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. See the preamble section III. JJ for the reporting requirements for manure
management systems.
Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick
Commenter Affiliation: The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0647.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: RMA opposes EPA's proposal that once a facility is subject to the reporting rule, it
would be required to continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting
thresholds in future years. We support EPA's overarching purpose under the rule to gather
emission data in an effort to monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the "once
in, always in" provision conflicts with this goal because it could act as a disincentive for
facilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and also burdens facilities that are able to
reduce their emissions by requiring them to continue to report. EPA has requested comment on
whether it should adopt a similar process to California, i.e. a once-in facility that has emissions
under the reporting threshold for three consecutive years would be automatically exempt from
the reporting requirement. (74 Fed. Reg. at 16470). RMA supports any proposal which would
limit the once in, always in requirement to motivate facilities to reduce emissions and gain
exemption from the reporting requirement. We recommend that for each reporting period,
owners and operators only be required to report if their facilities and/or supply operations meet
the rule's reporting requirements for the reporting period.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Rechelle Hollowaty
Commenter Affiliation: Tyson Foods, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0379.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
163
-------
Comment: A "once in, always in" approach to regulatory reporting is an extreme measure that
EPA is taking with this proposal. This type of requirement will be burdensome to many facilities
that work towards reducing their C02e (GHG) emissions and will create disincentive attitudes
towards reducing emissions further than future requirements demand. Tyson believes a facility
should be allowed to withdraw from mandatory reporting if their GHG emissions fall to 20,000
tpy or less for three consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Karyn Andersen
Commenter Affiliation: RR Donnelley
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0345.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: Once a plant exceeds 25,000 metric tons C02e, it must continue to report even if it
falls below the 25,000 limit after year one. This discourages facilities from reducing emissions
below the threshold and penalized those facilities that are able to reduce emissions after the
effective date of the final rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Marc J. Meteyer
Commenter Affiliation: Compressed Gas Association (CGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0981.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: The CGA has reviewed the "once-in, always in" reporting requirement that EPA has
proposed and believes changes are appropriate. We recommend that once a facility or company
is no longer above the reporting threshold(s), reporting should no longer be required. To help
ensure that reporting is no longer required and to properly track reporting entities, EPA should
allow a certified notification to be submitted indicating that the reporting obligation no longer
applies. This notification could require that the company/facility identify the specific reasons
why reporting is no longer required. This could be accomplished by EPA developing a simple
"notification form" providing a checklist of reasons why a report is no longer necessary (with the
option for further text) that would need to be certified by any reporting entity instead of
submitting a report. We believe this approach should provide EPA with appropriate knowledge
of why a company or facility is no longer reporting. While we understand EPA's concerns about
consistency and tracking trends, assuming the thresholds established by EPA are appropriate,
lack of emissions data for sources that no longer exceed reporting thresholds should not
significantly impact the GHG emissions reporting program and ultimate policy decisions. This is
particularly true since new sources will continually be added when thresholds are exceeded
changing the number of reporting sources, while other sources that are consistently below but
near the reporting thresholds, would never report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
164
-------
Commenter Name: Dan Elwell
Commenter Affiliation: Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1140.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA must allow facilities to discontinue reporting once their emissions status drops
below the threshold. There is no justification for the expense and diversion of both private and
public resources for data collection for emissions that do not attain the threshold for reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: James M. Bushee
Commenter Affiliation: PGC Electricity Committee
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0683.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA should exempt parties that may have reported data initially, but that
subsequently fall below the applicable reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1527
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Given the manufacturing sector's demonstrated track record of steadily reducing the
energy intensity of its operations and voluntary participation in reporting programs, the NAM is
especially concerned with the EPA's lack of flexibility with respect to the "once-in, always-in"
provision included in its proposal, According to the terms of the proposed rule, once EPA tracks
emissions from a given facility, that facility must continue to report 1 rr each of the following
years, even if the facility no longer meets the established threshold criteria. Such a policy would
eliminate incentives for manufacturing operations to reduce their GHG emissions in order to
reduce the costs, enforcement risks, paperwork, and personnel requirements that will accompany
mandatory reporting. By providing a disincentive to reduce emissions, the EPA undermines the
broader policy objectives of eventually slowing, stopping and reducing GHQ emissions in the
U.S. EPA has also failed to consider scenarios whereby a facility downsizes, significantly
retrofits or alters the nature of its operations, or shuts down altogether. Under any of the above
scenarios, personnel and resources may not be available to monitor or report GHG emissions
under a complex, new, federal regulatory scheme.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
165
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 5
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0367.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: AXPC does not support the EPA's proposal to make the GHG reporting requirement
permanent for a facility that meets the threshold at one point in time, but falls below it in
subsequent years. Oil and natural gas production declines naturally, and GHG emissions from a
facility are likely to drop once development in the area is completed. This provision also
effectively removes an incentive to reduce GHG emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time 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. Therefore, we are not responding to the comments on oil and natural gas systems at
this time.
Commenter Name: Angela Burckhalter
Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0386.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: EPA proposes that once an entity is subject to the rule, it would continue to submit
reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in the future. There will be no incentive for
an entity to reduce emissions. Furthermore, this is an unnecessary and an unreasonable burden to
require entities to continue to report emission data for a facility that should be exempt. In regards
to crude oil and natural gas wells, production declines over the life of the well and they become
"marginally" productive. These marginal wells operate on the much lower, flat end of the natural
production decline curve and are ill-equipped to bear costly burdens by EPA's proposed "once in
- always in" requirement. Though a well may meet the proposed reporting requirements initially,
they will fall below the threshold. The requirement to have these types of facilities to continue to
report is especially burdensome and may cause the well to be plugged and abandoned. The rule
needs to outline how once a facility falls below the threshold reporting limit it notifies EPA that
it is no longer subject to the reporting requirements. We suggest a reporting entity notify EPA in
writing and provide the data that shows the facility is below the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time 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. Therefore, we are not responding to the comments on oil and natural gas systems at
this time.
Commenter Name: David Rich
Commenter Affiliation: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0642.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
166
-------
Comment: WRI agrees that once subject to this reporting rule, a facility or supply operation
should continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Lindsay Moseley
Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212t
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: It is critical that the national registry create a long-term dataset, as outlined in the
Proposed Rule. Requiring emitters to continue reporting, even if they fall below the emission
threshold, will produce a high-quality, long-term dataset as we measure progress and will help
test the efficacy of various policy choices.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Craig Segall
Commenter Affiliation: Sierra Club
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0228n
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: One of the things we were very encouraged to see is that EPA is proposing a once-
in-always-in rule. This strikes us as centrally important. You want high quality, longitudinal data
sets for this. You want to see not only which sources initially qualify, but how policy choices
affect emissions trajectories. We are maintaining that principle we think is important.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Christina Yagjian
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0212.1m
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The inclusion of once-in-always-in system, which requires emitters to continue
reporting, even if they eventually fall below emissions thresholds, this will allow the EPA to
track national progress over the long term, which is essential to the process.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
167
-------
Commenter Name: Fiji George
Commenter Affiliation: El Paso Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0398.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment: El Paso does not support the "once in always in" provisions in § 98.2(g) and
recommends adopting "off ramp" concepts similar to the approach provided by California Air
Resources Board (CARB). Section 9 8.2(g) of the proposed rule provides that once a facility or
supplier becomes subject to Part 98, it remains subject to Part 98 even if its GHG emissions fall
below the threshold in a later reporting period. EPA has requested comment on this proposed,
once-in-always-in policy and on whether EPA should develop an "off ramp" for EPA's reporting
program similar to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations. 74 Fed. Reg. at
16470. El Paso Corporation opposes the once-in-always-in policy and supports an approach
similar to that implemented by CARB, as discussed in more detail below. The once-in-always-in
policy undermines EPA's professed goal of focusing on significant emitters and excluding small
sources from reporting. 25k MT/year of GHG emissions in a year is a low threshold that will
already capture many sources that would be considered small by any reasonable definition. Many
of these sources may normally operate at less than 25k MT/year, but may be pulled into the
program in a given year due to atypical or non-optimized operations, atypical market conditions,
or inaccurate data. Once pulled in, these sources can never get out of the reporting program
under EPA's proposed once-in-always-in policy. Requiring these small sources to continue to
monitor and report annually and perpetually is inefficient for EPA and the regulated community
and not beneficial to the environment. Moreover, as EPA recognizes, this policy foregoes the
opportunity to create an incentive for operators to implement GHG reduction projects in order to
exit the reporting program. Id. As EPA recognizes in the preamble, the CARB, proposed rule
Section 95103(e), allows a facility that does not exceed the reporting threshold for three
consecutive years to stop filing reports. Id.; see also 17 Cal. Reg. 95103(e). El Paso Corporation
supports a similar approach for EPA's program. This exit from the reporting requirement should
be automatic and should not require notice to EPA or EPA's prior approval. After exit, a facility
would re-trigger the reporting program if and when the facility again exceeds the reporting
threshold and/or meets the reporting criteria as reflected in an estimate prepared pursuant to
proposed section 98.2(b). We note that EPA expresses concern over its ability to analyze trends.
We do not believe that EPA needs data from small sources in order to analyze trends in GHG
emissions for a problem of global scale. To the extent that data from small sources would be
useful, the three-year exit period should facilitate EPA's analysis of trends in the data. EPA
requests views on the quantity of emissions reductions required before a facility would no longer
be required to report. The reductions should be sufficient to maintain the facility's emissions at
less than the reporting threshold for three consecutive years. Reductions of more than that should
not be required to allow program exit. The 25k MT/year threshold is already conservatively low
and already ensures that only small sources are outside the reporting requirement. Moreover,
requiring reductions below the 25k MT/year threshold would unfairly penalize sources who are
pulled into the program due to atypical or non-optimized operations, atypical market conditions,
or inaccurate data. Requiring reductions below the 25k MT/year threshold in order to exit the
program also arguably exceeds statutory authority. In justifying its authority to promulgate the
proposed rule under section 1 14(a)(iii) of the CAA (relating to "carrying out any provision of
the Act"), EPA characterizes the GHG reporting program as a "research" tool, citing section 103
("Research, Investigation, Training, and Other Activities") as a "provision of the [CAA]" the
agency is "carrying out" with respect to stationary sources. El Paso Corporation believes that
EPA's reliance on Section 114 for authority to promulgate the proposed rule under the CAA is
tenuous at best. In any event, section 103 is the only section EPA cites that is arguably applicable
168
-------
to stationary sources, all other sections cited in the statutory authority section of the preamble
being applicable only to mobile sources (e.g., sections 202, 208, 211, 213, 231), or not yet
triggered as to stationary sources (section 111). 74 Fed. Reg. at 16455. To the extent that EPA
relies on its "research" authority under section 103 of the CAA as authority for the proposed
rule, the agency should not attempt to force additional GHG reductions through the reporting
program, as this forcing would be both inappropriate in a reporting rule and outside EPA's
authority under section 103 of the CAA.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. For responses to the comment on EPA's statutory authority, see preamble
section II. Q and the comment response document volume on "Legal Issues".
Commenter Name: John M. Batt
Commenter Affiliation: Airgas, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Airgas believes changes are appropriate to the "once-in, always in" reporting
requirement that EPA has proposed. We recommend that once a facility or company is no longer
above the reporting threshold(s), reporting should no longer be required. To help ensure that
reporting is no longer required and to properly track reporting entities, EPA should allow a
certified notification to be submitted indicating that the reporting obligation no longer applies.
This notification could require that the company/facility identify the specific reasons why
reporting is no longer required. We believe this approach should provide EPA with appropriate
knowledge of why a company or facility is no longer reporting. While we understand EPA's
concerns about consistency and tracking trends, assuming the thresholds established by EPA are
appropriate, lack of emissions data for sources that no longer exceed reporting thresholds should
not significantly impact the GHG emissions reporting program and ultimate policy decisions.
This is particularly true since new sources will continually be added when thresholds are
exceeded changing the number of reporting sources, while other sources that are consistently
below but near the reporting thresholds, would never report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Steven M. Maruszewski
Commenter Affiliation: Pennsylvania State University (Penn State)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0409.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The EPA proposes a "once in-always in" approach. Once a facility is subject to this
reporting rule, it would continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the threshold in
future years. Penn State disagrees with this approach. An exemption process should be
developed to allow facilities that fall below the threshold for a certain number of years to no
longer report. A system similar to that of California's Air Resources Board (CARB) mandatory
reporting should be considered to allow for exemption after a facility has operated below the
threshold. The justification for the "once in-always in" approach is that "it is important for the
purpose of policy analysis to be able to track trends in emissions and understand factors that
169
-------
influence emissions levels. The data would be more useful if the population of reporting sources
is consistent, complete and not varying over time" (Preamble, pi 14- 115). The EPA is proposing
electronic submittal of emissions data. It is our understanding that EPA is going to develop this
electronic system and database for reporting. Penn State suggests that facilities that initially
report, and then fall below the threshold are required to apply to EPA for exemption. This would
allow EPA to track theses facilities and develop querying functionality into the system to allow
analysts to review consistent datasets. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center located in
Hershey, PA is a leading healthcare institution focusing on patient care, education and research.
Preliminary analysis of fuel use data at this location shows this facility may be nearing the
25,000 mt C02e threshold. If the facility reaches the threshold, the opportunity to be exempt
could be an incentive for emissions reduction. This would be true for any facility nearing the
threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 12
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Once-In-Always-In is unnecessarily burdensome and leads to inaccuracies. EPA has
expressed its preference for adopting a once-in-always-in provision in order to maintain
consistency in the population required to report under the inventory rule. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,470.
GPA opposes the once-in-always-in provision for several reasons. First, it provides a
disincentive for sources to reduce their GHG emissions. Regardless of how much a source
reduces its GHG emissions, under the proposed rule the source would still need to maintain the
same equipment, monitor and collect the same emissions data, and report it to EPA on an annual
basis, indefinitely. The cost of complying with the program would be the same for high emitters
as for star performers with low emissions. While the rule's stated objective is not to reduce GHG
emissions, it should not penalize companies that achieve such reductions. Second, the 25,000
mtpy threshold includes an exemption for abandoned coal mines from the once-in-always- in
provision. As EPA implicitly recognizes with respect to coal mines, GHG emissions associated
with natural gas production will decline with naturally declining production from gas wells.
Also, as with coal mines, emissions can permanently cease or drop significantly if production
permanently decreases or ceases because of equipment modifications or abandonment. Third, the
once-in-always-in provision would be inconsistent with the GHG emissions reporting rule
developed by the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"), which allows facilities with
emissions under the threshold for three consecutive years to be exempt from the reporting
program. 17 CAL. ADMIN. CODE § 95103(e). Given these concerns, GPA recommends that the
final rule require reporting to EPA for three consecutive years including the year in which
emissions drop below the 25,000 mtpy threshold. After the third year of below-25,000 mtpy
emissions, a source should not be obligated to report its emissions to EPA unless the source's
annual emissions exceed the 25,000 mtpy threshold again. The onus would be on the facilities to
anticipate when their GHG emissions may again exceed the 25,000 mtpy threshold, for example
by estimating on the basis of increased throughput after major modification. Facilities would not
need to apply to EPA to obtain the exemption, which would accrue automatically upon the
submission of three years of data below the threshold. In situations where a facility has
170
-------
previously reported, but then falls below the 25,000 mtpy threshold for three years, that facility
should not be obligated to begin monitoring GHG emissions until the next calendar year
following when it determines that it exceeded the 25,000 mtpy threshold, thus ensuring full-year
monitoring and reporting. GPA notes that facilities falling below the 25,000 mtpy threshold
should be allowed to voluntarily report their GHG emissions in the inventory for the purpose of
memorializing reductions in GHG emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: EPA's recordkeeping and reporting requirements are overly complex and
unnecessary. The proposed rule states, "We are proposing that once a facility is subject to this
reporting rule, it would continue to submit annual reports if it falls below the reporting threshold
in future years." (LP. 114) EPA proposes that this information be reported into the "foreseeable
future." (LP. 114) The ETF believes that the "once is always in" provision is a major disincentive
to emissions reduction. In the case of SF6 gas, because EPA relies on nameplate capacity to
trigger the reporting threshold, perpetual reporting is arbitrary. EPA's proposal creates the false
impression that large amounts of SF6 gas is released into the atmosphere.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, EPA is not going final with the SF6 from electrical equipment
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: W. Hugh O'Riordan
Commenter Affiliation: Givens Pursley LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: EPA's requirement that once a source reports, it must continue to report even if
conditions change (I.P. at 114) is arbitrary and needlessly burdensome. For example, this
requirement is inconsistent with reporting requirements found in the environmental guidelines. In
the State of Washington the Federal Dangerous Waste Regulation, in Chapter 143-303 ("WAC")
provides a mechanism by which a generator may be excused from actual reporting, depending on
the quantity of waste generated. Additionally, the pollution prevention requirement in Chapter
143-304 WAC allows a generator to be excused from reporting if they do not file a report under
Section 313 of EPCRA or generate less than 2,640 pounds of hazardous waste annually. If the
goal is to provide companies an incentive to reduce emissions, EPA's proposed rule does not
provide incentives to reduce SF6 emissions. Since EPA's requiring reporting of electrical
equipment nameplate capacity, there should be no need to report if the equipment is no longer in
service.
171
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, EPA is not going final with the SF6 from electrical equipment
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: Robert J. Martineau, Jr
Commenter Affiliation: Counsel, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0414.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA has proposed a "once in always in" requirement for reporting. Nissan strongly
urges EPA to reconsider this policy. Requiring continued reporting even if a company falls
below the reporting thresholds will not provide an additional incentive for sources to make GHG
reductions. EPA's rules should provide just such an incentive by offering a reduced regulatory
reporting requirement for reductions. EPA recognizes in the Preamble that at the proposed
reporting threshold it will likely capture 90 percent of the GHG emissions while covering
approximately 13,000 sources. Removing those that reduce emissions below reporting thresholds
will not undermine EPA's goals to capture the largest emitters. EPA should learn from the
experience with the CAA Title V permit program. To avoid the burdens of Title V permitting,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, many companies found ways to reduce their
permitted emissions and thus avoid, "major source" status and coverage under the Title V
program. Like this proposed rule, the Title V program imposed no requirement to control or
reduce emissions, but reductions certainly occurred in an effort to opt out of the complexities and
burdens of the Title V program. For example, the State of Tennessee initially identified 360
sources that would be subject to the Title V program in Tennessee. Today, that number has
dropped to 240, largely due to sources reducing their emissions and taking enforceable permit
restrictions to cap their emissions below major source thresholds. The "once in always in" policy
would act as a disincentive to make such reductions in GHG emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Paul Dubenetzky
Commenter Affiliation: KERAMIDA Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0419.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: KERAMIDA believes that the U.S. EPA should reconsider the "once in, always in"
provision found at 40 CFR 98.2. There are two drivers to the reduction in GHG emissions from
industrial facilities: downturns in production and improvements in energy efficiency. Removing
the once in, always in provision would provide some well deserved regulatory relief to facilities
affected by both drivers and provide an additional incentive to pursue improvements in energy
efficiency.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
172
-------
Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman
Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0423.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA has proposed a 3once in, always in' requirement for the GHG reporting rule.
This means that once a facility is subject to reporting under 40 CFR Part 98, the facility would
always be required to report even if its emissions drop below the reporting threshold. We
believe, as EPA has rightly concluded,2 that this policy is a huge disincentive for facilities to
reduce their GHG emissions. As EPA has continuously stressed with the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) program under 40 CFR §372, reporting is a significant incentive for facilities to
voluntarily reduce their emissions. In addition, while we believe that the costs are
underestimated, EPA has calculated the compliance costs for this rule to be $168 million in the
first year,3 which is a huge expense to continue to impose on facilities year after year, and
particularly on those that are able to reduce their GHG emissions. ACC believes that the burdens
that will be imposed by this reporting rule will far exceed those of any other reporting rule,
including TRI. If a facility is able to reduce their GHG emissions to reduce the economic impact,
it should be strongly encouraged to do so. As discussed in more detail in the Section IV of the
proposed rule, we support the adoption of the California reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0425.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In Section IV.C of the Preamble, EPA proposed a "once in, always in" provision that
would never allow a facility that reduces emissions below the reporting threshold to no longer be
subject to annual reporting requirements. CLA strongly opposes the use of a "once in, always in"
provision. Not allowing a facility to be rewarded for efforts to reduce GHG emissions would
create a huge disincentive for undertaking such efforts. Instead, we recommend that EPA change
the expensive and time consuming reporting obligation to require facilities to submit an initial
report. If emissions from the facility do not change more than 25% (increase OR decrease) on an
annual basis, no further annual actions should be required by the facility. If changes in
production techniques or animal populations are such that changes in GHG emissions exceed
25% of initial estimates, then an annual report should be submitted for the year the change was
made. Again, no subsequent reports should be required unless emission levels are altered by an
additional 25% based on the second report, and so on. Finally, any facility that can document
annual emissions that are less than the reporting threshold should be given the option of
notifying EPA that they are no longer subject to the reporting requirement. To require otherwise
would be to subject reporting facilities to needless and expensive regulatory burdens that provide
little or no benefit to the EPA or society. Regulatory burdens should have important, real, and
substantive regulatory purposes. Absent such purposes, regulation is inappropriate.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. With respect to requiring only an initial report, EPA determined that annual
GHG data collection is appropriate to gain comprehensive and accurate data which can be used
173
-------
in developing GHG policies and programs. The accuracy of data and the ability to assess trends
across time and to analyze variability from year-to-year would be compromised if facilities were
exempt from annual reports based on 25% changes in emissions. The ability to analyze trends
and variability is useful in developing and implementing policies and programs
Commenter Name: Julie Ellingson
Commenter Affiliation: North Dakota Stockmen's Association (NDSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0592
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: EPA has proposed a "once in, always in" provision that would never allow a facility
that has reduced emissions below the reporting threshold to be removed from the reporting
requirements. The NDSA opposes this. Not allowing a facility to be rewarded for efforts to
reduce GHG emissions would create a huge disincentive for complying. We recommend that
EPA change the expensive and time-consuming reporting obligation to require facilities to
submit an initial report. If a facility continues to trigger the reporting threshold on an annual
basis within a range that is not more than 25 percent of the initial estimate, no further annual
actions should be required. If changes in a facility change GHG emissions more than 25 percent
above initial estimates, then an annual report should be submitted for the year the change was
made. Again, no subsequent reports should be required unless emission levels increase an
additional 25 percent above the second report. Finally, and probably most importantly, any
facility that can document annual emissions that are less than the reporting threshold should no
longer be subject to the reporting requirement.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0425.1, excerpt 5 above.
Commenter Name: Paul Sherman
Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation (NCFB)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0429.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: One puzzling aspect of the proposed rule requires that facilities that have reported
emissions must continue to report, even if their emissions fall below the threshold. This "once in,
always in" approach goes beyond the mandate of the authorizing legislation. The provision in the
FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires a rule "to require mandatory reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds... " The explanatory statement
accompanying the provision says "the Administrator shall determine appropriate thresholds of
emissions above which reporting is required, and how frequently reports shall be submitted to
EPA. " EPA is proposing in this rule that an appropriate threshold is 25,000 tons of C02e per
year. The scheme should be simple-if a facility is over the threshold, it must report and if not, it
would not report. Livestock operations have a number of available options to reduce methane
and nitrous oxide emissions in their manure management systems. Installation of methane
digesters and covering manure lagoons are two such practices that reduce GHG emissions.
Facilities that have installed one or both of these practices and fall below the threshold level
should not be required to continue monitoring or filing reports pursuant to this rule. If EPA has
any questions as to why an entity that filed a report in a given year did not file a report the next
year, it can follow up with that entity to determine why no report was made.
174
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. For more information about the reporting requirements for manure
management systems, please see preamble section III.JJ.
Commenter Name: Lee Fuller
Commenter Affiliation: Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0431.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: We oppose the proposed requirement that once a facility reports, it must always
report. In a larger context, we do not believe that the mandate under the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, authorizes the creation of an ongoing reporting requirement.
Nevertheless, petroleum and natural gas production operations change over time. In general,
production operations decline as the petroleum and natural gas are extracted. Consequently,
although a facility may meet the requirements of the threshold initially, it should not be
compelled to report after it falls below the threshold. Moreover, production facilities are
frequently shared by multiple operators and are regularly sold to other operators as companies
shift their portfolios of properties. The industry has been described as a "food-chain" industry;
smaller producers acquire properties from larger producers as they decline and become less
profitable or inconsistent with the business plan of the larger company. Burdening these
transactions with the cost of reporting requirements on facilities that have fallen below the
threshold is unreasonable.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. For responses to the comment on EPA's statutory authority, see preamble
section II. Q and the comment response document volume on "Legal Issues". At this time, 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: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: NPRA believes that the "Once In, Always In" concept is not good policy, as it would
not provide an incentive for facilities to reduce their emissions to levels below the reporting
threshold in future years. Every effort should be made to reduce reporting burdens and costs and
a "once in, always in" policy will not achieve either of these goals. The rule preamble points out
that California's mandatory reporting rule exempts facilities that have emissions under the
threshold of 20,000 metric tonnes for three consecutive years. NPRA would propose that
facilities that have emissions less than 25,000 tons for two consecutive years have the
opportunity to be exempt from reporting in subsequent years. In addition, facilities should not
have to formally apply for an exemption, rather it should be automatic. Providing an automatic
exemption reduces the reporting burden and potential lag time after a facility is under the
threshold, but potentially would still be required to file data. This policy should provide a
sufficient incentive for facilities that are able to reduce emissions below the reporting threshold
to be exempt from reporting. Two years under the threshold will provide a sufficient margin
175
-------
below the reporting minimum. In addition, it provides a reduced reporting burden and cost for
facilities giving these facilities an added incentive to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in
order to not have to report under the program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Maureen Beatty
Commenter Affiliation: National Refrigerants, Inc. (NRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0434.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: NRI disagrees with EPA's proposal under Proposed § 98.2(g), 74 Fed. Reg. at
16,613, that once a facility is subject to the Reporting Rule, it must continue reporting even if in
any year its emissions are not sufficient to trigger applicability. EPA should consider provisions
allowing an entity that meets the threshold to determine at a later date that it no longer meets that
threshold and so is no longer subject to the Reporting Rule until such time as it again meets the
regulatory threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 10
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0435.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The "once in, always in" nature of the proposal's reporting obligation is a clear
disincentive to a producer's decision to make the costly investment in the installation of a lagoon
cover designed to capture methane emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Caroline Choi
Commenter Affiliation: Progress Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0439.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Under proposed § 98.2(g), once a facility is subject to the rule, it must continue
reporting even if in any year its emissions are not sufficient to trigger applicability. Although
Progress Energy agrees that the rule should not allow a source's applicability to change annually,
we recommend that a mechanism be provided to allow a facility to stop reporting if its emissions
over several years fall below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
176
-------
Commenter Name: See Table 4
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: EPA has proposed that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would
continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years
(74 Fed. Reg. 16470). At the same time, however, EPA argues that the purpose of the reporting
threshold is to exclude small sources from reporting. This objective is inconsistent with the "once
in, always in" provision proposed by the agency. EPA's reporting requirements should provide
incentives to industry to reduce emissions below the reporting threshold by eliminating reporting
after they have documented significant reductions through improved technology or production
changes. In that regard, there should be a reporting "off ramp," whereby facilities are not subject
to the rule following a process change that permanently reduces GHG emissions, e.g., covering
an anaerobic wastewater processing facility. Companies often change capacity, processes, even
products produced, and should not be forced to continue reporting when such changes lower
GHG emissions below thresholds.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, EPA is not going final with the food processing and wastewater
subparts. As we consider next steps, we will be reviewing the public comments and other
relevant information. Thus, we are not responding to comments on those subparts at this time.
Commenter Name: William A. Collins, Jr
Commenter Affiliation: Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0452
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Occidental Does Not Support a Once In, Always In Policy for Reporting GHGs. The
inclusion of the "once in, always in" requirement means that once a facility is subject to
reporting under §98, the facility always is required to report GHG emissions, even if it drops
below the emission thresholds. We believe, as EPA concluded , that this policy is a disincentive
for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. As EPA has continuously stressed with the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) program under 40 CFR §372, reporting alone provides a significant
incentive for facilities to reduce their emissions voluntarily so as to fall below the threshold for
reporting. Additionally, Occidental objects to the policy proposed in the NPRM requiring
facilities to continue monitoring and reporting GHG emissions even after the facility's emissions
fall below the applicability threshold (the "once in, always in" policy) . To continue to require
reports from such facilities is directly contradicted by the rationale for the proposed reporting
threshold; i.e., that collection of data from small sources of emissions does not yield a significant
improvement in accuracy needed to meet the program's objective. Emissions monitoring and
reporting is expensive. Furthermore, facilities subject to a reporting obligation - despite their low
level of emissions - remain exposed to the risk of enforcement for unintentional calculation,
clerical or other reporting errors. Reporting facilities able to demonstrate that their actual
emissions are below applicability thresholds should no longer be required to monitor and report
those emissions. As discussed in more detail in the proposal's Section IV, we support the
adoption of the California reporting rule provision that would exclude a facility from further
177
-------
reporting of GHGs when such emissions over a 3-year period drop below the thresholds in
§98(a)(l) or (2).
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 7
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0455.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Proposed § 98.2(g) requires that "[o]nce a facility or supplier is subject to the
requirements of this part, the owners and operators of the facility or supply operation must
continue for each year thereafter to comply with all requirements of this part, including the
requirement to submit GHG emission reports, even if the facility or supplier does not meet the
applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of this section in a future year." The Class of '85
believes that this once-in-always-in provision should be amended to allow facilities to avoid
reporting in future years if they have reduced their GHG emissions to a level below the
applicability requirements. The once-in-always-in requirement of proposed § 98.2 fails to
provide any incentive for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. However, the opportunity to
escape the monitoring and reporting burdens would offer facilities a meaningful incentive to
reduce their GHG emissions. Therefore, the Class of '85 supports the creation of an exit
mechanism that would allow proactive facilities to lessen their regulatory burden by reducing
their emissions below the Proposal's established reporting thresholds. California's Clean Air
Resource Board ("CARB") offers such an exit mechanism to regulated facilities. Under CARB's
program, a facility that has emissions under the threshold for three consecutive years has the
opportunity to exempt itself from the reporting program. CAL. CODE REGS. 17 § 95103(e).
The Class of '85 requests that EPA include an exit mechanism similar to that utilized by CARE
when developing its final GHG reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Bill Grygar
Commenter Affiliation: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: 'Once In, Always In' is unnecessarily burdensome and should be removed.
Anadarko does not support EPA's proposal to make the GHG reporting requirement permanent
for a facility that meets the threshold at one point in time, but falls below it in subsequent years.
Not only is this contrary to reporting requirements under other regulatory programs, it fails to
take into consideration the natural progress of oil and gas production. Oil and natural gas
production declines naturally, and GHG emissions from a facility are likely to drop once
development in the area is completed. In fact, EPA's proposal suggests that even if a facility has
shut down completely, it would still be required to indefinitely report "no emissions" if it had
once met the Propose Rule's requirements for reporting. Such an approach is unique in
environmental regulations and imposes unnecessary, ongoing burdens without any rational
178
-------
benefit. The 'once in, always in' approach is also contrary to EPA's past practice. In the Toxics
Release Inventory ("TRI") program, for example, facilities are only required to report for listed
chemicals that have exceeded the relevant thresholds in that given year. [Footnote: EPA also
uses the same approach in its other regulatory programs. For example, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act regulations for large quantity generators are only applicable to
generators of greater than 1,000 kg of waste in a calendar month. See generally 40 CFR Part 262
and § 261.5(e).] See 40 Code of Federal Regulation ("CFR") §372.22 ("A facility that meets all
of the following criteria for a calendar year is a covered facility for that calendar year and must
report...). As such, companies have an added incentive to decrease their toxic chemical use and
releases, in order to reduce reporting burdens. In contrast, the Proposed Rule's 'once in, always
in' approach would eliminate the possibility that a similar incentive to reduce GHG emissions
might be established as a result of this reporting rule. Anadarko would support establishing a
process, similar to that provided by California's regulations, which offers a facility an option of
exiting from the reporting program. The rule should incorporate exit criteria, such as facility
emissions that are reported to be under the applicability threshold for 2-3 consecutive years.
Should modifications to the facility or operations cause emissions to rise above the applicability
threshold, re-initiation of reporting requirements would be handled as described in the Proposed
Rule. The rule should provide a mechanism for facilities making permanent changes, such as
removing equipment from their site, to notify EPA and end reporting. Should later modifications
to the facility result in emissions greater than the applicability threshold re-entry would be
handled as described in the Proposed Rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, 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: Patrick J. Nugent
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0460.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed "once in always in" approach is a bad idea that would eliminate the
incentive to reduce emissions. TPA opposes the "once in always in" provisions of the rule.
EPA's long-term goal appears to be not merely the measurement of GHG emissions but rather
the overall reduction of such emissions. That being so, there is no place in the rule for any
provision that would create a disincentive for industry participants to reduce emissions. Vet that
is the effect that the "once in always in" policy would have — under "once in always in," any
operator whose facility was ever above the threshold would know that the facility would have no
chance to escape the rule's requirements, even if emissions at the facility were reduced to a point
below the applicable threshold. An opportunity to put in place a powerful incentive for emissions
reduction would be wasted.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
179
-------
Commenter Name: Patrick J. Nugent
Commenter Affiliation: Texas Pipeline Association (TPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0460.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: Retention of "once in always in" would create unfairness. A facility that had
exceeded the threshold would have to continue to bear the burden and cost of reporting even
after it had succeeded in reducing emissions below the threshold, while another facility with
below-threshold emissions would not have to report if the latter had never exceeded the threshold
— even if the latter had taken no steps to reduce emissions. Particularly troublesome is the
possibility that reporting requirements would continue to be imposed on a facility that, through
emissions-reduction efforts, ended up having lower emissions formerly 27,000 metric tons/year
but now 15,000) than a facility not required to report (e.g., a facility with 20,000 metric tons/year
emissions every year). The better and fairer policy, and the policy that would promote the overall
goals of the rule and the Administration, would be to create an incentive for emissions reduction
by rewarding industry participants, whose facilities' emissions fell below the threshold, with
exclusion from the rule's requirements. To this end, TPA proposes that the rule be modified as
follows: If a facility whose emissions have exceeded the threshold in a prior year falls below the
threshold in a subsequent year, then that facility would still have to report in accordance with the
rule's requirements. But if the facility is again below the threshold in the next year (i.e,. two
consecutive below-threshold years), then the facility would not have to report the second year's
emissions. This should be an automatic exclusion, and it should continue in effect for each
consecutive year thereafter in which the facility's emissions remained below the threshold. The
facility would be subject to the rule for any year thereafter in which emissions once again
exceeded the threshold. Modification of the rule in this manner would preserve most of the
reporting and data collection features of the rule, while giving industry participants an incentive
to reduce OHO emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: David Fairfield
Commenter Affiliation: National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0463.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The NGFA strongly opposes EPA's proposal that once a facility is subject to the
reporting requirement that it would be required to continue to submit reports even if it falls
below the reporting thresholds in future years. We believe that EPA's reporting rule must include
exit provisions, rather than the proposed "once in, always in" policy. There are a variety of
circumstances under which "once in, always in" could result in compliance burdens far greater
than the value of the information gained. Such circumstances could include facilities that idle or
decommission major production lines or processes; facilities that shut down; companies that go
out of business; and facilities that change ownership. Further, the "once in, always in" provision
would penalize facilities that in the future implement effective energy conservation programs to
reduce their GHG emissions below reporting threshold levels by requiring such facilities to
continue to submit annual reports. The NGFA believes that any reporting threshold established
within EPA's proposed rule should be just that - a threshold for which reporting is required.
Facilities that exceed the reporting threshold should be required to report, and facilities that do
180
-------
not meet the reporting threshold should have no obligation to report. We believe that this concept
is simply common sense. Therefore, we urge the agency to completely eliminate the "once in,
always in" reporting provision from its proposed rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Susan Amodeo Cathey
Commenter Affiliation: Air Liquide USA, LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0464.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Request that EPA modify the language on applicability such that each year a facility
must determine if it meets the applicability requirements to report. Should conditions change that
cause the facility to fall below the reporting thresholds, then it would not be required to report for
that year. This would relieve a reporting burden for a facility that falls below EPA's threshold
and is a potential incentive for companies to reduce emissions of GHG's.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The proposed reporting rule would require facilities to monitor and report emissions
every year once a facility produces emissions over the applicable threshold. NMA believes that
the lack of flexibility exhibited by the "once-in, always-in" requirement of the proposed
reporting rule will eliminate incentives for mining operations to reduce GHG emissions.
Additionally, such a provision will be inappropriately burdensome for mining operations that
dramatically reduce, postpone or eliminate production activities from year to year following
spikes in production or one-time activities that are especially typical in certain aspects of mining.
This also penalizes proactive companies that take measures to reduce emissions but are still
required to report. For instance, NMA recommends that reporting should not be required in years
when production decreases dramatically, mills or beneficiation circuits shut down, or other
factors cause emissions to drop below the ultimate reporting threshold (i.e. 25,000 - 100,000 mt
CC>2e per year). This would be accomplished for coal suppliers by applying the final reporting
threshold to surface and underground coal mining operations. NMA supports EPA specifically
recognizing that requiring continued monitoring from closed underground coal mines is
inappropriate. NMA believes, however, that applying continued reporting requirements to other,
non-coal mining operations is similarly inappropriate, and should be made consistent with EPA's
approach for underground coal mines. Perpetual reporting can lead to irreconcilably misleading
comparisons that will not be useful in informing policy decisions, will be overly confusing, and
will only result in unnecessary burdens on regulated entities. For reasons stated above, NMA
also believes that the proposed 25,000 tons C02e emissions threshold is fairly arbitrary. Once a
facility exceeds the threshold, for instance, it will be required to report every subsequent year,
regardless of emissions reductions. A facility that emits 24,500 mt C02e per year, however,
181
-------
could presumably do so annually without ever being required to report. To the extent that EPA
finalizes a regulation that only requires reporting from facilities that emit in excess of 25,000 mt
CC>2e per year, NMA believes that a better approach would be to release facilities from reporting
requirements if they demonstrate that emissions fell under the threshold for a certain period of
time. Given that this regulation, if promulgated, may be of limited duration and that EPA may re-
evaluate the need for this regulatory program after legislative policy decisions are made, NMA
recommends that if a facility reports below the threshold for two consecutive years, it should no
longer be subject to reporting obligations.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. With respect to coal mining operations, EPA is is not going final with the
coal suppliers subpart at this time. 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: Christina Gruenhagen
Commenter Affiliation: Iowa Farm Bureau Federation (IFBF)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0470.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA is proposing in this rule that an appropriate threshold is 25,000 tons of C02e per
year. The reporting scheme should be simple—if a facility is over the threshold, it must report
and if not, it would not report. The "once in, always in" approach in the proposed rule goes
beyond the mandate of the authorizing legislation. Livestock operations have a number of
available options to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions in their manure management
systems. Installation of methane digesters and covering manure lagoons are two such practices
that reduce GHG emissions. Facilities that have installed one or both of these practices and fall
below the threshold level should not be required to continue monitoring or filing reports pursuant
to this rule. Farmers should be rewarded for reducing their GHG emissions, not continually
subjected to the regulatory burden. If EPA has any questions as to why an entity that filed a
report in a given year did not file a report the next year, it can follow up with that entity to
determine why no report was made.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Karen S. Price
Commenter Affiliation: West Virginia Manufacturers Association (WVMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0475.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: The Proposed Rule requires that a facility must always report its GHG emissions
after it qualifies for reporting in any single year (even if its emissions fall below reporting
thresholds thereafter), see proposed 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(g). This "once in, always in" proposed
provision raises serious practical difficulties for the affected facilities. Requiring facilities to
continue to report their GHG emissions when those emissions fall below the mandatory reporting
threshold creates a strong disincentive for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions once they
have triggered the Proposed Rule's reporting requirements. It also contradicts the EPA's stated
182
-------
goal of maximizing the amount of GHG emissions reported while excluding small emitters from
coverage. If a facility emits less than the threshold amount of GHGs in any given year that
facility should not be required to reports its GHG emissions for that year. In the alternative, we
believe that if a facility which previously emitted more than the threshold amount of GHG
emissions per year has emitted less than that amount for two consecutive years, then that facility
should not need to report its emissions in the second year of below-threshold emissions, nor
should it report again until its has triggered the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 3
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: Under EPA's proposal, once a facility is subject to the rule, the facility must
continue to report each year thereafter, even if the facility no longer meets the threshold criteria.
EPA's proposal suggests that even if a facility has completely shut down, it would still be
required to indefinitely report "no emissions" if it had once met the rule's requirements for
reporting. Such an approach is unique in environmental regulations and imposes clear ongoing
burdens without any rational benefit. EPA has requested comments on whether it should develop
a process whereby a facility that has emissions under the threshold for consecutive years can be
given the opportunity to become exempt from the reporting requirements. The Associations
strongly recommend that for each annual reporting period, owners and operators only be required
to report if their facilities and/or supply operations meet the rule's reporting requirements for that
reporting period. Requiring reporting from facilities or supply operations that do not meet the
rule's thresholds would be an unnecessary significant burden for a relatively small emitter of
GHGs, and unnecessary to further any legitimate regulatory purpose. EPA's rationale in setting
the proposed thresholds was that they capture the majority of GHG emissions while keeping the
reporting burden to a minimum and excluding smaller facilities and sources. E.g. 74 Fed. Reg. at
16467. To require a facility to report indefinitely, even if that facility's emissions drop well
below the threshold or even to zero, is flatly inconsistent with the goal of minimizing the
reporting burden and exempting smaller facilities. The "once in, always in" approach is also
contrary to EPA's past practice. In the Toxics Release Inventory ("TRI") program, for example,
facilities are only required to report for listed chemicals that have exceeded the relevant
thresholds in that given year. [Footnote: EPA also uses the same approach in its other regulatory
programs. For example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations for large
quantity generators are only applicable to generators of greater than 1,000 kg of waste in a
calendar month. See generally 40 C.F.R. Part 262 and § 261.5(e).] See 40 C.F.R. § 372.22 ("A
facility that meets all of the following criteria for a calendar year is a covered facility for that
calendar year and must report. . .). As such, companies have an effective incentive to decrease
toxic chemical use and releases. In contrast, the proposed rule's "once in, always in" approach
would eliminate the possibility that a similar incentive to reduce GHG emissions might be
established as a result of this reporting rule. The Associations believe that EPA should look to
other regulatory approaches such as TRI and require reporting only in years when a facility's
emissions exceed the threshold. In response to EPA's specific request for comment on this issue,
EPA's final rule should be structured so that if a facility falls below the threshold for a specified
period of time (e.g., three years), it will be exempt from the reporting obligations in the future. A
183
-------
similar process is included in the California Air Resources Board's mandatory reporting rule,
whereby a facility that triggers the reporting requirement only has to report until its emissions
drop below the prescribed level for three consecutive years. In sum, while EPA claims that a
"once in, always in" approach would ensure the consistency of the data reported, the approach is
overly burdensome and is not needed to serve any of the particular, stated purposes of the rule.
Moreover, the inability to exit the rule's requirements has an unintended consequence, namely
eliminating an incentive for facilities to lower their emissions below the reporting thresholds.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Michael Bradley
Commenter Affiliation: The Clean Energy Group (CEG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0479.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: EPA is proposing that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would
continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
The Clean Energy Group supports the alternative option provided by EPA, which is similar to
the California Air Resources Board (ARB) mandatory reporting rule: a facility that has emissions
under the threshold for three consecutive years may seek an exemption from the reporting
program. The Clean Energy Group supports this option, particularly in cases where a permanent
change has occurred which would prevent the facility from again triggering the threshold.
Similar to our request for EPA to consider simplified quantification methodologies, the Clean
Energy Group encourages EPA to provide similar guidance and clarity on records requirements
for facilities to assess whether emissions remain below reporting thresholds once exempt from
the program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 8
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0480.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: INGAA does not support a once-in always in standard for reporting GHG emissions
under the proposed rule. Rather, INGAA urges EPA to adopt a similar program to that of the
California Air Resources Board where facilities that show three years worth of data below the
reporting threshold are allowed to opt-out of the reporting program. This is an important concept
as it will provide an important incentive for operators to reduce emissions from reporting
facilities. Absent such a provision, operators would be required to include facilities with little or
no emissions of GHGs.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
184
-------
Commenter Name: Darren Smith
Commenter Affiliation: Devon Energy Corporation (Devon)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0485.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Devon does not support EPA's proposal to require ongoing reporting from facilities
that fall below the reporting threshold. This discourages emission reductions and imposes an
ongoing burden without benefit. Because of natural oil and gas production decline, commonly in
the range of 30% to 60% per year, it is common for facility emissions in our industry to also
decline and under this proposed rule, a facility once subject to reporting would need to continue
to report regardless of its current emission level. In fact, an out of service facility would have to
report "no emissions" annually to satisfy the rule. This is contrary to EPA's stated rationale for
establishing a reporting threshold which is to capture the majority of GHG emissions while
keeping the reporting burden to a minimum by excluding smaller facilities and sources. A better
approach would be to allow a facility to exit the program if its emissions fall below the reporting
threshold for two consecutive years. CAA enforcement would ensure that the facility reenters the
program if its emission once again meet or exceed the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Paul R. Pike
Commenter Affiliation: Ameren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0487.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: In the preamble, the Agency discusses the provision that "once in, always in"
regarding reporting for facilities that once they are subject to the reporting rule, it would continue
to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years. 74 Fed.
Reg. at 16470. This can act as a disincentive for facilities attempting to reduce their CO2
emissions or it could encourage a facility to under report to avoid the "lifetime" of reporting.
Facilities that maintain emissions below the threshold for three years should be able to
automatically be exempt from reporting. Facilities that have variable rates of emissions may be
encouraged to remain in the program, but if a facility plans to remain below a threshold it should
have the ability to opt out of the program. The Agency should also recognize that some facilities
may decide to maintain their reporting even if they do not exceed their threshold or report even
though they never expect to exceed their threshold emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Lauren E. Freeman
Commenter Affiliation: Hunton & Williams LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0493.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Under proposed § 98.2(g), once a facility is subject to the rule, it must continue
reporting even if in any year its emissions are not sufficient to trigger applicability. Although
185
-------
UARG agrees that the rule should not allow a source's applicability to change annually, some
mechanism should be provided to allow a facility to stop reporting if its emissions over several
years fall below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Bob Dinneen
Commenter Affiliation: Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0494.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The Proposed Rule would require that once a facility becomes subject to reporting
under the rule, it must continue to comply with all of the reporting rule requirements, including
the requirement to submit reports. (Proposed Section 98.2(g)). Even though a facility's emissions
fall below the reporting thresholds established in the Proposed Rule, the facility must continue to
make reports to EPA. This "once in, always in" policy is not appropriate given the stated purpose
of the Proposed Rule to be to focus on significant sources of GHG emissions. EPA indicated that
it has sought to exclude small facilities and "small emitters" from the proposal. 74 Fed. Reg. at
16,456, 16,467. The purpose of a threshold is to ensure that the larger sources are covered, but
also to give incentives to entities to reduce their emissions below that threshold. As EPA
recognizes, a once in, always in policy provides disincentive for sources to implement measures
to reduce their emissions to below the thresholds. Id. at 16,470. This policy also penalizes
facilities that may have made errors in their initial calculations or that have an abnormal year in
GHG emissions. In addition, EPA should recognize that reduction in emissions may also come
from reduced operations due to a loss of resources. These facilities should not continue to be
subject to the burden of complying with the Proposed Rule. EPA states that the purpose of the
once in, always in policy is to track trends in emissions and understand factors that influence
emission levels. Id. Providing for exemptions for facilities that can show their emissions have
fallen below the threshold and are likely to stay below that level, such as through improved
efficiencies or removal of emission sources, would still provide EPA information on these trends
and would provide concrete examples of effective methods to achieve such reductions. As such,
exemptions are not inconsistent with EPA's stated need. Moreover, such facilities could still be
reinstated into the program if the emissions rise again due to significant changes in operations.
RFA, therefore, supports a procedure by which a facility can seek to be removed from the
program if it can show that it has reduced its emissions below the threshold similar to that in
California's mandatory reporting rule but also where it has permanently removed a significant
source of emissions from its facility that would reduce its overall emission below the threshold
for reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Rasma I. Zvaners
Commenter Affiliation: American Bakers Association (ABA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0497.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 13
186
-------
Comment: EPA's proposal considers whether an "off ramp" should be provided for the
greenhouse gas emissions reporting requirements. Once a facility is subject to the reporting rule,
it would continue submitting annual reports even if its greenhouse gas emissions fell below the
applicability threshold. The approach is often referred to as the EPA "once in always in" policy.
ABA does not support this approach as it is not a wise use of Agency and source resources. In
addition, in our opinion the greenhouse gases mandatory reporting rule differs from other Clean
Air Act requirements in that, at the present time, there are no technology control or operational
requirements that would justify a "once in always in" policy. Rather EPA should adopt the
approach taken by the California Air Resource Board's (CARB) reporting mechanism whereby a
source that has emissions below the applicability threshold for three consecutive years should
have the opportunity to be exempt from the reporting program. 74 FR 16470. As noted, this
would provide a strong incentive to facilities that can reduce emissions cost-effectively to make
the needed investment to reduce their carbon footprint to below the 25,000 tpy or other
applicable threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Thomas Diamond
Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0498.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 28
Comment: On page 16462, EPA has requested public comments on possible options for
continued annual reporting to EPA for facilities that initially meet the GHG reporting threshold
of 25,000 metric tons per year of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions but that subsequently fall
below the GHG reporting threshold in following years. Annual reporting requirements for
facilities that no longer meet the reporting threshold is an additional, unnecessary regulatory
burden and subjects the facility to potential enforcement action. Facilities that fall below the
GHG reporting threshold due to consistent facility decreases in GHG emissions or facility
closures should be required to report that fact to EPA in the applicable reporting year on a
separate EPA form that must be submitted, signed and certified by the designated representative
in accordance with usual GHG Reporting Form. After the submission of the separate EPA form,
no other GHG Reports would be due from the facility unless and until the GHG reporting
threshold is subsequently exceeded by the facility.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 17
Comment: The CARB mandatory reporting rule currently is the most stringent state-level
regulation covering air emission inventories in the U.S., and is part of a complex, GHG
regulatory scheme established by the California legislature. The CARB rule is based on specific
legislative authorization, and allows for source exemption if a facility maintains emission rates
187
-------
below applicable thresholds for three (3) consecutive years. The Reporting Rule, by contrast, is
based upon one of thousands of provisions in a federal "omnibus" spending bill. There is no
apparent Congressional support for this extension of OIAI, a legacy concept of early Clean Air
Act "Maximum Available Control Technology" policy that applied only to defined "major
sources." A more measured approach that provides covered facilities the opportunity and
incentive to reduce their regulatory burden by reducing emissions consistently below reporting
thresholds for three (3) years, would be both reasonable and in accord with Congressional
direction. At minimum, EPA should consider exempting sources that emit below regulatory
threshold for shorter and longer (than three-year) periods. EPA should support its preferred
alternative with more than reference to an outdated and inconsistently enforced Clean Air Act
policy.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. For responses to the comment on EPA's statutory authority, see preamble
section II. Q and the comment response document volume on "Legal Issues".
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: An inflexible OIAI policy does not properly consider situations where a facility's
operations and emissions profile undergo significant changes, such as sale, major modification,
or engaging in a new or different commercial activity. In other words, the GHG Reporting Rule
has not considered whether GHG reporting requirements should apply if the use of a covered
facility is subsequently converted to a new commercial activity that falls entirely outside the
scope of covered activities under the proposed GHG Reporting Rule. Furthermore, the GHG
Reporting Rule fails to consider cases where a covered facility is subsequently shut down,
abandoned or otherwise rendered unusable. In all of these cases, automatic withdrawal or
exemption from any and all reporting obligations is appropriate; continued reporting
requirements would be, at best, inaccurate.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jack Gehring et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Caterpillar Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0499.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: Congress, through pending legislation, has stated a clear intent to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions from every major economic sector by, among other things: (a)
encouraging technological advances and world-class innovations to lead the world well into the
21st Century (which would also create many new "green" jobs); (b) supporting C02e
abatement/reduction projects in the energy, manufacturing and agricultural sectors; and (c)
promoting energy efficiency projects to potentially increase our competitive advantage against
global competitors by producing products at the lowest cost alternative. The proposed OIAI
provision set forth within the GHG Reporting Rule is inconsistent with the Congressional agenda
188
-------
set forth above. The OIAI provision discourages facilities from spending capital or workforce
resources to identify and implement C02e abatement or reduction projects. Furthermore, the
OIAI model in the Reporting Rule provides no flexibility or incentives for devising future
technological advances to reduce C02e emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: David A. Buff
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Sugar Industry (FSI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0500.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The EPA should include a provision in the rule for facilities to terminate reporting
when emissions fall below the threshold for reporting or when a facility is shutdown. As
proposed, the rule could be interpreted to mean that once a facility begins reporting, then annual
reports are required every year thereafter regardless of the magnitude of emissions from the
facility, or if the facility does not operate or is shutdown. FSI recommends that EPA revise the
reporting requirements to include a provision that exempts facilities from future reporting when
emissions fall below the threshold reporting levels for a specified period of time. We recommend
that the threshold exemption apply to each year of reporting. At a minimum, a facility should be
exempt from reporting if it experiences three consecutive years of emissions that are lower than
the reporting threshold. This approach is reasonable and consistent with the CARB rules.
Further, the proposed rule should be revised to state that facilities which are permanently
shutdown are exempt from reporting, provided that notification of the shutdown is submitted to
EPA.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts
Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0504.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: NED A/CAP objects to the policy proposed in the NPRM requiring facilities to
continue to have to monitor and report GHG emissions once the facility's emissions fall below
the applicability threshold. A more workable alternative, used in reporting programs such as the
Toxics Release Inventory ("TRI"), etc. is for a company simply to file a "negative declaration"
or Notice that they did not emit GHGs in excess of the reporting applicability threshold.
Particularly under this rule, whose sole purpose is emissions reporting and not pollution control,
EPA offers no basis for instituting a "once in, always in" requirement or policy. Since it will be
the country's shared objective to increase production without increasing carbon, NEDA is hard-
pressed to understand EPA's constant regulatory bias to punitive policies such as this one. Even
the Western Climate Initiative ("WCI") and the California Climate Initiative ("CCI") provide
that after 3 years if a source no longer emits in excess of 20,000 tons of C02e, the facility is no
longer required to file reports under the state regulations until such time as they exceed the
applicability threshold. Alternatively, if a facility's actual emissions are below the reporting
189
-------
threshold in any given year, then NED A/CAP proposes that the facility not be required to report,
but instead maintain the supporting documentation and submit a signed certification attesting to
the f act that the actual emissions for that reporting year are below the reporting threshold.
However, the submittal of a signed certification only would be required for the first year in
which the facility's emissions are no longer reportable.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: D. Lawrence Zink
Commenter Affiliation: Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company Inc. (MSCC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0505.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: We believe that facilities that reduce emissions below the reporting threshold of
25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e) per year should be released from the
reporting requirements. We tend to agree with CARB that three years of reported emissions
below the reporting threshold is an appropriate test to determine if the facility is eligible for
release from the program. We suggest further that if one year of actual emissions above the
threshold is adequate to trigger reporting, then one year below it should be adequate to remove
the requirement. We also believe that sources should be allowed and encouraged to voluntarily
report emissions below the thresholds through simple methodologies. We believe that it is
appropriate for EPA to automatically notify the facility of their eligibility to be released from the
reporting requirements, but that the facility may select and should be allowed to continue
reporting voluntarily.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. Regarding voluntary reporting, see the response to similar comments in the
comment response document volume that covers "General Monitoring Approach, the Need for
Detailed Reporting, and Other General Rational Comments." The final rule, like the proposal,
does not include voluntary reporting provisions.
Commenter Name: Ryan K. Miltner
Commenter Affiliation: Miltner Law Firm, LLC
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0508.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: Because the dairy industry is engaged in continuing research to determine the GHG
emissions from farms and to develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with over-
all production area management, DPNM anticipates that some facilities initially above the
reporting threshold will later implement BMPs to reduce GHG emissions below the reporting
threshold. Any Final Rule should include provisions that permit a reporting entity that brings its
emissions below the reporting threshold for a defined period, perhaps three consecutive years (as
adopted by the California Air Resources Board; CARB), to be exempted from future reporting.
The entity should only be required to re-evaluate its need to report every five years and to
resume reporting if its emissions exceed the numerical reporting threshold.
190
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Rich Raiders
Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 29
Comment: EPA proposes to require facilities reporting during any calendar year to continue to
report in perpetuity, under what is commonly known as "once-in, always-in." Elsewhere in this
comment we suggest corporate-wide reporting, and recommend that the reporting burden for
individual facilities be managed within the corporate reporting proposal. Corporations required
to report for all-in source categories should be required to continue reporting so long as they
remain as members of one or more all-in source categories. Reporters including smaller facilities
in threshold source categories not requiring reporting every year should be allowed to terminate
reporting after three years of emissions below the facility-level 25,000 TPY C02e reporting
threshold. In addition, facilities undergoing a change of ownership or a change in primary or
secondary three digit North American Industry Classification System ("NAICS") codes should
reevaluate the ongoing emissions potential, given what changes may occur in the facility over
any required transition, and declare to EPA if reporting will be required in future years. EPA
should require any facility exiting a source category or falling below a reporting threshold to
submit a one-time notice documenting the rationale for no longer reporting GHG emissions or
marketing of regulated materials or products. A facility undergoing a change of ownership or
substantial redeployment should report a status update no later than the next year's reporting
deadline, and if reporting is no longer required, file the affirmative documentation. EPA should
also provide a once-in, always-in off ramp to encourage reporters to reduce GHG emissions
below the reporting threshold. Several facilities would use the reporting system exit opportunity
to encourage energy efficiency projects, find methods to reduce GHG emissions, and streamline
operations, meeting an EPA policy goal identified in the GHG endangerment finding proposal
published in April 2009 to reduce GHG emissions over time.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. Please see section V of the preamble and the volume entitled "Data
Collection, Management and Dissemination" of the response to comments documents for
information about regarding change in ownership.
Commenter Name: Charlie Burd and Nicholas DeMarco
Commenter Affiliation: Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia (IOGA-WV)
and West Virginia and Natural Gas Association (WVONGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0516.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: As discussed above under Section A of these Comments, we disagree that the
FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act authorizes USEPA to impose indefinite monitoring
and reporting obligations on the regulated community. In addition to the legal obstacles outlined
above, however, the requirement in the Proposed Rule that a facility must always report its GHG
emissions after it qualifies for reporting in any single year (even if its emissions fall below
reporting thresholds thereafter), see proposed 40 C.F.R. § 98.2(g), raises serious practical
191
-------
difficulties for the oil and gas community as well. Indeed, petroleum and natural gas operations
commonly change over time, in terms of both production quantity and ownership. Requiring
operators to continue to report their GHG emissions when those emissions fall below the
mandatory reporting threshold not only creates a strong disincentive for facilities to reduce their
GHG emissions once they have triggered the Proposed Rule's reporting requirements, but it is
also fundamentally counter to the Rule's stated goal of maximizing the amount of GHG
emissions reported while excluding small emitters from coverage. The WV Associations are
supportive of a requirement to exempt from the reporting requirements those facilities whose
emissions fall below the reporting threshold and remain below the threshold for a reasonable
period of time, such as two (2) or three (3) years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: John L. Wittenborn et al.
Commenter Affiliation: Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) and Specialty Steel Industry
of North America (SSINA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0518.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: SMA/SSINA believe that EPA should eliminate the Once-In-Always-In ("OIAI")
policy of the proposed reporting program. Such a structure serves as a significant disadvantage
for facilities to pursue incremental efficiency improvements, especially in the early years of the
program when such improvements will not be affected by potential legislative mandates. We
therefore strongly encourage EPA to utilize the potential reduction in reporting obligations as
leverage to achieve early GHG reductions. If EPA believes that continued reporting is necessary
to prevent facilities from cycling in and out of the program, we encourage adoption of a phase-
out provision that would require continued reporting from facilities that fall below emissions
thresholds for a certain period, depending on how far below the threshold a facility falls. For
example, EPA could phase-out facilities that fall 10% or less below the threshold for three
consecutive years. Facilities that fall more than 10% below the threshold could benefit from an
immediate cessation of reporting obligations.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Nancy N. Young
Commenter Affiliation: Air Transport Association of America, Inc. (ATA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0522.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 21
Comment: ATA opposes the proposed "once in, always in" approach to reporting proposed for
the rule, as it discourages facilities from reducing their emissions and unnecessarily burdens
regulated entities that fall below the threshold. While the Agency may wish to consider a
requirement that a reporting entity fall below the threshold for consecutive years before
becoming exempt, there should nonetheless be a provision to become exempt from reporting, if a
facility achieves real and verifiable emissions reductions sufficient to bring it below the reporting
threshold.
192
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
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: 11
Comment: Affected facilities that have made a concerted effort to reduce their GHG emissions
below the reporting threshold over a predetermined amount of time should be afforded the
opportunity to be exempted from the applicable GHG emission reporting requirements. Not
providing this option to affected facilities may discourage them from implementing energy
conservation and/or other pollution prevention measures that could further reduce their GHG
emissions. Indiana believes the 'once in always in' provision should be replaced with a more
realistic approach that provides for exemption in the future based on actual emissions data.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Joseph J. Croce
Commenter Affiliation: Virginia Manufacturers Association (VMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0526.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Given the manufacturing sector's demonstrated track record of steadily reducing the
energy intensity of its operations and voluntary participation in reporting programs, the VMA is
concerned with the EPA's lack of flexibility with respect to the "once-in, always-in" provision
included in its proposal. According to the terms of the proposed rule, once EPA tracks emissions
from a given facility, that facility must continue to report for each of the following years, even if
the facility no longer meets the established threshold criteria. Such a policy would eliminate
incentives for manufacturing operations to reduce their GHG emissions in order to reduce the
paperwork and personnel requirements that will accompany mandatory reporting. The VMA
believes the good environmental policy allows for flexibility and encourages improvement. By
providing a disincentive to reduce emissions, the EPA undermines the broader policy objectives
of eventually slowing, stopping and reducing GHG emissions in the U.S. Federal regulators also
appear to have not considered the scenarios whereby a facility has downsized, significantly
retrofitted or altered the nature of its operations, or shut-down altogether. Under any of the above
scenarios, personnel and resources may not be available to record the emissions necessary to
report under a new, federal registry. VMA recommends that a facility that drops below the
reporting threshold only be required to report for the first year in which emissions are below the
threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
193
-------
Commenter Name: David Stirpe
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy (ARAP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0527.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: It appears that once a facility meets the threshold for reporting, there is no process
for self-removal if the threshold is no longer met. We believe that there should be a procedure
that allows an entity or facility to remove itself from the reporting requirements if the threshold
is no longer met.
Response: See the preamble for the response on reporting frequency and provisions to cease
reporting. See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 9
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0530.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: NGC believes that the EPA's proposed "once in, always in" reporting requirement
does not match the Agency's goal of producing useful information while minimizing excessive
administrative costs. NGC recommends that facilities that are below the reporting threshold
continuously for three consecutive years should no longer be subject to reporting requirements.
Three years of below-threshold reporting data should provide EPA with sufficient information
about greenhouse gas production trends while avoiding the imposition of perpetual reporting
requirements regardless of emission production levels.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Robert Rouse
Commenter Affiliation: The Dow Chemical Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0533.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The proposed rule contains a "once in, always in" requirement, whereby once a
facility is subject to reporting under the rule, it is always subject to the rule even if emissions
drop below the threshold quantities. As EPA indicated, this requirement removes an incentive for
facilities to reduce their emissions by continuing to burden them with GHG reporting
requirements. Additional inclusion or exclusion of facilities and these low emission levels will
not materially affect the total amount of emissions reported. Dow recognizes that there will be
some year-to-year variability in the emission quantities from any site. As such, Dow supports the
use of the California reporting rule provision that excludes a facility from reporting if its annual
emissions over a consecutive 3-year period are below the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
194
-------
Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0537.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The "once in, always in" nature of EPA's proposed reporting registry, which never
releases facilities from the program if they reduce their emissions below the reporting threshold,
will discourage companies from voluntarily making GHG cuts in advance of a nationwide
climate regime. This approach seems to contradict the contemplated cap-and-trade programs
which may offer incentives for early emission cuts, including the allocation of extra emission
credits.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Wesley L. McNealy
Commenter Affiliation: Pepco Holdings, Inc. (PHI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0547.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: PHI asks that EPA review the annual reporting requirement and provide businesses
with an opportunity to opt out of the annual reporting cycle provided they meet a minimum
emissions threshold for the source categories for which they are reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Ilyse Schuman
Commenter Affiliation: Medical Imaging and Technology Alliance (MITA), a division of The
Assoc. for Elec. & Medical Imag. Manufacturers (AEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0550.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Subsection 98.2(g) (74 FR 16613) states that if a facility or company becomes
subject to the reporting, they are required to report for all subsequent years even if they later
reduce their use/imports/exports/emissions of GHGs below reporting thresholds. This
requirement would provide little, if any, incentive for companies to reduce their GHG emissions
and place an unfair burden on companies that take steps toward emission reduction. MITA urges
the Agency to consider setting criteria which, if met, would relieve companies of their reporting
requirement, such as two consecutive years of emissions below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
195
-------
Commenter Name: Delaine W. Shane
Commenter Affiliation: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0551.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: EPA is proposing a once-in, always-in reporting requirement, although entities may
have successfully reduced emissions to levels below the threshold triggers for reporting. In lieu
of this, we recommend that if an entity is under the emissions threshold for three consecutive
years, then they have an option not to report, and they then notify EPA of this reduction and
reason for not reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth
Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: EPA proposes that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would continue
to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years. (74 Fed.
Reg. at 16,470). At the same time, EPA argues that the purpose of the reporting threshold is to
exclude small sources from reporting. This goal appears to be at odds with the "once in, always
in" provision proposed by EPA. EPA's reporting requirements should incentivize industry to
reduce emissions below the reporting threshold by eliminating reporting after they have
documented significant reductions through improved technology or production changes.
Smithfield believes there should be a reporting "off ramp," whereby facilities are not subject to
the rule following a process change or the installation of controls that permanently reduces GHG
emissions, such as covering an anaerobic wastewater processing facility. Companies often
change capacity, processes, even products produced, and should not be forced to continue
reporting when such changes lower GHG emissions below thresholds.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: James B. Martin
Commenter Affiliation: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0554.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA proposes that once subject to this reporting rule, a facility or supply operation
would continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
Colorado supports this to the extent it provides a meaningful benefit for managing greenhouse
gas emissions information, or otherwise makes sense as a necessary element of a future
emissions trading program. If there is overlap with a cap-and-trade program, it might be
important to understand the baseline and reduced emissions of a source, if that is not obviated by
the separate mechanics of the emissions trading program. That said, EPA should consider
whether it makes sense to include a provision that allows for terminating a reporting obligation if
196
-------
a source falls below the threshold for an extended period of time (e.g., 3-5 years), or if the
reporter no longer controls, owns, and/or operates the source.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Kiley
Commenter Affiliation: Northeast Gas Association (NGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0558.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Like AGA, we urge EPA to allow facilities that are below the reporting threshold
continuously for three consecutive years to be no longer subject to reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Thomas M. Ward
Commenter Affiliation: Novelis Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0561.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The EPA GHG reporting protocol includes provision for all eligible sources to
commence reporting emissions in 2011 for the 2010 calendar year, or whenever a facility first
becomes eligible thereafter. There is no provision proposed for facilities to stop reporting either
when (a) emissions fall below the threshold for reporting (for non-listed industries), or (b) when
a facility is curtailed. As written, the rule could be interpreted to mean that once a facility begins
reporting, annual reports are always required thereafter regardless of the state of emissions from
the facility, or even its existence. We believe the once-in-always-in rule is an extremely
burdensome and unnecessary provision. Facilities that no longer exceed the reasonable threshold
of emissions for reporting would never-the-less be bounded to report, while other exempt
competitors would not be required to report. Not only is this provision inequitable, it risks the
Law of Unintended Consequences, in that it regrettably serve as a disincentive for facilities to cut
emissions if the extra cost provides no benefits in reporting or reducing regulatory burdens. In
addition, legal questions remain for the once-in-always-in reporting requirement if facilities are
permanently shut-down, dismantled or converted to other types of business. What happens under
the proposed rule then? Is the new 'owner' bound to report for a non-existing emission from a
non-existing source? In light of the above, Novelis recommends that EPA revise the reporting
provisions to include a provision that exempts reporting facilities from future reporting when
emissions fall below threshold reporting levels for some specified period of time. For example,
under the California Mandatory GHG Reporting requirements, facilities that demonstrate three
consecutive years of lower than threshold emission reporting are then exempt from further
reporting, unless emissions increase again above threshold levels. We endorse such a provision
in the EPA protocol, although believe that the reporting exemption should be triggered when
facility emissions drop below threshold levels for a period of one year. The proposed rule should
be further revised to clarify those facilities that are permanently curtailed and no longer operating
should be exempt from reporting in the following year.
197
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Glenn Hamer
Commenter Affiliation: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0564.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The Arizona Chamber suggests that annual reporting requirements for facilities that
no longer meet the reporting threshold is an additional, unnecessary regulatory burden and
subjects the facility to potential enforcement action. Proposed Solution: As an alternative
solution, the Arizona Chamber believes that facilities that fall below the GHG reporting
threshold should be required to report that fact to EPA in the applicable reporting year on a
separate EPA form that must be submitted, signed and certified by the designated representative
in accordance with usual GHG Reporting Form. After the submission of the separate EPA form,
no other GHG Reports would be due from the facility unless and until the GHG reporting
threshold is subsequently exceeded by the facility.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Chris Hornback
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0566.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The current proposal contemplates a 'once in, always in' approach to reporting. If a
facility trips the threshold once, it will always be required to report. NACWA believes this type
of provision is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of EPA's climate programs - to reduce
greenhouse gases. NACWA recommends that the proposal include an opt-out provision for
facilities that reduce their GHG emissions below the threshold in the future. California's program
allows facilities to discontinue reporting if they are below the threshold for three consecutive
reporting cycles. Some of NACWA's members are undergoing plant upgrades or other
enhancements that will dramatically reduce their GHG emissions in the next few years. While
they may trip the threshold now, they are targeting an annual emissions rate many times smaller
in the near future. These facilities should be able to demonstrate that they are below the threshold
and opt out of future reporting unless, for some unanticipated reason, they increase emissions
and trip the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Bryan L. Brendle
Commenter Affiliation: National Association of Manufacturers
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0572.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
198
-------
Comment: Given the manufacturing sector's demonstrated track record of steadily reducing the
energy intensity of its operations and voluntary participation in reporting programs, the NAM is
especially concerned with the EPA's lack of flexibility with respect to the "once-in, always-in"
provision included in its proposal. According to the terms of the proposed rule, once EPA tracks
emissions from a given facility, that facility must continue to report for each of the following
years, even if the facility no longer meets the established threshold criteria. Such a policy would
eliminate incentives for manufacturing operations to reduce their GHG emissions in order to
reduce the costs, enforcement risks, paperwork and personnel requirements that will accompany
mandatory reporting. By providing a disincentive to reduce emissions, the EPA undermines the
broader policy objectives of eventually slowing, stopping and reducing GHG emissions in the
U.S. EPA has also failed to consider scenarios whereby a facility downsizes, significantly
retrofits or alters the nature of its operations, or shuts down altogether. Under any of the above
scenarios, personnel and resources may not be available to monitor or report GHG emissions
under a complex, new, federal regulatory scheme.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Theresa Pfeifer
Commenter Affiliation: Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0574.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: The proposed rule requires that once a facility exceeds the threshold limit, it must
continue to report even if their GHG emissions are eventually reduced and are under the
threshold. The District recommends a provision for facilities that reduce their GHG emissions
below the threshold in the future to be excluded from future reporting requirements. This may
encourage plants to upgrade facilities or implement enhancements to reduce their GHG
emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kathleen Tobin
Commenter Affiliation: Verizon Communications, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0575.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: The EPA has requested comments on the "Once In, Always In Provision". Verizon
supports having an exemption from reporting once the facility has fallen below the threshold for
three years similar to California's provision. The exemption should be automatic after three
subsequent emission reports indicate that the facility has fallen below the threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
199
-------
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: 6
Comment: EPA requests comments on whether EPA should develop a similar process as
California's for reporting that allow facilities to drop out after three years of annual reporting
with actual emissions below the threshold for reporting. And if this is allowed, should it be
automatic or should the facility need to request they be allowed to drop out and receive approval
from EPA before annual reporting is no longer required. SD DENR recommends that facilities
be allowed to drop out if their annual emissions are less than the reporting threshold. It has been
our experience that if you provide incentives, facilities will respond favorably and the ultimate
goal of reducing greenhouse gases will be achieved by some facilities just to forgo reporting. The
once-in-always-in attitude prohibits this. To alleviate any concerns on facilities that are on the
border, EPA could require those facilities that drop below the threshold but are within 90 percent
need to continue reporting. For those facilities that drop below 90 percent, EPA could stage how
fast they can drop out such as between 90 and greater than 50 percent it takes three consecutive
years before they can drop out but any source that reduces to 50 percent or less is allowed to
drop out that year. This would allow EPA to continue to receive data from the larger emitters of
CC>2e and provide incentives for those that want to reduce C02e emissions to avoid reporting.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Craig Head
Commenter Affiliation: Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation (NFBF)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0578.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: We would encourage EPA to modify the rule to eliminate the need for facilities that
report once to continue to report, if their emissions fall below the mandatory reporting threshold.
Obligating operations to continue to provide reports once modifications have been made to their
operation to reduce their GHG emissions below the threshold will only place unnecessary costs
and burden on the operation and goes beyond the mandate of the authorizing legislation.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Paul Glader
Commenter Affiliation: Hecla Mining Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0579.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The proposed reporting rule would require facilities to monitor and report emissions
every year once a facility produces emissions over the applicable threshold. This provision will
eliminate incentives for mining operations to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, such a
provision will be inappropriately burdensome for mining operations that dramatically reduce,
200
-------
postpone or eliminate production activities from year to year following spikes in production or
one-time activities that are especially typical in certain aspects of mining. Reporting should not
be required when production decreases dramatically, mills or beneficiation circuits shut down, or
other factors cause emissions to drop below the ultimate reporting threshold (i.e. 25,000 -
100,000 mt CC>2e per year). The logic for the "once in always in" provision is not clear. Facilities
should be encouraged to reduce emissions below the threshold and not be required to report as
long as they remain under the threshold. EPA should develop a better approach which would
release facilities from reporting requirements if they demonstrate that emissions fell under the
threshold for a certain period of time such as two years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jeff A. Myrom
Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0581.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Facilities should be exempt from reporting the first full year after permanent closure
of the facility. Such an exemption is granted for underground coal mines in subpart FF.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Jeff A. Myrom
Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0581.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: Similar to CARB, an incentive should be given to reporters to become exempt from
reporting by reducing facility emissions below the applicable reporting thresholds for three
consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Curtis J. Winner
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Gas Company (NMGC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0585
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
Comment: NMGC feels that reporting should only be required for those years that a facility is
over the reporting threshold. For onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities, the
amount of time compressors run is dependent on weather and market factors determining the sale
of gas. These are out of the company's control. The result is that in some years a facility may
reach the 25,000 Mt threshold while most years it may not come near the threshold.
201
-------
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. With respect to natural gas operations, 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 Yanek
Commenter Affiliation: Glass Association of North America (GANA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0586.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: EPA proposes that once a facility is subject to EPA's reporting rule because it emits
GHG above the designated threshold, that facility must continue to submit annual emissions
reports to EPA even though its GHG emissions may fall below the reporting threshold in
subsequent years. 74 Fed. Reg. at 16470. The stated rationale for the proposed "once in, always
in" policy is that EPA wants to position itself to "track trends in emissions and understand factors
that influence emissions levels." Id. Despite this laudable objective, EPA recognizes that its
implementation could have adverse repercussions for the environment, serving "as a disincentive
for some facilities to reduce their emissions." Id. EPA notes that California, concerned about this
same negative repercussion, exempts facilities from future reporting once they have achieved
three consecutive years of emission levels below the regulatory threshold. GANA fully supports
this alternative and urges EPA to adopt it for the very reason that CARB created the exception to
its own mandatory state reporting program. This exception or waiver would serve as another
material inducement or incentive for emissions sources to implement internal programs to reduce
GHG emissions. GANA urges EPA to keep the exception simple to administer: three consecutive
years below the threshold for a specific facility automatically exempts the facility from future
reporting unless and until the facility returns to emission levels above the threshold. The facility
should not have to apply for an exemption. When the federal program begins, facilities currently
below the threshold will not be required to apply for an exemption from reporting emissions in
order to avoid reporting. Why should a facility subject to mandatory reporting have to formally
apply for an exemption once its emissions are no longer above the reporting threshold?
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Susan Eckerly
Commenter Affiliation: National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) andNFIB Small
Business Legal Center
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0587.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: The "once in, always in" requirement will be especially frustrating for small
businesses. This provision will trap many small businesses that should not be reporting every
year. Under the proposed rule, once a business reports emissions the firm must continue
reporting indefinitely. The policy is simply unfair and oblivious to reality. The rule may pose a
perverse dilemma to a small business: grow and report, or forgo growth to avoid the expense of
reporting. It is unfair to force a small business to choose whether to expand production enough to
breach the threshold, which will commit them to reporting for years into the future even if their
202
-------
production and emissions subsequently drop. Once under the reporting regime, businesses may
stop trying to reduce their emissions because there is no financial reason to do so. Without an
incentive to lower emissions, such as relief from reporting, small businesses will continue their
present emissions or add to their emissions.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Keith Overcash
Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0588
Comment Excerpt Number: 15
Comment: We disagree with the "once in-always in" policy for GHG reporting. This policy
provides a disincentive for facilities to reduce emissions, and creates additional reporting without
adding value to the percent of emissions captured. Such a policy is inconsistent with the
threshold as it serves to lower the threshold. It would be preferable to start with lower thresholds.
If the goal of the threshold is to capture a certain percent of the emissions, the once-in-always-in
policy is inconsistent with this goal. Tracking emission sources that have changed ownership but
still have to be reported even if the new owner has not exceeded the reporting threshold will be
difficult if not impossible. Database will have to be designed to accept emission source data from
equipment that has been sold and a facility-wide total for facilities that exceed the reporting
threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Alison A. Keane
Commenter Affiliation: National Paint & Coatings Association, Inc. (NPCA/FSCT)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0593.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA is proposing that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, it would
continue to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years.
NPCA opposes this provision and it is contradictory with EPA's stated intent of collecting data
from consistent and complete populations and not those that are varying over time. In addition, it
is not consistent with EPA's policy of Pollution Prevention (P2), source reduction and lower
emissions. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 states that "there are significant opportunities
for industry to reduce or prevent pollution at the source through cost -effective changes in
production, operation, and raw materials use. The opportunities for source reduction are often not
realized because existing regulations, and the industrial resources they require for compliance,
focus upon treatment and disposal, rather than source reduction; and existing regulations do not
emphasize multi-media management of pollution." [Footnote: 42 USC section 133, 42 USC
section 13101(a)(2) and (3).] The Act declared P2 to be national policy and directed EPA to
establish and promote P2 activities. Despite this mandate, and the overarching goal of reducing
air pollution, this rule provides facilities with no incentive to reduce their emissions. As EPA
states in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, the provision acts as a disincentive for facilities to
reduce their emissions, since even if they fall below threshold levels (i.e., become minor
203
-------
sources), they will still be subject to costly and burdensome testing, recordkeeping and reporting
provisions. This rulemaking is intended to provide EPA with baseline GHG emissions from
major sources in order to craft future emission standards, it is likely that these sources will either
be used to set standards when they are not truly reflective of major sources and/or be regulated
even though they are below major source thresholds. Neither outcome is appropriate. Thus,
NPCA request that EPA not adopt a once-in, always-in policy in the final reporting rule and
instead only co llect data on those sources that are actually above the emissions threshold in the
calendar year for which the report is due. If over NPCA's objection, EPA does finalize the
rulemaking with requirements for facilities that fall below threshold levels, NPCA suggests at
least implementing California's reporting rule provision that would exclude a facility from
reporting requirements when emissions from that facility drop below threshold levels over a
three year period. While EPA would still be collecting inconsistent and varying data from these
facilities, at least it would not be doing so indefinitely and there would be some incentive for
these facilities to engage in a voluntary reduction of emissions before any standards are
implemented.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: R. Skip Horvath
Commenter Affiliation: Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0594.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: NGSA recommends that the EPA change the "Once in, always in" reporting rule.
Under EPA's proposal, once a facility triggers the reporting threshold, it must report for the life
of the facility, even if it successfully reduces GHG emissions below the threshold in a later year.
NGSA urges EPA to allow facilities that are below the reporting threshold continuously for three
consecutive years to be no longer subject to reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
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: 5
Comment: Facilities that reduce their emissions should still be expected to report their
emissions, in order to achieve consistent data, to reduce the incentive to under-report, and to
maintain incentives to continue reducing emissions over time.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
204
-------
Commenter Name: None
Commenter Affiliation: Vectren Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0597
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Under EPA's proposal, once a facility triggers the reporting threshold, it can never
escape the burden of reporting, even if it successfully reduces GHG emissions below the
threshold in a later year. Vectren believes the agency is in effect negating a powerful incentive
for a facility to reduce GHG reductions - to get the facility out of the reporting program and
reduce operating costs attributable to the reporting protocols. Instead, we urge EPA to allow
facilities that are below the reporting threshold continuously for three consecutive years to be no
longer subject to reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Chris Korleski
Commenter Affiliation: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0598.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: However, Ohio EPA does not agree with the full set of reporting scheduling
requirements in the proposed rule. U.S. EPA proposes to require a source that is subject to the
reporting rule to continue to report GHG emissions indefinitely even if the source falls below the
reporting thresholds in future years. It is Ohio EPA's opinion that there should be some
flexibility built into the proposed rule for when a source reduces emissions below a certain
percentage, a source shuts down, or a source emits GHG emission below 25,000 metric tons of
C02e over a period of time. For example if a source is emitting 30,000 metric tons of C02e and
then puts controls on their facility or experiences shut down that results in lower emissions of
50% then the source would only be emitting 15,000 metric tons of C02e for the life of the
facility but would still be required to report GHG emissions indefinitely. Rather, Ohio EPA
suggests that U.S. EPA be more flexible for sources that reduce their emissions below a certain
percentage under the 25,000 metric tons of C02e threshold (E.g., 20%-50% below 25,000 metric
tons of C02e) or is below the applicable threshold by any percentage for a period of time (e.g., 3
years).
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Ram K. Singhal
Commenter Affiliation: Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0600
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: It appears that EPA thinks there should be a "once in/always in" policy that applies
to GHG Emissions Reporting. EPA members believe that would be unreasonable and improper,
if only for the fact that there are no GHG control requirements that are applicable, and even if
there were such requirements in the future, whether a piece of control equipment is required is a
205
-------
function of what is being produced at a plant, not the control or the reporting requirement itself.
If in any given year, a facility emits less than 25,000 tons of GHG, it should be able to certify
and submit a notification or negative declaration that the rule is not applicable to that facility.
Moreover, if a plant's production processes change, it should be able to file after three years a
declaration that the facility is no longer covered by the reporting requirements and cease to file
reports thereafter unless or until, it HG emissions exceed the 25,000 ton applicability level again.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Matthew Molinaro
Commenter Affiliation: Ecolab Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0602.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: We strongly urge modifying the rule to allow eventual cessation of reporting
obligations if a facility can demonstrate sustained greenhouse gas reduction below the reporting
threshold. This provides a meaningful incentive for emitters to find innovative ways to reduce
their emissions and sustain those reductions, rather than penalizing facilities for their current
state by imposing the burden of reporting emissions indefinitely.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Sarah B. King
Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0604.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: EPA has proposed that once a facility is subject to reporting under §98, the facility
would always be required to report even if it drops below the emission thresholds. Such a
requirement policy removes a significant incentive for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions.
DuPont recommends the adoption of a provision that would exclude a facility from reporting
when the emissions are below the thresholds in §98(a)(l) or (2) for each of three consecutive
years. This is similar to a provision under the California GHG emissions reporting rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Skiles W. Boyd
Commenter Affiliation: DTE Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0606.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: Once in, Always in ConceptDTE Energy opposes the "Once in, Always in" concept.
EPA should provide incentives to companies to reduce emissions, not punish them with a costly,
administrative reporting burden for facilities that fall below the proposed threshold. Companies
206
-------
that do take economic measures to reduce emissions below threshold should be rewarded by not
having to report. As new discoveries and technologies develop which will certainly refine GHG
emissions reporting, EPA should allow companies to utilize this new information and as needed
remove reporting obligations for facilities that fall below the established threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Dana Blume
Commenter Affiliation: Port of Houston Authority (PHA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0607.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: The EPA requested comments relating to reporting disincentives for reducing
emissions. The PHA believes that not having to report GHG emissions under the proposed rule
after voluntarily reducing GHG emissions would be a valuable incentive for entities. Therefore,
the PHA requests that EPA develop an exemption for reporting if the facility has emissions
under the threshold for three consecutive years.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Linda D. Sullivan
Commenter Affiliation: National Grid
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0608.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: National Grid objects to the "once in, always in" provisions of the proposed rule.
However, National Grid recognizes that the NPRM is intended to provide US EPA with a broad
range of data to support future flexible policy-making. Therefore, we support a rule in which a
facility can move out of the reporting scheme if its emissions fall below the threshold for three
consecutive years. This would allow the US EPA to still have data from all facilities that emit
above 25,000 mt annually. For facilities that are just above the threshold level, this provides an
incentive to take steps to reduce emissions. This approach is consistent with reporting
requirements of the Toxic Release Inventory ("TRI"), where reporting obligations apply only to
facilities that meet the TRI reporting criteria in the preceding calendar year. See 40 C.F.R. §
372.22.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
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: 8
207
-------
Comment: EPA should reward a facility that reduces emissions below the reporting threshold
for two consecutive years by exempting the facility from subsequent reporting, absent operating
changes.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Andrew C. Lawrence
Commenter Affiliation: Department of Energy (DOE)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0612.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The proposed rule, in 98.2(g), requires a facility that is subject to the rule to continue
to submit annual reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in future years. This
position does not encourage changes in operations or the use of innovative technologies in order
to reduce emissions below the reporting threshold levels. OE believes that this provision acts as a
disincentive for reducing emissions and that EPA should develop a process for this rule whereby
facilities that reduce their emissions may be exempted from further reporting. Relieving facility
owners and operators who have actively pursued emission reduction efforts of the obligation of
continuing to comply with the GHG reporting requirements provides a tangible incentive for
facilities to pursue existing and innovative techniques and technologies to reduce emissions.
DOE recommends that EPA modify the rule to allow facilities that reduce their emissions below
threshold levels and maintain them below the thresholds for three consecutive years to be exempt
from further reporting, as long as emissions remain below the thresholds.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Michael Carlson
Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615
Comment Excerpt Number: 4
Comment: We are opposed to the ill-conceived "once in-always in" provision of the proposed
rule (16462, 16470). If a facility should fall below a reporting threshold for a particular source
category for whatever reason, the facility should not be required to submit a report in subsequent
years. In this economy facilities are eliminating operations regularly. E.g., an industry with one
wastewater treatment plant which reported GHG emissions for this category might eliminate this
operation in a subsequent year. It is ridiculous to mandate that the facility continue to report zero
emissions for this category. Moreover, the provision is inconsistent with other complex EPA
reporting programs, e.g., Toxic Release Inventory under the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to-Know Act
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
208
-------
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: 16
Comment: The EPA should seriously consider revising the currently proposed "once in, always
in" approach. The ability to exit the reporting program once actual emissions are consistently
below applicable thresholds would likely provide some real incentive for facilities to reduce their
potential/permitted GHG emissions. Such a flexible approach could still require that certain
criteria be met and that any facility that becomes exempt from reporting remains subject to a
duty to re-evaluate its GHG emissions on an ongoing basis to support continued exclusion from
the reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Kyle Pitsor
Commenter Affiliation: National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0621.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The NEMA Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee understands the EPA's
intent to collect annually GHG emissions data to accurately assess the effect such aggregated
emissions have on the environment and public health. However, the NEMA
Carbon/Manufactured Graphite EHS Committee opposes the requirement in Subpart A, §98.2(g)
which states that "once a facility or supplier is subject to the requirements of this part, the owners
and operators of the facility or supply operation must continue for each year thereafter to comply
with all requirements of this part, including the requirement to submit GHG emissions reports,
even if the facility or supplier does not meet the applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of
this section in a future year." This section also requires continued reporting for GHG emitting
sources even if the facility changes ownership. This "once in, always in" approach offers
facilities no way to opt out of the GHG emissions reporting program if they reduce emissions
below the reporting threshold. This may actually be a disincentive for facilities to reduce the
amount of GHGs emitted in advance of a nationwide climate program. While a future cap-and-
trade regime to reduce GHG emissions may offer incentives for early cuts (e.g., the allocation of
extra emission credits), the EPA's proposed GHG reporting requirements do not offer any
incentives to facilities for reducing GHGs now.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. Please see section V of the preamble and the volume entitled "Collection,
Management and Dissemination of GHG Data" of the response to comments documents for
information about regarding change in ownership.
Commenter Name: Kevin Wanttaja
Commenter Affiliation: Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0623.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
209
-------
Comment: Within the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA requests comment on including a
"commitment to review the continued need for the information at a specific later date, or a sunset
provision". Under the proposed rule, once a facility is subject to the reporting rule, the facility
would continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reporting threshold in future years.
SRP believes that if the operations of a facility that is subject to reporting under this rule fall
below the threshold then the reporting requirement should be modified. If a facility that is subject
to reporting greenhouse gases under this rule falls below the threshold then that facility should
continue to report greenhouse gas emissions for a period of three consecutive years. If reported
emissions are less that the reporting threshold during the three consecutive year period, then the
owner or operator of the facility shall be exempted from further reporting until emissions once
again exceed the threshold. This requirement is currently being applied in California's AB32
Mandatory Reporting Rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Randall R. LaBauve
Commenter Affiliation: Florida Power & Light (FPL) Group
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0624.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: 98.2(g) of the proposed rule requires that "[o]nce a facility or supplier is subject to
the requirements of this part, the owners and operators of the facility or supply operation must
continue for each year thereafter to comply with all requirements of this part, including the
requirement to submit GHG emission reports, even if the facility or supplier does not meet the
applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of this section in a future year." FPL Group believes
that this once-in-always-in provision should be amended to allow facilities to avoid reporting in
future years if they have reduced their GHG emissions to a level below the applicability
requirements. The once-in-always-in requirement of proposed 98.2 fails to provide any incentive
for facilities to reduce their GHG emissions. However, the opportunity to escape the monitoring
and reporting burdens would offer facilities a meaningful incentive to reduce their GHG
emissions, Creation of an exit mechanism that would allow proactive facilities to lessen their
regulatory burden by reducing their emissions below the proposed rule's established reporting
thresholds would offer facilities a meaningful incentive to reduce their GHG emissions.
Accordingly, FPL Group supports the alternative option provided by EPA, which is similar to the
approach adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Under CARB's mandatory
GHG reporting program, a facility that has emissions under the threshold for three consecutive
years has the opportunity to exempt itself from the reporting program. FPL Group requests that
EPA include an exit mechanism similar to that utilized by CARB when developing its final GHG
reporting requirements.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Sam Chamberlain
Commenter Affiliation: Murphy Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0625
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
210
-------
Comment: EPA is proposing that once a facility is over the applicability threshold and is
included in the program it will continue to report even though its GHG emissions might drop
below the applicability threshold. The provision of "once in, always in" could potentially act as a
disincentive for some facilities to reduce their emissions because under this proposal those
facilities that did lower their emissions below the threshold would have to continue to report.
EPA is requesting comment on whether EPA should develop a process, similar to that available
in the California GHG mandatory reporting program: "Comments should include specifics on
how the exemption process could work, e.g., the number of years a facility is under the threshold
before they could be exempt, the quantity of emissions reductions required before a facility could
be exempt, whether a facility should formally apply to EPA for an exemption or if it is
automatic, etc". (74 FR 68, page 16470) Murphy's processes are continually changing. The
concept of "once in, always in' seems arbitrary and capricious. The following situations could
cause a corporation to emit less than the threshold, which include but are not limited to: selling
of assets, shutdown assets, process technology enhancements, equipment replacement/upgrade,
installation of emission control equipment, extension of shutdown schedules (reduced annual
emissions for startup and shutdown), etc. EPA must provide a fair and equitable mechanism for
exiting from the reporting program. There is absolutely no incentive to reduce emissions if EPA
holds true to this philosophy of "once in, always in"! In fact, EPA should conduct a statistical
analysis of what would be an appropriate threshold level to exit the reporting requirements. Once
a facility or corporation exits the reporting requirements then perhaps they would only submit a
one line total amount of C02e emitted per year. Murphy would support a 100,000 tonnes C02e
threshold exit level with a requirement to report only one number a year if emissions are greater
than 25,000 tonnes but less than 100,000 tonnes C02e. Murphy recommends the EPA consider
an exit criterion, such as facility emissions that are demonstrated to be under the applicability
threshold for three consecutive years. In addition, EPA could also provide for periodic status
review by establishing clear criteria that would spell out under what circumstances facilities
should revisit their emissions. Another exit criteria proposed by Murphy is that EPA consider
allowing a facility to exit should its corporate or facility emissions decrease below 100,000
tonnes C02e /year.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. See the preamble section II.E for the response on the threshold to report.
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: 4
Comment: EPA needs to eliminate the proposed "Once In, Always In" policy in the proposed
rulemaking. This policy is illogical on its face, and results in continuous burdens on regulated
entities as their level of business activity decreases. Requiring businesses experiencing financial
hardships sufficient to cause GHG emissions to drop below the threshold to continue to bear the
burden of GHG reporting adds insult to injury.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
211
-------
Commenter Name: MelindaL. Tomaino
Commenter Affiliation: Associated General Contractors of America (AGC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0628.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: In the proposed rule, EPA has identified specific source categories wherein all of the
facilities that have that particular source of emissions within their boundaries would be subject to
the proposed rule, regardless of the amount of annual emissions. These source categories include
large operations such as petroleum refineries, power plants, Portland cement plants, landfills, etc.
Once subject to the rule, facilities will be required to continue reporting annually, even if in
future years they reduce their emissions to below the reporting thresholds. AGC suggests that the
continuous reporting requirement—regardless of the amount of emissions—for all facilities
within a specific source category and those facilities that no longer have annual emissions within
the reporting threshold discourages voluntary reductions in emissions and increases the
compliance burden for those facilities which are on the margins of reporting. Facilities that do
not emit the threshold amount of metric typ C02e should not be required to report. EPA should
establish a provision by which facilities that maintain emissions below the threshold for a
determined amount of time would then no longer need to submit annual reports, even if they fall
within one of the specific source categories. The "once-in, always in" provision increases the
compliance burden on those facilities that, if following the established threshold of emissions,
normally would not have to report.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: FilipaRio
Commenter Affiliation: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0630.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 30
Comment: EPA has proposed that once a facility is subject to this reporting rule, a facility or
supply operation must continue to submit reports even if it falls below the reporting thresholds in
future years. The Alliance opposes this particular requirement as it eliminates any incentive for
facilities to reduce emissions in order to eliminate the burden of reporting. Presumably, the
primary reason EPA has included this "once in, always in" provision is to maintain the ability to
track trends for purposes of analyzing policy. However, the relative number of facilities that
would potentially fall below the reporting threshold is expected to be minimal, as are the total
emissions of these facilities. Additionally, a number of facilities that are originally not reportable
will become reportable in the future due to increased emissions, and thus, the trends will be
skewed. Under either scenario, the trends could easily be adjusted to add or remove facilities
from the baseline or prior reporting years. This will ensure that a comparison of emissions data
from the same facilities remains consistent, thus supporting the ability to track trends for policy
analysis at any point in time. It also does not appear EPA has considered situations where a
facility has downsized, ceased production, or temporarily shut down. Under any of these
scenarios, the resources and personnel may no longer be available to support the ongoing
reporting obligations. This result would not make sense, especially in a situation where a
facility's emissions are well below the reporting threshold. The premise of a "once in, always in"
policy has been applied to other CAA requirements, but not always successfully. For example,
under EPA's 1995 "once in, always in" policy, a source remained subject to a MACT standard
212
-------
indefinitely. The policy was burdensome for sources that had eliminated HAP emissions. EPA
itself acknowledged that the "once in, always in" policy for MACT was unreasonable, and in
January 2007 proposed amendments to the MACT regulations to allow sources to become minor,
"non-MACT" sources. The concept of not having to report emissions because a facility is below
a certain threshold is not new and has, in fact, been endorsed and implemented by many states
across the country as part of their annual emissions inventory requirements. Those states have
established criteria outlining circumstances under which a facility no longer needs to report (e.g.,
the facility falls below a certain threshold). This approach was also recently endorsed by other
GHG reporting programs in various capacities, including the Western Climate Initiative ("WCI")
and California Air Resources Board ("CARB") programs, both of which provide a 3 year "exit
ramp," and the Government of Canada's Mandatory GHG Reporting Program, which allows
reporters to "drop out" at any point in time. Alternatively, we propose that a facility not be
required to report on any given year when actual emissions are less than the reporting threshold.
The reporter would be required to maintain supporting documentation and submit a signed
certification that emissions are below the reporting threshold, but for only the first year in which
its emissions are no longer reportable.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Karen St. John
Commenter Affiliation: BP America Inc. (BP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0631.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: EPA has expressed its preference for adopting a "Once In, Always In" provision in
the reporting rule. Regardless of how much a source reduces its emissions, under the proposed
rule the source would still need to maintain the same equipment, monitor and collect the same
emissions data and report it to EPA on an annual basis. First, BP believes that the "Once In,
Always In" provision would eliminate an incentive for industrial operations to reduce their GHG
emissions. Facilities that have lowered their emissions through efficiency and emission reduction
programs would maintain the same high cost of complying as high emitters. Second, within the
oil and gas sector, emissions can decline naturally over time when production/reservoirs decline
and eventually equipment is taken out of operation. There should not be a requirement to
continue submitting GHG emissions reports to EPA when activities have declined resulting in
GHG emissions falling below the reporting threshold.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, 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: Verne Shortell
Commenter Affiliation: NRG Energy, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0634.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 1
213
-------
Comment: The proposed rule requires that once a facility or supplier must report, it must
continue reporting every year, even if the facility or supplier no longer meets the applicability
requirements. An exit mechanism, as opposed to "once in always in," should be available. As
stated in the preamble, continued reporting is a disincentive for facilities to reduce their
emissions. For a facility that has emissions under the threshold for three consecutive years,
California's CARB offers the opportunity to opt out of the reporting program. [Footnote: §95103
(e) p 28 Cessation of Reporting After Reduced Emissions] It is recommended that the EPA
develop a similar process for the EPA Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: See Table 16
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0635
Comment Excerpt Number: 37
Comment: For this reason, EPA is also correct to eschew an opt-out system for certain facilities.
The same considerations that drive long-term data collection generally - assessing policy effects
over time, providing a robust information foundation for the carbon market, and so on - also
justify continuing data collection from all facilities, including those which may eventually fall
below the threshold, [footnote: See GAO, Lessons Learned from the European Union's
Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism at 17-20,
26-27.]. As EPA correctly explains, the thresholds are designed to exclude truly small sources,
far below the threshold values, from the outset. They are not intended, however, to set a hard
lower bound on the limits of policy-relevant data. Sources large enough to trigger the thresholds
initially continue to be of policy interest; tracking their emissions over time will be a primary
metric for policymakers evaluating emissions reductions programs. As EPA notes, this data
"would be most useful if the population of reporting sources is consistent, complete and not
varying in time. EPA nonetheless raises the possibility that this 'once in, always in' rule could
create a disincentive for facilities to reduce their emissions, suggesting that this disincentive may
justify excluding some sources if their reductions sufficiently diminish. This concern is not
realistic. According to EPA's own analysis, the rule's average cost-to-sales ratio for nearly all
sectors is at or below 0.1% and the average never rises above 1% of sales. Based on this data,
EPA concluded that "the proposed rule is unlikely to result in significant changes in firms'
production decisions or other behavioral changes." Conversely, costs of carbon reduction
regulations are designed to alter firm behavior. The strength of this incentive to reduce emissions
will be far stronger than any gossamer disincentive to reduce emissions that the 'once in, always
in' rule creates. Moreover, the cost to the regulatory system as a whole of losing a complete data
set is significant. Long-term data is necessary to chart emissions trends and assess policy. EPA
should stay the course and retain the 'once in, always in' rule over the indefinite life of the
reporting rule.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting.
214
-------
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: 7
Comment: APPA objects to the requirement that once facilities exceed the 25,000 metric ton
CC>2e threshold that they will be required to continue to report their GHG emissions even if they
fall below that threshold in the future. This issue is of particular concern to our membership
since many are smaller utilities with fewer than 50 employees whose emissions may be close to
the threshold. There can also be extraordinary circumstances that may cause emissions to exceed
the threshold in one year. APPA believes it is unreasonable to require those utilities to report
future emissions and bear the burden of those additional costs. An example of those
circumstances include one of our utility members which generally takes its baseload power from
a grid source, but was forced to operate its turbine generators for four weeks early this year when
an ice storm blanketed southern Missouri and severed two different high voltage lines coming
into the community. It would be unreasonable to force a small utility to undergo the costs
associated with data gathering, verification and reporting, simply because they provided
emergency power from generators placed into additional service because of an ice storm. APPA
recommends that emissions from generation that is used to replace power that becomes
unavailable during a period when a Governor or the President declares an emergency, a storm
designation, or FEMA event be exempt from reporting. Finally, what are the options for units
that may cease operations entirely or switch to lower-carbon fuels or increase efficiency so the
threshold no longer applies? EPA notes in the preamble the exception to the 'once in always in'
is granted to coal mines that no longer produce coal. While EGUs will not become abandoned as
EPA suggests inactive coal mines would become, a similar exemption to EGUs which are retired
should be granted. Other considerations EPA should make in determining exceptions to the
"once in always in" provisions are seasonal / temporary shutdowns. What if a utility undertakes a
voluntary program to phase out sufficient SF6 in their system so that their nameplate SF6
capacity falls below the reporting threshold? Incentives (including not having to report) should
be offered to encourage these approaches to reducing CO2 and other GHGs. APPA agrees with
EPA's premise that the once in, always in approach outlined in the rulemaking could have the
unintended impact of discouraging these approaches as the utility could not receive any cost
savings by no longer having to report GHG emissions. Therefore, APPA suggests that if a
facility falls below reporting thresholds, that it should be exempt from reporting until the facility
again exceeds the reporting thresholds. Examples of such circumstances could include facilities
idled, retired, or that undertake emission reduction project such as fuel switching, efficiency or
install control technology, etc. APPA further suggests that rule be amended to take into account
the impact of natural or man-made disasters, or allow exigent circumstances to be dealt with
effectively and efficiently while ensuring that general usage growth would be recognized. APPA
suggests that similar provisions be applied to utilities that do not generate electricity themselves
and are therefore reporting only their GHG emissions from SF6. If a utility can demonstrate that
their nameplate SF6 capacity has fallen below the threshold, they should be exempt from further
reporting, unless they again fall above the threshold in future years. This would be an easily
demonstrated standard as, unlike emissions from electricity generation, SF6 nameplate capacity
does not vary with hours of operation or other factors that would impact generation.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. At this time, EPA is not going final with the SF6 for electrical equipment
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.
215
-------
Commenter Name: J. Hermansky
Commenter Affiliation: Drexel University Earle Mack College of Law
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0239
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The notice of proposed rulemaking also states that once a facility is subject to the
reporting requirements because it meets the minimum emissions standards for reporting, the
facility must keep reporting GHG emissions even if it later falls below the minimum reporting
requirements. Certain businesses, which have positively reduced GHG emissions, remain subject
to the costs of the reporting program, as continued reporting will be required under the proposed
regulations. Thus, if the agency commits to review the continued need for the information at a
specific later date, as outlined in the regulation, it should establish standards for evaluating actual
reporting costs. This data can be used in developing new exemptions to the reporting
requirements, should the agency extend the reporting requirements pilot program.
Response: See the preamble section II.H for the response on reporting frequency and provisions
to cease reporting. EPA plans to re-evaluate the rule requirements as policies and programs
evolve. However, given the uncertainty over the exact nature and timing of those policies and
the types of data needed for decision-making or to implement new policies and regulatory
programs , it is not possible to establish a specific schedule at this time.
3. DURATION OF REPORTING PROGRAM
Commenter Name: Gregory A. Wilkins
Commenter Affiliation: Marathon Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Marathon supports a sunset provision for this rule. This is a reporting rule that is
designed (as stated on page 74 FR 16456 of the preamble) to "obtain data that is of sufficient
quality that it can he used to support a range of future climate change policies or regulations."
Marathon proposes that EPA should consider inserting language regarding that if and when a
legislative or regulatory approach is adopted for GHG emissions, that this reporting rule should
automatically expire, or that in three reporting cycles review and reevaluation of the value of the
reporting rule be conducted, whichever is sooner. The reporting rule should end once regulations
or a legislative policy is established because its usefulness as a reporting rule collecting data to
support future legislation or regulations has expired at the time the policy exists. Marathon asks
for this provision so as to not be forced to comply with both this reporting rule and another
program issued to meet the legislative or regulatory program that is developed. In addition, three
reporting cycles would show enough data to determine specific information about facilities or
sectors of industry to be used for any future policy purposes. Sunsetting this rule would reduce
the burden on industry while allowing enough information for stakeholders to make informed
decisions regarding GI-IG policy. In addition, EPA should be held to a requirement to at least
periodically review the requirements of this rule in a manner similar to how they are required to
periodically review the effectiveness of other rules.
216
-------
Response: During the development of the reporting rule, EPA considered limiting the duration
of the reporting program to either a single year of reporting or a multi-year program that would
sunset at a certain date in the future (e.g., after three years). EPA decided against the single year
reporting for two reasons. First, a multi-year program allows EPA to track trends in GHG
emissions and better understand the factors that influence GHG emission levels. Second,
previous experience with other CAA programs has shown that emissions data from a single year
is not always representative of normal operations, and hence emissions, for specific facilities. For
example, short-term fluctuations in economic conditions may temporarily affect the reported
emissions for a specific source category.
In deciding on a multi-year reporting program, EPA had to balance the burden a multi-year
reporting program places on industry against ensuring that data of sufficient quality and accuracy
are collected to support development and implementation of potential future GHG programs or
regulations developed under the CAA, including NSPS.
EPA decided not to include a sunset date for termination of the reporting program because
different policies and programs and the impact of future legislation on the duration of the
reporting rule is not known at this time. Given the uncertainty over the exact nature and timing
of those policies and the types of data needed for decision-making or to implement new policies
and regulatory programs it is not possible to establish a specific schedule at this time. If at some
future date the data collected for a specific source category is determined to be no longer
necessary either because the data is no longer required for decision-making or is duplicative of
data reporting requirements in a new regulatory program, EPA will re-evaluate and amend the
rule at that time as appropriate. See also response to comments for legal comments for a
discussion on how this rule may be subsumed by, or become the reporting obligations of, later
regulatory requirements.
Commenter Name: Chris Hobson
Commenter Affiliation: Southern Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1645.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA should consider the duration of this reporting rule and its interaction with
passage of climate legislation. If climate legislation is enacted and requires greenhouse gas
emissions reporting that is not satisfied by this EPA reporting rule, then this reporting rule should
sunset with the passage of the climate legislation. If climate legislation is enacted and requires
greenhouse gas emissions reporting that is satisfied by this EPA reporting rule, then this
reporting rule should be used as the reporting program in the climate legislation.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: John Robitaille
Commenter Affiliation: Petroleum Association of Wyoming (PAW)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1603
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: As previously discussed with EPA, PAW still maintains that this data collection rule
should have a "sunset provision" after about 3 years, absent new climate legislation.
217
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Robert E. Murray
Commenter Affiliation: Murray Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1577
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: This Rule omits two very important elements: required review and an end date.
Murray Energy believes that a required review is necessary for a number of reasons. First, to
ensure that this Rule does not pose an unbearable strain on sectors of the economy, a required
review can provide an opportunity for the EPA to revise this program and make it more efficient
for the reporting entities and internally at the EPA. In addition, given the complexity of
upcoming GHG reduction mechanisms, EPA must allow itself the flexibility in this Rule to allow
the registry to adapt to other programs. Ensuring that reporting standards are the same via a
required review would prevent duplicative reporting and unnecessary second analysis; this would
potentially help lower the already burdensome costs for companies. The second issue is a sunset
clause. Adding an end date for this mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule is essential to allow
covered entities to plan in advance and budget for equipment, maintenance and salaries. The
energy industry operates on a 30-year planning timeline. Any indefinitely-running program
would never be subject to legislative review and subsequent reauthorization, nor would it
promote the harmonization with comprehensive climate change programs. A sunset clause could
also be triggered by unnecessary financial burden to comply with regulations in comparison to
gained environmental benefit.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Michael W. Stroben
Commenter Affiliation: Duke Energy Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0407.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: As proposed, the reporting requirements under the rule would go on indefinitely.
While it is not known in what way or ways the data that is reported will be used, it seems likely
that some future event will occur that could make continued reporting under the rule no longer
necessary or appropriate. One possible event would be if Congress passes legislation that
requires reporting that is not satisfied by this rule. Duke Energy therefore believes that EPA
should review the continued need for the data on at most a three-year basis in conjunction with
preparation of the Information Collection Request (ICR) submitted under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), and more frequently if future events warrant such a review before the next
planned review.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
218
-------
Commenter Name: Jeff A. Myrom
Commenter Affiliation: MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0581.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: The proposed reporting rule should sunset if superseded by federal climate
legislation.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: John M. Batt
Commenter Affiliation: Airgas, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: Airgas supports the EPA's selection of an annual reporting requirement for GHG
emissions and related data on an on-going basis. This is consistent with most other mandatory
and voluntary GHG emissions reporting programs. We agree that collecting GHG emissions
information only one time would not provide sufficient information to help inform EPA and
others concerning appropriate policy options to take relative to GHGs. We do, however, believe
that a "sunset provision" should be incorporated into the Final Rule. This would allow EPA to
more easily discontinue collection of this information if it is determined in the future that this
information is no longer necessary. We do not believe a frequency greater than "annual
reporting" is appropriate given that climate change is a long term issue and considering the
excessive burden it would cause to most companies.
Response: For the response to the comment regarding the inclusion of a sunset provision, see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For the response to the
comment regarding the frequency of reporting, see the preamble section II.H on frequency of
reporting and the section on "Reporting Schedule" contained in the Subpart A comment response
document (volume 13).
Commenter Name: Stewart T. Leeth
Commenter Affiliation: Smithfield Foods, Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: EPA considered sun setting the reporting requirement after three years but rejected
that approach because it felt that it would unnecessarily limit the debate about potential policy
options to address climate change. (74 Fed. Reg. at 16,478). Smithfield disagrees that the climate
change debate would be affected in any manner if reporting was limited to two or three years.
Meat processors should be required to report for two or three years only, and thereafter report
when process changes occur or other considerations significantly change emissions estimations.
If two or three years of data prove to be insufficient, EPA can act to extend the rule. Smithfield
believes that EPA should provide for sunsetting this information-gathering tool because once
regulatory programs are established without sunset provisions, they are very difficult to end for
political reasons that are unrelated to their continued relevance.
219
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane
Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0537.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: EPA should limit the duration of the entire program. EPA has proposed that the rule
require the reporting of GHG emissions data on an ongoing, annual basis. Given the proposed
rule's primary goal of obtaining "data that is of sufficient quality that it can be used to support a
range of future climate change policies and regulations" and the momentum building around the
Waxman-Markey bill and other policy initiatives that likely will run their course over the next
year or two, an ongoing reporting program is unnecessary. Either a one-time collection of
information or a collection of a limited duration will provide sufficient information for
formulating policy without unnecessarily burdening industry with a never-ending program. In
addition, as discussed above, the longer the proposed rule imposes reporting requirements, the
greater the compliance costs and additional burdens on companies during financially uncertain
times. If, however, the proposed rule were to remain in place indefinitely, the program should be
folded into any reporting obligations that would be required in the Waxman bill or other federal
legislation to avoid duplicative and inconsistent reporting requirements.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Deborah Seligman
Commenter Affiliation: New Mexico Oil and Gas Association (NMOGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0603.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: NMOGA asserts that this proposed data collection rule should have a "sunset
provision" after three years, absent new climate legislation. Therefore the data collection should
rely on 'best available data', and industry endorsed methodologies, and should not mandate any
new measurement methods or significant new capital or operating expenditures.
Response: For the response to the comment on adding sunset provisions, see the response to
comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For the response to the comment
document on methods used for estimating GHG emissions (volume 3), see the preamble section
II. L for the response on general monitoring requirements.
Commenter Name: Edward N. Saccoccia
Commenter Affiliation: Praxair Inc.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0977.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
Comment: Praxair supports an annual reporting requirement for GHG emissions and related
data on an on-going basis. We believe that a "sunset provision" should be incorporated into the
rule. This would allow EPA to more easily discontinue collection of this information if it is
determined in the future that this information is no longer necessary. A frequency greater than
220
-------
"annual reporting" is not necessary given that "climate change" is a longer term issue and the
excessive burden it would cause to most companies.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 4
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: EPA apparently considered sunsetting the reporting requirement after three years but
rejected the option because the agency concluded that such an approach would unnecessarily
limit the debate about potential policy options to address climate change (74 Fed. Reg. 16478).
There is no substantive reason to conclude, however, that the climate change debate would be
affected in any manner if reporting was limited to two or three years. Meat processors should be
required to report for two or three years only, and thereafter report when process changes occur
or other considerations significantly change emissions estimations. Such a policy exists for
continuous emissions reporting by animal feeding operations of hazardous air pollutants under
EPA regulations for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Reporting emissions for two to three years should provide EPA with sufficient
data on which to make informed policy decisions regarding climate change - the purported goal
of the rule. If two or three years proves to be insufficient, EPA could take action to extend the
rule. EPA should, however, have a sunset plan for this information gathering tool because once
regulatory programs are established, they are very difficult to end for political reasons unrelated
to their continued relevance.
Response: For the response to the comment regarding inclusion of sunset provisions, see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. Note that at this time, EPA is
not going final with the Food Processing subpart (although meat processors would still be subject
to the reporting rule if their general stationary fuel combustion emissions exceed the thresholds
or if they own or operate farms that meet the manure management threshold). As we consider
next steps on food processing, we will be reviewing the public comments and other relevant
information. Therefore, we are not responding to comments on the reporting frequency for meat
processors.
Commenter Name: Sarah E. Amick
Commenter Affiliation: The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0647.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: Congress is actively considering proposed legislation on greenhouse gases, including
the recently released H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act, introduced by
Representatives Waxman and Markey. This proposed legislation would establish an economy-
wide cap-and-trade system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and
would require, in part, the establishment of a Federal greenhouse gas registry based on certain
statutory criteria. To avoid superfluous and conflicting requirements with any reporting program
required by future legislation (such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, should it be
enacted), RMA recommends that EPA include a sunset provision in the final rule that would end
221
-------
obligations under the program at the time provisions in the legislation take effect which supplant
the EPA program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0395.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: The proposed rule requires the reporting of GHG emissions data on an ongoing,
annual basis with no end in the future. TCFA submits that this proposal is unreasonable and that
the program should expire and be reevaluated after a five-year period. This timeframe would be
consistent with many EPA programs, permits, etc. that have an established "life" of five years.
For example, NPDES permits issued under the Clean Water Act expire five years after the date
of issuance; air permits under the auspices of the Clean Air Act are valid for five years; and the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards must be reviewed every five years. It is difficult to
identify any aspect of EPA's current programs that are developed and implemented over an
infinite period of time. If the EPA decides upon reevaluation that more reporting should occur,
additional rulemaking should be undertaken by EPA to continue the reporting program beyond
an initial five year period. This approach would afford the public and affected facilities the
opportunity to inform EPA of changes, modifications and corrections that may be needed at that
point in time.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 3
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0477.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Congress is actively considering proposed legislation on climate change, including
the recently released H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act, introduced by
Representatives Waxman and Markey ("Waxman/Markey bill"). The Waxman/Markey bill
would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade mechanism for reducing GHG emissions in the
United States and would require, in part, the establishment of a Federal GHG registry based on
certain statutory criteria. To avoid superfluous and conflicting requirements with any reporting
program required by future legislation (such as the Waxman/Markey bill, should it be enacted),
the Associations recommend that EPA include a sunset provision in the final rule that would end
obligations under the program at the time that provisions in the legislation take effect which
supplant the EPA monitoring and reporting program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Angela Burckhalter
Commenter Affiliation: Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association (OIPA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0386.1
222
-------
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: If EPA proceeds with a multiple year collection effort, we think EPA should specify
an end date for the proposed reporting effort in the rule similar to other information collection
requests. EPA should not request data any longer than needed, but the proposed reporting
requirement should not exceed 2 GHG reports (based on reporting every 2 years).
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 12
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0412.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 9
Comment: EPA's proposal to conduct GHG monitoring and recordkeeping indefinitely is
unprecedented. The intent of Section 114 is to collect information necessary for other specified
regulatory activities, and it is not to create free-standing regulatory burdens. Accordingly, the
requirements of the final rule should be limited in duration commensurate with the supporting
role the inventory is intended to serve. The GHG reporting rule should have a sunset provision
effective after five years and a complete re-evaluation of the program after three years. Such
provisions will give EPA adequate time to gain an improved understanding of the actual GHG
emissions in the U.S., in support of future rulemaking concerning GHGs. Adopting a sunset
provision also acknowledges that future federal legislation may be adopted after the inventory
rule takes effect, superseding the need for the rule.
Response: For the response to the comments regarding the inclusion of sunset provisions, see
the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For our response to the
comment regarding EPA's authority to collect data, see the preamble section II. Q on "Statutory
Authority" and the comment response document volume on legal issues.
Commenter Name: Fredrick Palmer and Dianna Tickner
Commenter Affiliation: Peabody Energy
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0552.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: EPA requests comments on the duration of the reporting requirements. 74 Fed. Reg.
at 16463/3. The requirements should sunset if and when Congress enacts a CO2 regulatory
program. Any legislation enacted by Congress should identify the necessary information that will
be needed to carry out the program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Robert J. Martineau, Jr
Commenter Affiliation: Counsel, Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0414.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
223
-------
Comment: EPA should consider a five-year sunset provision in the rule. EPA states that the
reporting requirement is to provide information on the largest GHG sources, as EPA and
Congress consider controls on GHG. Reporting inventory collection reports and information will
provide little on a yearly basis and will provide little additional information on the GHG
inventory that will be helpful, though the burden will remain on 13,000 sources. If EPA or
Congress establishes controls on GHG emissions, necessary recordkeeping and reporting likely
will be included and those rules, and the GHG reporting rule will become redundant.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 15
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0425.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 18
Comment: The proposed rule requires the reporting of GHG emissions data on an ongoing,
annual basis with no stated end date. CIA submits that this proposal is unreasonable and that the
program should expire and be reevaluated after a five year period. This timeframe would be
consistent with many EPA programs, permits, etc. that have an established "life" of five years.
For example, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under
the Clean Water Act expire five years after the date of issuance; air permits issued under the
Clean Air Act are valid for five years; and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards must be
reviewed every five years. It is difficult to identify any aspect of EPA's current programs that are
developed and implemented without a stated re-evaluation timeline. If the EPA decides upon
reevaluation that more reporting should occur, additional rulemaking should be undertaken by
EPA to continue the reporting program beyond an initial five year period. This approach would
afford the public and affected facilities the opportunity to inform EPA of changes, modifications
and corrections that may be needed at that point in time.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 11
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 24
Comment: EPA discusses its consideration of a multi-year program that would sunset absent
subsequent regulatory action by EPA to extend it. However, it decided that it is premature to
determine this now. "EPA solicits input on whether the duration selected by EPA is appropriate
for each source category or whether an alternative approach should be adopted". (74 FR 68, page
16463) "EPA crafted the requirements in this rule with the potential monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements for any future regulations addressing GHG emissions in mind. EPA
solicits comment on all of these possible approaches, including whether EPA should commit to
revisit the continued necessity of the reporting program at a future date". (Preamble page 160)
API comments API previously advised EPA that as an initial data collection designed to guide
policy decisions, reporting requirements under this rule should be of a finite duration, perhaps
lasting no more than three years. With this unprecedented use of the authority of Section 114,
EPA ought to review the necessity of an on-going data collection program. There seems to be a
224
-------
need for an interim program, as stated above, but such a program should either sunset, or be
amended, as appropriate, to meet the needs of future regulatory frameworks when promulgated.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Jerry Call
Commenter Affiliation: American Foundry Society (AFS)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0356.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: The goal of the GHG reporting program to provide quality data to support future
climate change policies and regulatory programs can be achieved within a period of five years.
Given the regulatory burden already imposed on the metal casting industry, a reporting period of
five years is sufficient to gather information to support climate change policies and regulatory
programs.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 11
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 6
Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA discusses its consideration of a multi-year
program that would sunset absent subsequent regulatory action by EPA to extend it. EPA is
soliciting input both on the duration of the program as well as the frequency of reporting. API
comments During earlier communications with EPA, API maintained that the legislative
mandate for this data collection is to guide policy decisions and future legislation. Any interim
reporting requirements crafted now would have to be amended to support any future specific
programs to reduce emissions. API is recommending that EPA consider adopting a reporting
program that is of a finite duration, perhaps lasting initially for three years. Such duration will
provide EPA, and Congress, with the needed data to support regulatory and legislative options,
and is consistent with previous limited duration data collection under the authority of Section
114 of the CAA. It would also be compatible with the OMB clearance process and approval of
data collection forms and tools. When considering reporting frequency one has to be cognizant
of the need for frequency as compared to reporting burden. Reporting frequency and report
content should be designed to meet current needs, and should be amended as new legislative
and/or regulatory mandates are promulgated. In the case of an interim reporting program, of a
finite duration, annual reporting would provide needed emission data information.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1, excerpt 7. For our
response to the comment regarding EPA's authority to collect data, see the preamble section II.Q
on "Statutory Authority" and the comment response document volume on legal issues.
225
-------
Commenter Name: Robert N. Steinwurtzel
Commenter Affiliation: Bingham McCutchen LLP on behalf of Association of Battery
Recyclers (ABR)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0660.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 19
Comment: It is clear that climate policies in the U.S. are evolving at a rapidly increasing pace.
As the resulting new programs are put in place (e.g., offsets, cap and trade), alternative GHG
emissions reporting programs will likely be developed and implemented to meet the specific
needs of each program. EPA must include a sunset provision in the Proposed Rule to prevent the
burden of duplicative reporting requirements on facilities should other reporting programs take
precedent.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Sam Chamberlain
Commenter Affiliation: Murphy Oil Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0625
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: In the preamble to the proposed rule (page 16463, Section IV (3) and (5) and 16470-
16473) EPA discusses its consideration of a multi-year program that would sunset absent
subsequent regulatory action by EPA to extend it. EPA solicits input on whether the duration
selected by EPA is appropriate for each source category or whether an alternative approach
should be adopted, i.e. for how many years the program should require the submission of
information. Murphy believes that EPA should consider adopting a reporting program that is of a
finite duration. A finite duration will provide EPA, and Congress, with the needed data to
support regulatory and legislative options, and is consistent with previous data collection and
reporting efforts undertaken under the authority of Section 114 of the CAA. It would also be
compatible with the OMB clearance process and approval of data collection forms and tools.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that emissions from refineries, etc. have not
increased significantly in the last 20 years, that the last new refinery constructed was 1960, and
that we are dealing with emissions that may or may not have an impact in 50 years.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For our
response to the comment regarding EPA's authority to collect data, see the preamble section II. Q
on "Statutory Authority" and the comment response document volume on legal issues.
Commenter Name: Michael Carlson
Commenter Affiliation: MEC Environmental Consulting
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615
Comment Excerpt Number: 14
Comment: The reporting program should be limited to, and sunset after, a two to three year
period. Ostensibly the proposed rule is to gather baseline data on GHGs. Baseline data is not
collected indefinitely. Moreover, federal legislation has already been advanced which will likely
have a reporting component which could prove inconsistent with the proposed reporting rule if
specified for a duration longer than two to three years.
226
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Marc J. Meteyer
Commenter Affiliation: Compressed Gas Association (CGA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0981.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The CGA supports the EPA's selection of an annual reporting requirement for GHG
emissions and related data on an on-going basis. This is consistent with most other mandatory
and voluntary GHG emissions reporting programs. The CGA agrees that collecting GHG
emissions information one-time would not provide sufficient information to help inform EPA
and others concerning appropriate policy options to take relative to GHGs. We do believe that a
"sunset provision" should be incorporated into the rule. This would allow EPA to more easily
discontinue collection of this information if it is determined in the future that this information is
no longer necessary. The CGA does not believe a frequency greater than "annual reporting" is
appropriate given that "climate change" is a longer term issue and the excessive burden it would
cause to most companies.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0408.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Robbie LaBorde
Commenter Affiliation: CLECO Corporation (CLECO)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1566
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: In section G.l of the preamble, the goals of the proposed mandatory reporting system
are listed. The first goal is to obtain data that is of such sufficient quality that it can be used to
support a range of future climate change policies and regulations. Obviously this statement
indicates that MRGG is to be a study. As stated above Cleco agrees that this type of data is
needed but at the same time believes that a study should have a termination point. In section K of
the preamble, it is discussed that the green house gas mandatory reporting should be open-ended
with respect to duration. However Cleco proposes that the mandatory reporting be limited to five
years. Five years of data should certainly be revealing and adequate for allowing EPA "to gather
critical baseline data on greenhouse gas emissions" to "craft an effective climate change
approach" and to "track trends in emissions".
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Bill Grygar
Commenter Affiliation: Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: Given the possibility of near-term Federal climate change legislation, EPA's final
rule should include a sunset provision. Congress is actively considering proposed legislation on
climate change, including the recently released H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security
227
-------
Act of 2009, introduced by Representatives Waxman and Markey ("Waxman/Markey bill"). The
Waxman/Markey bill would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade mechanism for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and would require, in part, the establishment of a
Federal GHG registry based on certain statutory criteria. To avoid superfluous and conflicting
requirements with any reporting program required by future legislation (such as the
Waxman/Markey bill, should it be enacted), Anadarko recommends that EPA include a sunset
provision in the final rule that would end obligations under the program at the time that
provisions in the legislation take effect which supplant the EPA monitoring and reporting
program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: James Sims
Commenter Affiliation: Western Business Roundtable
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1038.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: EPA asks for comments regarding inclusion of a sunset provision. We think a sunset
provision makes perfect sense. Congress is just now in the process of debating the framework for
a future federal GHG regulatory regime. At a minimum, we believe that EPA should be required
to revisit these regulations, if and when Congress enacts legislation, as a means to assure that the
program is properly aligned with legislative intent for GHG regulations.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Scott Manley
Commenter Affiliation: Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (WMC)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0728.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: The proposed rule will impose costs on the regulated community, and will demand
additional time from EPA personnel. Therefore, it is important that the rule's purpose and scope
be justified to remain in effect. EPA states on page 16456 in the Federal Register publication of
the proposed rule that "The goal is to have the GHG reporting program supplement and
complement, rather than duplicate, U.S. government and other GHG programs ... "As other GHG
regulations and programs continue to evolve, it is very likely that the reporting required by this
rule will be incorporated into other programs. To minimize future duplication of reporting
requirements and to assure the need for this reporting rule is still justified, WMC believes EPA
should commit to revisit the scope and justification of the reporting program at scheduled
intervals of no greater than 3 years.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
228
-------
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: 13
Comment: EPA solicits comment on duration of this program, including whether EPA should
commit to revisit the continued necessity of reporting data at a future date. SD DENR
recommends that EPA revisit the continued necessity of reporting data every five years to
determine if annual reporting is still required to serve the Proposed Rule's purpose, determine if
a different frequency of reporting (e.g., every other year or once every five years) will serve the
Proposed Rule's purpose, determine if the current reporting threshold satisfies the Proposed
Rule's purpose, or determine if the Proposed Rule's purpose has been satisfied and reporting is
no longer required.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Willie R. Taylor
Commenter Affiliation: U.S. Department of the Interior
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0474.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 16
Comment: Section I.C of the Preamble presents a broad array of potential uses of the
information gathered from the greenhouse reporting. The information could be used for possible
rulemaking for the regulation of GHGs. It therefore seems that several years after the reporting
rule is implemented, it would be appropriate for EPA to re-assess the whole reporting rule
depending upon any developments regarding possible regulation of emission sources. We
therefore recommend that EPA commit itself to re-evaluate the rule after a certain time after the
mandatory reporting starts (after 5 years).
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Mary J. Doyle
Commenter Affiliation: BG North America, LLC (BG)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0714.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
Comment: BG agrees that a one year or automatic sunset provision may not be the best course
of action for a rule that has such a broad national impact. However, as EPA recognizes, this
Proposed Rule is being considered in advance of a final national GHG regulatory program.
Concurrent with the consideration of this Proposed Rule is Congressional debate on whether and
how the US should regulate GHG emissions. In view of this, EPA should commit to revisit the
continued necessity and the particular format of the reporting program one year after adoption of
federal climate change legislation to ensure that what is reported under this rule supports any
new legislation. If legislation is not enacted, EPA should reconsider the need for this reporting
rule through a public comment process within three years of a final rule being issued in this
proceeding.
229
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Paul Glader
Commenter Affiliation: Hecla Mining Company
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0579.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: This rulemaking, as all rulemaking, should be subject to a sunset clause for two
primary reasons: 1) additional regulatory burdens will have a negative impact on industry and
ultimately job stability and 2) this rule making is based on equivocal science. This sunset clause
will require EPA to revisit the regulations at regular intervals such as every five years. The
review should assess cost and impact to industry and the American economy. In addition the
review will determine the usefulness and significance of data collected for the stated purposes of
the rulemaking. If the cost to the American economy is deemed excessive, the monitoring and
reporting requirements will be modified or eliminated. EPA should establish a sunset clause and
regular review cycle to include: 1. Review of economic impact to American economy including
documented job losses related to the rulemaking. 2. Review of usefulness, validity and
significance of the data
Response: For the response to the comment regarding inclusion of sunset provisions, see the
response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For the response to the
comment regarding the periodic review of cost and economic impact, see the section on "General
Comments on Costs and Economic Impacts" in the comment response document for "Cost and
Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule".
Commenter Name: Myron Hafele
Commenter Affiliation: Kohler Co.
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0761.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 7
Comment: This regulation, as with all environmental regulations, imposes cost on both the
regulated and the regulator communities. Therefore it is important that the rule's purpose and
scope be justified for the rule to remain in effect. EPA states on page 16456 of the proposed rule
that "The goal is to have the GHG reporting program supplement and complement, rather than
duplicate, U.S. government and other GI-1G programs ..." As other GHG regulations and
programs continue to evolve, it seems highly probable that reporting required by this reporting
rule will be rolled into other programs. To minimize future duplication of reporting requirements
and to assure the need for this reporting rule is still justified, Kohler Co. believes EPA should
commit to revisit the scope and justification of the reporting program at scheduled intervals of no
greater than 3 years.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Kevin Fay
Commenter Affiliation: International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0490.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 3
230
-------
Comment: It is appropriate to continue the annual reporting requirements without a specific
termination period or sunset, but in light of the paperwork burden associated with the reporting
rule, ICCP believes that the Agency should intend to revisit this if further climate policy
programs at the national or international level fail to materialize.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Helen A. Howes
Commenter Affiliation: Exelon Corporation
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0373.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: While we support the creation or modification of a program to collect the necessary
data, Exelon recommends that the resulting program be reviewed frequently to ensure it
continues to meet its intended purpose and is appropriate in light of new regulations or data
collection needs.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 6
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.2
Comment Excerpt Number: 5
Comment: NPRA believes that this reporting rule should have a sunset provision at 5 years,
unless it is replaced before that date by legislation that adds climate change policy that includes
its own reporting requirements. If the data are not used for a climate change policy within that
time period, there is no reason to burden industry with this very detailed reporting program
indefinitely.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Benjamin Brandes
Commenter Affiliation: National Mining Association (NMA)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0466.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 12
Comment: EPA indicates that the primary purpose of the proposed reporting rule is to compile
comprehensive and accurate data to be used to inform future climate change policy decisions. As
EPA is undoubtedly aware, comprehensive climate change legislation is currently being
developed by Congress. Such legislation could very well negate the need for, or utility of, many
of the proposed facets of the reporting rule. NMA believes that EPA should contemplate
including a provision in the final rule that would require the Agency to revisit regulations if and
when Congress enacts a regulatory program for CO2 and other GHGs.
231
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Lauren E. Freeman
Commenter Affiliation: Hunton & Williams LLP
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0493.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: As proposed, the rule would require ongoing annual reporting even after information
sufficient to inform future decisions has been collected. Because potential uses for the data
collected are at this point unknown, UARG is not prepared to comment on whether an end-date
or sunset provision is appropriate. However, if Congress passes legislation that requires reporting
that is not satisfied by this rule, EPA should move quickly to withdraw or stay this rule. UARG
also believes that EPA has an obligation to review the continued need for the data in light of the
cost of collection on at least a three-year basis in conjunction with preparation of the Information
Collection Request ("ICR") submitted under the Paperwork Reduction Act ("PRA").
Response: See response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0579.1, excerpt 8.
Commenter Name: Chris Korleski
Commenter Affiliation: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0598.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 8
Comment: Ohio EPA agrees with requiring GHG reports be submitted without a sunset
provision. It is important to gather GHG emissions information over a period of time rather than
providing just snapshot. Generally reporting rules are not useful if only used for a short period of
time such as one or two years. We prefer an ongoing reporting program that requires an annual
submission which is consistent with other air emissions reporting programs, is useful to
understand trends over time, and will be even more useful if future greenhouse gas regulations
are promulgated.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: P. Horan
Commenter Affiliation: None
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0257.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 2
Comment: The first issue with the rule that I would like to discuss is that it requests
recommendations for the duration of the rule. I am not sure what the need for this would be,
other than to welcome negative comments by those opposed to the reporting. I understand
welcoming comments during the reporting on how it has affected the individual or their views on
how it affects their industry, but offering a comment on duration of the program has no bearing
on the situation. This reporting standard should stay in place until we, as inhabitants of a polluted
planet, find a way to reverse this trend or move pass the practices that cause greenhouse gases.
Again, I think allowing comments on the reporting is an effective way to properly manage the
program, but comments on duration have no bearing on a subject this important.
232
-------
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: David Rich
Commenter Affiliation: World Resources Institute (WRI)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0642.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 11
Comment: WRI supports EPA's proposal to require reporting on an ongoing basis. Current U.S.
and international climate change policies include a time horizon extending to at least 2050. EPA
must support these policies with data reported at least annually from affected sources in
perpetuity without any sunset provision.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: See Table 16
Commenter Affiliation:
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0635
Comment Excerpt Number: 36
Comment: As EPA recognizes in the preamble, a long-term emissions data set is essential to
sound climate policy. Policymakers must be able to track programs' effects over time to
understand whether progress is being made and to improve reporting and emissions reduction
systems. We therefore strongly support EPA's decision to design the reporting program to
continue indefinitely, and its decision to require continued reporting from sources that fall below
the reporting threshold over time. EPA is correct that it should not set a sunset date for the
reporting rule. Congress's direction to "develop and publish" a rule to "require mandatory
reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy
of the United States" is sweeping [footnote: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, H.R.
2764, Div. F., Title II.]: This is a mandate for a lasting system, not a short-term effort. After all,
as the General Accountability Office has repeatedly advised, "comprehensive and accurate
information on emissions is critical to a program's success."[footnote: GAO, High Quality
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data are a Cornerstone of Programs to Address Climate Change,
GAO 09-423T at 4 (Feb. 24, 2009) (Ex. 25); see also GAO, Lessons Learned from the European
Union's Emissions Trading Scheme and the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism,
GAO-09-1 51 at 17-20, 26-27 (Nov. 2008) (Ex. 26).] Global warming is a long-term problem
and addressing it will require a robust, lasting data set.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7. For the
comment regarding continued reporting for facilities that fall below the threshold (i.e., the "once-
in-always-in" provisions included in the proposed rule), see the preamble section II.H for the
response on reporting frequency and provisions to cease reporting.
Commenter Name: Keith Overcash
Commenter Affiliation: North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ)
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0588
Comment Excerpt Number: 23
233
-------
Comment: We agree for the need of an ongoing program.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Commenter Name: Meg Voorhes
Commenter Affiliation: Social Investment Forum
Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0657.1
Comment Excerpt Number: 10
Comment: Investors seek clarity and certainty in regulatory frameworks in order to make
accurate investment decisions that incorporate proper market signals. Given the significant risks
and opportunities that companies face from the long-term problem of climate change, requiring
GHG emissions reporting for only a short period of a few years would be of little utility to
investors that seek to gain an ongoing understanding of company emissions levels and how those
emissions are being managed. Requiring mandatory reporting on an ongoing basis is necessary to
gain high quality information.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
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: 6
Comment: The Department agrees with reporting on an ongoing, annual basis. A one-time or
limited collection of GHG information would not provide enough use/id information to inform
the variety of potential policy options being evaluated for addressing climate change. A baseline
inventory needs to be established and an annual collection of GHG emissions and associated data
will provide trends and help determine the effects of control programs that may be developed
and implemented. Ongoing reporting is consistent with the Department's criteria and HAP
emissions reporting requirements for point sources and would be easier and more cost effective
for those sources already meeting those requirements.
Response: See the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0712.1, excerpt 7.
Table 1
COMMENTER
AFFII.I 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
COMMENTER
AFFILIATE
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
234
-------
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
Lawrence W. Kavanagh
American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0695.1
Table 4
CO.MMtMIR
ATI- ii.ia i i-:
IK \
Mark Dopp
American Meat Institute (AMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1
Stewart T. Leeth
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553
Table 5
(OMMIYITK
Alll I.I All.
IK N
Bruce Thompson
American Exploration and Production Council
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0367.1
William W. Grygar II
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
Table 6
(OMMUMKR
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
James Greenwood
Valero Energy Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.1
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.2
Charles T. Drevna
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0433.2
Table 7
(OMMIYITK
Ai-i- ii.iaii-:
IK N
Olon Plunk
Xcel Energy Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0444
Debra J. Jezouit
Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0455.1
Table 8
( OMMIYIIK
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Lisa Beal
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America
(INGAA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0480.1
Richard Bye
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-2124.1
Brianne Metzger
Spectra Energy Corporation
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0364.1
Table 9
(OMMI.MT.K
ai-i- ii.iaii-:
IK N
Olon Plunk
Xcel Energy Inc.
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0444
R. Skip Horvath
Natural Gas Council (NGC)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0530.1
Table 10
( OMMIMIK
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Michael Formica
National Pork Producers Council (NPPC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0435.1
Mark Dopp
American Meat Institute (AMI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0440.1
Stewart T. Leeth
Smithfield Foods, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0553
Table 11
( OMMIMIK
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Karin Ritter
American Petroleum Institute (API)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0679.1
James Greenwood
Valero Energy Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0571.1
William W. Grygar II
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0459.1
235
-------
Table 12
( 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 13
( OMMI YITK
ATI- ii.ia i i-:
IK N
Pamela A. Lacey
American Gas Association (AGA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0709.1
Richard Bye
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2124.1
Table 14
( OMMIYITK
\i i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Chris Hobson
The Southern Company
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1645.1
Quinlan J. Shea, III
Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-1021.1
Table 15
( OMMI YITK
Ai-i-1 i.i \ ir.
IK N
Burton Eller
National Cattleman's Beef Association (NCBA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0418.1
Rick Stott
Agri Beef Co.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0371.1
Todd Schroeder
Nebraska Cattlemen, Inc. (NC)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0416.1
William Hammerich
Colorado Livestock Association
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0393.1
Ross Wilson
Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA)
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0395.1
William Hammerich
Colorado Livestock Association (CLA)
EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0425.1
Table 16
(OMMKMKK
ai i ii.ia i i:
IK N
Craig Holt Segall
Sierra Club
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-063 5.1
Melissa Thrailkill
Center for Biological Diversity
EP A-HQ-0 AR-2008-0508-0430.1
236
------- |