`

Summary of Public Comments and 

Responses for Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule:

Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program
September 2014

Response to Public Comments on the Revisions to 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and 

Proposed Confidentiality Determinations Under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Atmospheric Programs

Climate Change Division

Washington, D.C.
Draft Deliberative

iii

FOREWORD

This document provides the EPA’s responses to public comments on the Revisions to Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations Under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

the Federal Register on September 11, 2013 (78 FR 55994). 

On July 7, 2010, the EPA proposed confidentiality determinations for the majority of data 

elements required to be reported under the GHGRP, as well as for the majority of source 

categories covered by the program. In the July 7, 2010, action, the EPA proposed that data 

elements categorized as “inputs to emission equations” are emission data. The Clean Air Act 

precludes “emission data” from being treated as confidential. Based on industry concerns 

regarding the potential release of data elements categorized as “inputs to emission equations,” 

the EPA deferred reporting of these data elements (see August 25, 2011, final action, 76 FR 

53057) to allow it to complete its evaluation of the potential impact from the public release of 

these data elements (see 76 FR 53060, August 25, 2011) and, if appropriate, to propose 

amendments to Part 98 (see 75 FR 81355, December 27, 2010). 

The proposed amendments addressed the EPA’s analysis of disclosure concerns associated with 

the data elements categorized as “inputs to emission equations” for which reporting was 

previously deferred to March 31, 2015. The EPA proposed amendments to the reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements of the GHGRP. These proposed amendments were part of an 

alternative verification approach to be adopted by the EPA to address disclosure concerns 

associated with public release of data, while maintaining the EPA’s ability to verify emissions 

and ensure compliance with the GHGRP. The alternative verification approach included in the 

proposal included the following amendments to Part 98: 

 Adding a requirement for certain reporters under 23 subparts to use an EPA-provided inputs 

verification tool (IVT). IVT would calculate the emission equation results and perform 

electronic verification. IVT would not retain the entered inputs but would conduct certain 

checks (e.g., accuracy of the inputs) at the time of data entry and generate a verification 

summary. The verification summary, which would be accessible to the EPA once the annual 

report is submitted, would provide the EPA with information to conduct further verification 

if necessary.

 For reporters required to use IVT, changing the required format for maintaining records of 

these inputs to emission equations.

 For reporters required to use IVT, lengthening the record retention period from 3 to 5 years 

for all records maintained under Part 98 (including subparts that do not require the use of the 

tool).

 For certain reporters required to use IVT, adding new data elements to be reported for the 

EPA’s verification purposes, and proposing confidentiality determinations for the new data 

elements proposed to be reported.
Draft Deliberative

iv

 For reporters required to use IVT, removing the requirement to report the inputs to emission 

equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015 and disclosure concerns have been 

identified, and requiring these data to be kept as records.

During the public comment period, the EPA received 30 comment letters in response to the 

September 11, 2013, proposal. This document provides the EPA’s responses to the public 

comments regarding the proposal. The verbatim text of each comment extracted from the 

original comment letters is included in this document, arranged by subject. For each comment, 

the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the 

comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt are provided. Where possible, the EPA 

separated comments on specific topics into their respective data categories. However, in some 

cases, commenters made broad statements about the proposed amendments to Part 98 or general 

comments on the approach that could not be easily separated by topic or data category without 

potentially affecting the intended meaning of the commenter’s statements. In such cases, we 

either repeated the comment excerpt in its entirety in each of the relevant sections of this 

document or referred the reader to the response to another similar comment.

The EPA’s responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment 

excerpt. In some cases, the 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, the EPA has referenced the preamble to the final rule. In some cases, a commenter 

incorporated by reference the comments of another company or organization. Rather than repeat 

these comment excerpts for each commenter, the EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once 

under the name of the person, company or organization who submitted the comment and 

included a list of commenters who indicated their support for that comment in a footnote. Copies 

of all comment letters submitted are available at EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room or 

electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0929.
Draft Deliberative

v

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

For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at:

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/contactus.html.
Draft Deliberative

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

FOREWORD................................................................................................................................iii

1.0 Verification Approach—General .................................................................................... 1

2.0 Use of Inputs Verification Tool for Certain Subpart C Sources ................................ 13

2.1 Revision of 40 CFR 98.36(f) .................................................................................13

2.2 Use of Inputs Verification Tool for Certain Subpart C Sources That Do Not 

Meet the Criteria Specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f) ....................................................15

3.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Schedule for Releasing ...................................................... 18

4.0 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool ........................................................................................ 23

4.1 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Adequacy for Public Comment ..........................23

4.2 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Upload of XML Reports.....................................29

4.3 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Potential Design Errors.......................................33

5.0 Inputs Verification Tool Design..................................................................................... 36

5.1 Inputs Verification Tool Design—Recommendations for Improving...................36

5.2 Inputs Verification Tool Design—Overriding IVT Calculated GHG Equation 

Results....................................................................................................................40

6.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Verification Summary....................................................... 42

7.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Risk of Disclosure .............................................................. 44

7.1 Inputs Verification Tool—Security .......................................................................44

7.2 Inputs Verification Tool—Other Risks of Disclosure ...........................................52

8.0 Revision of Table A-8...................................................................................................... 76

9.0 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results, Including Removal of Requirements to Report 

Certain Inputs to Emissions Equations ........................................................................ 76

9.1 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—General Comments............................................76

9.2 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart C...........................................................78

9.3 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart G...........................................................78

9.4 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart O...........................................................79

9.5 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart P ...........................................................82

9.6 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart S ...........................................................82

9.7 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart V...........................................................84

9.8 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart W..........................................................87

9.9 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart Y...........................................................92

9.10 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart Z ...........................................................92

9.11 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart EE.........................................................93
Draft Deliberative

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

vii

10.0 Reporting and Use of IVT for 2010–2013 Data Elements in Table A-7..................... 94

10.1 IVT Not Required for 2010–2013 Inputs...............................................................94

10.2 Reporting of Inputs from 2010 to 2013 .................................................................95

11.0 Recordkeeping Requirements for IVT Users............................................................... 99

11.1 Recordkeeping Format...........................................................................................99

11.2 Recordkeeping—Duration for Subparts for Which IVT Is Required..................102

11.3 Recordkeeping—Duration for Subparts for Which IVT Is Not Required...........109

12.0 New Data Elements....................................................................................................... 115

13.0 Final Confidentiality Determinations for New Data Elements................................. 118

14.0 Additional Comments................................................................................................... 122

15.0 Out of Scope Comments............................................................................................... 125
Draft Deliberative

viii

List of Commenters

DCN Commenter Name Commenter Affiliation

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0057 George Woods Littlejohn Engineering Associates

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0058 George Woods Littlejohn Engineering Associates

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0059 Anonymous Public 

Comment N/A

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0060 Anonymous Environmental policy class, Illinois 

Institute of Technology

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0061 Kerry Kelly Waste Management

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0062 Bryan Brendle Portland Cement Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064 Wade Foster The Fertilizer Institute

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0065 Margaia N/A

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0066 Timothy N. Montgomery Ascend Performance Materials

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067 Andrew T. O'Hare Portland Cement Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068 Russell A. Wozniak Dow

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069 Glenn E. Davis HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi 

Lime 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070 Jeff Applekamp Gas Processors Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071 Robert A. Reich DuPont

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072 Peter Pagano American Iron and Steel Institute

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074 Karen Ritter API

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075 Leslie Sue Ritts

National Environmental 

Development Association’s Clean 

Air Project

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0076 Sharon H. Kneiss and John 

Skinner

National Waste/Recycling 

Association/Solid Waste Association 

of North America

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077 Niki Wuestenberg Republic Services

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078 David W. Hacker United States Steel Corporation

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0079 Angus E. Crane North American Insulation 

Manufacturers Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080 David Friedman American Fuel and Petrochemical 

Manufacturers

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082 Mark Roberts and Avipsa 

Mahapatra Environmental Investigation Agency

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083 Paul Noe and Robert 

Glowinski

American Forest and Paper 

Association/American Wood Council

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085 Lorraine Krupa Gershman American Chemistry Council

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086 Charles Johnson Aluminum Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0088 Various

Natural Resources Defense 

Council/Environmental Defense 

Fund/Earthjustice/Clean Air Task 

Force/Sierra Club

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089 William C. Herz National Lime Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090 Kerry Kelly Waste Management

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0093 Karen Ritter API
Draft Deliberative

1

1.0 Verification Approach—General

Commenter Name: Paul Noe and Robert Glowinski

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association/American Wood Council

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: In general, AF&PA and AWC are supportive of the approach that EPA has proposed 

to treat CBI data elements. We believe that, assuming the program works as intended, the 

Electronic Input Verification Tool is a creative way to protect the inputs to emission equations, 

but allows EPA the ability to verify those inputs. We also agree that it is appropriate to remove 

the 440 data elements laid out in the proposal, particularly the ones associated with Subparts C 

and AA.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed verification 

approach. In addition, the EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any of the inputs to emission equations removed from reporting, either in this 

final rule or in any other final action. However, we believe, and the commenter appears to agree, 

that we have addressed in this final rule the concerns raised by various reporters regarding the 

potential release of certain “inputs to emission equations” data elements while maintaining the 

EPA’s ability to verify emissions and ensure compliance with the GHGRP.

Regarding the comment supporting the number of inputs being removed from Part 98, the total 

number of inputs removed from all 23 subparts has changed since proposal from 440 to 395. 

This change is due to: (1) changes made to the EPA’s harm analysis for subparts Q, V, X, Y, and 

TT included in the “Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ 

Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,” August 2013, due to various reasons including 

errors made at proposal (e.g. inadvertently excluding inputs listed in Table A-7 of Part 98 from 

the harm analysis and inadvertently including inputs in the harm analysis that were not listed in 

Table A-7 of Part 98) and revisions to Part 98 since proposal (i.e., removal of inputs for which 

reporting was deferred to 2015 by another rulemaking) and (2) the EPA’s decision to address 

deferred inputs for subpart L in a separate final rulemaking. Refer to the memorandum 

“Summary and Explanation of Minor Revisions to the Proposed Rule,” August 2014, for further 

discussion about the changes that were made to the harm analysis for subparts Q, X, Y, and TT. 

Refer to Section I.C of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s decision to address deferred 

inputs in subpart L in a separate rulemaking. Refer to Section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for further discussion of the EPA’s decision to change the harm determination for certain 

deferred subpart V inputs. No changes were made to the number of inputs removed from 

reporting for subpart AA.
Draft Deliberative

2

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: MLCO generally supports the proposed new CBI collection approach via the inputs 

verifier tool ("IVT"), as well as the additional requirements of the proposal, if certain concerns 

with the IVT can be addressed and assured confidentiality of CBI can/will be maintained.

MLCO generally supports the USEPA's innovative effort to use alternative means to protect 

CBI, assuming the IVT and confidentiality matters are adequately addressed.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed verification 

approach using IVT. In addition, the EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made 

confidentiality determinations for any of the inputs to emission equations removed from 

reporting, either in this final rule or in any other final action. However, we believe, and the

commenter appears to agree, that we have addressed in this final rule the concerns raised by 

various reporters regarding the potential release of certain “inputs to emission equations” data 

elements while maintaining the EPA’s ability to verify emissions and ensure compliance with the 

GHGRP. In addition, we note that the EPA is not “collecting” data through IVT. For additional 

information on IVT, please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule. The commenter’s 

concerns regarding the adequacy of the IVT prototype made available for public comment, 

regarding the verification summary, and regarding the security of IVT are addressed in Sections 

4.1, 6.0, and 7.1 of this document, respectively. Please refer to these sections for the EPA’s 

responses to these concerns.

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: AFPM recognizes and supports EPA’s commitment to protecting CBI and its 

willingness to take action to ensure that such information is not inappropriately disclosed. With 

respect to the proposed rule, AFPM supports EPA’s decision to allow companies to use EPA’s 

electronic verification tool (along with related recordkeeping and reporting requirements) as an 

alternative to directly reporting raw material data and other CBI.

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083, Excerpt 1, in this 

section of this document.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project
Draft Deliberative

3

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: In addition to supporting the proposed confidentiality determinations for the various 

industry-specific inputs into equations, NEDA/CAP supports the proposed protocol for using 

CBI inputs to calculate emissions, then deleting them from the MRR submission following 

verification. We recognize that EPA spent considerable time developing the verification tool for 

various QA/QC routines before adapting it for this particular verification/validation purpose, and 

we are grateful for the work and the ingenuity of the approach. Most significantly, the 

methodology EPA proposes achieves a balance between EPA’s interest in the integrity of GHG 

emissions data collection while according weight to business’ concerns about the potential harm 

if these inputs are available to competitors. 

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed verification 

approach. In addition, the EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any of the inputs to emission equations removed from reporting, either in this 

final rule or in any other final action. However, we believe, and the commenter appears to agree, 

that we have addressed in this final rule the concerns raised by various reporters regarding the 

potential release of certain “inputs to emission equations” data elements while maintaining the 

EPA’s ability to verify emissions and ensure compliance with the GHGRP. Further, the EPA 

wants to clarify that, as explained in further detail in Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule, entered data are not saved in IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying 

EPA database, nor will they be saved to the server’s file system.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council1

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Overall, ACC supports EPA’s proposed inputs verification tool as a sound and 

balanced approach for EPA to obtain the information it needs without subjecting sensitive 

business data to potential public disclosure. ACC strongly supports EPA’s proposed use of an 

input verification tool as an alternative to the direct reporting of certain emission calculation 

inputs. More specifically, ACC supports the tool’s ability to create a verification summary of 

GHG emissions without retaining certain data inputs given that, as EPA acknowledges, these 

data are sensitive business information and are of significant value to the reporting companies.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed IVT.

 

1 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

4

Commenter Name: Charles Johnson

Commenter Affiliation: Aluminum Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: The Aluminum Association fully supports EPA’s solution to enable GHG report 

verification using the proposed verification tools rather than require reporting of Business 

Confidential Information (CBI) or other information likely to result in substantial competitive 

harm. In comments filed on September 3, 2010, the Aluminum Association requested EPA to 

retain CBI protections for certain inputs to GHG emission equations in Part 98 Subpart F -

Aluminum Production. The proposed verification tools, which would calculate emissions but not 

store the inputs to equations, fully address the Association’s concerns by eliminating the need for 

Association members to submit CBI or competitively sensitive data.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for its support. As proposed, the final amendments 

do not require reporting of deferred inputs to subpart F equations. Refer to Section II.B.2 of the 

preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the final requirements to enter subpart F 

equation inputs into IVT.

The EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality determinations for any of 

the “inputs to emission equations” data elements, either in this final rule or any other final action.

However, we believe, and the commenter appears to agree, that we have addressed in this final 

rule the concerns raised by various reporters regarding the potential release of certain “inputs to 

emission equations” data elements, including those in subpart F. These amendments achieve that 

objective while maintaining the EPA’s ability to verify emissions and ensure compliance with 

the GHGRP.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak

Commenter Affiliation: Dow

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Dow generally supports EPA’s proposed Inputs Verification Tool as a method to 

protect confidential business information. The tool allows EPA to perform electronic verification 

of the emission calculations without storing or reporting the entered inputs. 

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083, Excerpt 1, in this 

section of this document.
Draft Deliberative

5

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: API supports EPA’s development and willingness to use the verification tool in an 

effort to avoid the disclosure of confidential information.

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083, Excerpt 1, in this 

section of this document.

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: DuPont generally supports EPA’s proposed inputs verification tool as a method to 

shield sensitive business information.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed IVT.

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute2

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA recognizes that it has had success developing and using e-GGRT. (See, e.g., 

Lisa Grogan-McCulloch August 2013 Memo to the Docket -- EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929- 0048). 

As summarized in the Grogan-McCulloch memo, for industry sectors where the reporting of 

inputs to emission equations was deferred until 2015, verification checks have been conducted 

through e-GGRT using self-certified reported data other than inputs to emission equations. 

Although EPA may have identified some reporting errors during the initial periods, such 

concerns will become increasingly rare as reporters become more familiar with and are able to 

streamline the reporting process. This deferral period approach is an efficient and appropriate 

one, with strong parallels to other “certification” requirements that EPA has long deemed 

sufficient to ensure compliance in similar circumstances.

Where questions exist, EPA has and can readily continue to follow-up with facilities that are 

appropriately obligated to retain all relevant supporting information. [Footnote: The “inputs to 

equations” data elements proposed to be subjected for verification are already monitored and 

 

2 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

6

collected for calculation purposes and maintained by reporters. AISI does not oppose 

maintaining these data for five years.] The methodology applied during the deferral period 

should be adopted as EPA’s permanent approach rather than requiring facilities to expend the 

effort to use an online verification tool that (as detailed below) necessarily poses additional risks 

of exposing sensitive CBI. In short, EPA already has a successful verification system in place, as 

demonstrated during the deferral period that will only continue to improve with time. Therefore, 

the risk of entering CBI into an unproven system that has the potential to be insecure is not 

justified, and the reporting methodology used during current deferral period should become 

permanent.

Response: Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further details regarding 

the EPA’s response to this comment. 

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute3

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Industry reporters already monitor and collect for calculation the “inputs to 

equations” data elements proposed to be subjected for verification. With the current 

methodology used during the deferral period, EPA requires reporters to implement monitoring 

plans to collect information in-house for calculating GHG emissions, and to report the emissions 

in the e-GGRT reporting tool. Under the proposed rule, however, EPA proposes to remove the 

reporting requirement for 440 “inputs to equations” data elements that had previously been 

deferred until March 2015 for CBI consideration, but will still require the same data elements be 

instead entered in the new verification tool if they appear by cross-reference in the new proposed 

Table A-8. The Table A-8 elements encompass all the monitoring and reporting requirements for 

the iron and steel industry. Therefore, the proposed rule misses an opportunity to provide any 

burden relief for the industry while adding no real benefits, as reporters will still have to enter the 

same data as their own in-house calculations. AISI asks that EPA make the benefits and burden 

relief achieved with the reporting methodology used during the deferral period permanent.

Response: The EPA clarifies that the purpose of this rulemaking is to address the concerns 

raised by various reporters regarding the potential release of certain inputs to emission equations

for which reporting was deferred to 2015. This rule achieves that end while maintaining the 

EPA’s ability to verify emissions and ensure compliance with the GHGRP. Further, as stated in 

Section V of the proposal preamble to this action and the memorandum “Assessment of Cost 

Impacts of 2015 Inputs Rule—Revisions to Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Verification 

Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,” [September 2014] (EPA-HQOAR-2010-0929) the proposed amendments to reporting and recordkeeping will not cause a 

significant increase in burden on reporters, as detailed in the EPA’s impacts analysis supporting 

the proposed amendments.

 

3 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

7

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA must ensure that sufficient data is publicly available to allow the GHG 

information self-reported by industry to be verified by interested stakeholders. Requiring the 

provision of any less information will undermine the EPA’s mission to protect the health and 

safety of the American public and the environment. Although we well understand the industry 

concerns about protecting trade secrets and business information, these concerns need to be 

balanced against the need for transparency, any restrictions on disclosure of information based 

upon confidential business information (CBI) needs to be drawn as narrowly as possible to 

protect the public interest. EIA objects EPA’s proposal to withdraw the requirement for crucial 

input data points essential for reliable GHG reporting. In order to avoid fraudulent reporting, EIA 

submits that EPA needs to require input data to be reported to EPA, and/or have independent 

third parties verify the information submitted.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that transparency is important, and has released 

data that have been reported to the GHGRP except for data that have been determined to be CBI.

The EPA disagrees that the GHG information reported needs to be verified by stakeholders. 

When the EPA finalized the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in October 2009 [74 FR 56260], it

adopted the approach of self-certification with EPA verification. As such, the EPA is not relying 

on interested stakeholders to verify reported emissions for this program.

Further, the EPA disagrees that inputs must be reported in order to avoid fraudulent reporting.

For the reasons stated below, the EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assertion that it is 

essential and critical to require reporting of the inputs at issue to avoid fraudulent reporting. The

alternative verification approach finalized today protects against fraudulent reporting. Requiring 

that the inputs to equations (for which disclosure concerns were identified) be entered into IVT 

will provide the EPA with the certainty that reported annual GHG emissions values are either 

calculated correctly (because the equation results calculated by the tool are submitted) or that the 

EPA will be aware of discrepancies between equation results calculated by the tool and emission 

values submitted to the EPA. The EPA will also conduct additional verification checks, such as 

range and logic checks on the inputs to equations that are entered into IVT. As part of these 

verification checks, the EPA has the ability to compare data entered into IVT with additional 

supporting data (such as information on the activity level at the facility) required to be reported 

in the annual report. The EPA is also adding approximately 20 new reporting elements in this 

action to provide it with supplementary information for verification. These data elements are 

quantities that provide information on the activity level at the facility, emission factors used, 

characteristics of carbon-containing streams, and other process information. The EPA will use 

these data to perform additional verification checks including confirming that emissions are 

appropriate for a given activity level, estimating expected emissions based on data provided, and 

checking consistency with reported GHG values. In addition, as stated in the proposed preamble 

to this action (78 FR 55994), the EPA also conducts electronic verification checks on data that 

are currently reported in the annual report. For example, during reporting year 2011, the EPA 
Draft Deliberative

8

used approximately 3,700 electronic verification checks to verify reported data. Lastly, the EPA 

is revising the recordkeeping requirements to require that all records be kept at a facility for 5 

years rather than 3 years for facilities required to use IVT. This will allow sufficient time for the 

EPA to carry out any necessary follow-up verification activities with reporters, including on-site 

visits if necessary.

Additionally, facilities or suppliers that fail to monitor or report GHG emissions, quantities 

supplied, or other data elements according to the requirements of the applicable rule subparts 

could be subject to enforcement action by EPA under CAA Sections 113 and 203–205. The CAA 

provides for several levels of enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal 

penalties. The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and 

administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation.4 Actions (or inactions) that could 

ultimately be considered violations include but are not limited to the following: 

 Failure to report GHG emissions for suppliers (the emissions that would result from 

combustion or use of the products they supply). 

 Failure to collect data needed to calculate GHG emissions.

 Failure to continuously monitor and test as required. Note that merely filling in missing data 

as specified does not excuse a failure to perform the monitoring or testing.

 Failure to calculate GHG emissions according to the methodology (or methodologies) 

specified in the rule.

 Failure to keep required records needed to verify reported GHG emissions. 

 Falsification of reports.

For the reasons stated above, the EPA concludes that the alternative verification approach 

finalized today protects against fraudulent reporting. The commenter has not raised any specific 

issues or concerns with any of the steps the EPA has set forth regarding the alternative 

verification approach, identified any deficiencies in the alternative verification approach, or 

explained its assertion that collecting inputs is the only viable option to avoid fraudulent 

reporting. We therefore reject such assertion. 

Regarding the commenter’s assertion that third party verification should be adopted if the EPA 

does not collect all of the inputs to equations, the EPA previously considered third party 

verification and decided against implementing it. Refer to the EPA’s full rationale for not 

selecting third party verification in the October 30, 2009, final rule (74 FR 56260). In Step 3 of 

the four-step evaluation of potential disclosure concerns and amendments relative to the inputs to 

emission equations data elements at issue, the EPA reconsidered the third party verification 

approach and again decided it was not appropriate based on the same rationale, which continues 

 

4 The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as 

amended by section 31001(s)(1) of the debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321–373, 

April 26, 1996, requires the EPA and other agencies to adjust the ordinary maximum penalty that it will apply when assessing a 

civil penalty for a violation. Accordingly, the EPA has adjusted the CAA’s provision in Section 113(b) and (d) specifying 

$25,000 per day of violation for civil violations to $37,500 per day of violation.
Draft Deliberative

9

to apply. Refer to the memorandum “Evaluation of Alternative Verification Approaches For 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Subparts for which Reporting of Inputs to Emission Equations 

was Deferred to March 31, 2015,” August 2013 (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), for 

further discussion of the EPA’s consideration of third party verification. The commenter did not 

raise specific issues with the EPA’s rationales for finding that the third party verification 

approach is inappropriate for this reporting rule.

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Section III (A) (2) of the proposed rule, deals with EPA’s response in the event of a 

potential error with one of the “inputs to equations” data elements or with an annual GHG 

emissions value identified in the verification summary generated by the inputs verification tool, 

and states that the EPA “would likely follow up with the facility to determine whether an actual 

error has occurred.” If the proposed rule expects that errors will occur in the process, then the 

EPA should plan to verify whether in fact an error did occur and the consequences to the 

environment of any such error. EIA calls for stronger language and a clear indication from EPA 

that in such cases, there would be investigations to assure reporting is accurate.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that direct follow-up with facilities following 

the EPA’s automated verification checks is an important part of data verification. As stated in 

Section III of the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA anticipates that its alternative 

verification approach supported by these final amendments will result in more direct follow-up 

with facilities than if the data elements for which reporting was deferred to 2015 were submitted 

to the EPA. As such, the EPA intends to follow up with potential errors identified during the 

verification process. However, the types of follow-ups may vary depending on the nature of the 

potential errors. In some cases, the EPA may follow up by conducting further verification using 

other reported data (e.g., the new data elements being added in the final amendments). In 

addition, there may be instances where the EPA can complete follow-up by reviewing the 

verification from the previous year (i.e., the EPA had previously contacted the facility about the 

same or similar issue for a previous annual report, and as a result the EPA may already 

understand why a particular verification check yielded a certain result.) Further, in the final rule 

to this action, the EPA is adding an option for facilities to add a comment associated with a given 

IVT verification check. This additional information will streamline the verification process and 

allow follow-up to be more targeted. Once the annual report is submitted to the EPA and the 

EPA has reviewed the electronic verification summaries and other documents (e.g., annual 

report, past reports), if additional follow-up is needed, the EPA will contact the facility via phone 

or email to inform it that a potential error has been identified. Per subpart A of Part 98, the 

facility then has 45 days to either demonstrate that a substantive error5has not occurred or to 

 

5

40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise 

prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR 98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an 
Draft Deliberative

10

resubmit the annual report. If additional follow-up is necessary, the EPA can conduct an on-site 

visit. The EPA also notes that facilities or suppliers that fail to monitor or report GHG emissions, 

quantities supplied, or other data elements according to the requirements of the applicable rule 

subparts could potentially be subject to enforcement action by the EPA under CAA Sections 113 

and 203–205. The CAA provides for several levels of enforcement that include administrative, 

civil, and criminal penalties. The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and 

civil and administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation.6

Commenter Name: Unknown

Commenter Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology, environmental policy class

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0060

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Will EPA do anything differently than previously with data collected under the new 

procedures?

Response: It is not clear to which data the commenter is referring. As explained in Sections II.A

and III.A.1 of the proposal preamble and Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule, data 

entered into IVT are not collected by the EPA. These data are entered into IVT, but are not saved 

or otherwise retained in the electronic reporting system and, thus, are not “collected” by the 

EPA. Refer to the memorandum “Technical Approach and Design for Inputs Verification Tool,” 

(August 2013, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) and Sections II.A and III.A of the 

proposal preamble for more detailed discussions of these changes in the EPA’s verification 

approach.

Regarding the new data being collected as part of the final amendments, the EPA will use these 

data to verify reported GHG emission data and to inform future GHG policy. Refer to Section

III.C of the proposal preamble for further discussion of the EPA’s planned use for these new 

data.

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

 

owner or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification, either resubmit the report that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part) or provide 

information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain the identified substantive error or that the 

identified error is not a substantive error.

6 The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as 

amended by Section 31001(s)(1) of the debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321–373, 

April 26, 1996, requires EPA and other agencies to adjust the ordinary maximum penalty that it will apply when assessing a civil 

penalty for a violation. Accordingly, EPA has adjusted the CAA’s provision in Section 113(b) and (d) specifying $25,000 per day 

of violation for civil violations to $37,500 per day of violation.
Draft Deliberative

11

Comment: EPA, under section III (A) (1) of the proposed rule, should require additional 

information be provided detailing the checks and balances, other than real time data, to ensure 

that misrepresentation of actualized data does not occur during the revision process of the 

verification summary. Are the real-time checks adequate to properly represent data input in a 

precise and confident manner?

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that the Agency is not relying on real-time IVT checks 

alone to ensure the accuracy of reported GHG values. The EPA’s verification approach being 

finalized in this action combines “real-time” data checks conducted at the time that data are

entered into IVT with existing follow-on checks conducted by the EPA after the annual report is 

submitted (as with all annual reports), as well as additional verification that will be conducted 

using the additional data that will be reported to the EPA as required by this final action. The 

proposal preamble section cited by the commenter (Section III.A.1) provides examples of realtime electronic checks that ensure the accuracy of data. In addition, once the annual report is 

submitted to the EPA, the EPA will review the electronic verification summaries and, if 

necessary, other documents (e.g., annual report, past reports). If additional follow-up is needed, 

the EPA will contact the facility to inform it that a potential substantive error has been 

identified.7Per subpart A of Part 98, the facility then has 45 days to either demonstrate that a 

substantive error has not occurred or to resubmit the annual report. If additional follow-up is 

necessary after the EPA reviews the demonstration or the resubmitted report, the EPA can 

conduct an on-site visit. As such, the EPA’s verification approach using both verification checks 

conducted by IVT, existing verification checks conducted after the annual report has been 

submitted (as with all annual reports), and direct follow-up with facilities (as needed) will ensure 

the accuracy of reported GHG values. The comprehensive nature and design of the checks 

described above enable the EPA to verify the accuracy of the reported emissions.

Commenter Name: Andrew T. O’Hare

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: PCA members have been tracking GHG emissions from their facilities since the late 

1990s, long before promulgation of EPA’s MRR for GHGs. In comments submitted on May 17, 

2013 in response to a previous round of proposed revisions to the MRR for GHGs, PCA stated 

that it opposed independent calculation of emissions data by EPA pursuant to filed emissions 

reports. In the current proposal, EPA proposes the use of a program within the e-GGRT to 

calculate and verify reported emissions. As stated in comments submitted on May 17, cement 

makers oppose the denial of “authority to calculate emissions from facilities over which it is 

 

7

40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise 

prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR 98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an 

owner or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification, either resubmit the report that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part) or provide 

information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain the identified substantive error or that the 

identified error is not a substantive error.
Draft Deliberative

12

responsible for compliance with PSD permits, among other requirements.” Furthermore, EPA 

conceded in the prior rulemaking that independent calculation of emissions reports has the 

disadvantage of denying the regulated entity autonomy to calculate its emissions. Mandatory 

generation of a verification report, using software within the e-GGRT, is a recordkeeping 

requirement similar to the proposal rejected per the comments filed on May 17, 2013. Use of the 

verification also undermines regulatory certainty, raising the possibility of disparities between 

calculations generated by the verification tool, and data generated by the regulated community.

This will require establishment of a process for harmonization of the data and methodologies, 

possibly causing permitting delays, and an inability to compare data from year-to-year in a 

timely manner.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the IVT tool denies reporters authority to 

calculate emissions. As a verification tool, IVT conducts emission calculations using the 

equations and methodologies required by Part 98, which are built into IVT. However, when 

using IVT, reporters will maintain the authority over the submitted emissions report and have the 

opportunity to review and certify their own emissions. IVT is programmed to allow the reporter 

to override the EPA’s calculated GHG emission value with the reporter’s calculated GHG 

emission value. As a result, the EPA’s verification of reported GHG values does not inhibit the 

reporter’s autonomy to report their GHG emissions. IVT allows the EPA to verify the emissions 

reported by comparing the value calculated by IVT to the value reported by the facility. 

The commenter expressed concern that this verification process may result in the possibility of 

disparities existing between calculations generated by the verification tool and data generated by 

the regulated community. However, this potential concern is not unique to the IVT process; in 

any verification process, whether IVT or another process, it could be possible to find disparities 

between reported emissions and other emission indicators used in the process to verify the 

reported emissions. The very purpose of a verification process is to identify and resolve 

disparities or other issues regarding the reported emissions. The commenter generally asserts that 

the verification will undermine regulatory certainty, possibly causing permitting delays and an 

inability to compare data. However, the commenter provides no supporting facts or specific 

examples for us to evaluate. Without a more detailed explanation about why the commenter 

believes that permitting delays could occur, we are unable to address the commenter’s concerns. 

Thus, we are not providing a specific response to the commenter’s alleged concerns relating to 

the potential for permitting delays.

With regard to the commenter’s assertion that the EPA conceded in a previous rulemaking that 

“that independent calculation of emissions reports has the disadvantage of denying the regulated 

entity autonomy to calculate its emissions,” the EPA believes that the commenter is referring to a 

discussion in a preamble published on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19802), which is related to the 

possibility of the EPA updating reported emissions to incorporate updated global warming 

potential values, for the purpose of publication, after reports have been submitted to the EPA. 

This topic is unrelated to the use of IVT, which occurs prior to the report being submitted. As 

stated above, when using IVT, reporters will maintain the authority over the submitted emissions 

report and have the opportunity to review and certify their own emissions. IVT is programmed to 

allow the reporter to override the EPA’s calculated GHG emission value with the reporter’s 

calculated GHG emission value.
Draft Deliberative

13

Commenter Name: Andrew T. O’Hare

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: PCA members, however, do not support EPA’s proposed use of a software program 

to generate “verification reports” for data submissions, beginning in 2014.

PCA is concerned that federal regulators are applying the verification report requirement in an 

arbitrary fashion. EPA’s initial Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) for Greenhouse Gases applies 

to 30 source categories and relevant subparts. The latest CBI proposal, however, only applies to 

24 out of the 30 relevant subparts, which would impose uneven recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements.

Response: As explained in both the preambles to the proposed and final rules and elsewhere in 

this response to comment document, we are amending the reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in certain Part 98 subparts (that had inputs to equations whose reporting deadline 

was deferred to 2015) to address potential disclosure concerns while maintaining the EPA’s 

ability to verify the accuracy of data reported under those subparts. The commenter did not raise 

issues or concerns with any aspect of the EPA’s four-step evaluation8that served as the basis for 

this rule-making or the amended requirements, but simply objected that the amendment would 

impose uneven recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Because potential disclosure concerns 

were not identified in all Part 98 subparts (see Section I.D of the preamble), it would be 

unnecessary, and in fact arbitrary, to also amend the existing reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements in subparts with no potential disclosure concerns, as the commenter appears to 

suggest.

2.0 Use of Inputs Verification Tool for Certain Subpart C Sources 

2.1 Revision of 40 CFR 98.36(f)

Commenter Name: Paul Noe and Robert Glowinski

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association/American Wood Council

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA has proposed that inputs to equations for some data elements used by Stationary 

Fuel Combustion Units may pose CBI issues and should not be submitted to the Agency, but 

may be handled through the Verification Tool. AF&PA and AWC agree with that approach.

EPA has tried to differentiate between those units that sell power into the electricity grid and 

those that do not, based on the Agency’s analysis that those who sell power into the grid are 

 

8

Please see Section I.C of the preamble for additional information on the four-step evaluation. 
Draft Deliberative

14

already providing fuel specific information to the public. However, AF&PA and AWC believe 

that the language used in the proposal needs to be reviewed. Specifically, the phrase “granted 

access by the Public Utilities Commission to deliver power to the local or regional electric power 

grid” is unnecessarily vague and may result in confusion or over-broad inclusion of units that 

may not take advantage of the CBI protections contemplated in this proposal.

There are a large number of jurisdictions that have either deregulated power sales from such 

units completely or imposed only registration and other requirements of a ministerial nature on 

such units. On the other hand, some states engage in direct price and other regulation of 

vertically integrated and other utility operations that grant or restrict franchise rights. It is not 

clear what level of regulation or lack thereof constitutes a “grant of access” under the rule. All 

units, regardless of type or regulatory regime, require “access” to a local or regional grid in some 

form to make off site sales of power, giving rise to the concern that without further clarity the 

definition could be improperly interpreted to which fuel powered unit making sales may protect 

their fuel information through CBI coverage.

To avoid such improperly broad interpretations, AF&PA and AWC recommend the Agency 

clarify that only units subject to regulation as “public utilities” under the laws and regulations of 

a given state, (as opposed to those under Federal regulation or not otherwise subject to state 

utility commission oversight of operations and rates as “public utilities”) should be considered as 

having been “granted access by the Public Utilities Commission to deliver power to the local or 

regional electric power grid.”

Furthermore, EPA assumes that if information is provided to public utility commissions (PUC) --

or similar institutions -- that information is available to the public. However, EPA must clarify 

how it will address such information if the PUC treats that information as CBI or it is otherwise 

not available to the public.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenters for their support of IVT. The EPA has reviewed the 

commenter’s concerns regarding which electric utilities are captured by 40 CFR 98.36(f)(1), and 

after further evaluation, has revised the final text in 98.36(f)(1). See Section II.A.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule for a detailed response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA is proposing to add a new paragraph 98.36(f) which requires owner and 

operators to report if each stationary fuel combustion source meets the conditions of the 

proposed 98.36(f)(1) and (2). This is a brand new reporting element, and most Subpart C 

facilities will not be resubmitting reports from reporting years 2010-2013. Thus, this language 

must be modified to have an applicability date; otherwise, previously submitted reports will be

out of compliance with the rule:
Draft Deliberative

15

“(f) Beginning reporting year 2014, each Each stationary fuel combustion source (e.g., 

individual unit, aggregation of units, common pipe, or common stack) subject to reporting 

under paragraph (b), (c), or (d)(2) of this section must indicate if both of the following two 

conditions are met:

1. The stationary combustion source contains at least one combustion unit connected to a 

fuel-fired electric generator that has been granted access by the Public Utilities 

Commission to deliver power to the local or regional electric power grid (excluding 

generators that are connected to combustion units that are subject to subpart D of this 

part).

2. The stationary fuel combustion source is located at a facility for which the sum of the 

nameplate capacities for all electric generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output.”

Response: The EPA disagrees with the comment that the date when new requirements go into 

effect needs to be specified in each place in the regulatory text where a new requirement is 

added. The effective date of each regulation is sufficient to indicate when new requirements that 

are added to Part 98 must be reported.

2.2 Use of Inputs Verification Tool for Certain Subpart C Sources That Do Not Meet the 

Criteria Specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f)

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Republic appreciates EPA’s commitment to ensure CBI data is properly handled. 

However, we must point out to EPA that Republic and reporters under Subpart HH did not claim 

CBI data, and it appears EPA did not take into consideration how to address this scenario. As 

written, the proposed rule requires reporters who did not claim CBI to use a data input 

verification tool “IVT” to preserve data elements that are not considered CBI for their business. 

There is no option to just allow the reporter to submit the data element that is claimed to be CBI 

instead of using the IVT.

As proposed, Republic would be required to undertake the burden of using the IVT to report a 

single data element that compromises less than 1% of our overall CO2e emissions reported under 

the GHGRP. This additional work required to accommodate less than 1% of our emissions data 

seems extreme, considering, as stated above, this was not claimed as CBI by our 

company/industry sector.

It is important to note that the only reason that Republic, as well as the rest of the solid waste 

industry, reports under Subpart C is due to applicability under Subpart HH. Thus, the Subpart C 

emissions associated with the majority of Republic landfills are from very minor sources. Hence, 

Republic, as well as the rest of the solid waste industry, generally use Subpart C, Tier 1 

methodology, specifically equation C-1, to report these minor Subpart C emissions. Ironically, 

while the C-1 emissions equation only has a single data element that is deferred under CBI, this 
Draft Deliberative

16

data element can be easily back-calculated from the result of the C-1 equation since the deferred 

element (fuel) is the ONLY non-default value in the C-1 equation. With the ability to backcalculate a deferred data element so easily, it seems like a useless effort to undergo the IVT just 

to have the semblance of confidentiality.

Republic recommends that EPA exclude Subpart C, Tier 1 equations from consideration as either 

CBI or deferred, due to the fact that the data has already been reported to the GHGRP. With 

specific regard to the “deferred” status of this data element, EPA could modify the proposal to 

allow us to maintain the records as a part of the facility Monitoring Plan since the EPA can 

determine the fuel quantity based on the data already provided. Maintaining this data is already 

required pursuant to Subpart A §98.3(g) – Recordkeeping. An alternative approach would be to 

report the deferred data under Tier 1 Equation C-1. This approach creates additional burden for 

data that is already available but could be implemented as proposed for the deferred data 

elements that must be reported in the 2014 reporting year annual report. The equation C-1 

previous year’s fuel combustion quantity data could be uploaded via XML in the annual report as 

a part of the 2014 annual report to prevent revising, re-certifying and re-submitting previous 

reporting year’s.

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any inputs to emission equations either in this final rule or any other final 

action, nor does this rule address handling of CBI data. With respect to the specific comment on 

40 CFR 98.36(f), please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s 

response to this comment. Regarding the commenter’s suggestion that the EPA not collect this

data because the EPA can back-calculate it, the EPA needs this data to verify the reported 

emissions values. The fact that the EPA can back-calculate this data using the reported emission 

does not inform the EPA of the accuracy of the reported emissions. The EPA therefore rejects 

the suggestion that it require only recordkeeping of this data element. However, the EPA accepts 

the suggestion to allow reporters the option of reporting this data element instead of using IVT. 

Please see Section II.A.3 for a more detailed response to this suggestion. Because this data 

element cannot always be back-calculated, depending on which tier and fuel a reporter uses, the 

EPA believes that potential disclosure concerns still remain. In light of the above, the EPA 

provides reporters the option of using IVT or reporting the data element.

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Although Subpart HH reporters did not claim CBI for any data elements, the 

proposal forces us to use the verification tool because of one data element – Quantity of Fuel 

Combusted.

WM maintains that it is inappropriate to require us to use the “data inputs verification tool” to 

report a single data element that we did not claim as confidential business information (CBI), and 

is already available to the EPA by making a simple calculation from the result of the emissions 
Draft Deliberative

17

equation used for reporting. Under Subpart C, the Tier 1 reporting equation (equation C-1), is 

most widely used by the landfill sector to report de minimis emissions from small stationary 

combustion sources. This Tier 1 equation comprises only three variables. Two of the variables 

are default values provided in Table C-1 of Subpart C. The remaining variable is the 

mass/volume of fuel combusted during the year, which is a deferred data element. The Agency 

can easily obtain the deferred data element by back calculating it from the reported equation 

result. Since the information is so easily available to the Agency, we do not believe that it 

qualifies as a deferred data element. Finally, we are very willing to report the quantity of fuel 

combusted by each stationary source to the Agency, and would be happy to include it in our 

XML upload.

WM urges EPA to exclude Subpart C Tier 1 reporters from the requirement to use the 

verification tool to supply merely one data element to the Agency. WM recommends EPA 

streamline reporting for Subpart C Tier 1 reporters.

We suggest EPA exclude Tier 1 reporters from being required to use the verification tool to 

report source fuel quantity. This information can be much more readily provided by including it 

in the e-GRRT web form or XML schema; requiring reporters to maintain records of fuel 

quantity in accordance with the facility Monitoring Plan; or better yet, the Agency can calculate 

it from the reported result and default variables in the Tier 1 equation. Our recommendation to 

streamline reporting for Subpart C Tier 1 reporters is further supported by the de minimis nature 

of these emissions. For landfill reporters under Subpart HH, Subpart C Tier 1 emissions 

comprise one percent or less of total CO2e emissions.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule and the EPA’s response to 

comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077, Excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Sharon H. Kneiss and John Skinner

Commenter Affiliation: National Waste/Recycling Association/Solid Waste Association of 

North America

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0076

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Our associations’ members include landfill reporters for hundreds of landfill 

facilities. Many facilities report on hundreds of elements requiring thousands of total elements. 

The reports are complex requiring the use of XML format for individual facility-by-facility 

uploading to e-GGRT. Landfills are required to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 

accordance with Subpart HH of the GHG MRR. Many of these facilities also report de minimis

emissions under Subpart C.

The National Waste & Recycling Association and SWANA recommend the EPA streamline 

reporting for Subpart C Tier 1 reporters by exempting them from using the “data inputs 

verification tool” to report source fuel quantity.
Draft Deliberative

18

Landfill reporters have not claimed that any data elements are confidential. Nonetheless, the 

GHG CBI requires use of the verification tool because of one data element, “Quantity of Fuel 

Combusted.” The verification tool was designed to protect confidential business information 

(CBI). However, the calculation utilizes only one variable that is not default. Therefore, the EPA 

can back calculate the variable from the emissions reported. Because the information can be 

accessed, we do not believe that it is protected.

Our members are willing to report the quantity of fuel combusted for each stationary source and 

can include it with their GHG report.

The verification tool will be unnecessarily complex for landfill reporters. Landfill reporters will 

have to develop an additional XML report, using a separate schema, and then upload each report 

for EPA approval. Only after EPA approves the verification submittal can they proceed with 

downloading a “Record of Equation Inputs,” followed by submittal of the GHG report. This twostep process potentially will delay reporting and possibly compromise some landfill reporter’s 

ability to comply with the GHG MRR.

In the past, the EPA delivered the XML schemas and instructions very late in the reporting cycle, 

leaving landfill reporters without all the necessary instructions for reporting until late February, 

making it difficult to meet the March 31 reporting deadline.

The e-GRRT system is often inoperable for lengthy periods because many reporters attempt to 

access the system simultaneously. This further complicates reporting.

The recommendation to streamline reporting is further supported by the de minimis nature of 

these emissions. For landfill reporters under Subpart HH, Subpart C Tier 1 emissions generally 

account for less than one percent of their total GHG emissions.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule and the EPA’s response to 

comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077, Excerpt 1.

3.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Schedule for Releasing

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Beginning in 2014, reporting entities would be required to use the EPA provided 

electronic inputs verification tool. The verification tool is purported to calculate GHG emissions 

and this calculated number would be reported unless the reporting entity overrides the number. 

This would show up in the report as an “override”.

Similar to past launches of e-GRRT and e-GGRT updates, we expect a full sandbox testing 

environment (including XML) to be available for all applicable subparts of the inputs 

verification tool by the summer of 2014 so that errors can be corrected in a timely manner. We 

require that the inputs verification tool be fully functional before January 1, 2015. Reporters 
Draft Deliberative

19

must undergo an extensive amount of work and software development so that our systems 

accurately “synch” to e-GGRT. This will be especially true in 2015 where we are synching with 

a new version of e-GGRT with a verification tool and we are reporting many new elements for 

not just one year of data, but for up to five years of data. In the past, the EPA has provided 

industry just a handful of weeks before the reporting deadline to update all our data systems, 

input all of our data into e-GGRT, correct any errors, complete internal reviews of the reports, 

and to submit all reports. This short timeframe was extremely challenging in past years, and it 

will be unacceptable for the EPA to provide another short timeframe in 2015, especially given 

the very long timeframe the EPA has had for addressing these CBI issues. To build assurances 

for the EPA and industry, we propose that the EPA should include language in Subpart A to 

indicate that for each day past January 1, 2015 that the upgraded e-GGRT is not available, the 

reporting deadline will be extended by one day. 

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: To ensure the integrity of the information and the adaptation of the eGGRT 

verification modules involved, we would suggest that over the coming year, EPA allow 

individual companies to beta-test the reporting system for their industries. This would allow 

issues with programs involving statistical conventions and/or other information to be resolved, or 

at least identified, before reports actually become due. Because of EPA’s investment in the 

system, we believe that many industries will be happy to volunteer to use to protocol to compare 

emission calculations with existing tool with the proposed verification tool. These trials could 

provide important information resolving the need to “over-ride” certain data inputs, which the 

proposal currently recognizes as a possibility.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. 
Draft Deliberative

20

Commenter Name: Charles Johnson

Commenter Affiliation: Aluminum Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: We request the opportunity to “pilot test” the Subpart F verification tool well in 

advance of the proposed March 31, 2015 reporting date. A pilot test would allow for any errors 

or bugs in the software calculations to be corrected prior to its initial use for GHG report 

verification. A similar pilot test should also be offered for Subpart C verification tool.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that stakeholders would benefit from the 

opportunity to test IVT for all applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for 

reporting year 2014. Please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion of the sandbox testing period and how it will allow reporters sufficient time to sync 

their systems with IVT.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 17

Comment: With the expiration of the deferral for some Subparts and the addition of the 

Verification Tool for others, it is critical for EPA to recognize that additional time will be needed 

from the date that EPA opens the system for annual reporting to the due date for the completed 

reports on March 31, 2015. In addition to calendar year 2014 reporting that would be due on that 

day, all “inputs to equation” data elements for Subpart W (and Subpart II) would need to be 

reported for reporting years 2011, 2012, and 2013. For other subparts, reporters would 

concurrently have to provide annual reporting data as well as utilize the Verification Tool for 

“inputs to equations” data. Reporters will need more than the 3 months EPA has previously 

provided to complete the additional reporting required by March 31, 2015.

API requests that EPA consider opening the system for a more extensive testing period during 

2014 to allow testing of data elements that are relevant to all applicable Subparts that would be 

using the data Verification Tool. It is especially critical that EPA engage with industry in setting 

up the verification ranges to ensure that the ranges selected are technically sound and relevant to 

the respective Subparts.

API contends that it would be less burdensome to do it right from the start rather than have to do 

it over due to erroneous scope of the verification tables that are used in the electronic tool.

Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA should offer an extensive testing opportunity,

the EPA agrees with the commenter that stakeholders would benefit from the opportunity to test 

IVT for all applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting year 2014. See 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this comment.
Draft Deliberative

21

Regarding the comment that reporting year 2014 will be an unusually busy year due to backreporting inputs to equations for which disclosure concerns were not identified for reporting 

years 2010 through 2013, and that reporters will need more time than usual to prepare their 

annual report, see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

Regarding the comment that industry should be involved in setting IVT ranges, as is the case for 

all reasonable ranges used as part of the electronic verification process for the GHGRP, the EPA 

will set initial ranges and will continually refine ranges as additional information is obtained. We 

see no reason to deviate from this approach for the IVT ranges. In any event, reporters may

provide feedback on the ranges set in IVT during the “sandbox” testing period or any time 

thereafter. For further information on the setting of ranges, please see Section II.A.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule. 

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA should make the final inputs verification tool available early enough to allow 

users to complete the verification process prior to the regular e-GGRT data upload.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In order for the IVT system to be effective, reporters would need to have an 

extensive sandbox testing that includes XML in a timely manner. The IVT tool would need to be 

fully functional without errors or corrections by no later than the end of 2014 to allow users time 

for extensive internal software development for our systems to sync with eGGRT.

Based on past experience with EPA delivering schemas and instructions late in the reporting 

cycle, we have concerns of having the necessary information to meet the March 31st reporting 

deadline using the IVT tool. The additional upload process with using IVT will cause additional 

burden to reporters while overwhelming the e-GGRT system that has previously had issues 

during high volume usage periods.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.
Draft Deliberative

22

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council9

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: In looking forward, we encourage EPA to release the final inputs verification tool 

early enough to allow users to complete the verification process prior to the regular e-GGRT data 

upload. For large or complex facilities, the verification process appears to be lengthy, and these 

facilities will want to ensure the verification report is correct prior to the e-GGRT upload.

Response: The EPA notes that the data verification associated with IVT occurs while the user is 

actively using e-GGRT. Some of the verification checks conducted on the inputs to equations in 

IVT use data that are reported in the annual report (and therefore entered into e-GGRT). As such, 

the verification summary produced by IVT is generated immediately prior to annual report 

submittal, once data entry in e-GGRT is complete.

In response to the commenter’s concern about having enough time to complete data entered into 

IVT, please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: On a more specific point, NEDA/CAP supports implementation of the rule in the 

2014 reporting year. Id. at 55999/3 Even if the proposal is finalized quickly, we believe that data 

inputters will require some time with the program in order to utilize its new features. They also 

will need time to develop internal company procedures for safeguarding the data used as inputs 

into equations and then deleted before MRR submissions, which the proposal would require to 

be kept for five years. 

Response: Regarding the comment that reporters will need some time with IVT to familiarize 

themselves with its features, the EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit 

from an opportunity to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of 

reporting for reporting year 2014. See section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion of the EPA’s plans for sandbox testing of IVT. 

Regarding the comment that reporters using IVT will need extra time to develop internal 

company procedures for safeguarding data input into IVT, the reporters are already required to 

 

9 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

23

keep records of the inputs. To the extent that any reporter considers any internal procedure is 

necessary to safeguard the inputs, we expect such a procedure would or should have already been 

developed. Today’s final rule simply requires that all inputs to emission equations that are 

entered into IVT be included in a file generated by IVT to be retained as a record. Reporters may 

retain this file in any format. The EPA does not anticipate that it will take reporters any 

additional time to make arrangements to keep records of this file, nor did the commenter explain 

why its current recordkeeping practice for the deferred inputs cannot apply to this file.

4.0 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool

4.1 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Adequacy for Public Comment

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA has provided a pilot Verification Tool for sandbox testing. However, it is 

limited only to the Mass Balance Methodology under Subpart X, which is of very limited value. 

API requests that EPA make sandbox testing available for all of the Subparts, similar to the eGGRT testing that EPA conducted in 2012, to draw broader conclusions on the operation of the 

Verification Tool.

Response: The EPA disagrees with the comments that the pilot verification tool provided at 

proposal for the mass balance methodology in subpart X was of limited value for assessing the 

burden and ease of use for other methodologies and subparts required to use IVT. This prototype 

allowed reporters to review the overall design, structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies 

to all subparts that are to use the tool. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further 

discussion of the usefulness of the prototype for public comment. Refer to Sections 4.3 and 5.1

of this document for the specific and general public comments provided to the EPA, based on the 

prototype tool, regarding IVT design and functionality. 

Regarding the comment that the EPA should allow sandbox testing for all subparts included in 

IVT, the EPA agrees with the commenter that stakeholders would benefit from the opportunity to 

test IVT for all applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting year 2014. 

See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA provided a beta verification tool for Subpart X for public testing. TFI members 

have accessed the Subpart X tool, but because it has different data elements and equations than 
Draft Deliberative

24

present in Subparts G, V and Z, we are unable to offer any feedback on the tool. We suggest that 

EPA develop a beta reporting tool for Subpart V, provide TFI access to that tool, and repropose 

the Subpart V verification tool to allow TFI and its members the opportunity to provide public 

comment on same. A single GHGRP subpart beta verification tool, when 27 source categories 

are affected by EPA’s GHGRP Proposal, does not suffice to inform the regulated community 

regarding the burdens associated with EPA’s GHGRP Proposal.

Response: The prototype tool for subpart X allowed reporters to review the overall design, 

structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. Refer to 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion of the usefulness and adequacy of the 

prototype for public comment. The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit 

from an opportunity to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of 

reporting for reporting year 2014. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion of the EPA’s plans for sandbox testing of IVT. 

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: MLCO joins the NLA in requesting release of IVT functions (subpart S) that lime 

plants will actually be required to use for evaluation and testing before this rulemaking is 

formally closed and finalized.

MLCO has accessed the "pilot" inputs verifier tool for Petrochemical Production (subpart X), in 

an effort to learn how the IVT functions in practice. This model tool is of limited use to MLCO 

as the petrochemical production sector and the inputs to equations are quite different and do not 

permit MLCO to see exactly how its lime industry data will be treated. While the functionality 

matched the USEPA's pilot presentation, MLCO could not compare results of the calculations in 

the IVT based on entered data with internal excel spreadsheet calculations. It would be helpful to 

permit MLCO to conduct a trial of its reporting under subpart S, as well as under subpart C (fuel 

combustion), to determine if the IVT calculates emissions correctly.

MLCO requests USEPA to release a trial IVT protocol for subpart S and subpart C to permit true 

evaluation, testing, and informed input on how the system will work in the lime industry.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit from an opportunity 

to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting 

year 2014. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the EPA’s 

plans for sandbox testing of IVT.
Draft Deliberative

25

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: It appeared that the tool was reasonably simple to use and not excessively 

burdensome. Unfortunately, the only testing option available was the mass balance methodology 

in Subpart X, which is not as commonly used as the alternative combustion-based calculation 

methodology, and – furthermore – is not similar to the reporting methodologies for Subparts L or 

EE, and is certainly not as complex as the requirements for Subpart L. Therefore, it is difficult to 

be completely assured as to the ease of use or level of burden that will be imposed on reporting 

verification under other subparts. We recommend that additional time be provided by the Agency 

to enable testing of the tool under all other subparts for which the tool will be applicable.

Response: The EPA notes that the inputs to emission equations whose reporting deadline was 

deferred until 2015 for subpart L are being finalized in a separate final action. Regarding the 

portion of the comment relating to subpart EE, the prototype tool for subpart X allowed reporters 

to review the overall design, structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all subparts 

that are to use the tool. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion of the 

usefulness of the prototype for public comment. The EPA agrees with the commenter that 

reporters would benefit from an opportunity to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts 

prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting year 2014. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to 

the final rule for further discussion of the EPA’s plans for sandbox testing of IVT.

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute10

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: While AISI disagrees with the use of the third-party verification tool proposed, we 

did access and review the “pilot” verification tool EPA made available for industry. AISI found 

the tool ineffective for determining its appropriateness for the reporting required for iron and 

steel facilities subject to Subpart Q (or other relevant Subparts, such as Subparts C and Y), as the 

pilot was limited to Subpart X, Petrochemical Production. EPA, therefore, should not view 

information or feedback gleaned from the pilot as definitive of its usefulness or viability for any 

other industrial sector. Accordingly, AISI asks that EPA not use such information to inform any 

aspect of the final rule as only one affected industrial sector was able to attain an accurate 

representation of how the tool would work for its operations.

Response: The EPA notes that the verification approach that was proposed and is being finalized 

in this action is not managed by a third party; rather it is managed by the EPA. The prototype 

tool for subpart X allowed reporters to review the overall design, structure, and functionality of 

 

10 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

26

IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble 

for further discussion of the usefulness of the prototype for public comment.

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: We have concerns regarding implementation of the proposed reporting requirements.

First, while AFPM supports EPA’s development of a “pilot” program to demonstrate how the 

tool will work within EPA’s Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (“e-GGRT”), we are 

concerned that the pilot program is too limited. The pilot program applies solely to the Mass 

Balance Methodology under Subpart X (Petrochemical Production), which is of limited value to 

only a portion of AFPM members. Providing complete access to the pilot tool for all affected 

subparts is critical to ensuring that confidential “inputs to emissions equations” data will be 

protected from disclosure. However, by limiting the pilot program to the Mass Balance 

Methodology under Subpart X, EPA has not allowed all affected sectors to fully test the 

verification tool. We urge EPA to expand access to the pilot program to all affected industry 

sectors and to allow additional time to test the verification tool, both for Subpart X and for 

additional industry sectors. Smooth implementation of the verification tool is critical to 

protecting CBI data from inadvertent disclosure and EPA must allow as much time as possible 

for affected industry sectors to test the tool and ensure that any errors are corrected before 

reporting requirements take effect.

Response: The prototype tool for subpart X allowed reporters to review the overall design, 

structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. Refer to 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion of the usefulness of the prototype for public 

comment. The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit from an opportunity 

to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting 

year 2014. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the EPA’s 

plans for sandbox testing of IVT.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council11

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Several ACC members were able to use the “pilot” inputs verification tool, and 

based on their experiences we provide the following feedback. For the majority of members, the 

 

11 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

27

testing options for the “pilot” tool were very limited, as it was only applicable to the mass 

balance methodology in Subpart X, which is not as commonly used as the alternative 

combustion-based calculation methodology. As a result, ACC members did not have much data 

to run through the “pilot” tool. It would be helpful if EPA allowed additional time for testing and 

expanded the scope to include more broadly used subparts, particularly Subpart C.

Response: The prototype tool for subpart X allowed reporters to review the overall design, 

structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. During 

the public comment period, the EPA provided sample data that could be used for testing IVT. 

Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion of the usefulness and adequacy of 

the prototype for public comment. The EPA provided sample data to use to test IVT. The sample 

data provided allowed the facility to review, test, and provide feedback on IVT, and additional 

data were not needed. The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit from an 

opportunity to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting 

for reporting year 2014. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion 

of the EPA’s plans for sandbox testing of IVT.

Commenter Name: William C. Herz

Commenter Affiliation: National Lime Association12

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA proposes that confidential business information will not be directly reported to 

EPA, but rather facilities will uses an “electronic inputs verification tool,” and would also be 

subject to certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

NLA generally supports this approach, but has some concerns about the verification tool. EPA 

has released a “pilot” inputs verification tool for only one subpart, subpart X (Petrochemical 

Production), to demonstrate how the tool would function. This model tool is of limited use to 

sectors other than petrochemical production, and NLA requests that the tool that lime plants will 

actually be required to use be released for evaluation and testing before this rulemaking is 

formally closed and finalized.

At a minimum, EPA should release all the tools for review and comment before they are 

finalized.

Response: The prototype tool for subpart X allowed reporters to review the overall design, 

structure, and functionality of IVT, which applies to all subparts that are to use the tool. Refer to 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion of the usefulness of the prototype for public 

comment. The EPA agrees with the commenter that reporters would benefit from an opportunity 

to view and test IVT for their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting 

 

12 This comment was also supported by HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-

0069).
Draft Deliberative

28

year 2014. The EPA will offer stakeholders an opportunity prior to the open reporting period 

(which is typically in mid-February) to view and provide feedback on the IVT modules for all 23

subparts, using a sandbox testing environment similar to that used previously for e-GGRT 

testing. Sandbox testing will provide users with the opportunity to use and test the applicable 

equations for all subparts that will be in IVT. During sandbox testing, reporters can test IVT for 

all calculation methods applicable to subpart X, not only the mass balance method. See Section 

II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the EPA’s plans for sandbox 

testing of IVT.

In addition, the EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any inputs to emission equations, either in this final rule or in any other final 

action. However, we believe, and the commenter appears to agree, that we have addressed in this 

final rule the concerns raised by various reporters regarding the potential release of certain 

“inputs to emission equations” data elements while maintaining the EPA’s ability to verify 

emissions and ensure compliance with the GHGRP.

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0057

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: I tried the ‘pilot’ in the EPA Sandbox and found it to not be that easy to use.

Response: The EPA developed the pilot IVT for a specific subpart, subpart X, petrochemical 

production. Recognizing that to effectively test IVT may require some basic knowledge of the 

subpart, the EPA provided support materials to assist with the testing process, including a stepby-step PowerPoint presentation with sample data that would trigger example verification 

checks. The commenter did not specify whether these support materials were used or elaborate 

on why they found the pilot not easy to use. Without more details on their experience in using 

the pilot, we are unable to address the commenter’s concerns. However, the EPA did make some 

revisions to IVT to improve its design and functionality based on other comments received. 

Please see Section 5.0 of this document and Sections II.A.2 and II.A.3 of the preamble to the 

final rule for additional details on these improvements.
Draft Deliberative

29

4.2 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Upload of XML Reports 

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public and Regulatory Affairs

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0061

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: WM facilities comprise nearly a quarter of the total number of landfill facilities 

reporting under Subpart HH. Many of these facilities are also required to report ancillary 

activities that are insignificant emissions sources under Subpart C.

WM reports for 289 landfill facilities. The reporting requirements and number of reported data 

elements varies with type of site (e.g., active, closed, with gas collection system, and without). 

On average, each facility will be required to report about 300 data elements. WM estimates we 

will report nearly 70,000 data elements for our sites for each year. Because of the large number 

of reporting facilities and the complexity of each report, WM collects data for each reporting site 

and then processes that data into the XML format suitable for bulk uploading to e-GGRT.

We are concerned, but cannot verify, that the proposed "inputs verification tool" does not support 

xml bulk upload of facility reports. We have attempted to access and test the "pilot" tool 

provided, but it did not function properly, and we have been unable to use it. With the Federal 

government shutdown, we have been unable to contact knowledgeable EPA staff or contractors 

to obtain essential information about using the tool. We are therefore unable to assess the tool so 

that we can provide the Agency comments on its ease of use or functionality. We are also unable 

to evaluate the level of additional burden and cost this proposal will pose on our already complex 

reporting requirements. If we are forced to use web-based forms to upload previously deferred 

data, in addition to conducting the xml bulk upload of site reports, the redundant work could be 

quite burdensome and costly.

Response: IVT allows for XML upload and is compatible with XML schema reporting. The 

prototype that was available during the comment period included XML upload functionality as 

well. Instructions were provided within the prototype on how to use the XML upload function 

and a telephone and email hotline was available during the open comment period to assist in 

testing the prototype. While the hotline was not available during the government shutdown 

period, the public comment period extended beyond the period of the government shutdown. The 

commenter did receive help from the hotline during the open comment period, and to the EPA’s 

knowledge the issue was resolved. The EPA is not aware of any XML upload issues raised 

through the hotline that were unresolved. Further, the EPA will provide stakeholders an 

opportunity to “sandbox” test IVT for all applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting 

for reporting year 2014, including saving XML files to local drives and uploading XML files to 

IVT. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for a detailed discussion of this 

“sandbox” testing opportunity as well as for the response to the comment on being unable to 

assess the burden of the proposed rule.
Draft Deliberative

30

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The “pilot” inputs verification tool for Subpart X that EPA provided as part of this 

proposal is usable. We expect EPA to release an analogous XML version of the tool. Some 

owners and operators submit reports for over 50 facilities and rely on automated software and 

XML to complete reporting in a timely and accurate manner. Without an XML version of the 

tool, this proposed inputs verification tool concept is unworkable, as manual data entry would be 

an enormous and error-prone task.

Response: IVT allows for XML upload and is compatible with XML schema reporting. The 

EPA notes that the prototype that was available during the comment period included and 

demonstrated XML upload functionality as well. In addition, the EPA will allow stakeholders an

opportunity to test IVT for all applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for 

reporting year 2014. This testing will include the XML upload option. Please see Section II.A.3 

of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the sandbox testing period.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council13

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: It did not appear that there was an XML option available for testing in the 

verification tool. One user attempted to upload the inputs verifier sample XML file, and an error 

message was generated that stated “An error has occurred and your request could not be 

completed.”

EPA should enhance the verification tool so that it is compatible with XML schema reporting. 

Many large facilities currently successfully utilize XML reporting in order to minimize the time 

needed to input the data into e-GGRT while ensuring that there are no transcription errors. 

Having to individually input each data element into the verification tool would negate much of 

the benefits of using XML reporting.

Response: IVT allows for XML upload and is compatible with XML schema reporting. The 

EPA notes that the prototype that was available during the comment period included XML 

upload functionality as well. There was a hotline available during the comment period to assist 

stakeholders in using the tool, and to our knowledge we resolved all inquiries that the EPA 

received. In addition, the EPA will allow stakeholders an opportunity to test IVT for all 

applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting year 2014. This testing will 

 

13 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

31

include the XML upload option. Please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for 

further discussion of the sandbox testing period.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: API provides the following comments from the limited testing that is possible with 

the currently-available tool:

Testing the XML option for the Verification Tool was limited as well. EPA did not provide an 

updated schema, and has only made available one sample file to test this approach. In using this 

sample file, we encountered an error which EPA had to correct by making changes to the 

database. We were able to replicate the verification message outlined by EPA in the guidance for 

using the XML file and test a few other verification messages successfully. With the complexity 

of the XML schema option, EPA needs to conduct very thorough testing of any schema changes.

Response: The EPA is pleased that the commenter was able to test the XML upload function 

successfully. The EPA agrees with the commenter that it needs to conduct thorough testing of 

any schema changes, and plans to do so prior to releasing the final XML schema. The EPA notes 

that it did publish an XML schema for the IVT prototype, as well as two sample files to be used 

with the prototype, an XML Inputs Verifier file and an XML Annual Report File. 

Regarding the error that the commenter discussed encountering, we believe that the commenter 

is referring to an issue that the EPA was contacted about on October 21, 2013. In review of this 

issue, there did not appear to be any errors identified with the IVT XML file; rather, it appears 

that the annual report XML file that the commenter attempted to upload to the IVT prototype 

contained an error. The sample annual report XML file available as part of the prototype did not 

contain this error. The database change alluded to by the commenter was a short-cut to allow the 

user to try to submit again and was not due to any errors in the prototype tool. Nonetheless, the 

EPA assisted the commenter and resolved the issue less than 24 hours after receiving the 

question. 

The EPA notes that additional comments provided by the API on their testing of the IVT 

prototype are included in this section (Section 4) of this document.

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: WM is concerned that the verification tool will be a hindrance to reporting.
Draft Deliberative

32

The verification tool appears to be designed to accommodate reporters using the eGRRT web 

forms, but is not designed to facilitate reporting for those using the XML upload method. For 

XML reporters, use of the verification tool requires development of an additional XML report, 

utilizing a separate XML reporting schema, which must be uploaded successfully for each 

affected site, and approved by EPA. Only after receiving EPA approval of the verification 

submittal with a verification summary, may reporters then proceed with downloading a “Record 

of Equation Inputs,” followed by submittal of the GHG report. We are concerned that this twostep process will potentially delay reporting and possibly compromise our ability to comply with 

the GHG MRR requirements.

Our experience over the last three years of reporting is that EPA delivers the XML schemas and 

instructions very late in the reporting cycle. In 2013, we were not equipped with all the necessary 

instructions for reporting until the latter half of February, making it very difficult to meet the 

required March 31 reporting deadline. Furthermore, with thousands of reporters attempting to 

access and use e-GRRT at the same time, the system becomes unstable and is often inoperable 

for lengthy periods. This further complicates reporting. The requirement to upload two different 

schemas for a large number of facilities will create additional work for landfill reporters and will 

greatly increase the time we are required to interface with the already overwhelmed e-GRRT 

system.

Response: The commenter was incorrect in its conclusion that IVT is not designed to facilitate 

reporting for those using the XML upload method. IVT allows for XML upload and is 

compatible with XML schema reporting. The prototype that was available during the comment 

period included XML upload functionality as well. The Help Desk was able to help stakeholders 

who asked for assistance during the public comment period.

Regarding the comment about the timing of XML schema publication, the EPA plans to conduct 

a “sandbox” testing period that will provide a valuable opportunity for reporters to preview and 

familiarize themselves with IVT prior to the open reporting period. The IVT XML schema will 

be provided during this sandbox period. Please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for further discussion of the sandbox testing period and how it will allow reporters sufficient 

time to sync their systems with IVT. Regarding the comment stating that the e-GGRT system has 

been “unstable” or “inoperable for lengthy periods”, the commenter did not identify any such 

instance or elaborate on the issues encountered to allow us to respond to more directly to this 

specific comment. The EPA closely monitors e-GGRT performance during the reporting period 

and does not have record of such instances. Outages of the Agency’s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX) have sometimes coincided with the e-GGRT new reporting year open reporting period, 

but these outages have been rare, have generally lasted only a few hours, have usually occurred 

outside business hours (i.e., late at night or during a weekend), and are not due to a high volume 

of reporters attempting to access e-GGRT at the same time.

For the reasons stated above, the EPA is confident that the two-step process of needing two 

XML schemas, one for data reported to the EPA and another for data entered into IVT, will not 

delay reporting and will not compromise a facility’s ability to timely comply with the GHGRP 

requirements. Keeping the two schemas separate is essential because the IVT schema is not 

saved by the EPA, and the EPA sees no reason why the uploading of an additional schema 

cannot be completed within the open reporting period. In addition, the IVT XML schema will be 
Draft Deliberative

33

provided during the sandbox period, which will allow reporters to begin preparing their XML 

files. The process of uploading an XML file within e-GGRT takes less than 5 minutes. In 

addition, the “EPA approval step” for each XML upload described by the commenter is an 

instantaneous electronic process performed by IVT, and is necessary to ensure that the data 

uploaded are complete and in the correct format so that the electronic data system can read the 

data uploaded. This step also allows the reporter to take immediate action of either completing 

the submittal process or fixing the file if needed. Lastly, the “record of equation inputs” is a 

human-readable version of the XML file uploaded, so it is necessary for IVT to be able to read 

the file before it is converted into a human-readable format. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble 

to the final rule for further details regarding the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The “pilot” IVT was designed for reporters using the e-GGRT web forms. For 

companies like Republic who report for over 200 facilities, we rely on reporting via XML 

uploading to complete our reporting accurately and in a timely manner. Therefore, EPA would 

also need to develop and test a XML version of the IVT.

Although we don’t have a full understanding of the XML version, it would appear conceptually 

that XML reporters would be required to upload multiple schema’s for each affected facility 

separately into EPA’s system. A separate IVT schema would be required to be uploaded 

requiring EPA approval with a verification summary. After this step then the reporter could 

download a “Records of Equation Inputs” that would be followed up with a separate final XML 

submittal into e-GGRT. This process will require additional steps not already required. Given 

our past experience with reporting into eGGRT this will cause delays for facilities to report 

timely to comply with the GHGRP.

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090, Excerpt 2.

4.3 Pilot Inputs Verification Tool—Potential Design Errors

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council14

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: For the Equation X-2 Product Inputs: The ACC member entered a low value of 0.8 

for average carbon content (expected range for carbon black is 0.95-1.0), yet no issues were 

identified in the verification summary. Also on the Equation X-2 Product Inputs page, when the 

user clicked the “Next” button to progress to the next screen, nothing happened. Further review 

 

14 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

34

of the provided .pdf instructions clarified that one must click the “Unit Summary” button to 

progress but that would not be obvious to a typical user. (The screenshots of these issues are in 

Appendix A.) Finally, the user tested the printer-friendly version of the error validation report, 

and the molar volume constant (MVC) data field was missing. The user had entered 849.5 for the 

MVC but in the printed report that column was blank.

[See Appendix A of DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085 for screenshot.] On this page, the 

"Next" button does not do anything but refresh the same page. To move off of this page, the user 

followed the instructions in the pdf and clicked "Unit Summary", but that isn't obvious. The 

"Next" button should either disappear at this point, or if you try to click Next, a text box should 

pop up and say something to the effect of "You have entered all of the monthly data for the 

number of feedstock streams you specified earlier. Click "Unit Summary" to finish, or if you 

want to add more feedstocks, follow this link to go back and correct your prior entry."

These two screens could be worded a bit more clearly. The screens should clarify whether the 

unit input is a Feedstock or a Product. On the prior screen, user indicated unit consisted of 1 

feedstock and 1 product yet when user progressed to the (2 of 2) screen noted below, it wasn't 

clear whether the system was looking for a second feedstock or a product. Both screens contain 

the same information.

One user tested the printer friendly version of the error validation report, and the MVC data field 

appears to be missing. The user had entered 849.5 using this button. [See Appendix A of DCN 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085 for screenshot.] But in the report, that column is blank.

The system did not give an error message when the tool showed that a facility generated over 4 

million kg of carbon from just 1 kg of feedstock ethane. [See Appendix A of DCN EPA-HQOAR-2010-0929-0085 for screenshot.]

At least one user received e-GGRT warning messages that popped up every 10 seconds notifying 

the user that for protection, the e-GGRT session would be shut down soon due to inactivity. 

However, the user was actively navigating through the pages at the time of receiving the warning 

messages. The error message is captured in the screenshot below. [See Appendix A of DCN 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085 for screenshot.]

The error message was received during several users' attempted logouts, despite the users having 

already saved the inputs files to the computer. After several unsuccessful attempts to logout, the 

users were able to successfully logout without losing any data. [See Appendix A of DCN EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085 for screenshot.]

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their feedback on these potential errors in the 

prototype tool. The EPA reviewed and resolved most of the issues raised by the commenter. The 

EPA notes that there are some observations made by the commenter that the EPA could not 

replicate—cases in which the EPA could not confirm that there is an error or issue. In those 

instances, the EPA was unable to take further action.
Draft Deliberative

35

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: API provides the following comments from the limited testing that is possible with 

the currently-available tool:

 Not all of the data entries for monthly data allow the user to populate all months with the 

same values. This feature is allowed for data entries under “Weighing Device, Flow Meter, 

or Tank Level Measurement Details,” but not for data entry under the “Facility's Inputs 

Verifier File.”

 The verification messages provided by the tool include links. However, when selecting the 

link, the tool opens the Mass Balance Methodology screen and not the data entry screen 

where the correction needs to be made.

Response: Regarding the first comment, IVT will allow monthly data entries to be populated 

with the same values without entering them individually for each month. Regarding the second 

comment, the EPA was unable to replicate this issue.

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: In the limited testing that DuPont conducted of the verification tool, we noted one 

significant issue. Apparently the tool allows for inputs to be made that are obviously out of 

range. No warning was provided. The figure below [See Figure 1 on page 3 of comment letter] 

gives an example. The average carbon content of a feedstock cannot possibly exceed 1 kg C per 

kg feedstock, yet the value circled below is greater than four million. No error or warning 

message was generated at any point during the process that might have helped the user to 

identify that he made an error.

One other problem that was encountered was that the website repeatedly warned that the 

application had been inactive for an extended period and would close, despite the fact that the 

user was actively making inputs. It is not clear whether this could be an ongoing issue in eGGRT or if it was unique to the verification tool test site.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their comments. Regarding the first issue, the 

EPA inadvertently had not set an “expected range” for this data element in the prototype 

available during the comment period. The EPA agrees that since the value cannot exceed 1 kg C 

per kg feedstock, the user should receive a verification warming if the value entered exceeds 1 

kg C per kg feedstock. IVT will include this check. 
Draft Deliberative

36

Regarding the repeated warning that the user had been inactive for an extended period of time,

the EPA conducted additional testing and to date has not been able to replicate this issue. The 

EPA plans to conduct extensive additional testing prior to the sandbox period to ensure that IVT 

runs smoothly.

5.0 Inputs Verification Tool Design 

5.1 Inputs Verification Tool Design—Recommendations for Improving

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council15

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: For the verification report, when a data element is outside of EPA’s expected range, 

it would be helpful if the error message would state the expected range, or at a minimum include 

some additional information such as “below expected range” or “above expected range” or 

“number is too large.” This information would aid facilities in reviewing the calculations and 

tracing the source of potential errors. Further, when the software flags an error based on the 

expected value after a “typical density” is used to convert to metric tons, the error should specify 

what density is being used. Again, this information would assist facilities in determining the 

cause of any inconsistencies.

EPA should provide an input field that would enable users to respond to the verification 

message, once the user has checked the data entry and determined it to be correct. This would 

prevent a continual “doloop” when EPA conducts additional data quality checks to complete the 

verification process. In addition, since reporters cannot view the calculations used in the 

verification tool, reporters should have the ability to override an emission value if there appears 

to be a discrepancy between the calculated value in the verification tool and the reporters’ 

calculated value.

Several members would like to have the ability to copy values, such as raw materials or product 

throughput, directly from an Excel® spreadsheet into the verification tool rather than having to 

enter the data manually. Manual entry takes additional time and opens up the possibility for 

inadvertent transcription errors.

For the gas stream entry fields, several members requested that the tool should be able to 

automatically populate the carbon content and molecular weight of the feedstock each month 

since those values are likely to remain constant for most processes. This can be accomplished by 

saving this information to the local desktop file, which would ensure that the data remains 

protected at the facility. At the minimum, the tool should enable users to copy information 

directly from other data applications. Also, the verification tool should flag any data errors at the 

time of data entry. For example, if the molecular weight of ethylene was entered as 288.05, the 

system should flag that immediately.

 

15 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

37

For the liquid stream entry fields, EPA should consider modifying the verification tool to permit 

a facility to report the volume of product in kg/month rather than gallons/month, as provided in 

the rule. And again, users would like the ability to automatically populate the carbon content of 

the product each month, using the local desktop file, since it is likely to remain constant.

Overall, ACC users found the verification tool to be well designed, with the appropriate 

safeguards and warnings in place. For example, the system prompts users to save their data 

before logging out to prevent data from being lost, and a list of screen error appears immediately 

if the user inadvertently leaves an input field blank. Also, several users tested the option to save 

inputs data to their personal computer, and were successfully able to save the data, log out of eGGRT, log back in at a later date, and re-upload the data without any issues.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their general support of IVT’s design and 

appreciates these suggestions for improving IVT. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for a detailed discussion of the improvements the EPA has incorporated into IVT for 

reporting year 2014. Regarding the suggested change to allow multiple formats of units of 

measure in IVT, the EPA will include in IVT for each subpart all units of measure that are 

allowed in the subpart. Regarding the comment that reporters should have the ability to override 

an emission value if there appears to be a discrepancy between the calculated equation result in 

the verification tool and the reporters’ calculated value, the EPA notes that this feature was 

included, and was functional, in the prototype and will be included in IVT for all 23 subparts, as 

specified in Section III.A.1 of the preamble to the proposed rule. See Section 5.2 of this 

document for additional information regarding the reporter’s ability to override an emission 

equation result calculated by IVT.

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Beginning in 2014, reporting entities would be required to use the EPA provided 

electronic inputs verification tool. The verification tool is purported to calculate GHG emissions 

and this calculated number would be reported unless the reporting entity overrides the number. 

This would show up in the report as an “override”.

Verification checks add value to reporting by potentially increasing reporting accuracy and 

catching unintentional errors. Verification checks can also cause wasted time and effort by 

reporters and by EPA if the verification ranges and algorithms are inappropriate. In the preamble 

(78 Fed. Reg. 56,003), EPA says that “...EPA verifies reported GHG emissions data using... 

publically available industry data on GHG emissions.” One member company has had to respond 

to the same “out of range” verification questions year after-year because their reported numbers 

don’t align with the numbers EPA is using based on “publically available information” (this is 

for “inputs to equations” for a supplier subpart). The numbers this member company are 

reporting are correct and have been verified again and again. However, EPA has never responded 

to the member company’s request for the source of this publically available information (so that 
Draft Deliberative

38

the member company could understand the error message better and possibly assist EPA with 

improving the verification ranges). Thus, time and effort continue to be wasted by EPA and this 

reporter every year on the same issue. EPA needs to include in the verification tool a way for 

reporters to preemptively respond to such error messages (such as a comment field in the “inputs 

to equations” verification) as this would potentially save time for both parties. Going forward, 

we encourage EPA to work more closely with reporters to continually improve the verifications 

such that they become more useful and more accurate in the future.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter and is adding to IVT a comment field allowing 

reporters to respond to IVT verification messages to reduce the amount of follow-up required of 

the EPA and reporters. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for a list of 

changes suggested by commenters that the EPA is incorporating into IVT.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: EPA should make available for comment the tables of Verification Checks (which 

include density ranges, carbon content ranges, and molecular weight ranges) for all of the 

Subparts. Opening these to comment for all Subparts may alleviate unnecessary error messages 

in the final tool.

API provides the following comments from the limited testing that is possible with the currentlyavailable tool:

 The tool requires saving the Verifier Inputs File at multiple points even when no changes 

were made to the data. For example, the tool requires saving prior to closing the inputs entry 

screen. But the tool also requires saving when returned to the Mass Balance Methodology 

screen. API recognizes that this is a “safety” feature to help prevent the user from losing data, 

but this may become cumbersome when the user is reviewing input data.

 There should be a comment field for users to respond to verification messages once they 

have checked their data and determined it to be correct. This would prevent further iterations 

when EPA does additional data quality checks to complete the verification process.

Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA should provide an opportunity for industry to 

provide feedback to the EPA on its reasonable range checks, as is the case for all reasonable 

ranges used as part of the electronic verification process: see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to 

the final rule.

Regarding the comment that the tool requires “saving” the entered data at multiple points even 

when no changes were made to the data because this procedure is cumbersome, the EPA believes 

that the commenter may have misunderstood how the “save” feature works within IVT. IVT 

does not require that the user save inputs on each screen. Because IVT does not know when a 

user might choose to exit the application, IVT provides the user with the option to save their 
Draft Deliberative

39

inputs at any point. This is similar to how a Microsoft Word document allows you to save at any 

point when working on the document. Similarly, IVT never requires that the user save the inputs

to equations that have been entered into IVT. A user could opt to enter inputs into IVT and delete 

them each session. However, the EPA anticipates that most users will choose to save their inputs

to equations file instead of re-entering the data each time they start a new e-GGRT session, 

should their data entry require multiple e-GGRT sessions. Note that users are required to save the 

final copy of their inputs as part of the recordkeeping requirements. For additional information 

on the recordkeeping requirements associated with IVT, please refer to Section II.C.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule.

The EPA agrees with the commenter and is adding to IVT a comment field allowing reporters to 

respond to IVT verification messages to reduce the amount of follow-up required of the EPA and 

reporters. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for a list of these and other 

changes suggested by commenters that the EPA is incorporating into IVT.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak

Commenter Affiliation: Dow

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: During the comment period, Dow has worked with the “pilot” Inputs Verification 

Tool for 40 CFR 98 Subpart X, and submits the following comment to EPA in the spirit of 

improving the tool. Gas feedstock entry fields: The tool should allow one to automatically 

populate the carbon content and MW of the feedstock each month since they won’t change in 

many cases. The system should also flag any data entry errors right at the time of entry. For 

example, if one entered 288.05 for MW for ethylene, then the system should flag it right away on 

the data entry screen.

During the comment period, Dow has worked with the “pilot” Inputs Verification Tool for 40 

CFR 98 Subpart X, and submits the following comment to EPA in the spirit of improving the 

tool. Liquid Stream entry fields: The tool should allow one to report the volume of feedstock or 

product in kg per month instead of gallons per month as allowed in the rule. Similarly, the tool 

should allow one to report the carbon content in terms of kg C per kg of stream since many in 

industry will have the data in this format. The tool should also allow one to automatically 

populate the carbon content of the stream each month since it won’t change in many cases.

During the comment period, Dow has worked with the “pilot” Inputs Verification Tool for 40 

CFR 98 Subpart X, and submits the following comment to EPA in the spirit of improving the 

tool. The tool should allow one to copy throughput data or carbon content data from an existing 

off-line spreadsheet or similar system and copy the data values into the Inputs Verification Tool. 

While hand entry of each value is possible, the overall process would be simplified and less input 

errors will be made if data can be copied from an external file and copied into the Inputs 

Verification Tool.
Draft Deliberative

40

Response: Regarding the suggestion to allow copying data from an existing spreadsheet, the 

EPA is implementing this suggestion in cases where the data are collected more frequently than 

monthly. Regarding the suggested change to allow multiple formats of units of measure in IVT,

the EPA will include in IVT for each subpart all units of measure that are allowed in the subpart. 

Regarding the comment requesting that potential errors that are identified be identified at the 

time of entry, please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this 

comment. With respect to the other suggested improvements in the comment, the EPA agrees 

with those suggestions and has incorporated them in IVT. For further discussion on these 

suggestions, please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule.

5.2 Inputs Verification Tool Design—Overriding IVT Calculated GHG Equation Results

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Despite our guarded enthusiasm for the practical workability of EPA’s September 

11, 2013 proposal, NEDA/CAP admits that it is not entirely clear on the matter of overriding 

calculations. The proposed use of the verification tool clearly contemplates that it will be 

possible to override values, and also to communicate with EPA regarding the need for overrides. 

The final rule should address more thoroughly the situation when overrides are not appropriate or 

where agreement cannot be reached with the Agency on overrides. As a practical matter, how 

will EPA handle overrides and communications involving overrides, or disputes about overrides?

Response: As discussed in the proposal preamble and the preamble to this final rule, reporters 

will have the ability to override the equation result calculated in IVT. Furthermore, in response 

to a comment (as discussed above), the EPA has added an additional comment field to IVT to 

allow reporters to respond to IVT verification messages, explaining why a potential error may 

not be an error. In cases where a verification message is generated because of a discrepancy 

between an IVT-calculated equation result and reporter-entered emissions, this comment field 

will be made available for the reporter to explain the discrepancy. Entering an explanation is not 

required, but is optional for reporters. This option will reduce the amount of follow-up required 

of the EPA and reporters. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion of this option. 

The commenter requested additional guidance from the EPA regarding how the EPA will handle 

follow-up verification regarding situations where a facility overrides an emission equation result 

calculated by IVT. e-GGRT currently contains this “override” feature in several subparts where 

emission and greenhouse gas quantity results are calculated by e-GGRT. As a result, in situations 

where a facility overrides an equation result calculated by IVT, the EPA will follow up in the 

same manner that is currently used when facilities override equation results calculated by eGGRT: the EPA reviews the data submitted in the annual report, the electronic verification 

summaries, and past reports submitted as necessary. If the EPA determines that a potential 
Draft Deliberative

41

substantive error16 has occurred, the EPA contacts the facility. According to subpart A of Part 98, 

once a substantive error has been identified, a facility has 45 days to either demonstrate that no 

error exists or to resubmit the report. The EPA retains the right to grant an extension to the 

timeframe if necessary. 

Commenter Name: Charles Johnson

Commenter Affiliation: Aluminum Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Association members will calculate GHG emissions independently of the eGGRT 

verification tool using Excel or other software systems. This potentially could result in a 

difference between the two calculation procedures due to rounding differences in significant 

figures used or for other legitimate reasons. We therefore request confirmation from EPA in the 

final rule preamble that eGGRT would not prevent timely submission of a Mandatory GHG 

Report if there is a difference between the emission values we calculate and report vs. values 

generated by the verification tool. The preamble suggests that the owner/operator will have the 

option to override a verification tool value, but we request clarification that this will in fact be 

allowed if necessary.

Response: As explained both in the proposal preamble and the preamble to this final rule, IVT 

will allow reporters to override the IVT-calculated GHG equation result with a reportergenerated GHG value. Overriding the IVT-calculated equation results will not prevent timely 

submission of the annual GHGRP report. Reporters will be allowed to submit annual reports if 

they have used the override feature to enter a reporter-generated GHG value.

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak

Commenter Affiliation: Dow

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: In many cases, the user has been calculating the GHG emissions using another 

computer based system. If the GHG emission values from the users’ calculations and the 

emission values from the Inputs Verification Tool are different, the user should have the option 

to over-ride the calculations and to provide the emission quantity that they believe is “correct”.

 

16 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise 

prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR 98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an 

owner or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification, either resubmit the report that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part) or provide 

information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain the identified substantive error or that the 

identified error is not a substantive error.
Draft Deliberative

42

Response: Please see response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086, Excerpt 3, for the EPA’s 

response to this comment.

6.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Verification Summary 

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: If there is no timeline set for the verification summary review process, then a 

timeline must be set to guarantee accurate data reporting. For instance, how many opportunities 

will the industry reporter receive to revise errors and are the current checks and balances in place 

appropriate to monitor this process? Will the verification summary be publicly available? If so, 

would all the versions (as a result of potential revisions) be open to the public for review? EPA 

should require that all versions of the verification summary be provided for public review.

Response: The commenter asserts that the EPA should specify a limit to the time or number of 

opportunities that reporters have to revise potential errors identified in the verification summary

produced by IVT. Part 98 already provides a process that must be followed once a potential 

substantive error17 is identified by either the EPA or a reporter. Subpart A of Part 98 specifies 

that once a potential substantive error is identified, a facility has 45 days to resubmit its report or 

otherwise resolve the issue. This existing verification process, which currently applies to and has 

worked well for e-GGRT, now also applies to IVT. We do not see a reason, nor did the 

commenter provide any, why this process would not work for IVT.

Additionally, facilities or suppliers that fail to monitor or report GHG emissions, quantities 

supplied, or other data elements according to the requirements of the applicable rule subparts 

could be subject to enforcement action by the EPA under CAA Sections 113 and 203–205. The 

CAA provides for several levels of enforcement that include administrative, civil, and criminal 

penalties. The CAA allows for injunctive relief to compel compliance and civil and 

administrative penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation.18 Actions (or inactions) that 

could ultimately be considered violations include but are not limited to the following: 

 Failure to report GHG emissions for suppliers, the emissions that would result from 

combustion or use of the products they supply). 

 

17 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise 

prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR 98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an 

owner or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification, either resubmit the report that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part) or provide 

information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain the identified substantive error or that the 

identified error is not a substantive error.

18 The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Public Law 101–410, 104 Stat. 890, 28 U.S.C. 2461, note, as 

amended by Section 31001(s)(1) of the debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Public Law 104–134, 110 Stat. 1321–373, 

April 26, 1996, requires the EPA and other agencies to adjust the ordinary maximum penalty that it will apply when assessing a 

civil penalty for a violation. Accordingly, the EPA has adjusted the CAA’s provision in Section 113(b) and (d) specifying 

$25,000 per day of violation for civil violations to $37,500 per day of violation.
Draft Deliberative

43

 Failure to collect data needed to calculate GHG emissions.

 Failure to continuously monitor and test as required. Note that merely filling in missing data 

as specified does not excuse a failure to perform the monitoring or testing.

 Failure to calculate GHG emissions according to the methodology (or methodologies) 

specified in the rule.

 Failure to keep required records needed to verify reported GHG emissions. 

 Falsification of reports.

Regarding public availability of verification summaries, it is not part of the alternative 

verification approach and was therefore not evaluated in this rulemaking. Further, any decision

regarding the public availability of verification summaries must be made in accordance with 

EPA’s regulation at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: It is not clear from the proposal what data will be retained as part of the "Verification 

Summary" to be prepared and retained by USEPA.

Response: The commenter is asking for clarification about what information will be included in 

verification summaries generated by IVT. As described in Section III.A.1 of the proposed rule, 

verification summaries will specify whether any potential errors were identified (including 

whether the reporter has overridden any of the annual GHG equation results calculated by the 

tool) without specifying the entered data. For example, if a reporter overrides the IVT-calculated 

equation result, then the verification summary will indicate that the reporter overrode the GHG 

value, but will provide no additional information about the discrepancy between the IVTcalculated result and the entered value. If a reporter enters a value in IVT that is outside the 

expected range identified by the EPA, the verification summary will include a statement saying 

that the particular data field is outside the range identified by the EPA. As a result of comments 

received on this action, the EPA will also include the range identified by the EPA, and whether 

the value entered was above or below the range identified. In the final rule, the EPA is also

adding one more type of information to verification summaries. In response to comments that the 

EPA should add a comment field to IVT to allow reporters to respond to IVT verification

messages, the EPA is adding an option for reporters to enter into a comment field an explanation 

of why a potential error is not an error. Any information that reporters enter into this comment 

field will be included in the verification summary. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for further discussion of the comments in support of this option and the EPA’s rationale for 

adding this option. 
Draft Deliberative

44

7.0 Inputs Verification Tool—Risk of Disclosure 

7.1 Inputs Verification Tool—Security

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute19

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: AISI is concerned that entering the “inputs to equations” data elements into the webbased tool using the two reporting options EPA describes (See e.g., Jennifer Bohman, August 

2013 Memo to the Docket -- EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0051) could result in the dissemination 

of CBI. The memo describes a web form reporting option, where:

[U]sers would enter data into the inputs verification tool web forms. As the user enters this data, 

it would be temporarily stored to an area of the application server called the session. The session 

is a temporary, in-memory structure of the server hosting the e-GGRT application.

AISI appreciates EPA’s acknowledgment of the importance of protecting the data elements, and 

its attempts to protect CBI by asserting that storage of the data in the host server is only on a 

temporary basis. However, EPA must provide adequate technical support to demonstrate that the 

data stored in the “session” is truly temporary and would not be accessible to others.

Furthermore, the use of a web-based system that transfers data across the internet means that 

these data are also processed via proxy servers located anywhere in the world and outside 

necessary controls. These servers can, and routinely do monitor and store the information they 

process. Therefore, AISI is concerned that data may still be stored in these proxy servers after the 

session ends.

AISI also wishes to bring to EPA’s attention that the pilot verification tool developed to 

demonstrate the system has an URL address with an “http” prefix. This prefix indicates that data 

would be routed through a non-secure server before reaching EPA. The current e-GGRT system, 

however, uses a secure server with an “https” prefix. While AISI endorses continued use of the 

e-GGRT reporting methodology as used during the deferral period, we ask that EPA confirm that 

the verification tool, if adopted, would use a similar secure server as e-GGRT.

A second option described in the Bohman memo is XML (eXtensible Markup Language) 

reporting, whereby reporters would upload a file containing all the data elements into the 

verification tool. While acknowledging that this is an optional reporting method that is intended 

to ease the reporting process, it also raises serious security concerns. The security issues with 

XML file transfers have been widely documented in the internet security community. The 

security concerns with the XML file transfers are inherent in its strengths as a universal format 

that is easily readable by many web-based applications. This format is highly transparent in that 

the data are usually transmitted as the original text or values (un-encrypted), and easily 

 

19 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

45

accessible to a wide range of applications. This is accomplished because the files containing the 

data also contain the definitions needed for any application to decipher the data values with their 

corresponding context. Moreover, the XML file may also contain HTML code (HyperText 

Markup Language) that can be inserted maliciously or inadvertently, and can cause other security 

vulnerabilities.

In the Grogan-McCulloch memo, EPA correctly concluded that “members of the GHG reporting 

community may be uncomfortable with having the ‘inputs to equations’ data elements stored at 

the EPA (in an encrypted manner).” The use of a web-based system and XML file transfers 

compounds this problem because it will mean that these data will be stored in internet servers 

throughout the world, encrypted and otherwise.

AISI believes that EPA’s use of a web-based system to handle CBI data and its related measures 

are inadequate and create an opportunity for the data to be disseminated inadvertently. AISI 

believes that EPA has not provided reasonable assurances that these data would be protected to 

ensure that they would remain confidential. AISI, therefore, respectfully requests that this 

proposal be withdrawn and the reporting methodology used during the deferral period be adopted 

permanently.

Response: IVT is designed to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient process, such that 

data entered into IVT will be temporarily housed in the IVT system while the reporter is actively 

using IVT. The EPA complies with the strict security procedures and guidance governing access 

to federal data servers established by the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

and in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA). 

Furthermore, in order to address the noted security concerns, the EPA has identified an 

additional security layer to encrypt the transient session data used by the server while the 

reporter is actively using IVT. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional 

detail responding to this comment.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: TFI does not oppose a data verification tool, as proposed by EPA, provided it has 

safeguards in place to ensure that (1) the reporting tool does not retain the information (even if 

the system “crashes”), and (2) the confidential information inputted is not accessible by Agency 

personnel.

Response: The EPA has designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient 

process, such that data entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while 

the reporter is actively using IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying EPA 

database, nor will they be saved to the server’s file system. IVT is also designed to protect data 

in the instance of a system malfunction. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for 

additional detail responding to this comment.
Draft Deliberative

46

Commenter Name: Andrew T. O’Hare

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: One cement manufacturer raises concerns with EPA’s assertion that the verification 

tool “would not retain entered inputs (.i.e., the inputs would not be reported to EPA) at the time 

of data entry” for generation of the actual report (78 FR at 55996). The mere act of inputting data 

into a database by means of an online tool would require retention of the information. The 

preamble does not provide a detailed account of what happens with the information once it is 

entered into the system, other than the fact that the data initiates generation of a report.

At least one cement manufacturer has expressed concerns about the reliability and quality of the 

current e-GGRT. According to one cement maker, e-GGRT is especially susceptible to 

malfunction during periods of high volume reporting. Because federal regulators have not 

addressed operational issues associated with the e-GGRT reporting tool, cement makers are wary 

of relying on software associated with the database to generate an accompanying “verification 

report.”

Response: The EPA has designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient 

process, such that data entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while 

the reporter is actively using IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying EPA 

database, nor will they be saved to the server’s file system. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to 

the final rule for additional detail responding to this comment.

Regarding the comment that the EPA has not addressed operational issues associated with the eGGRT reporting tool, the commenter did not identify any such instance or elaborate on the issues 

encountered to allow us to respond to more directly to this specific comment. The EPA has a 

“help desk” available by email or phone to assist reporters during the reporting period. The EPA

closely monitors e-GGRT performance during the reporting period and does not have record of 

such instances. Outages of the Agency’s CDX have sometimes coincided with the e-GGRT new 

reporting year reporting period, but these outages have been rare, generally last only a few hours,

usually occur outside business hours (i.e., late at night or weekends), and are not due to a high 

volume of users using e-GGRT at the same time. 

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: MLCO further asks for clarification of the security with which its data will be 

maintained and/or transmitted within the IVT and USEPA or to or from any external sites. 
Draft Deliberative

47

MLCO joins in the NLA suggestion that the data be maintained electronically under the control 

of the reporting party.

It is also unclear where the data will reside during the time it is in the possession of the USEPA, 

i.e. on secure government servers, or local, reporting facility computers with limited access, or 

whether any outside vendors will have access to the data at any step in the process.

There is a concern that absent some encryption procedure or other technical change, internet 

transmission of the confidential data could be intercepted, thereby undermining the protection of 

CBI.

Response: IVT is designed to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient process, such that 

data entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while the reporter is 

actively using IVT. The EPA complies with the strict security procedures and guidance 

governing access to federal data servers established by NIST and in accordance with the FISMA. 

Furthermore, in order to address the noted security concerns, the EPA has identified an 

additional security layer to encrypt the transient session data used by the server while the 

reporter is actively using IVT. 

Regarding the comment that data entered into IVT should be maintained electronically under the 

control of the reporting party, the EPA considered several alternative approaches including an 

option where inputs data were stored on a reporter’s computer. As explained in the memorandum 

“Evaluation of Alternative Verification Procedures,” the EPA identified several limitations with 

these alternatives, including limits to the functionality as well as additional burden to both the 

reporters and to the EPA. As a result, the EPA is not finalizing these alternatives in the final rule.

For additional information on this option, please see this memorandum at EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0929.

See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional detail responding to this 

comment.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council20

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Finally, ACC members remain concerned that the data entered into the verification 

tool, even if for only a short period of time, remain confidential and protected from public 

disclosure. For those facilities that are required to comply with U.S. export control requirements, 

this becomes an even greater concern. EPA should further explain in the final rule how the 

verification tool will successfully protect this sensitive data. ACC will address this issue in 

greater detail in our future comments on EPA’s proposed rulemaking for subpart L.

 

20 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

48

Response: The EPA notes that the inputs to emission equations whose reporting deadline was 

deferred until 2015 for subpart L are being finalized in a separate final action. The EPA has 

designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient process, such that data entered 

into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while the reporter is actively using 

IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying EPA database, nor will they be saved 

to the server’s file system. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional 

detail responding to this comment.

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0057

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: How can EPA, a government entity be trusted to not secretly save any 40 CFR 98 

equation data?

Response: The EPA has designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient 

process, such that data entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while 

the reporter is actively using IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying EPA 

database, nor will they be saved to the server’s file system. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to 

the final rule for additional detail responding to this comment.

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: AFPM supports EPA’s development of an input verification tool that can be used as 

an alternative to direct reporting of “inputs to emissions equations” data elements. AFPM 

believes that the tool strikes a reasonable balance between EPA’s interest in verifying GHG 

reporting data and AFPM members’ interests in protecting the confidentiality of materials data 

and related information. Specifically, AFPM supports EPA's proposal that companies using the 

verification tool would only report to EPA the verification summary. The underlying “inputs to 

emissions equations” that the company enters into the verification tool should, thus, remain 

confidential because such information would be deleted by the tool without ever being disclosed 

to EPA. To ensure that these data do in fact remain confidential, we urge EPA to clarify in the 

preamble to the final rule that the data entered into the verification tool remain at all times in the 

possession of the company entering the data and thus are not subject to disclosure under any 

other federal law as a result of its entry into the verification tool. 

Response: The EPA has designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient 

process, such that data entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while 

the reporter is actively using IVT. The entered inputs will not be saved to the underlying EPA 
Draft Deliberative

49

database, nor will they be saved to the server’s file system. Given that the EPA will have no 

access to, or possession of, data entered into IVT, such data will not be considered to be agency 

records as defined by the Freedom of Information Act or the Federal Records Act. See Section 

II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional detail responding to this comment.

Commenter Name: William C. Herz

Commenter Affiliation: National Lime Association21

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: NLA seeks clarification that the tool will not submit confidential information over 

the Internet to the EPA (or elsewhere), and rather that the information will reside only on the 

local computers used by facilities to prepare their reports.

Response: In the final rule, the EPA is requiring that reporters enter information into IVT. The 

EPA has designed IVT to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient process, such that data 

entered into IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while the reporter is actively 

using IVT. All EPA information systems must meet the security requirements defined in NIST 

Special Publication 800-53.22 As such, the program keeps a security plan up to date that is 

submitted and reviewed annually at the EPA.

The EPA considered several alternative approaches including an option in which inputs data 

were stored on a reporter’s computer. As explained in the memorandum “Evaluation of 

Alternative Verification Procedures,” the EPA identified several limitations with these 

alternatives, including limits to the functionality as well as additional burden to both the 

reporters and to the EPA. For the details of this analysis, please see this memorandum at EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0929. The EPA received no comments disputing or otherwise questioning any 

aspect of its analysis of the alternatives. For the reasons set forth in that analysis, the EPA did not 

adopt these alternatives in this rulemaking.

See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional detail responding to the

comment on whether the use of IVT will involve transmitting data over the Internet.

 

21 This comment was also supported by HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-

0069).

22 http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsSPs.html.
Draft Deliberative

50

Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane

Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0079

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: NAIMA and its members are concerned about EPA’s ability to safeguard this 

information, in part because EPA does not have an ideal track record in maintaining the 

confidentiality of CBI or trade secrets. Even if the Agency were to accept the information under 

a confidential business information arrangement and to guarantee protection of trade sensitive 

data, the risk of disclosure would serve as a disincentive to product and technology development.

Why? Because EPA has not been able to successfully prevent competitors from obtaining such 

information provided to EPA in the past. Furthermore, EPA has not identified a revised approach 

or system whereby reported information will be afforded any greater security than information 

previously collected by EPA.

The lack of confidence in EPA’s ability to keep information confidential is well-founded. A 

review of some of the lawsuits brought against EPA for improper disclosure of information 

demonstrates that EPA cannot effectively guarantee that sensitive data will not fall into the 

wrong hands. For example, Monsanto Company was forced to seek injunctive relief against EPA 

and the Scientific Advisory Panel to enforce a consent decree between Monsanto and the Agency 

after EPA admitted improper disclosure of certain trade secrets. The consent decree was 

designed to protect Monsanto from any further breaches of security, but the company had to 

resort to court action to have the consent decree honored. Monsanto Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 753 

F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1985).

Yet another example is found with the Chevron Chemical Company. Chevron brought an action 

against EPA seeking a penalty for disclosure of confidential business information connected with 

ingredients in a pesticide product. The court found that the statute providing a penalty for 

disclosure of confidential information by an officer or employee of the United States does not 

prevent the agency from using the confidential information in the course of agency business.

Chevron Chemical Company v. Costle, 641 F.2d 104 (3rd Cir.) cert. denied, 452 U.S. 961 (1981).

In other words, EPA was permitted to use the confidential business information in evaluating and 

determining action on competitors’ pesticide registration applications. Because agencies 

frequently employ independent contractors who often have access to such information being 

“used” by the Agency, the safety of that very confidential data is compromised.

Indeed, several lawsuits have been brought against EPA for allowing its independent contractors 

to conduct inspections or review material deemed to contain confidential information or trade 

secrets. See Bunker Hill Co. Lead and Zinc Smelter v. Environmental Protection Agency, 658 

F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Stauffer Chemical Co., 684 F.2d 1174 (6th Cir. 1982).

The court generally allows disclosure of confidential information to other offices, employees or 

authorized representatives of the government when necessary for any proceeding under a federal 

statute. Because the revolving door of the federal government never stops, a scenario of a 

government employee transferring to the public sector while equipped with knowledge of trade 

secrets is not implausible.
Draft Deliberative

51

Given the weakened competitive advantage of U.S.-based companies, this concern over the 

potential loss of sensitive trade secrets is even more important today. Indeed, it would be 

destructive to the health of U.S. businesses for EPA to implement a reporting program that 

essentially gives away sensitive information to anyone who wishes to surf the Internet.

This is particularly troubling given that EPA originally contemplated making much of the 

reported information available to others: “EPA proposes to make data collected under this rule 

available to State agencies and the public, with the exception of any CBI data, as discussed in 

Section I.C of this preamble.” [Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,594 (April 10, 2009).] The 

anticipated volume of information reported to, and possibly flowing from, EPA demands diligent 

protection of the CBI reported to EPA.

Response: The cases cited concerned issues regarding CBI in the 1980s. The EPA wishes to 

reiterate that it considers the protection of information claimed as CBI with utmost seriousness 

and has continued to securely manage CBI submitted to the EPA. The commenter expressed

concern with the EPA’s ability to safeguard trade secrets and CBI provided to the EPA and cited 

a number of case law in support. However, nothing in the comment above and the cited case law 

raises specific issues or concerns with any aspect of the IVT approach being finalized today. 

Furthermore, as described below, the cited case law involved significantly different situations

from this rulemaking and is therefore not an appropriate basis for assessing this final rule. First, 

while the cited case law involved trade secrets and CBI, the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any of the inputs to emission equations, including any determination that any 

data entered into IVT qualifies as CBI. Any such determination must be made in accordance with 

the CAA and the EPA’s implementing regulations under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. Second,

while the EPA had possession of the information at issue in the cited cases, the data entered into 

IVT are not reported to the EPA, nor will IVT allow the EPA to collect or otherwise access such 

data. Given that the EPA will not have such data, there is no reason to be concerned with 

potential disclosure of such data by the EPA, inadvertently or otherwise. As explained in Section 

II.A.3 of the final preamble, the data entered into IVT will not be considered to be agency 

records as defined by the Freedom of Information Act or the Federal Records Act. The EPA has 

no legal obligation to safeguard non-agency records.

Although the comment above raises no specific issues or concerns regarding IVT, IVT is 

designed to operate securely within e-GGRT, as a transient process, such that data entered into 

IVT would be temporarily housed in the IVT system while the reporter is actively using IVT. 

The EPA complies with the strict security procedures and guidance governing access to federal 

data servers established by NIST and in accordance with the FISMA. Furthermore, in order to 

address the noted security concerns, the EPA has identified an additional security layer to 

encrypt the transient session data used by the server while the reporter is actively using IVT. See 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional detail on the security features of

IVT. 
Draft Deliberative

52

7.2 Inputs Verification Tool—Other Risks of Disclosure

Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane

Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0079

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT PROTECTIONS FROM PUBLIC ACCESS TO NONREPORTABLE DATA INPUTS ARE ADEQUATE

EPA does give some comfort that those emission calculation inputs removed from reporting 

requirements by the Proposed Rule may receive protection from public disclosure. EPA proposes 

that those data inputs, though no longer reportable, must be entered into a verification tool. The 

tool in turn generates both an emissions calculation and a verification summary for EPA, but 

then deletes the data inputs from the system so that EPA does not gain access to them. To the 

extent these data inputs are actually relevant to N-1 calculations, such temporary storage and 

limits to EPA access should ensure that this sensitive information remains with the covered 

companies. However, EPA does not require that company keep a printout of the data inputs 

generated by the tool as an official record by the company for 5 years and make it accessible to 

EPA should the Agency seek to perform follow-up verification work. 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,000.

Hence, EPA’s access is not as limited as the Agency professes it to be. Id. At 55,999, 56,002.

Rather, the Agency may still secure such data inputs if it makes the affirmative effort to do so for 

verification purposes. See, proposed amended 40 C.F.R. 98.3(g) (“Upon request by the 

Administrator, the records required under this section must be made available to EPA.”) Indeed, 

EPA discusses the possibility of “more direct follow-up activities” such as site inspections. See 

id. at 56,04, 56,006. In this way, the Proposed Rule only eliminates the automatic provision of 

the information to the Agency through the annual reporting requirements but no subsequent 

access.

There are no provisions in the Proposed Rule which elaborate upon when the Agency is 

authorized to access such data and its procedures for doing so while keeping the information 

confidential. For example, the Proposed Rule does not set forth a requirement that EPA can 

access the data only through an official enforcement-related action that might accord the 

information privileged status and provide some security from public release. Nor are there 

provisions to ensure that non-enforcement staff or contractors of EPA cannot access the data and 

inadvertently release it or otherwise render the information unprotected.

NAIMA believes that the verification tool concept, should the tool work as intended, can be a 

valuable method of helping to protect confidential and sensitive business information from 

public disclosure. But EPA must provide adequate provisions to ensure that such information is 

not subsequently released or otherwise rendered public when the Agency seeks to verify the 

input data.

Response: See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.
Draft Deliberative

53

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: AFPM has been an active partner in EPA’s development of the GHGRP, particularly 

with respect to EPA's treatment of confidential business information (“CBI”) under these 

reporting requirements. In response to EPA’s 2010 proposed confidentiality determinations and 

reporting requirements, AFPM (at the time known as NPRA) submitted comments explaining 

that EPA’s proposal raised antitrust concerns for AFPM’s members and subjected certain CBI to 

public disclosure by classifying certain data elements as “emission data.” [Footnote: NPRA 

Comments on Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required under Mandatory 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Amendment to Special Rules Governing Certain 

Information Obtained Under the Clean Air Act, 75 Fed. Reg. 39,094 (July 7, 2010) (Attachment 

A).] In response to concerns raised by AFPM and others, EPA proposed to defer for three years 

the reporting requirements for certain “inputs to emissions equations” data elements so that the 

Agency could further consider whether these data elements should be treated as CBI and issued a 

“Call for Information” regarding the confidentiality of these data elements. 75 Fed. Reg. 81,350 

(Dec. 27, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 81,366 (Dec. 27, 2010). AFPM, along with other trade 

associations, submitted comments that supported EPA’s proposal to defer the reporting 

requirements, but again urged EPA to expressly affirm that “inputs to emission equations” do not 

qualify as “emission data” and are entitled to CBI status, noting both the confidentiality and 

antitrust concerns associated with their disclosure. [Footnote: API, NAM, and AFPM Comments 

on Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Rule; Proposed Rule; 75 Fed. Reg. 81,350 (Dec. 27, 2010) 

(Attachment 2).] Since that time, AFPM and its member companies have continued to work with 

EPA to develop a solution that ensures compliance with the GHGRP while appropriately 

protecting CBI.

AFPM recognizes and supports EPA’s commitment to protecting CBI and its willingness to take 

action to ensure that such information is not inappropriately disclosed. With respect to the 

proposed rule, AFPM supports EPA’s decision to allow companies to use EPA’s electronic 

verification tool (along with related recordkeeping and reporting requirements) as an alternative 

to directly reporting raw material data and other CBI. At the same time, we remain concerned 

that the Agency has not gone far enough to ensure that critical and sensitive CBI data remain 

confidential by failing to state explicitly in the proposed rule that “inputs to emissions equations” 

data elements are not “emission data” for purposes of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). 

Given EPA’s recognition that inputs to emissions equations are confidential, the Agency must 

take the necessary steps to protect it from any risk of further disclosure by clarifying that such 

information is not “emission data.”

While EPA’s proposed verification tool should be sufficient to protect most “inputs to emissions 

equations” data elements from public disclosure, there remains a residual risk that such data 

elements could be subject to disclosure under the CAA. Therefore, to ensure the confidentiality 

of these data elements, we urge EPA to explicitly state in the final rule that “inputs to emissions 

equations” qualify for confidential treatment under EPA’s regulations and should not be deemed 
Draft Deliberative

54

“emission data.” According to EPA’s five-part test, business information is entitled to 

confidential treatment if:

1. the business has asserted a business confidentiality claim which has not expired by its terms, 

nor been waived nor withdrawn;

2. the business has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the 

confidentiality of the information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures;

3. the information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business’s 

consent by other persons (other than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate means (other 

than by discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or quasi-judicial 

proceeding);

4. no statute specifically requires disclosure of the information; and

5. either— (1) the business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely 

to cause substantial harm to the business’s competitive position or, (2) the information is 

voluntarily submitted information (see § 2.201(i)), and its disclosure would be likely to 

impair the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future. 40 C.F.R. § 

2.208. 

AFPM members’ “inputs to emission equations” data satisfy each of these elements.

First, AFPM and its members have already asserted their confidentiality claims in prior GHGRP 

rulemaking comments. As EPA acknowledged, almost all industry comments asserted that 

“inputs to emissions equations . . . are considered trade secrets or otherwise sensitive business 

information, and that making those inputs publicly available would cause them serious 

competitive harm.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 81,534. Second, as AFPM has previously explained, its 

members continue to take reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of such data 

elements, in part to address antitrust concerns raised by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). 

See Attachment B at 6-7. Third, this data could not be otherwise obtained without consent of 

AFPM’s members. Fourth, no statute requires disclosure of this information and, as discussed in 

the following section, these data elements should not be classified as emission data. Fifth, public 

disclosure of “inputs to emissions equations” data will cause substantial harm to the competitive 

position of AFPM members. Disclosure of information regarding usage of raw materials, 

production volumes, and process-specific information could provide competitors with insight 

into operational limits and process capacities, proprietary manufacturing formulas, and details 

regarding production costs. Thus, “inputs to emissions equations” data elements meet EPA’s 

regulatory requirements for protection as CBI.

While AFPM supports the steps EPA has taken in this proposal to avoid public disclosure of 

certain “inputs to emission equations” data, we continue to disagree with EPA’s position, first 

stated in the 2010 proposed rule, that data elements assigned to the “inputs to emissions 

equations” category should be treated as “emission data” pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i). 

See 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,108. EPA has continued to perpetuate this interpretation in the final 

“deferral” rule and again in this proposal. As described above, “inputs to emission equations” 

data qualify as CBI and thus should be protected from disclosure. However, by asserting that 

such data elements are “emission data” EPA is creating a substantial risk that “inputs to 
Draft Deliberative

55

emissions equations” may be disclosed to the public. For example, any member of the public 

could attempt to obtain emission data in EPA’s possession by submitting a Freedom of 

Information Act (“FOIA”) request. The most appropriate way to avoid the risk of disclosure of 

confidential “inputs to emissions equations” is for EPA to expressly state in the final rule that 

“inputs to emission equations” are not “emission data” and thus are protected from disclosure as 

CBI. Contrary to EPA’s assertions, inputs to emissions equations are not “necessary to 

determine” GHG emissions because these data do not describe actual emissions and instead are 

used to verify actual emissions already reported using other means. An interpretation recognizing 

these distinctions would be both reasonable and consistent with the text of the CAA.

Under the CAA, any information provided to EPA must be protected as confidential upon a 

requisite showing, unless that information is deemed to be “emission data.” Specifically, the 

statute requires that “[a]ny records, reports, or information obtained under [42 U.S.C. § 7414(a)] 

shall be available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the administrator by a 

person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, (other than emission data) 

to which the Administrator has access under this section if made public, would divulge methods 

or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets . . ., the Administrator shall consider such 

record, report, or information or particular portion thereof confidential . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c) 

(emphasis added).

Courts reviewing agency interpretations of the statutes that they administer apply the wellestablished two-step Chevron framework. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 

(1984). At the first step, a court must determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the 

precise question at issue.” Id. at 842. Congress has not spoken directly to address the issue here, 

because the CAA does not define “emission data” and does not address “inputs to emission 

equations” at all. [Footnote: EPA has never taken the position that the scope of emission data 

can be resolved through a Chevron step 1 analysis and has instead issued regulations to more 

clearly define the scope of this exclusion from confidentiality. See Attachment B at 8 n.5.] Thus, 

the CAA does not compel EPA to treat “inputs to emissions equations” as “emission data,” and 

the Agency must instead adopt an interpretation that is consistent with its obligation to protect 

CBI from disclosure.

If a statute’s meaning is unclear, a court’s task under step two of Chevron [INSERT: Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)] is to determine when an agency’s interpretation “is 

based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Id. Here, the most common and 

straightforward interpretation of “emission data” is actual emissions into the air that can be 

measured and calculated. In contrast, “inputs to emissions equations” data elements describe 

calculations and formulas that can be used to estimate emissions, not actual, measurable 

emissions, and, therefore, do not meet the commonsense definition of “emission data.” Thus, the 

reasonable construction of the statute is one that excludes “inputs to emissions equations” from 

the definition of “emission data.” To interpret Section 114(c) otherwise would expand the 

provision’s exclusion for emission data to the point that it swallows the rule and, thereby, thwarts 

Congress’ intent to protect the confidential information reported by regulated entities.

Further, “inputs to emissions equations” fall outside EPA’s own regulatory definition of 

“emission data.” EPA defines emission data as:
Draft Deliberative

56

1. Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or 

other characteristics . . . of any emission which has been emitted by the source . . .;

2. Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or 

other characteristics . . . of the emissions which, under an applicable standard or 

limitation, the source was authorized to emit . . .; and

3. A general description of the location and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to 

identify the source and distinguish it from other sources . . . .

40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i)

In the 2010 proposed rule, EPA concluded that part (B) did not apply “because there are no 

established GHG emission limits for the facilities subject to Part 98.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,100. 

Further, because “inputs to emissions equations” do not describe the location and/or nature of 

sources, part (C) is also inapplicable. “Inputs to emissions equations” also fall outside of part (A) 

because these data elements are not needed to determine the characteristics of GHG emissions 

from the source. [Footnote: In the event that EPA establishes GHG emissions limits for facilities 

subject to Part 98, part (B) would be inapplicable for the same reasons described here for 

Part(A).] Existing case law addressing EPA’s regulatory definition confirms that the “necessary 

to determine” clause in parts (A) and (B) should be construed narrowly to avoid allowing the 

exception for “emission data” to swallow the Congress’ intent to protect CBI from disclosure. 

For example, the District Court for the District of Columbia has held that a “strict interpretation 

of the ‘necessary to determine’ requirement is warranted to ensure that the exception does not 

swallow the rule.” NRDC v. Leavitt, Case No. Civ. 04-1295, 2006 WL 667327 at *4 (D.D.C. 

Mar. 14, 2006); see also id. (“a plain reading of 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i) indicates that 

‘emission data’ is defined narrowly . . .”). Likewise, a district court in Texas has held that EPA 

cannot consider inputs to emissions equations “necessary to determine” emissions without 

considering all relevant factors, including “alternative methods of identifying or measuring 

pollutants” that would avoid disclosure of proprietary or confidential information. RSR Corp. v. 

EPA, 588 F. Supp. 1251, 1255-56 (N.D. Tex. 1984).

EPA’s 1991 Notice of Policy, which provides a list of data fields that EPA “presently considers 

to constitute emission data” further supports a narrow construction of that term. 56 Fed. Reg. 

7,042 (Feb. 21, 1991). There, EPA concluded that “emission estimation method[s]” are emission 

data because they are necessary to determine the characteristics of the emissions. However, the 

Policy does not go beyond the identification of the method itself and also require disclosure of 

the inputs required by the emission estimation method. Id. Following this Policy, “inputs to 

emissions equations” should not be considered “emission data.” Further, these input data 

elements are not necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other 

characterization of any emission. The term “emission” is not ambiguous and requires an actual 

discharge into the air. See 41 Fed. Reg. 36,902, 36,922 (Sept. 1, 1976) (confirming that 

satisfying 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) must be “data concerning actual (experienced) 

emissions”). The data elements EPA has classified as “inputs to emissions equations” do not 

describe the actual emissions from a source and, in any event, EPA already receives actual 

emission data under the GHGRP. As result, these inputs data, which may be used by EPA for 

certain verification purposes, are redundant with the actual emission data already reported, and 

would not provide the public with any new information regarding actual emissions. Thus, 

according to EPA’s own interpretations of part (A), “inputs to emissions equations” cannot be 
Draft Deliberative

57

“necessary to determine” the characteristics of GHG emissions and, therefore, fall outside of the 

“emission data” exception and should be excluded from disclosure as CBI.

In addition to the confidentiality concerns discussed above, treating “inputs to emissions 

equations” as “emission data” could subject AFPM members to potentially incompatible legal 

obligations because disclosure of these data elements will raise significant antitrust concerns. In 

comments filed in response to EPA’s proposed confidentiality determinations for the GHGRP, 

the FTC explained that disclosure of “inputs to emissions equations” data would raise antitrust 

concerns, including violation of the principle of aggregation. [Footnote: FTC, Comments of the 

Federal Trade Commission (Sept. 30, 2010) (“FTC Comments”) (Attachment C).] The antitrust 

concerns raised by the FTC constitute a significant risk for AFPM members and provide another 

reason for protecting the confidentiality of “inputs to emissions equations.”

“Inputs to emissions equations” data elements include information related to fuel production and 

distribution, including details regarding inputs, the nature and location of sources, and plant 

operations. Antitrust laws generally prohibit competitors from facilitating anticompetitive 

coordination in prices or production through sharing of price, output, and related information. 

Thus, the exchange of price information is of particular concern. See United States v. Container 

Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969); FTC, FTC Guide to the Antitrust Laws, Dealings with 

Competitors: Spotlight on Trade Associations. [Footnote: Available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/tradeassociations.shtm.] Similar concerns apply to information 

sharing that could facilitate coordinated output decisions. See United States v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 

645, 666-69 (7th Cir. 2000) (antitrust laws prohibit agreements to restrict output).

By treating “inputs to emissions equations” as “emission data,” EPA would risk the further 

disclosure of these data elements, leading to violations of the principle that shared data should be 

“sufficiently aggregated” and should “not allow recipients to identify” the

competitive information of “any particular provider.” [Footnote: In other contexts, the FTC has 

explained any shared cost or price data must be managed by a third party, be more than three 

months old, and be “sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the 

prices charged or compensation [costs] paid by any particular provider.” See Dep’t of Justice & 

FTC, Statements of Health Care Antitrust Enforcement Policy, Statement 6: Statement of 

Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Policy on Provider 

Participation in Exchanges of Price and Cost Information, available at 

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/healthcare/industryguide/policy/statement6.htm.] “Inputs to emissions 

equations” data are not sufficiently aggregated and thus would provide company-specific 

information on production, throughput, raw material consumption, capacity, and future 

operations that could, in theory, facilitate the tacit or explicit coordination of pricing or output 

among competitors.

In its September 30, 2010 comments to EPA, the FTC cautioned that public disclosure of CBI 

“may lead to collusion that harms customers through higher prices, decreased quality, and 

decreased innovation.” FTC Comments at 2. The FTC specifically identified “inputs to emissions 

equations” data as a problematic category because it “include[s] data on production, throughput, 

raw material consumption, capacity, and future operations.” Id. at 1. FTC explained that public 

disclosure of this information “may make it easier for reporting companies to either tacitly or 

explicitly coordinate their pricing decisions.” Id. at 1-2. These risks are particularly acute for 

AFPM members, as the FTC specifically listed petroleum refining and petrochemical production 

as industries of concern. Id. at 3. To avoid these antitrust concerns, the FTC urged EPA to treat 
Draft Deliberative

58

all “inputs to emissions equations” data as confidential. Id. at 12-13. AFPM urges EPA to defer 

to the FTC and make clear that “inputs to emissions equations” data elements do not qualify as 

“emission data.” AFPM and its members take seriously their antitrust obligations and strive to 

avoid taking any action that could raise antitrust concerns. If EPA continues to treat “inputs to 

emissions equations” as “emission data,” AFPM members will risk the possibility that 

information will be made publicly available that the FTC believes could facilitate 

anticompetitive behavior. Rather than placing AFPM members in such a “Catch 22,” EPA 

should ensure the confidentiality of these data elements by stating explicitly in the final rule that 

they are not emission data subject to disclosure.

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that it has not made confidentiality determinations for any 

of the inputs to emission equations (including whether they are emission data under the CAA), 

either in this final rule or in any other final action. Any such determination must be made in 

accordance with the CAA and the EPA’s implementing regulations under 40 CFR part 2, subpart 

B, and the EPA has not done so, nor did the EPA purport to do so, in its four-step evaluation 

relative to the inputs to equations.

23 As explained in Section I.C of the preamble to the final rule, 

the goal of this rulemaking is to address the concerns of reporting inputs to equations that have 

disclosure concerns. The EPA believes that it has achieved this goal through this rulemaking, 

which does not require making confidentiality determinations on data that are inputs to 

equations. The EPA is therefore not addressing specific comments on why such data are not 

emission data and why they qualify as CBI.

The commenter supports the IVT approach but expresses concerns that “there remains a residual 

risk that such data elements could be subject to disclosure under the CAA.” However, the 

comment above did not elaborate on such remaining residual risk and we are therefore unable to 

address it in this response.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: I. The need for EPA to ascertain that confidential “inputs to emission equations” are 

not “emissions data”

API and its member companies appreciate and support EPA’s decision in the proposed rule that, 

in lieu of reporting CBI such as raw material data, the Agency would allow facilities to use an 

electronic verification tool being developed by EPA that is subject to enhanced recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. In fact, API members are participating in the pilot program for the 

Verification Tool that will help demonstrate how the tool works with e-GGRT.

 

23 For additional information on the four-step evaluation, please see Section I.C of the preamble. The four-step evaluation, which 

evaluates potential disclosure concerns and alternative reporting and verification approaches, involves consideration of several 

but not all factors in the EPA’s regulations governing confidentiality determinations.
Draft Deliberative

59

API appreciates that EPA recognizes the utmost need to take seriously and protect confidential 

business information and that the Agency has signaled a willingness to take necessary and 

appropriate steps to prevent the inappropriate disclosure of such information. At the same time, 

regarding those elements that EPA properly has concluded should be accorded protection as CBI, 

EPA must clarify that such information is not “emission data” both to reconcile its 

confidentiality determination with the text of the Clean Air Act and to avoid the risk of this 

information being disclosed through other means.

A. EPA should clarify that the “inputs to emission equations” data elements which are accorded 

protection as CBI are not “emission data

In 2010, API supported EPA’s decision to defer the reporting deadline for a subset of data 

elements in the “inputs to emission equations” category until March 31, 2015 in order to provide 

sufficient time to consider comments on specific confidentiality determinations for certain data 

elements. See 75 Fed. Reg. 81350 (Dec. 27, 2010). Although API appreciates that EPA now 

proposes that many of these elements are confidential, API disagrees with EPA’s position as set 

forth in the July 2010 proposed rule (and set forth again in the final rule and in the 2013 

proposed rule), that the identified data elements in the inputs to emission equations category 

qualify as “emission data” under 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i). See 75 Fed. Reg. at 39108. As we 

discuss in detail below, EPA must protect against the disclosure of confidential “inputs to 

emission equations.” The appropriate way to do this is to clarify that inputs to emission equations 

are simply not “emission data” within the meaning of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA 

regulations.

B. “Inputs to emission equations” fall outside of the plain text of the CAA’s narrow exemption 

for “emission data”

The CAA provides that upon the requisite showing, information provided to EPA must be 

afforded confidential treatment “other than emission data.” 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c). CAA section 

114(c), 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c), requires that:

“[a]ny records, reports or information obtained under subsection (a) of this section [section 

114(a)] shall be available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the 

Administrator by a person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, (other 

than emission data) to which the Administrator has access . . . if made public, would divulge 

methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person, the Administrator 

shall consider such record, report, or information or particular portion thereof confidential . . ..”

42 U.S.C. § 7414(c) (emphasis added). Thus, given that Section 114(c) might be read to limit the 

provision’s protection against further disclosure for CBI that is deemed “emission data,” in order 

to ensure that confidential information is not at risk for further disclosure, it is critical that EPA 

properly define such information outside the realm of “emission data.”

Under the well-established two-step test set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 

837 (1984), a court first must determine “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise 

question at issue.” If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter because the 

court (and the agency) must give effect to an unambiguous intent of Congress. If the statute is 
Draft Deliberative

60

silent or ambiguous, however, with respect to the specific issue, the question before the court is 

whether the agency answer is based upon a permissible construction of the statute. If Congress 

has left a gap for an agency to fill, an agency may elucidate a specific provision of the statute by 

regulation unless such regulations are arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. 

Id.

The CAA does not define “emission data” and does not speak directly to the treatment of “inputs 

to emission equations.” In turn, the CAA does not compel EPA to treat the inputs to emission 

equations elements as “emission data” under step one of Chevron. [Footnote: EPA has never 

suggested that the CAA speaks directly to the question at issue or mandates a particular 

interpretation that compels this type of information to be treated as emission data. Rather, in the 

1970s, EPA determined that it was necessary to promulgate regulations to establish procedures 

by which EPA would evaluate whether information collected under the CAA was entitled to 

confidential treatment. This long-standing interpretation of whether certain information falls 

within the “emission data” exception shows that there was a gap to fill in the statute. 

Furthermore, EPA’s responses to comments show that EPA attempted to craft a reasonable 

construction of the statutory term “emission data” that would disclose some data on experienced 

emissions while protecting the interests of the businesses that provide information to EPA, See 

41 Fed. Reg. at 36922.] Thus, EPA must interpret the CAA in a manner that simultaneously 

enforces its obligations to protect the disclosure of confidential business information.

1. “Inputs to emission equations” do not fall within the statutory or regulatory definition of 

“emission data”

Under step two of the Chevron analysis [i.e., two-step test set forth in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. 

NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)], where a statute is “silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific 

issue, the question for the Court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible 

construction of the statute.” Id. The CAA does not define “emission data” but the common 

understanding of this term is actual, experienced emissions into the air that can be measured and 

calculated. The “inputs to emission equations” elements, however, simply describe various 

formulas and calculations, are not actual emissions, and thus do not constitute “emission data” 

under CAA Section 114(c). The only reasonable construction of the CAA that is consistent with 

EPA’s regulations and relevant precedent requires EPA to conclude that “inputs to emission 

equations” do not constitute “emission data” within the meaning of Section 114(c). The 

“emission data” exemption in CAA Section 114(c) is far too narrow to include the broad and 

confidential universe of “inputs to emissions equations” data. The information EPA has proposed 

warrants confidential treatment that could be at risk for further disclosure if EPA does not 

accurately characterize such information as being outside the realm of “emission data.”

In its regulations, EPA defines what constitutes “emission data.” See 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i). 

“Inputs to emission equations” is not encompassed within this definition of emission data, which 

is defined as:

(A) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics . . . of any emission which has been emitted by the source . . .;
Draft Deliberative

61

(B) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics . . . of the emissions which under an applicable standard or limitation the source 

was authorized to emit . . .; and

(C) A general description of the location and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to 

identify the source and distinguish it from other sources . . ..

40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i).

In 2010, EPA correctly determined that part (B) of its regulatory definition is not applicable 

because there are no established GHG emissions limits for the facilities subject to the GHGRP 

(75 Fed. Reg. at 39100). Furthermore, the “inputs to emission equations” do not fall within 

subsection (C) because they do not describe the location or nature of sources. Likewise, the 

“inputs to emission equations” data elements fall outside of part (A) because such data elements 

are not necessary to determine the characteristics of any “emission” that has been emitted. 

Relevant case law supports that EPA’s regulations defining “emission data” and, in particular, 

the “necessary to determine” clause, must not be interpreted to allow EPA’s narrow exception 

for “emission data” to swallow the well-settled and sensible rule that sensitive business 

information is eligible for CBI protection. See NRDC v. Leavitt, Civ. No. 04-01295, 2006 WL 

667327 at *4 (D.D.C. March 14, 2006) (a “strict interpretation of the ‘necessary to determine’ 

requirement is warranted in order to ensure that the exception does not swallow the rule.”); see 

also id. (a “plain meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i) indicates that ‘emission data’ is defined 

narrowly . . .). The case of RSR Corp. v. EPA, 588 F. Supp. 1251 (N.D. Tex. 1984) is instructive. 

In RSR Corp., EPA made a determination that various documents which included inputs to 

emission equations were necessary to determine emissions or sources. Ultimately, however, the 

district court remanded the determination back to the EPA because the agency failed in its 

administrative record to support its conclusion that it was “necessary” to include the inputs to 

emission equations. The RSR court found it clear that before concluding that requested 

information is necessary, EPA must consider all relevant factors including “available 

alternatives, so that the release of information claimed to be proprietary could be avoided unless 

required by statute.” Id. at 1256.

A 1991 EPA Notice of Policy reinforces that EPA’s interpretation of “emission data” should be 

construed narrowly. The Policy provides a list of data fields that EPA “presently considers to 

constitute emission data.” 56 Fed. Reg. 7042 (Feb. 21, 1991). In the Policy, EPA identified the 

“emission estimation method” as a data field that is necessary to establish the characteristics of 

the emissions and is, therefore, “emission data.” The Policy, however, only requires 

identification of the method, e.g., material balance, and use of AP-42 emissions factors but does 

not require disclosure of the actual inputs used in the emission estimation method. 56 Fed. Reg. 

7043. Thus, the most reasonable approach would be for EPA to similarly exclude inputs data 

from the realm of “emission data.”

The inputs data are simply not “information” necessary to determine the identity, amount, 

frequency, concentration, or other characterizations of any “emission.” The term “emission” is 

unambiguous and means material that has actually been discharged (emitted) into the air. In 

promulgating its CBI regulations, EPA confirmed that data falling into category (A) must be 

“data concerning actual (experienced) emissions.” See 41 Fed. Reg. at 36922. The detailed 
Draft Deliberative

62

facility process and operational information that EPA has categorized as “inputs to emissions 

equations” provides no information regarding the characteristics of any emissions and, in turn, 

actual emission data is being fully reported to EPA under the GHGRP. Rather it provides 

information about annual throughput and production rates – which encompass information that 

should not be readily available to the public because, as discussed below, it would raise serious 

antitrust concerns.

Furthermore, where EPA intends to use the inputs data solely for verification, and where the 

inputs do not describe or identify any actual (experienced) emissions, the inputs data cannot be 

“necessary to determine” the characteristics of emissions. Finally, and importantly, the amount 

of emissions is separately reported under the GHGRP and the bare inputs to equations do not 

provide the public any additional, relevant information regarding the scope of the emissions 

themselves. Thus, in order to reconcile EPA’s confidentiality determination with Section 114(c) 

and to protect against the risk of further disclosure of confidential information, EPA must ensure 

that such information is not defined as “emission data.”

2. EPA properly concluded that certain “inputs to emission equations” data elements are entitled 

to confidential treatment

First, as noted above, API supports EPA’s decision that certain “inputs to emission equations” 

data elements are CBI and should be protected from disclosure. Although API supports EPA’s 

development and willingness to use the verification tool in an effort to avoid the disclosure of 

confidential information, as discussed above EPA must go further and clarify that such 

confidential information is not “emission data” in order to ensure that the information will not be 

further available to the public or subject to disclosure under the CAA.

As API has explained in comments submitted in the past, the inputs data clearly satisfy EPA’s 

five-part test for confidential treatment (see 40 C.F.R. § 2.208) and, in turn, any data that EPA 

believes must be verified should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

EPA’s five-part test for whether business information is entitled to confidential treatment is wellsettled. Business information is entitled to confidential treatment if:

(a) the business has asserted a business confidentiality claim which has not expired by its terms, 

nor been waived nor withdrawn;

(b) the business has satisfactorily shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the 

confidentiality of the information, and that it intends to continue to take such measures;

(c) the information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without the business’s consent 

by other persons (other than governmental bodies) by use of legitimate means (other than by 

discovery based on a showing of special need in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding);

(d) no statute specifically requires disclosure of the information; and

(e) either— (1) the business has satisfactorily shown that disclosure of the information is likely 

to cause substantial harm to the business’s competitive position or, (2) the information is 
Draft Deliberative

63

voluntarily submitted information (see § 2.201(i)), and its disclosure would be likely to impair 

the Government’s ability to obtain necessary information in the future.

40 C.F.R. § 2.208. These five elements are easily satisfied.

First, as EPA is well-aware, API has asserted confidentiality claims with respect to some or all 

inputs to emissions equations (including, but not limited to, product compositions, raw materials 

used, fuel types and quantities, production volumes, and other process-specific information). API 

and other entities made it abundantly clear that these inputs are considered trade secrets or 

otherwise sensitive business information and making such inputs publicly available would cause 

serious competitive harm. 75 Fed. Reg. at 81534. Second, API and its members have taken, and 

will continue to take, reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of data elements. And as 

discussed above, this data has historically been protected in part to address the antitrust concerns 

as set forth by, among others, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Third, EPA could not 

otherwise obtain this data without the consent of API’s members. Fourth, there is no statute that 

requires disclosure of this information (and as discussed supra, these data do not qualify as 

“emission data” and are not subject to disclosure under the CAA). Fifth, disclosure of the inputs 

to emission equations will almost certainly cause substantial harm to API members’ competitive 

positions. As discussed, disclosing production volumes, and process specific information could 

provide insight to competitors regarding sensitive operational limits and process capabilities. 

Additionally, disclosure of the type, composition, and relative proportions of raw materials used 

can reveal specific formulas used to manufacture products and reveal details about production 

costs. Where all five requirements have been met, there is no question that the information 

qualifies as CBI.

3. Release of confidential “inputs to emission equations” data elements raises significant antitrust 

concerns

In addition to the need to treat the confidential inputs data outside the definition of “emission 

data” to avoid disclosure under EPA’s regulations, if EPA fails to take sufficient action to protect 

such data from disclosure, significant antitrust concerns may arise. As the FTC has made clear, 

failing to protect confidential “inputs to emissions equations” data elements from disclosure 

could trigger antitrust concerns and violate the principle of aggregation. EPA must avoid 

imposing a requirement to disclose inputs data because such disclosure is inconsistent with 

statutory requirements and policies promoting competition.

The data elements in this category include cost- and output-related information that is a 

significant determinant of prices including information regarding fuel production and distribution 

(which provides details about inputs, nature and location of sources, and plant operations). The 

antitrust laws generally prohibit competitors from sharing price, output, and other information 

that may facilitate anticompetitive coordination in prices or production and thereby harm 

consumers. The exchange of price information is of particular concern. [Footnote: The antitrust 

laws are designed to promote and preserve the competitive private enterprise system by 

encouraging free and open competition and the fairest distribution of high quality goods and 

services at the lowest possible prices. The basic provisions of the antitrust laws are found in the 

Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. 

Distilled, these Acts oblige regulated entities to ensure that they do not discuss or exchange 
Draft Deliberative

64

information with their competitors on issues such as prices to be charged, division or allocation 

of markets or customers, distribution of products, profit levels, production of products or level of 

production, bases for determining prices, and exchanges of price information to certain 

customers, among other issues. Violations of these Acts can lead to imprisonment, fines, courtissued injunctions, treble damage awards, and state penalties. As noted supra, the FTC submitted 

comments in EPA’s CBI rulemaking and took the position that EPA’s proposed rule “may allow 

for the public release of competitively sensitive information” and, in particular, pointed to data 

under three categories that were at high risk and warranted confidential protection: “inputs to 

emission equations,” “unit/process ‘static’ characteristics that are not inputs to emission 

equations,” and “unit/process operating characteristics that are not inputs to emission equations.” 

See FTC Comments at 6. With respect to “inputs to emission equations,” the FTC pointed out 

that “inputs to emission equations” include annual fuel combustion volume, 

production/throughput and raw material consumption (such as petrochemical production), 

characteristics of raw materials, products, and by-products, and facility operating information 

which, if not characterized as “emission data,” would otherwise be CBI.]

See United States v.Container Corp. of America, 393 U.S. 333 (1969); see also Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC) FTC Guide to the Antitrust Laws 

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/factsheets/antitrustlawsguide.pdf.

Because the Antitrust laws prohibit agreements to restrict output, see United States v. Andreas, 

216 F.3d 645, 666-69 (7th Cir. 2000), a similar set of antitrust concerns apply to informationsharing (tacit or explicit) that may facilitate coordinated output decisions. Any disclosure of 

“inputs to emission equations” would violate well-settled principles that shared data should be 

“sufficiently aggregated” and should “not allow recipients to identify” the competitive 

information of “any particular provider.” Without such safeguards, producers are more likely to 

learn the specifics of individual competitors’ ongoing operations. Such knowledge could impact 

prices and/or output and the risk of causing competitive harm increases because some sensitive 

aspects of fuel production may persist over time.

EPA’s proposal fails to address these concerns. As discussed above, EPA must confirm that any 

elements it deems confidential are not “emission data.” Otherwise, the data elements in the 

“inputs to emission equations” that EPA has now determined lack any “identified disclosure 

concerns,” might be available for disclosure to the public.[Footnote: In our September 7, 2010 

comments, API members expressed concern that some of the Suppliers’ reporting requirements 

could reveal process-specific information and production volumes, thus providing competitors 

with data about sensitive process capabilities and operational limits and market capabilities and 

engagements. For these reasons, API has previously stated that petroleum fuel refiners, 

importers, and exporters should not have to report on petroleum feed stock and product volumes 

or unit-specific GHG emissions and process data to EPA unless assured the confidentiality of 

these data.] As the FTC has explained, because numerous industries subject to the GHGRP 

share various market conditions, “making confidential business information (CBI) public may 

lead to collusion that harms consumers through higher prices, decreased quality, and decreased 

innovation.” Comments of the Federal Trade Commission, September 30, 2010 at 2.

More specifically, the FTC expressly highlighted its concerns about EPA’s proposed release of 

“inputs to emission equations” and other sensitive data elements explaining that:
Draft Deliberative

65

Three categories of data that the EPA proposes to make public contain potentially sensitive 

competitive business information: “inputs to emission equations,” “unit process ‘static’ 

characteristics that are not inputs to emission equations,” and “unit/process operating 

characteristics that are not inputs to emission equations.” These three categories include data on 

production, throughput, raw material consumption, capacity, and future operations. Public 

disclosure of such facility- and firm-specific sensitive business information may make it easier 

for reporting companies to either tacitly or explicitly coordinate their pricing decisions. This is 

especially true when certain market conditions are present such as transparency, high 

concentration, impediments to entry, homogenous products, and low elasticity of demand.

See Comments of the FTC (emphasis added; internal footnotes omitted).

As a result of its concerns, the FTC recommended that EPA treat all “inputs to emission 

equations” data elements as confidential. Id. Because the FTC is the federal agency specifically 

charged with maintaining competition and safeguarding the interests of consumers, we urge EPA 

to be particularly deferential of its advice regarding the serious need to take adequate steps to 

avoid disclosing this sensitive data. API continues to urge EPA to follow the FTC’s 

recommendations and provide CBI protection to all “inputs to emission equations” particularly 

where there is not a sufficient record upon which to determine how EPA excluded some inputs as 

confidential.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080, Excerpt 

6, for the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council24

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: I. Legal and Policy Issues

ACC appreciates EPA’s recognition of the need to protect this confidential and sensitive 

business information; however, EPA’s proposed regulatory treatment of such information creates 

uncertainties that would put these emission calculation inputs at risk of public disclosure if these 

uncertainties are not addressed by EPA in the final rule.

In order to ensure that companies’ emission calculation inputs are not disclosed to competitors, 

ACC urges EPA to determine that the 440 data elements that are in the subparts listed in Table 2 

of this proposed rule are not “emissions data” under Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 

42 U.S.C. §7414(c). Such a finding would guarantee these data the full protection from public 

disclosure provided under EPA regulations. As explained below, such a determination would be 

 

24 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

66

perfectly consistent with the statute, EPA regulations, and the federal government’s overall 

policy of protecting trade secrets and confidential commercial information.

A. Certain Emission Calculation Inputs are Protected by EPA’s Regulations on Confidential 

Business Information

The 440 data elements at issue in this rulemaking assuredly meet EPA’s five-part test for 

confidential information that must be protected from public disclosure. 40 C.F.R. § 2.208. This 

test entitles information to protection where it meets the following criteria: (1) a business asserts 

a business confidentiality claim that has not expired, been waived, or withdrawn; (2) the business 

takes reasonable measures to protect the confidential nature of the information and intends to 

continue taking those measures; (3) the information is not reasonably obtainable, by anyone 

other than government entities, without the business’ consent; (4) no statute specifically requires 

the disclosure of the information; and (5) the business has either shown that disclosure of the 

information is likely to cause substantial harm to its competitive position, or that disclosure 

would be likely to impair the government’s ability to obtain information in the future.Id.

For ACC’s members, the data inputs originally proposed in 2010 to be reported to EPA, 

[Footnote: These inputs were subsumed in EPA's 2010 proposed broad-brush determination that 

"inputs to emission equations" are considered "emissions data." 75 Fed. Reg. 39094 (July 7, 

2010)] but which EPA is now proposing not be reported to EPA, clearly meet these five 

requirements. For example, information pertaining to member facilities’ usage of raw materials, 

production volumes, and other process-specific information could provide competitors with 

details regarding the operational limits of manufacturing facilities, manufacturing formulas, 

production costs, and other confidential, sensitive, and secret information that can provide a 

company with a competitive advantage over others in the same market. ACC’s comments and 

the comments of some of our member companies on the 2010 proposal discussed our concerns in 

great detail, and we incorporate those comments by reference herein.

As we have noted in previous comments, EPA has rightfully determined that specific data are 

entitled to protection from public disclosure. However, this same protection is not being given 

when that exact same data must be used by a company as an input to an emissions equation. For 

example, EPA is proposing in §98.246(a)(12) and (13) that data elements, i.e., name and annual 

quantity of each carbon-containing feedstock (or product, respectively) included in Equation X1, X-2 and X-3 of §98.243, be protected as CBI because EPA has determined that the data, ‘Raw 

Materials Consumed That Are Not Inputs to Emissions Equations’ and ‘Production/Throughput 

Data That Are Not Inputs to Emissions Equations’, respectively, could result in competitive 

harm if publicly disclosed. However, when these same data are used as “inputs” to emission 

equations, EPA is proposing at §98.246(a)(4) to remove the reporting requirement for each of the 

monthly volume, mass and carbon content values used in Equations X-1 through X-3 of §98.243 

and instead require companies to maintain records of these data on-site for 5 years, subject to 

agency inspection. EPA is silent as to whether this data is to be afforded CBI protection. The 

potential disclosure of these data elements poses no less significant a threat of substantial 

competitive harm than the disclosure of the data elements at §98.246(a)(12) and (13) that EPA 

has determined are entitled to confidential treatment. In order to avoid substantial competitive 

harm, the final rule must protect all data that contain sensitive business information and EPA can 

only do so by abandoning its 2010 proposal that when used as inputs to emissions equations this 
Draft Deliberative

67

sensitive data will not be protected from public disclosure because the Agency deems it to be 

“emissions data.” Only then will ACC member companies have some hope of being able to 

shield their sensitive business information from disclosure.

B. Classifying Certain Emission Calculation Inputs as “Emission Data” is Unsupported by the 

Clean Air Act and EPA’s Existing Interpretations

EPA’s August 2013 Memorandum, “Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of “Inputs 

to Equations” Data Elements deferred to March 31, 2015” concurs that the disclosure of certain 

emission calculation inputs could result in competitive harm and these inputs therefore should be 

protected. At the same time, the Agency appears to believe that these inputs would still be 

considered “emissions data” pursuant to Section 114(c) of the CAA, as it proposed in July 2010. 

The language of the CAA, however, is ambiguous and EPA may and should interpret the term 

“emission data” to exclude certain emission calculation inputs, consistent with the statute, EPA’s 

regulations and case law. ACC believes that choosing a contrary interpretation at this time is not 

only bad public policy, but would be unsupported by the CAA and inconsistent with EPA past 

interpretation of the term “emission data”. Most importantly, it would potentially defeat EPA’s 

proposed efforts to protect such information from disclosure.

ACC’s concern arises out of the fact that the CAA excludes “emission data” from confidentiality 

protections, thus creating ambiguity regarding EPA’s ability to protect certain data inputs that the 

Agency now agrees deserve protection. Importantly, the CAA does not define the term “emission 

data.” 42 U.S.C. §7414(c). Pursuant to Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843 

(1984), where “Congress has not directly addressed” the precise meaning of a statutory term, 

EPA may forward “a permissible construction of the statute.” Many years ago, EPA promulgated 

its definition of “emission data” at 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2). That definition construes “emission 

data” to include only that information “necessary” to determine, among other things, the identity, 

amount, frequency, and concentration of emissions. Id. §2.301(a)(2)(i)(A). [Footnote: 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) are not implicated by the GHG Reporting Rule as the information 

submitted does not pertain to either an “applicable standard or limitation,” or “the location and/or 

nature of the source,” respectively.] In 1991, EPA issued a policy document stating what it 

considers to be “emission data” under 40 C.F.R. §2.301(a)(2)(i), meaning what it considers to be 

“necessary” to determine the basic characteristics of source emissions. See 56 Fed. Reg. 7,042 

(Feb. 21,1991) (the “1991 Policy”).

Using its authority under Chevron, EPA may interpret whether certain emission calculation 

inputs are “emission data.” In doing so, however, the Agency faces several constraints. First, 

EPA cannot interpret the term “emission data” in a way that is “inconsistent with the statutory 

mandate or that frustrate[s] the policy that Congress sought to implement.” FEC v. Democratic 

Senatorial Campaign Committee, 454 U.S. 27, 31-21 (1981). Second, any interpretation must 

represent “a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the 

agency’s care by the statute.” United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382 (1961). Third, when 

changing an interpretation through informal rulemaking, the agency must “justif[y] [its] change 

of interpretation with a reasoned analysis.” Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187 (1991) (internal 

quotation omitted). EPA’s July 2010 proposed interpretation that all “inputs to emission 

equations” are “emission data” [Footnote: See 75 Fed. Reg. 39094, 39108 (July 7, 2010)] 
Draft Deliberative

68

infringes on all three constraints and that interpretation needs to be corrected as to the 440 inputs 

that are the subject of this rulemaking.

1. Section 114(c) and “Emissions Data”

EPA’s proposed interpretation that all emission calculation inputs are “emission data” is 

inconsistent with Section 114(c) for two main reasons. First, the purpose of this statutory 

provision is to protect sensitive business information unless it falls within the narrow exception

of “emission data.” Given EPA has now acknowledged the need to protect certain emission 

calculation inputs from public disclosure, the Agency cannot simultaneously classify these 

sensitive data as “emission data” which must be publicly disclosed. 

Second, Section 114(c) states in pertinent part:

“Any records, reports or information obtained under subsection (a) shall be available to the 

public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the [EPA] by any person that records, reports 

or information, or particular part thereof, (other than emissions data), to which the [EPA] has 

access...if made public, would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trade 

secrets of such person, the [EPA] shall consider such record, report or information 

...confidential...” (Emphasis added).

The language of the statute seems clear that if EPA receives a record, report or information 

considered to be “emissions data”, it shall make such record, report or information available to 

the public. The proposed rule seems to dispose of this potential obligation by stating that the 

EPA would not have “access” to the 440 business sensitive inputs at issue in this rulemaking 

because they are not retained by the verification tool. ACC is not comforted by that response. 

Given that EPA has already determined that these business sensitive inputs should not be made 

publicly available, we believe that a consistent and reasonable interpretation of Section 114(c) 

requires the Agency to determine that these inputs are not “emissions data”.

Certain emission calculation inputs are not data on the emissions themselves, e.g., the pollutant’s 

identity, the volume of emissions, the concentration of the pollutant, etc. Instead, these inputs are 

information about the manufacturing process – such as fuel usage, production/throughput, 

process feed rate, raw material consumption, and byproducts. This operational data is exactly the 

type of proprietary and confidential business information that § 114(c) was intended to protect. 

Enlarging what should be a narrow exception for information on the identity, volume, and 

concentration of pollutant emissions would make § 114(c)’s protections ineffective in serving its 

purpose of protecting confidential business information about industrial processes and formulae. 

In fact, interpreting these data inputs as “emission data” would create an exception that would 

swallow the rule. Under this broad approach to “emission data,” it would be hard to identify any 

types of confidential process information that would be excluded from “emission data”. One 

district court has already interpreted the term “emission data” to require a narrow construction in 

order to preserve the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c). Natural Res. Def. Council v. Leavitt, Case 

No. 04-1295, 2006 WL 667327 at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 14, 2006) (interpreting EPA’s regulatory 

definition of “emission data” to be “defined narrowly”). EPA similarly should exclude certain 

data inputs from the definition of “emission data” or else Section 114(c) would lapse into 

irrelevance.
Draft Deliberative

69

2. Balancing Protection of CBI and Public Disclosure

EPA’s proposed classification of all “inputs to emission equations” as “emission data” fails to 

provide a reasonable balance between the competing federal government policy of protecting 

confidential business information and the public’s right to know the reporters’ GHG emissions. 

EPA’s July 2010 proposed interpretation significantly conflicts with the federal government’s 

overall policy of protecting confidential information. The government has repeatedly affirmed 

the value of protecting trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information 

submitted to government agencies. See, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) (protection of trade secrets and 

privileged and confidential commercial or financial information are exempt from Freedom of 

Information Act); 44 U.S.C. § 3501(8) (federal information policy is to ensure that federal 

government agencies protect “privacy and confidentiality” of information); 18 U.S.C. § 1905 

(government officers or employees that discloses confidential business information obtained 

through the course of their official duties subject to fines and imprisonment). Indeed, Section 

114(c) of the CAA explicitly protects trade secrets and confidential information pertaining to 

“methods and processes” with the sole exception of “emission data”. EPA has already 

acknowledged that certain emission calculation inputs contain exactly this type of “sensitive” 

business information. 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,106. This institutional respect for confidential and 

proprietary information should counsel EPA to err on the side of more protection, not less.

This is especially true given that the GHG information being reported is not for purposes of 

ensuring compliance with enforceable emission standards. The GHG Reporting Rule was 

developed for informational purposes, such as improving the quality of the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks submitted pursuant to the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change, “advancing the understanding of emission processes and 

monitoring methodologies,” identify “shortcomings in the national statistics and identify where 

adjustments may be needed.” 74 Fed. Reg. 16448, 16455 (Apr. 10, 2009). Limiting EPA’s 

interpretation of “emission data” to actual emission data, and not all emission calculation inputs, 

will amply serve the purposes of the GHG Reporting Rule by providing accurate and high 

quality current data regarding the magnitude of GHG emissions while honoring the national 

policy of protecting sensitive business information. EPA’s current interpretation

puts it in the crux of a contradiction: although the Agency acknowledges that, as “emission 

data,” the emission calculation inputs “must be available to the public” under CAA § 114(c), the 

verification tool is explicitly designed to destroy this “emission data” to prevent its public 

disclosure. Such untenable straddling would be completely unnecessary if the Agency simply 

adopted and finalized a common sense approach that deemed certain data inputs about the 

reporters’ operations to be outside the scope of “emission data” and to be afforded protection 

from public disclosure.

3. EPA’s Change in Interpretation

In the GHG Reporting Rule, and more specifically in the proposed 2010 determination that all 

“inputs to emission equations” are considered “emissions data”, EPA has changed its 

interpretation of “emission data” in at least three significant ways: (1) it has expanded the 

definition to include many more parameters than in its 1991 Policy; (2) it has, for the most part, 

abandoned the 1991 Policy’s use of a case-by-case analysis for potentially confidential 

information in favor of a blanket ruling; and (3) it has disregarded the case law that holds that 
Draft Deliberative

70

“emission data” is limited to that information necessary to determine the basic characteristics, 

e.g., amount, of a source’s emissions. Yet, EPA has never provided a substantial analysis 

squaring its new, expansive interpretation of “emission data” with its existing interpretation 

under the 1991 Policy. Instead, EPA simply denied that it was changing its interpretation of 

“emission data.” For example, although EPA conceded that “there are many data elements under 

Part 98 that are not addressed in EPA’s 1991 notice,” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39105, it summarily 

declared that the 1991 Policy put “the public ... on notice that EPA considers many of the data 

elements in this data category to be emission data and thus not entitled to confidential treatment.” 

Id. at 39107; see also id. at 39108 (claiming that EPA’s new interpretation of “emission data” is 

“consistent with the” 1991 Policy).

EPA’s new interpretation of “emission data” is not only inconsistent with the 1991 Policy 

because it is more expansive, it is inconsistent because EPA has expanded its interpretation of 

“emission data” in a blanket manner. Although the 1991 Policy states that its listing of emission 

data “is not exhaustive,” 56 Fed. Reg. at 7042, it also states that any additional data will only be 

deemed to be “emission data” after a case-by-case review. Id. at 7043. EPA has not only changed 

its interpretation of “emission data” to include all “inputs to emission equations”, it has done so 

while abandoning its policy of performing a case-by-case analysis. EPA has never acknowledged 

this change from its existing interpretation, much less provide a reasoned analysis to justify the 

change.

Lastly, EPA’s prior interpretation of “emission data,” both in its regulatory definition and in the 

1991 Policy, limited the term to include only that information “necessary” to determine, among 

other things, the identity, amount, frequency, and concentration of emissions. Id. § 

2.301(a)(2)(i)(A); 56 Fed. Reg. 7042. At least one court has struck down an EPA decision that 

facility process information was “emission data” because it was not “necessary” to determine the 

facility’s emissions. There, the court held that EPA failed to support its cursory claim that the 

information was “the only practical way to determine the amount of pollutants emitted.” RSR 

Corp. v. EPA, 588 F. Supp. 1251, 1256 (N.D. Tex. 1984). Thus, a necessity determination is a 

material consideration in determining what is or is not “emission data.” Yet, in its 2010 proposal, 

EPA apparently discarded the requirement of necessity and did so without any acknowledgement 

or reasoned analysis. EPA’s policy change makes little sense given that the Agency has already 

ensured that the emission calculation inputs are not ‘necessary’ for EPA to acquire and verify 

information on reporters’ emissions. EPA has stated that it will rely on a verification summary 

generated by the reporting tool – which will not include any of the emission calculation inputs –

‘as a first step for conducting verification once the annual report is submitted.’ 78 Fed. Reg. at 

55,999; see also 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,002 (if a reporter overrides a value calculation, the 

verification summary ‘would note a discrepancy, which would prompt EPA for further review 

after the reporter submits the annual report.’). These verification summaries would provide EPA 

with the ‘necessary’ emission data, and the means to verify their accuracy, even if the emission 

calculation inputs were deemed to be confidential business information. In other words, EPA has 

already designed the verification tool to ensure that the emission calculation inputs are not 

‘necessary’ for GHG reporting purposes.

ACC appreciates that EPA has recognized in this proposed rule that certain inputs to emission 

calculations are sensitive business information and is therefore proposing an alternative 

verification tool to prevent those data inputs from being reported to EPA and potentially 
Draft Deliberative

71

disclosed. ACC also appreciates that EPA is proposing that it is not necessary for these inputs to 

be reported to EPA, collected by EPA or that EPA have access to these inputs. At the same time, 

EPA’s 2010 proposed regulatory classification of such inputs as “emission data” creates the 

continued risk of disclosure of this data under the Clean Air Act. The Agency must clarify in its 

final rule that the 440 identified inputs (1) are confidential business information entitled to 

protection from public disclosure under Section 114(c), (2) do not need to be reported or 

collected by EPA to verify the accuracy of the reporting, and therefore (3) are not considered to 

be “emission data” pursuant to Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act.

Response: The EPA clarifies that Part 98, as amended today, no longer requires the reporting of 

the 39525 inputs identified in this final rule. Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQOAR-2010-0929-0080, Excerpt 6, for the EPA’s response to all other aspects of this comment. 

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: DuPont has been engaged with ACC in reviewing and commenting on the legal 

issues raised by this proposal. We note that we endorse the ACC comments that will be 

submitted. We are particularly concerned that EPA – while trying to accommodate the need to 

maintain confidentiality of the inputs to emissions equations that are particularly sensitive form a 

CBI standpoint – has not recognized these sensitive items as CBI. For the reasons stated in the 

ACC comments, DuPont strongly urges EPA to recognize these inputs to emissions equations as 

CBI.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080, Excerpt 

6, for the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute26

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA is also proposing to remove the reporting requirement of 440 “inputs to 

equations” data elements in the Subparts listed in Table 2 of the preamble, also referenced in 

Table 1 of the August 2013 Lisa Grogan-McCulloch memorandum “List of ‘Inputs to Equations’ 

Data Elements Proposed Not To Be Reported” (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 0929-

 

25 Refer to Sections II.B.2 and II.B.3 of the preamble as well as the memorandum “Summary and Explanation of Minor Revisions 

to the Proposed Rule” (August 2014) for discussion about the changes to the number of inputs to equations being removed from 

reporting since proposal.

26 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

72

0044). EPA, however, does not include language in this proposal specifically classifying them as 

CBI, even though the proposed rule effectively treats them as such by only requiring to enter 

them in the verification tool, and not the reporting tool and also because the new data elements in 

Table 4 of the preamble, which are derived from the same “inputs to equations,” are 

subsequently defined as CBI in Table 5 of the preamble. AISI requests that EPA include 

language that expressly recognizes the CBI status of the 440 “inputs to equations” data elements 

and in accordance with our comments treat this data consistently as such.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080, Excerpt 

6, for the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane

Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0079

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Glass production facilities must report specific overall greenhouse gas emissions, 

which is appropriate as the stated purpose of the Rule is to collect greenhouse gas emissions 

data. However, under the existing regulations, the calculation of emissions requires these same 

facilities to report the annual mass of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each furnace; 

annual quantity of glass produced from each furnace and for all furnaces combined; annual 

process emissions; and the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw 

material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace. (See Glass Production Final Rule: 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart N, and especially 

98.146(b).) This detailed and process-specific information does not constitute data that is 

actually required in order for EPA to determine greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, not only is 

this information not necessary, it is confidential business information embodying trade secrets 

and market sensitive data. EPA’s most recent proposal only purports to protect some of this data 

from immediate public access.

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION, TRADE SECRETS, AND MARKET 

SENSITIVE DATA SHOULD NOT BE COLLECTED BY EPA 

As referenced above, the specific type of data required by EPA of fiber glass manufacturers is the 

very type of data to which the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) identified as having possible 

antitrust implications in its September 30, 2010 comments to EPA on the Agency’s “Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations.” The FTC noted that EPA historically determined whether 

information qualified for confidential treatment on a case-by-case basis. EPA, however,

concluded that the volume of greenhouse gases would make a case-by-case determination unduly 

burdensome to the Agency. In response to that decision, the FTC stated:

The FTC is concerned, however, that the proposal may allow for the public release of 

competitively sensitive information. Specifically, because of the potential risk to 

competition, we suggest that data reported under three categories – “inputs to emission 

equations,” “unit/process ‘static’ characteristics that are not inputs to emission 
Draft Deliberative

73

equations,” and “unit/process operating characteristics that are not inputs to emission 

equations,” – may warrant confidential protection.

To clarify that these categories identified by the FTC impact glass companies, it is helpful to 

refer again to the FTC’s comments which state that “[i]nputs to emission equations include, for 

example, volume of fuel combusted per year; production/throughput and raw material 

consumption, such as petrochemical production; characteristics of raw materials, products, and 

by-products; and facility operating information." [Footnote: See 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,108-09 

(describing types of data that would fall within the “inputs to emission equations” data 

category).] These are the very data points required of glass companies.

The FTC explains why public disclosure of sensitive information creates antitrust concerns:

[S]haring information among competitors may increase the likelihood of collusion or 

coordination on matters such as price or output. [Footnote: FTC/DOJ GUIDELINES FOR 

COLLABORATIONS AMONG COMPETITORS §3.31(b).] Coordinated interaction among 

competitors includes collusive agreements, but it can also include conduct not necessarily 

condemned by the antitrust laws. [Footnote: This includes parallel accommodating conduct by 

rivals in which “each rival’s response to competitive moves made by other is individually 

rational, and not motivated by retaliation or deterrence, nor intended to sustain an agreed-upon 

market outcome, but nevertheless emboldens price increases and weakens competitive incentives 

to reduce prices or offer customers better terms.” FTC/DOJ HORIZONTAL MERGER 

GUIDELINES §7.] Firms that engage in coordinated interaction are better able to predict, even 

absent explicit agreement, how rivals will react to price changes. [Footnote: The FTC recognizes 

that rivals in the petroleum and other industries collect market intelligence to anticipate and 

respond to rivals’ output and pricing decisions. See, e.g., In re Chevron Corp., FTC Docket No. 

C-4023, Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment (Sept. 7, 2001) 

(“Integrated refiner-marketers carefully monitor the prices charged by their competitors’ retail 

outlets, and therefore can readily identify firms that deviate from a coordinated or collusive 

price.”).]

The potential for information disclosure to harm competition will depend on the structure of the 

affected market and the type of information disclosed. [Footnote: See Todd v. Exxon 

Corporation, 275 F.3d 191, 199 (2d. Cir. 2001) (quoting U.S. v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 

U.S. 422, 441 n. 16 (1978)) (“A number of factors including most prominently the structure of 

the industry involved and the nature of the information exchanged are generally considered in 

divining the precompetitive or anticompetitive effects of [the information disclosed.]”); see also

FTC/DOJ GUIDELINES FOR COLLABORATIONS AMONG COMPETITORS §3.31(b).]

Given these antitrust concerns, NAIMA urges EPA to abandon the collection of data not directly 

related to actual greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, the information requested of glass 

companies qualifies as confidential business information and in some instances could constitute 

trade secrets. NAIMA is concerned that many of these requests seek information that is 

proprietary, confidential business information and market sensitive. If this information, despite 

EPA’s best intentions and controls, were inadvertently divulged, it could potentially impact the 

competitive advantage in the marketplace of many companies. Equally important, the reporting 

requirements for such sensitive information will elicit information that is irrelevant to EPA’s 
Draft Deliberative

74

purpose and statutory mandate here. For example, the “Annual quantity of glass produced” is 

irrelevant to emissions. (See Glass Production Final Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases, 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart N, 40 C.F.R. § 98.146(b)(3).) Therefore, NAIMA continues to 

believe that the Agency should require facilities to report their emissions, but the quantity of raw 

materials and information that might reveal their related mineral mass fractions and other 

sensitive data should not be reported. The questionable relevance of the information does not 

justify the gravity of the risks.

Even if EPA planned to accept the information under a CBI arrangement and even if EPA 

guaranteed protection of trade sensitive data, as it purports to do with some of the data requested, 

the risk of disclosure of sensitive information would still exist for this information, which has 

only limited, if any, benefit to regulators. Therefore, NAIMA recommends that EPA not require 

the glass industry to report the quantity of glass produced, the quantity of each carbonate-based 

raw material charged to all furnaces combined and any other information that similarly could 

divulge product formulations and production quantities. EPA has stated that it “would protect 

any information claimed as CBI in accordance with regulations in 40 C.F.R. part 2, subpart B.” 

[Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg. at 16,463 (April 10, 2009).] However, NAIMA notes that in general, 

emission data collected under CAA sections 114 and 208 cannot be considered CBI.

Response: The EPA proposed, and is finalizing with no changes, that all of the inputs to 

equations in subpart N, glass production, would be entered into IVT rather than reported to the 

EPA. Regarding the commenter’s assertion that the “annual mass of each carbonate-based raw 

material charged to each furnace; annual quantity of glass produced from each furnace and for all 

furnaces combined; annual process emissions; and the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for 

each carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace” are not 

needed: they are important for verifying the reported emissions. This amendment, which requires 

that these data elements be entered into IVT instead of being reported, simply changes the 

verification approach and does not change the fact that these data remain important for 

verification purposes.

Regarding the remainder of the comments, please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQOAR-2010-0929-0080, Excerpt 6, for the EPA’s response.

Commenter Name: Angus E. Crane

Commenter Affiliation: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0079

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA IS ONLY OFFERING LIMITED PROTECTION TO CERTAIN TYPES OF 

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

NAIMA appreciates EPA’s efforts to protect information that the Agency considers “inputs to 

emissions equations” through removal of reporting requirements for that data and utilization of a 

verification tool. This proposal, if implemented effectively, may reduce concerns over potential 

public disclosure of certain confidential business information. Unfortunately, EPA has not 
Draft Deliberative

75

considered all requested information for reporting to be “inputs to emissions equations” and so 

would continue to require reporting of key confidential information without sufficient protection.

Moreover, it is not clear how the Agency may make use of the “inputs to emissions equations” 

data in the future without risk of disclosure.

EPA has determined, in the Proposed Rule, that certain information should not be required to be 

reported by companies within the Glass Production sector that are covered by Part 98 Subpart N.

EPA has considered three of nine subsections of data reporting requirements under 40 C.F.R. 

98.146 as “inputs to emissions equations” data and proposed that they not be reported. See Table 

3, 78 Fed. Reg. at 55,999; id. at 56,019. They are:

 Annual quantity of each carbonate-based raw material charged (tons) to each continuous 

glass melting furnace (currently part of 98.146(b)(2))

 Carbonate-based mineral mass fraction (percentage, expressed as a raw decimal) for each 

carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace (currently 

98.146(b)(4)); and

 The fraction of calcination achieved for each carbonate-based raw material, if a value other 

than 1.0 is used to calculate process mass emissions of CO2 (currently 98.146(b)(6)).

Significantly, EPA left unchanged and unprotected the remaining six elements that must be 

reported under section 98.146(b), several of which may be used in determining the greenhouse 

gas emissions calculation, N-1, under 40 C.F.R. 98.143(b). Moreover, EPA still requires 

reporting of the annual quantity of each carbonate-based raw material charged (tons) to all 

furnaces combined. Proposed amendment to 98.146(b)(2), 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,019. At a 

minimum, EPA should also remove from reporting requirements the other elements of 98.146(b) 

used in the N-1 calculations, e.g., the entirety of (b)(2); (b)(1) (annual process emissions as 

opposed to total facility emissions); (b)(5) (results of tests to verify carbonate-based mineral 

mass fraction); (b)(7) (method used to determine fraction of calcination); and (b)(8) (total 

number of continuous glass melting surfaces). [Footnote: 98.146(b)(9), the number of times in 

the reporting year that missing data procedures were followed, is admittedly more of a data 

quality assurance requirement rather than an input to equation element, though it is still a 

provision that may be better utilized within the verification tool.]

For example, the information required to be reported under 98.146(b)(5) would allow 

competitors to gain the same access to confidential information on types of materials and 

amounts used in production that would have been accessible through one of the provisions 

removed by EPA. 98.146(b)(4). Further, the annual quantity of glass produced, 98.146(b)(3), has 

no relevance to any calculations, and should not be a reporting requirement or verification 

element, as stated above. It should be deleted in its entirety from 98.146 and not made subject to 

input in the tool. Indeed, to the extent EPA considers any other portions of 98.146(b) to not be 

“inputs to emission equations,” they are then not relevant to greenhouse gas reporting or 

verification under Subpart N and should not be required to be reported or input into the 

verification tool at all.

Thus, while EPA purports to offer some protections to certain types of requested confidential 

business information, its coverage is incomplete, and the Agency still requests information be 
Draft Deliberative

76

reported that is commercially sensitive and either irrelevant to the calculations or information 

that should be more adequately protected from disclosure.

Response: The EPA appreciates the commenter’s support for the proposal to remove reporting 

for “inputs to equations” data elements. The EPA is finalizing as proposed the removal of all 

inputs to equations in subpart N and the requirement to enter these inputs into IVT. Regarding 

the comment that the EPA should consider removing reporting for other data required to be 

reported in 40 CFR 98.146—i.e., 40 CFR 98.146(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(2) (furnaces 

combined), (b)(3), (b)(5), and (b)(7) through (b)(9): none of these data are inputs to emission 

equations. This action is addressing inputs to emission equations. Other types of reporting 

elements are collected in e-GGRT and are handled as CBI if the EPA has determined that they 

are CBI (refer to the final CBI rule, 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011). For example, the EPA has 

determined that 40 CFR 98.146(b)(2), (3), and (5)(iii) qualify as CBI. Regarding the usefulness 

of these data, refer to the April 10, 2009, proposal (74 FR 16448) for EPA’s rationale for

collecting these data. 

Regarding the comment expressing concern about the EPA’s protection of data entered into IVT,

refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this comment. 

8.0 Revision of Table A-8 

Commenter Name: Charles Johnson

Commenter Affiliation: Aluminum Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0086

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The EPA needs to add Equation F-4 to the list in Table A-8 of the proposed rule. 

Equation F-4 is required to calculate C2F6 emissions. Equation F-2 (or F-3) and F-4 are used to 

calculate monthly emissions of CF4 and C2F6. Equation F-1 is then used to calculate annual

emissions of these pollutants as the sum of monthly values. If the EPA intends that the 

verification tool will be used to determine annual CF4 and C2F6 emissions for comparison to 

reported annual emissions, Equation F-1 should also be added to the list in Table A-8.

Response: The proposed amendments did not require that the input to Equation F-4 be entered 

into IVT, because this input is not required to be reported under Part 98. However, upon further 

evaluation in response to this comment, we agree with the commenter that this data element is 

needed to allow IVT to calculate and verify emissions. Accordingly, in the final rule, we are 

requiring that the input to Equation F-4 be entered into IVT. 

9.0 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results, Including Removal of Requirements to 

Report Certain Inputs to Emissions Equations 

9.1 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—General Comments

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project
Draft Deliberative

77

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The record of decision based on the agency’s four-step evaluation described at pages 

55997-998 of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking provide a strong legal foundation for 

finalizing the proposal.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council27

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: ACC greatly appreciates EPA’s recognition of the sensitivity of certain industry data 

and its proposal to protect this data from public disclosure. However, ACC continues to believe 

that reporting facilities should be able to assert individual CBI for any required data element. It is 

possible that, despite EPA’s best efforts to identify all the data elements that should be protected 

from public disclosure, there may be certain data elements that need CBI protection at individual 

facilities or in specific situations. By not allowing facilities to assert CBI, EPA continues to leave 

open the possibility that a facility is required to publicly disclose CBI data. This can be easily 

rectified by EPA adding in an option for a petition request that would need to be submitted, for 

example, 6 months prior to the reporting deadline so that it can be approved or denied prior to 

the required data submittal. If EPA fails to act on the petition, then the data would be protected 

as CBI for that reporting year and until such time as EPA acts on the petition. Alternatively, EPA 

could include a simpler process whereby reporters could designate certain data as CBI and then 

provide additional information to substantiate their claim upon request by EPA.

Response: To the extent that the commenter’s concerns and suggestions pertain to a copy of the 

data entered into the IVT that is kept at facilities, as explained in Section II.A.3 of the preamble 

to the final rule, the EPA does not envision collection of such records. Should that occur, the 

EPA will treat such data in accordance with CAA Section 114 and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations under 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The EPA does not see a need to provide a new 

process, such as the petition process suggested by the commenter, nor did the commenter explain 

why the current applicable law and regulations regarding treatment of CBI should not be 

followed.

To the extent that the comment also pertains to Part 98 data to be reported to the EPA, the EPA 

notes that it has made final confidentiality determinations for most of the data through 

rulemaking. Further, the EPA wants to clarify that 40 CFR 2.301(d) governs treatment of Part 98

data. The EPA has not proposed to change any aspect of 40 CFR 2.301(d) in this rulemaking. To 

 

27 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

78

the extent that the commenter is seeking to change any aspect of that regulation, the comment is 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

9.2 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart C

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: API concurs with the decision about the listed data elements that are not to be 

publicly reported and which will undergo an alternative verification procedure.

In particular, API supports EPA’s proposal to retain confidentiality for the listed data elements 

which are used for GHG emissions calculations as inputs to emission equations, including:

 The 26 data elements under Subpart C for stationary fuel combustion sources at industrial 

sources;

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: MLCO is also supportive of USEPA's determination that many subpart C data 

elements are now designated CBI in Table 1 and will be maintained as such. [See DCN EPAHQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069 for Exhibit A.]

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality 

determinations for any inputs to emission equations, either in this final rule or any other final 

action. Any such determination must be made in accordance with CAA Section 114 and the 

EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The Agency’s four-step evaluation 

(see Section I.C of the preamble to the final rule) does not involve such analysis.

9.3 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart G 

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA proposes to (1) make confidentiality determinations for eight “inputs to 

emission equations” data elements. [Refer to the table on pages 3 -4 of the comment letter, which 
Draft Deliberative

79

lists eight inputs in paragraphs 98.76(b)(2) and (b)(7) - (11).] TFI agrees that these data elements 

should all be maintained as confidential. The source category is predominately 

“concentrated”/”moderately concentrated” based on FTC guidelines, meaning that there are 

competitive concerns with the release of these data elements. Thus, this conclusion alone 

warrants protection of these eight data elements. Also, as noted by EPA, none of the data 

elements were identified as being publicly available based on the Agency’s record review, 

[Footnote: Memorandum from Lisa Grogan-McCullough, EPA, to Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-

0929, entitled “Summary of Data Collected to Support Determination of Public Availability of 

Inputs to Emission Equations for which Reporting was Deferred to March 31, 2015” at 67 (Aug. 

2013) (hereinafter “EPA Step 1 Memorandum”).] confirming that ammonia producers consider 

these data CBI. Finally, the data elements reflect production or raw material data that EPA has 

correctly concluded “would likely cause competitive harm” if disclosed, [Footnote: EPA Step 2 

Memorandum at 18, 61-62] and TFI members routinely hold these data elements as confidential.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their input on certain aspects of the EPA’s fourstep evaluation. Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, 

Excerpt 4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

9.4 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart O

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: EPA should withdraw the portions of proposed amendments to the recordkeeping 

requirements that do not protect true CBI concerns and undermine the public’s ability to track 

greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, withdrawing the reporting requirement of the mass and 

quantity of production of gases under subparts L and O, and the reporting of the destruction 

efficiency rate does not protect a valid CBI concern and is a great disservice to the public. See, 

e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 98.126(b)(5)-(9), (f)(1), (g)(1), (h)(2); § 98.156(a)(7)-(10), (b)(1)-(2), (d)(5), 

(e)(1). The mass and amount of gases produced and the destruction efficiency rates will not 

disclose the methodologies for making those substances or protect appropriate CBI concerns 

anymore than a farmer not disclosing the amount of corn grown on a hectare of land would 

protect CBI. A review of the destruction efficiency helps evaluate the efficiency of different 

technologies, whether companies are optimizing the equipment and whether different collection 

techniques such as collection and destruction at a central facility is as effective as an in-line 

destruction technology. Data reported under the current reporting scheme demonstrate how 

optimizing the operation of production and destruction technologies can dramatically reduce 

emissions of these super greenhouse gases and that production facilities with in-line destruction 

technologies emit dramatically less than facilities that collect by-product gases for destruction at 

another facility. EPA should withdraw these proposed changes as the needs of public 

transparency outweigh any alleged CBI concern.

Response: The EPA notes that the inputs to emission equations whose reporting deadline was 

deferred until 2015 for subpart L are being finalized in a separate final action.
Draft Deliberative

80

Regarding the comments related to subpart O, the demonstrated destruction efficiency of the 

destruction device for each fluorinated GHG fed into the device from the process (40 CFR 

98.156(d)(5) and (e)(1)), provide data that could be used to calculate the amount of fluorinated 

GHG in a waste stream removed from the process and sent to a destruction device. This data 

element would reveal information on process efficiency and operating costs. Competitors could 

deduce the amount of fluorinated GHG sent to a destruction device if the annual emissions of 

each fluorinated GHG, as required to be reported under 40 CFR 98.156(a)(11)-(13), are known 

and if it could be deduced that the emissions consist exclusively of post-destruction device 

emissions (information that a competitor knowledgeable of some aspects of the facility and/or of 

fluorine chemistry might deduce). As a result, the EPA’s harm evaluation for these inputs to 

emission equations remains unchanged.

Regarding the comments related to 40 CFR 98.156(a)(7)–(10) and (b)(1)–(2), please see the 

EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082, Excerpt 7, for the EPA’s response 

to this comment.

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: EPA proposes to remove the requirement for reporting the annual mass of HFC-23 

generated, sent off site for sale or destruction, and fed into a destruction device and ultimately 

destroyed. See 40 C.F.R. § 98.156(a)(2), (a)(7)-(10), (b)(1)-(2). EPA justifies the amendment to 

reporting requirements under concern that reporting this mass of HFC-23 produced or used by a 

reporter would likely cause competitive harm as the production or throughput data could reveal 

confidential information and/or strategy. This justification is misplaced and lacks a cogent 

rationale where the reporting of the annual mass of HCFC-22 production is still required. 40 

C.F.R. § 98.156(a)(1). Under the evaluation of individual data elements conducted by EPA, 

requiring the annual mass production of HCFC-22 was not deemed to be detrimental to a firm’s 

competitiveness. HFC-23 has a global warming potential (GWP) of 14,800 and data on 

production mass of this gas does not necessarily reveal anything about confidential information 

and/or strategy. The mass of HFC-23 produced primarily has to do with the operation of 

production equipment, and the operation and maintenance of the destruction equipment than with 

confidential information and/or strategy. Both DuPont and Honeywell reported to EIA that they 

were able to reduce the amount of HFC-23 produced by optimizing the operation and 

maintenance of their production processes. The significant drops in HFC-23 emissions by both of 

these companies show no CBI or strategy other than they improved production to reduce 

byproduct emissions.

There is very little commercial use for HFC-23 and where it is being sold, there are alternatives. 

All HCFC-22 producers around the world having been looking for markets for HFC-23 since 

HFC-23 destruction credits and have focused on the same uses. It can hardly be said that anyone 

will be surprised if a company markets fire suppression equipment with HFC-23 or tries to sell it 

for use it as a solvent. CBI has to protect something that is confidential. If a company markets 
Draft Deliberative

81

HFC-23 for a new use, the marketing of the new use will be public so there is no legitimate 

reason to allow companies not to report their uses of HFC-23.

EPA should continue to require the reporting and publication of information of annual mass and 

quantity of HFC-23 produced and the amount used for all uses under the currently drafted data 

elements, and should let the deferral of these data elements expire on March 31, 2015.

Response: For subpart O, the commenter specifically objects to the removal of reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a)(2), (a)(7)-(10), and (b)(1)-(2). First, the commenter’s 

assertion that reporting of the loss factor used to account for the loss of HCFC– 22 upstream (40 

CFR 98.156(a)(2) would not disclose the methodologies for making fluorine-containing 

substances is misplaced. The potential disclosure of production methods is not the concern 

identified in the EPA’s evaluation. As noted in the EPA’s evaluation, the EPA determined that 

the loss factor indicates process performance and efficiency, as well as cost to do business (i.e., 

how much of a facility’s product is lost). The EPA has also determined that the loss factor, used 

in conjunction with HCFC-22 emissions data reported under TRI, could be used to calculate 

HCFC-22 production, which has been determined to be CBI under a separate rulemaking (76 FR 

30782, May 26, 2011). 

Regarding the annual mass of the HFC-23 generated, the annual mass of any HFC-23 sent off 

site for sale, the annual mass of any HFC-23 sent off-site for destruction, the mass of HFC-23 in 

storage at the beginning and end of the year, the annual mass of HFC-23 fed into the destruction 

device, and the annual mass of HFC-23 destroyed (40 CFR 98.156(a)(7)–(a)(10),(b)(1)–(b)(2)): 

the commenter argues that the EPA lacks a cogent rationale where the reporting of the annual 

mass of HCFC-22 production (40 CFR 98.156(a)(1)) is still required. As noted in the EPA’s 

evaluation, the EPA determined that release of these data elements would provide production or 

raw material data. The annual mass of HFC-23 generated (40 CFR 98.156(a)(1)) provides an 

upper bound to the amount of HFC-23 captured for export or sale in the U.S., and is related to 

both the quantity of HCFC-22 produced and the efficiency of the HCFC-22 production process. 

Specifically, this efficiency decreases as the HFC-23 generation rate (kg HFC-23 generated/kg 

HCFC-22 produced) increases. Competitors may be able to use plant capacity estimates and the 

known range of HFC-23 generation rates to estimate a range of HCFC-22 production and/or limit 

the range of HFC-23 generation rates. Therefore, while at least one company has released 

information on its HFC-23 generation rates, this type of information is generally considered 

sensitive by producers. Although the EPA requires reporting of annual mass production of 

HCFC-22 (40 CFR 98.156(a)(1)), this data element is not an input and has been determined to be 

CBI under a separate rulemaking (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011).

Furthermore, regarding 40 CFR 98.156(a)(7)-(a)(10) and (b)(1)-(b)(2), the EPA notes that it is 

not the identity of the uses of HFC-23 that is a disclosure concern, but the quantity of HFC-23 

captured and sold for these uses. This quantity is sensitive in itself and may also be used to 

estimate production. For instance, the annual mass of HFC-23 sent off-site for sale would 

provide direct insight into process performance and/or cost to do business. The annual mass of 

any HFC-23 sent off-site for destruction, the mass of HFC-23 in storage at the beginning and end 

of the year, the annual mass of HFC-23 fed into the destruction device, and the annual mass of 

HFC-23 destroyed are related to the quantities generated and sold and have disclosure concerns 
Draft Deliberative

82

for the same reasons. As a result, the EPA’s harm evaluation for these inputs to equations 

remains unchanged.

9.5 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart P

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: API concurs with the decision about the listed data elements that are not to be 

publicly reported and which will undergo an alternative verification procedure. In particular, API 

supports the EPA’s proposal to retain confidentiality for the listed data elements which are used 

for GHG emissions calculations as inputs to emission equations, including: the six existing data 

elements and the two new data elements for reporting under Subpart P;

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the alternative verification 

procedure.

9.6 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart S

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The USEPA proposes to consider a number of the important inputs to emissions 

equations as CBI on a permanent basis.

We concur with USEPA's determination that the following subpart S data elements are 

designated CBI and will be maintained as such: [see inserted table listing 9 Subpart S inputs to 

equations in section 98.196(b)(2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (10), (11), and (12)].

Since issuance of the proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule ("GHGRR") in April 

2009, MLCO has had, and continues to have, a substantive interest in the associated rule making. 

The CBI treatment issues are of significant importance to MLCO in protection of competitively 

sensitive information. Accordingly, we have provided numerous comment letters to USEPA, 

including those dated September 7, 2010 and March 4, 2011 regarding proposed treatment of 

CBI in connection with the GHGRR. Copies of MLCO's prior comment letters are attached as 

Exhibit A for your ready reference. [See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069 for Exhibit A.]

A complete description of MLCO, its facilities, and important, distinctive market conditions in 

the lime industry are described fully in Section II of our September 7, 2010 comment letter. In 

addition, the letters in Exhibit A contain information regarding data elements that MLCO 

considers CBI and, if publicly released to competitors, would cause significant, unintended harm 

to important commercial interests. Such data elements include product analytical data and related 
Draft Deliberative

83

emission factors, unit and total facility production capacities, monthly and annual sales volumes, 

and fuel-specific consumption and quality data.

MLCO' s previous comments explained the domestic lime industry is highly concentrated with 

US and foreign producers and very competitive. Moreover, there are commodity aspects to 

production and marketing of some grades of lime, there are also critical but often subtle 

differences between lime products based on regional and local lime attributes and how it is 

produced at different lime plants. Accordingly, many of the data elements on emissions inputs 

and other elements are very sensitive to each lime producer's competitive position. Access to 

CBI can be used to reverse engineer a specific lime plant's production efficiency, cost per unit of 

lime, and process for lime production. This threatens unfair competition, price pressure on rivals, 

and ultimately harm to the competitive process. Notably, manufacturers of lime substitutes or 

lime process replacements could also obtain an unfair advantage in competition for specific types 

of applications, including cement companies and Chinese magnesite producers.

Response: The commenter was incorrect in his assertion that the EPA has now proposed to 

permanently consider those inputs to emission equations as CBI. Please see the EPA’s response 

to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

Commenter Name: William C. Herz

Commenter Affiliation: National Lime Association28

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: In a July 7, 2010 proposed rule, EPA proposed to require the reporting of certain 

inputs to emissions calculations, such as quantities of lime products sold and quantities of each 

types of fuel used. NLA submitted comments on Sept. 7, 2010 demonstrating that these inputs 

included information that was highly sensitive in the competitive market for lime products. On 

Dec. 27, 2010, EPA published a Call for Information in which it proposed to temporarily defer 

the public reporting of the emissions inputs in question. NLA submitted comments on March 7, 

2011, supporting the deferral of these inputs. Both sets of prior NLA comments are attached, and 

are incorporated herein by reference. [See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089 for 

the attached comments.]

EPA has now proposed to permanently consider those inputs to constitute confidential business 

information (CBI). For the reasons stated in its prior comments, NLA strongly supports EPA’s 

current proposal. Briefly, the previous comments explained that the U.S. lime industry is highly 

competitive, and that there are critical differences among lime products produced at different 

lime plants. The data contained in the emissions inputs could be used by competitors – both 

domestic and foreign –to gain a clear picture of a lime plant’s specific “recipe” for making lime, 

its production efficiency, and its cost per unit of lime produced. That information could then be 

 

28 This comment was also supported by HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-

0069).
Draft Deliberative

84

used to put price pressure on rivals, or to take other steps detrimental to competition. These 

effects are not limited to competition within the lime industry; for example, cement companies 

compete with lime for soil stabilization projects and Chinese magnesite producers compete with 

U.S. lime companies to sell to steelmakers.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for his support of the proposed rule. However, we 

note that the commenter was incorrect in his assertion that the EPA has now proposed to 

permanently consider those inputs to constitute CBI. Please see the EPA’s response to comment 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

9.7 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart V

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: At the outset, we note confusion regarding the number of data elements in Subpart V 

identified as “inputs to emission equations.” EPA’s GHGRP Proposal identifies 21 such data 

elements. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,000] This number of data elements is confirmed by EPA 

in a rulemaking docket memorandum. [Footnote: EPA Step 1 Memorandum at 48] However, in 

another EPA docket memorandum, the Agency identifies only 16 (not 21) data elements for this 

source category. [Footnote: Memorandum from Lisa Grogan-McCullough, EPA, to Docket 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929, entitled “Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015: List of Data 

Elements Proposed Not To Be Reported” at 19 and 32 (Aug. 2013). Page 19 identifies six 

Subpart V “inputs to emission equations” data elements proposed for retained confidentiality 

protection and page 32 identifies ten “inputs to emission equations” data elements proposed for 

public disclosure, for a total of 16 “inputs to emission equations” data elements for Subpart V.]

The confusion appears to be regarding 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c), reflecting the annual nitric acid 

production from each nitric acid train, which comprises five “inputs to emission equations” data 

elements. The current online version of 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A, Table A-7 identifies 40 

C.F.R. § 98.226(c) as an “input to emission equations” currently protected from public 

disclosure. [Footnote: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=27b141574f8eecd9a4b2ef548d7fc180&rgn=div5

&view=text&node=40:22.0.1.1.3&idno=40#40:22.0.1.1.3.1.1.10.17 ] However, the online Code 

of Federal Regulations for 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c) shows it as “reserved.” [Footnote:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=27b141574f8eecd9a4b2ef548d7fc180&rgn=div5&view=text&node=40:22.0.1.

1.3&idno=40#40:22.0.1.1.3.22.1.7] This data element was present when EPA originally 

published the GHGRP in October 2009. [Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg. 56,260, 56,446 (Oct. 30, 2009)]

And, two revisions to Subpart V did not modify 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c). [Footnote: 75 Fed. Reg. 

66,343, 66,468 (Oct. 28, 2010) and 75 Fed. Reg. 79,092, 79,157 (Dec. 17, 2010).] As such, TFI 

believes this is a valid data element and will, as such, address it in its comments. [Footnote: This 

would result in eleven “inputs to emission equations” data elements proposed for retained CBI 

protection, not six as set forth in EPA’s GHGRP Proposal (78 Fed. Reg. at 56,000).]
Draft Deliberative

85

Response: The commenter is correct that 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c) is a valid data element 

promulgated as part of the 2009 GHG Reporting Rule. As noted in the proposal preamble, 40 

C.F.R. § 98.226(c) is not currently included in the Code of Federal Regulations because it was 

inadvertently omitted via a federal register publication error. The EPA nonetheless included the 

inputs to equations in this citation in the Step 2 Evaluation of Competitive Harm. As previously 

specified in the proposal preamble, the EPA determined that the equation inputs specified in this 

provision have disclosure concerns. As a result, in this final action, we are removing the inputs to 

equations that were originally promulgated in October 2009 (74 FR 56260) from being reporting 

requirements, and are instead requiring them to be entered into IVT rather than reported to the 

EPA. 

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: TFI supports EPA’s conclusion that the data elements set forth at 40 C.F.R. §§ 

98.266(c) (five data elements), 98.226(d) (one data element), 98.226(m)(1) (four data elements), 

and 98.226(m)(3) (one data element) should be retained as confidential. As appropriately 

identified by EPA, these eleven data elements reflect production, raw material, or performance 

data that “would cause competitive harm” if disclosed. [Footnote: EPA Step 2 Memorandum at 

18] In addition, as EPA notes, none of these data elements are identified as being publicly 

available based on EPA’s review of several data sources. [Footnote: EPA Step 1 Memorandum 

at 78.] Finally, TFI members routinely hold these data elements as confidential.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 

4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: Regarding the remaining ten data elements proposed for release to the public [Refer 

to table on p.6 of comment letter: Refers to 3 inputs in 98.226(i), 3 inputs in 98.226(j); 1 input in 

each 98.226(m)(4) - (6); and 1 input in 98.226(p).] 98.266, many TFI members hold these data 

elements as confidential because they identify efficiencies, utilization factors, and other trainspecific information that could be used to determine facility operational conditions, despite some 

facilities releasing this information. They are the type of “process design, process performance 

and operation” data elements that EPA recognized “would reveal information that likely cause 

competitive harm, if reported and publicly released.” [Footnote: EPA Step 2 Memorandum at 

18]
Draft Deliberative

86

As examples, EPA identifies abatement destruction efficiency (40 C.F.R. § 98.226(i)), abatement 

utilization factor (40 C.F.R. § 98.226(j)), and fraction control technology (40 C.F.R. § 98.226(p)) 

as seven data elements (three each for abatement destruction efficiency and abatement utilization 

factor, and one for fraction control technology) proposed for public disclosure. The rationale for 

releasing the abatement destruction efficiency is because two permits reviewed by EPA require 

the release of this information. [Footnote: EPA Step 2 Memorandum at 18.] However, because 

two facility permits require the release of this information does not mean that all other facilities 

release this information. In fact, the Agency does not identify any other sources where this data 

element is publicly available, and no publicly-available sources for a train-specific abatement 

utilization factor or fraction control technology. [Footnote: EPA Step 2 Memorandum at 18.]

Many TFI members have employed secondary nitrous oxide abatement technology on existing 

nitric acid trains and, in doing so, the members have considered all available technical options 

and capital requirements for the site. Many new nitric acid plants are either under construction, 

or contemplated for construction. It is much easier to place nitrous oxide abatement technology 

on a new plant, when compared to an existing plant. Releasing these data elements, regardless of 

whether EPA holds the site-specific emissions factor as confidential (as proposed) would still 

reveal operational efficiencies and process design and performance parameters regarding an 

existing nitric acid train. As such, TFI believes that the abatement destruction efficiency, 

abatement utilization factor, and fraction control technology data elements should be retained as 

confidential.

Finally, EPA believes that releasing the nitrous oxide concentration per test run (40 C.F.R. § 

98.226(m)(4)) and volumetric flow rate per test run (40 C.F.R. § 98.226(m)(5)) would not 

compromise business competitiveness. These data elements reveal train-specific information 

regarding abatement efficiencies and flows that could, if released, compromise efforts to 

encourage voluntary nitrous oxide reductions at existing facilities. In addition, EPA does not 

identify any publicly-available sources of this information. [Footnote: EPA Step 1 Memorandum 

at 78] As such, TFI believes that these data elements should remain non-disclosable.

In sum, TFI urges EPA to retain as confidential 20 of the 21 Subpart V data elements identified 

as “inputs to emission equations.”

Response: See Section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. 

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 14

Comment: TFI agrees with EPA that the number of test runs per nitric acid train data element 

(40 C.F.R. § 98.226(m)(6)) could be released to the public since its members typically do not 

consider the element to be confidential and, as a result, disclosing it would not create CBI 

concerns.
Draft Deliberative

87

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. In the final rule, the EPA has 

decided to not collect information on the number of test runs per nitric acid train, because the 

information is not useful in the absence of the remaining inputs in the equation that will not be 

reported to the EPA. The data element was originally collected in order to verify that the 

emissions were calculated correctly, and without the remaining inputs in the equation, this data 

element is no longer useful as a reporting element. See Section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for additional discussion responding to this comment.

9.8 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart W

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 12

Comment: EPA is not proposing any changes to the Subpart W data elements that were deferred 

from reporting till March 31, 2015. As a consequence, all of these data will have to be reported 

retroactively to the start of reporting under Subpart W in September 2012.

API has commented previously that its major concern with data confidentiality under Subpart W 

is the disclosure of information for exploratory wells, especially when they are located in stepout areas where no prior reporting exists for a given sub-basin.

Federal law and state codes allow companies to designate as confidential data obtained from 

exploratory wells, especially in new discovery areas, or areas that are being explored for 

development. The original intent of state oil and gas commissions to allow withholding of select 

drilling and production information from early release to the public was to allow competitive 

exploration by searching for new pockets of oil or gas and experimenting with new tools and 

techniques.

To clarify, API’s confidentiality concerns associated with information on exploratory wells is 

related to the timing of releasing this information to the public. The information is most 

sensitive if it is made available too early during the exploration or initial development stages.

The situation of problematic early disclosure would occur acutely where an exploration well is 

the sole well in a sub-basin category (including vertical or horizontal) and hence is not reported 

combined with other wells which might help shield any individual well’s contribution. API does 

not expect more than a handful of such wells in any given year.

API requests that – consistent with state and federal laws in oil producing states – EPA 

categorically determine that all information (with the exception of well ID and location), that is 

associated with exploratory wells, is to be classified as CBI for a period of at least 24 months 

from the start of exploration. API would propose that during that time EPA could allow for one 

of two options:

1. Companies would report all data to EPA as mandated by Subpart W, but EPA will hold the 

reported data as CBI and not include it in its public data release for at least 24 months. This 
Draft Deliberative

88

can be accomplished by a flagging system (or a “radio button”) in e-GGRT that could also 

allow for a short informative text on why that particular well information is to be maintained 

confidential; or

2. EPA would set up a deferral system where initial data on exploratory wells will be well ID 

and location information and the remaining data would be backfilled by companies after a 

period of 24 months.

This approach is workable in practice because it will not require case-by-case review of 

companies’ information, and it is consistent with the approach taken by states’ oil and gas 

commissions and is protective of companies’ commercial investment interests.

Early release of data regarding operating characteristics of such wells, including post-flowback 

flaring/venting volumes, could cause competitive harm if made publicly available too early. 

Industry makes substantial investments in exploration and development projects in new areas; 

these are very costly and it takes a long time to characterize the magnitude and potential 

production characteristics of prospective resources. In some areas, companies may spend 

hundreds of millions of dollars per exploration project, in addition to the hundreds of millions of 

dollars invested to acquire leases. These costs consist of testing the prospective area via drilling, 

analyzing field and laboratory information and determining whether it is a viable commercial 

play. Releasing data on such wells through the GHGRP - despite the fact that they are held 

confidential by other regulatory bodies - could cause substantial competitive harm and lead to a 

loss of investment value.

Competitive advantage includes the ability to shield sensitive information on a company’s 

operations including oil and gas reserve information on new wells, internally developed 

assessments of geologic prospects, drilling plans and interim results. Competitive harm may 

occur if the public can obtain detailed high resolution operational information on a well-by-well 

basis and on a daily or weekly basis. The success of a well and of a particular play - especially in 

exploratory areas - could be inferred if detailed data is provided to the public too soon during the 

exploration and assessment period, and where according to state practices the data is not already 

publicly available. An example of such an occurrence might be an exploratory well completed in 

December of the reporting year, reported to EPA by end of March of the following year and then 

released by EPA to the public within a few months during the same year.

Federal regulations recognize broadly in Title 43 of the CFR the need to regulate public 

availability of information for oil and gas related operations as provided in § 3162.8 

[FOOTNOTE: 47 FR 47765, Oct. 27, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 48 FR 36583 - 36586, 

Aug. 12, 1983, further amended at 49 FR 37364, Sept. 21, 1984; 53 FR 17364, May 16, 1988]:

§ 3162.8 Confidentiality

(a) Information obtained pursuant to this part and on file shall be open for public inspection and 

copying during regular office hours upon a written request, pursuant to rules at 43 CFR part 2, 

except that:

1. Upon request, information obtained from an operating rights owner or operator under this 

part that constitutes trade secrets and commercial or financial information which is 
Draft Deliberative

89

privileged or confidential or other information that may be withheld under the Freedom of 

Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)), such as geologic and geophysical data and maps, shall 

not be available for public inspection or made public or disclosed without the consent of the 

operating rights owner or operator, as appropriate, for a period of 12 months;

2. Upon expiration of the 12-month period, the operating rights owner or operator, as 

appropriate, may request that the data be held confidential for an additional 12-month 

period; and

3. Upon termination of a lease, whether by expiration of its terms or otherwise, such 

information shall be made available to the public.

Furthermore, many state agencies recognize that information about the initial exploratory drilling 

phase is sensitive and have made special provisions for these situations. The examples provided 

below are intended to illustrate how state agencies are dealing with this situation:

1. Alaska State Code (AS 31.05.035) specifies procedures for “Confidential Reports”. Section 

(c) of the Alaska Code recognizes that:

“... information required in (a) of this section that relate to an exploratory or stratigraphic test 

well and those portions of an application for a permit to drill an exploratory or stratigraphic test 

well that the commission determines contain proprietary engineering or geotechnical 

information shall be kept confidential for 24 months following the 30-day filing period unless the 

owner of the well gives written permission to release the application and reports and information 

at an earlier date.“

2. Texas Administrative Code (title 16 part 1 chapter 3, Oil and Gas) states in section (d) of rule 

3.16:

“(d) Delayed filing based on confidentiality. Each log filed with the commission shall be 

considered public information and shall be available to the public during normal business hours. 

If the operator of a well desires a log to be confidential, on or before the 90th day after the date 

a drilling operation is completed, the operator must submit a written request for a delayed filing 

of the log. When filing such a request, the operator must retain the log and may delay filing such 

log for one year beginning from the date the drilling operation was completed. The operator of 

such well may request an additional filing delay of two years, provided the written request is 

filed prior to the expiration date of the initial confidentiality period. If a well is drilled on land 

submerged in state water, the operator may request an additional filing delay of two years so 

that a possible total delay of five years may be obtained.”

Response: For subpart W, the EPA is finalizing the proposed decision to require subpart W 

facilities to report all inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015; 

however, in the final rule, the EPA is providing an option for reporters to delay reporting of six

of these inputs to emission equations for 2 reporting years for specific situations related to two 

types of exploratory wells, delineation and wildcat wells (as defined in this final rule in 40 CFR 

98.238). See Sections II.B.2 and II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule for additional detail 

responding to this comment.
Draft Deliberative

90

Commenter Name: Various

Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council/Environmental Defense 

Fund/Earthjustice/Clean Air Task Force/Sierra Club

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0088

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Section 114(c) of the Clean Air Act provides that EPA must disclose “emission data 

[FOOTNOTE: 42 U.S.C. § 1714(c).],” which agency regulations broadly define to include 

“[i]nformation necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other 

characteristics . . . of any emission which has been emitted,” or information necessary to 

determine the characteristics of any emissions which “under an applicable standard or limitation” 

a source may emit, or even “[a] general description of the location and/or nature of the source 

[FOOTNOTE: 40 C.F.R. § 2.301(a)(2)(i).].” Beyond certain very limited categories,

[FOOTNOTE: The regulations provide that this definition may be read narrowly only for data 

pertaining to research and development processes. Id. § 2.301(a)(2)(ii).] “emission data” is to be 

interpreted comprehensively, to fulfill the public purposes of the Act and regulations. Further, for 

information that is not “emission data” the Act requires:

[a]ny records, reports, or information obtained under subsection (a) of this section shall be 

available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any 

person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, (other than emission data) 

to which the Administrator has access under this section if made public, would divulge methods 

or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets of such person, the Administrator shall 

consider such record, report, or information or particular portion thereof confidential 

[FOOTNOTE: 42 U.S.C. § 1714(c)].

Subpart W inputs to emission equations data elements meet EPA’s regulatory definition of 

emission data, and therefore must be disclosed. EPA and the public must rely upon these data to 

determine emissions because reporters using equations are, by definition, not directly measuring 

emissions. The only emission data available to EPA are the inputs and verification data. As EPA 

explained, “once a facility selects a calculation method [using emissions equations], then the 

equation becomes the only way for determining such emissions,” and so “these inputs to the 

equation are information ‘necessary to determine’ the calculated emissions [FOOTNOTE: 75 

Fed. Reg. 39,094, 39,109 (July 7, 2010)].” EPA has acknowledged that inputs to emissions 

equations are emission data, and therefore it must disclose them to the public [FOOTNOTE: See, 

e.g., id. at 39,108 et seq].

In addition to the fact that Subpart W inputs data are “emissions data” and must be disclosed, the 

Act separately requires disclosure of these data because they are publicly available and not 

commercially sensitive [FOOTNOTE: See 42 U.S.C. § 7414; see also Envtl. Def. Fund et al., 

Comments Regarding Proposed Deferral of Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Call for Information 

(Docket ID Nos. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929 and EPA-HQ-2010-0964) (Mar. 7, 2011), available 

at http://www.eenews.net/assets/2011/03/08/document_gw_01.pdf. In our comments we 

included a report by Susan Harvey, an oil and gas expert, that contained dozens of examples 

where industry already publicly discloses information it had sought to protect as confidential 

business information. Id. at 24.]. Indeed, industry comments on the proposed deferral indicated 

most data elements were publicly available because “[s]tate oil and gas commissions publish 
Draft Deliberative

91

significant amounts of information on oil and gas production operations [Envtl. Prot. Agency, 

Public Comments and Responses for: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Deferral 

Notice 174 (Aug. 2011) (comments of Karin Ritter, American Petroleum Institute).].” The 

exclusion of such inputs from reporting and public disclosure would unnecessarily deny the 

public access to vital emission data and could hinder efforts to refine other data collection 

programs such as the Annual Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks.

We support EPA’s proposed determination in this rulemaking to disclose Subpart W inputs 

because the data are publicly available and not commercially sensitive. Using a careful four-step 

process, the agency concluded that the Subpart W “inputs to equations” data elements are not 

confidential. In the proposed rule, EPA concluded that “for all of the industry segments within 

Subpart W, either the data are reported at a level of geographical aggregation that protects 

individual well information, or the markets in which the affected firms operate are structured in 

ways that disclosure of ‘inputs to equations’ data elements would not be likely to cause 

competitive harm [FOOTNOTE: Id. at 16.].” We agree that the rule as currently structured will 

not cause competitive harm, and this lack of competitive harm provides separate legal 

justification for disclosing the data.

EPA has expressed the critical importance of creating a transparent, public database of GHG 

emission data. In the final reporting rule, for instance, EPA explained that:

using the rich data set provided by this rulemaking, EPA, States and the public will be 

able to track emission trends from industries and facilities within industries over time, 

particularly in response to policies and potential regulations. The data collected by this 

rule will also improve the U.S. government’s ability to formulate climate policies, and to 

assess which industries might be affected, and how these industries might be affected by 

potential policies. Finally, EPA’s experience with other reporting programs is that such 

programs raise awareness of emissions among reporters and other stakeholders, and thus 

contribute to efforts to identify and implement emission reduction opportunities. These 

data can also be coupled with efforts at the local, State and Federal levels to assist 

corporations and facilities in determining their GHG footprints and identifying 

opportunities to reduce emissions (e.g., through energy audits or other forms of 

assistance) [FOOTNOTE: 74 Fed. Reg. 56,260, 56,265 (Oct. 30, 2009).].

Indeed, in its proposal to disclose GHG emission data, EPA again strongly stated that “[p]ublic 

release of the information collected under Part 98 that are emission data or non‐[confidential 

business information] is important because it ensures transparency and promotes public 

confidence in the data [FOOTNOTE: 75 Fed. Reg. at 39,099.].” EPA went on to emphasize that 

such information was vital to “policy makers, the public, and industry” as they all work to 

understand and control emissions [FOOTNOTE: Id.]. The agency in short has, in line with its 

statutory mandates, made a strong commitment to public disclosure and public participation in 

developing and sharing reporting rule data.

Moreover, EPA affirmed the importance of Subpart W data to deepening understanding of 

emissions in the oil and gas sector and achieving needed reductions:

The data submitted under [Subpart W] will provide important information on the location and 

magnitude of GHG emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems and will allow petroleum 
Draft Deliberative

92

and natural gas facilities to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities and aid 

in identifying cost effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future . . . . [Through 

collection of Subpart W data] EPA will be in a better position to characterize (1) the extent of 

methane emissions from these sources that will remain after imposition of controls required by 

[the NSPS]; and (2) whether additional measures are available and appropriate for addressing 

such emissions [FOOTNOTE: 77 Fed. Reg. 49,490, 49,513–14 (Aug. 16, 2012)].

Finally, reporting Subpart W data will help to address a recent report from EPA’s Office of 

Inspector General, which recommended that EPA “develop and implement a comprehensive 

strategy for improving air emission data for the oil and gas production sector.” [Footnote: EPA 

Office of Inspector General, EPA NEEDS TO IMPROVE AIR EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE 

OIL AND NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION SECTOR—REPORT 13-P-0161 (Feb. 20, 2013); 

available at http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/20130220-13-P-0161.pdf] The report notes that 

EPA considers Subpart W as its main GHG emission data collection strategy from the oil and 

natural gas industries.

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that it has not made confidentiality determinations for any 

inputs to emission equations either in this final rule or any other final action. Any such 

determination must be made in accordance with CAA Section 114 and the EPA’s implementing 

regulations in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The agency’s four-step evaluation (see Section I.C of 

the preamble to the final rule) does not involve such analysis. Further, in response to comment, 

the EPA is amending subpart W as proposed except that the EPA is providing an option for 

reporters to delay reporting of six of these inputs to emission equations for 2 reporting years for 

specific situations related to two types of exploratory wells, delineation and wildcat wells (as 

defined in this final rule in 40 CFR 98.238). See Section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule 

for additional detail regarding this change since proposal.

9.9 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart Y

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: API concurs with the decision about the listed data elements that are not to be 

publicly reported and which will undergo an alternative verification procedure. In particular, API 

supports EPA’s proposal to retain confidentiality for the listed data elements which are used for 

GHG emissions calculations as inputs to emission equations, including: the 75 (out of the 

original list of 80) data elements under Subpart Y.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 

4.

9.10 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart Z

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute
Draft Deliberative

93

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: For the phosphoric acid production source category, EPA proposes to make 

confidentiality determinations for four data elements. For convenience, we set forth EPA’s 

proposal relating to the four “inputs to emission equations” data elements in Subpart Z. [Refer to 

table in p. 9 of comment letter, which lists four data elements in 98.266(f)(5) - (6).] TFI agrees 

that these data elements should all be maintained as confidential. The source category is 

predominately “concentrated”/”moderately concentrated” based on FTC guidelines, meaning that 

there are competitive concerns with the release of these data elements. Also, as noted by EPA, 

none of the data elements were identified as being publicly available based on the Agency’s 

record review, [Footnote: EPA Step 1 Memorandum at 83] the data elements reflect production 

or raw material data that EPA has correctly concluded “would likely cause competitive harm” if 

disclosed, [Footnote: EPA Step 2 Memorandum at 18, 111] and TFI members routinely hold 

these data elements as confidential.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 

4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

9.11 EPA’s Harm Analysis Results—Subpart EE

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0071

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: DuPont has submitted numerous comments on the issue of confidential business 

information (CBI) during the course of the development and implementation of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). It is of primary concern to DuPont that CBI be protected and 

not disclosed to the public. EPA proposed (see 75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010) to publicly report 

inputs to emission equations data, but as we have noted in our comments dated September 6, 

2010, much of that information is sensitive and not publicly reported elsewhere. DuPont 

submitted related comments on the issue of CBI in response to various subsequent EPA notices. 

These comments were submitted on March 7, 2011 and June 20, 2012. As a member of the 

American Chemistry Council, DuPont provided input to CBI-related comments submitted by 

ACC on March 12, 2012. In addition DuPont representatives have met with EPA representatives 

several times on the subject of CBI.

DuPont was pleased that EPA recognized that additional time was needed to resolve many of the 

CBI issues and deferred a number of inputs to emissions equations until 2015. DuPont is 

encouraged that EPA has recognized of our CBI concerns in the current proposal. We appreciate 

EPA’s effort to balance its desire to provide information to the public with the need to protect 

sensitive business information.

CBI issues for inputs to emissions equations are of greatest concern to DuPont under Subparts L 

(Fluorinated Gas Production) and EE (Titanium Dioxide Production). We note that by removing 

the reporting requirements proposed by EPA to be removed under Subpart EE, but verified 
Draft Deliberative

94

through the use of the Inputs Verification Tool, the Agency will have alleviated our concerns 

with regard to CBI under Subpart EE.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. Please see the EPA’s response to 

comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069, Excerpt 4 in Section 9.2 of this document.

10.0 Reporting and Use of IVT for 2010–2013 Data Elements in Table A-7

10.1 IVT Not Required for 2010–2013 Inputs

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak

Commenter Affiliation: Dow

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Dow supports EPA’s proposal on FR Page 56004 to not require retroactive submittal 

of input values into the Inputs Verification Tool for the Reporting Years 2010 – 2013. Dow 

agrees that any potential added benefit does overweigh the additional data entry burden that 

would be required for regulated facilities to use the Inputs Verification Tool for years prior to 

2014. The Greenhouse Gas reporting rule is a system that continues to change and evolve, and 

instead of burdening reporters with the data entry for previous years, EPA is rightly focused on 

ensuring quality GHG emissions data for RY 2014 and future years

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 18

Comment: API concurs with EPA’s proposal to not require retroactive submittal of inputs data 

that would be entered into the new inputs validation tool for reporting years 2010-2013, and 

instead focus on prospective reporting. As evidenced by follow-up questions received by API 

members from EPA on prior year reports, EPA has been conducting verification of prior reports. 

Therefore the burden that would be required for reporters to use the inputs verification tool for 

years prior to reporting year 2014 is not warranted.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Draft Deliberative

95

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council29

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: ACC supports EPA’s proposal not to require retroactive submittal of inputs data for 

the years 2010-2013, and instead focus on prospective reporting. The GHGRP is an evergreen 

system, changing, expanding and improving as it evolves. EPA is rightly focused on ensuring 

quality GHG emissions data in the future.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

10.2 Reporting of Inputs from 2010 to 2013

Commenter Name: Various

Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council/Environmental Defense 

Fund/Earthjustice/Clean Air Task Force/Sierra Club

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0088

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Because EPA did not identify disclosure concerns for Subpart W “inputs to 

equations,” the current deferral of reporting for such inputs will expire on March 2015. EPA 

proposes to collect and report this data as part of the annual report for reporting year 2014, which 

if EPA follows past practice would be released in October 2015. Given EPA’s carefullyconsidered determination that Subpart W inputs are publicly available and not commercially 

sensitive, and that these inputs are already being collected by industry for eventual reporting, we 

respectfully urge EPA to begin collecting and reporting these data prior to reporting year 2014. 

We respectfully recommend that the agency set an interim deadline, such as August 2014, for the 

first reports of Subpart W inputs to be submitted. This would allow the data to be released to the 

public with the 2013 reporting year data in the fall of 2014, likely a full year before the current 

schedule in the proposed rule. Having this data quickly is imperative as policymakers and 

companies are evaluating mitigation opportunities.

In the proposed rule, EPA claims that the deferred reporting deadline will “ease the burden for 

facilities” by delaying the reporting deadline for Subpart W inputs to emission equations data 

[FOOTNOTE: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,000]. However, facilities already possess the relevant data 

elements and are required to have organized the relevant data elements into a form that is 

suitable for expeditious inspection and review [FOOTNOTE: See 76 Fed. Reg. 53,057, 53,061 

(Aug. 25, 2011) (citing 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(g)).], and promptly reporting them will promote 

transparency. EPA also states that “[t]his proposed approach would prevent facilities from being 

required to revise, re-certify, and re-submit annual reports from each previous reporting year 

[FOOTNOTE: Id.].” To avoid this issue, EPA could instead request that the data be reported as a 

supplement to the annual report for reporting year 2013.

 

29 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

96

Congress mandated the establishment of the GHG reporting program to ensure the public 

benefits from greater transparency and accountability in the scope and dimensions of GHG 

emissions. State regulators, industry stakeholders, policymakers, and the public need the 

withheld data as soon as possible to deepen understanding of the emissions profile of the 

petroleum and natural gas sector and to assist in developing timely and effective technical and 

policy solutions. For instance, the inputs for which reporting is currently deferred include vital 

information on the number of emitting facilities and components deployed in the field. Without 

these inputs, it is difficult to assess whether differences in emissions reported by different 

facilities are attributable to inherent characteristics such as activity levels or component counts, 

or whether more site-specific factors are driving emissions. Release of Subpart W inputs will 

also help both EPA and the public verify the accuracy of emissions reports and build additional 

confidence in the reliability of the reporting system. Accurate and timely information on the 

sources of emissions from this sector will assist greatly in identifying and advocating for 

solutions—as Congress recognized when it directed EPA to develop the reporting system.

Response: The EPA wants to clarify that the Agency’s statement cited in the above comment 

about “easing the burden” on reporters was not related to “delaying the reporting deadline,” as 

stated by the commenter. As explained in Sections II.B and III.A.3 of the preamble to the 

proposed rule, the EPA is “easing the burden” on reporters by not requiring reporters to revise, 

recertify, and resubmit annual reports for reporting years 2010 through 2013. Facilities will 

instead be required to report these 2010 through 2013 data in the 2014 annual report. The EPA is 

not amending the reporting deadline for these data elements; deferral of these data elements 

expires on March 31, 2015, as specified in 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vii).

Though the EPA recognizes the benefits of these data being reported by an earlier deadline, as 

the commenter indicates, the EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to include in this final 

rule an earlier interim deadline for subpart W data for the following reasons. The EPA did not 

propose to change the existing deadline for reporting the deferred inputs. Reporters therefore 

have no notice or an opportunity to comment on such change. Furthermore, considering that the 

existing deadline of March 31, 2015, is approximately 6 months from now, the EPA does not see 

much to be gained to get the information any sooner. The commenter suggested setting the 

interim deadline in August 2014, which is obviously infeasible because it is prior to this rule 

taking effect. For the reasons stated above, the EPA declines the commenter’s suggestion to 

include in this final rule an interim reporting deadline for subpart W inputs. The EPA is 

finalizing as proposed the requirement that these data be reported as part of the annual report for 

reporting year 2014.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: API notes that part of the additional time requirement for companies is the need to 

back-fill data elements for which the deferral is expiring on March 31st 2015. In anticipation of 

this massive data input that would be required for Subpart W, for example, it is critical for EPA 
Draft Deliberative

97

to consider phasing-in the opening of eGGRT, as early as September 1, 2014, to first allow back 

filling of deferred data elements from prior years, per the final rule once promulgated. This 

period should then be immediately followed - by December 1, 2014 - with launching of the new 

data verification tool to entry of appropriate data and initiation of the reporting cycle of 2014 

data.

Response: For reporting the subpart W inputs for reporting years 2011–2014, the EPA plans to 

use a spreadsheet format that will be uploaded to e-GGRT. Recognizing the substantial amount 

of information that facilities will be entering into the spreadsheet, the EPA anticipates publishing 

the spreadsheet in October 2014. This will allow facilities to begin data entry into the 

spreadsheet prior to the open reporting period. The spreadsheet can then be uploaded to e-GGRT 

during the open reporting season. Please see Section II.A.3 of the preamble for further discussion 

on this topic.

Regarding the commenter’s suggestion that the EPA launch IVT by December 1, 2014, the EPA 

will offer stakeholders an opportunity prior to the open reporting period (which is typically in 

mid-February) to view and provide feedback on the IVT modules for all 23 subparts, using a 

sandbox testing environment similar to that used previously for e-GGRT testing. The EPA 

intends to offer sandbox testing from October through December 2014, providing testing by 

subpart on a rolling basis. Reporters will be provided an opportunity to view and test IVT for 

their applicable subparts prior to the beginning of reporting for reporting year 2014. The sandbox 

testing period will provide reporters sufficient lead time to familiarize themselves with IVT and 

sync their systems with IVT prior to the open reporting period for reporting year 2014. See 

Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion in response to this comment 

and the EPA’s plans for sandbox testing of IVT.

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0058

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: If ‘inputs to equations’ is not to be saved by the Inputs Verification Tool, what is the 

purpose of having reporters input previous years data?

Response: The EPA believes that the commenter may have misunderstood the proposed rule.

Under the proposal, inputs to equations for which the EPA has identified disclosure concerns 

with would not be reported to the EPA for previous years, and we are finalizing these provisions 

as proposed. The use of IVT will start with reporting year 2014. Inputs to equations for which 

disclosure concerns were not identified will be required to be reported to the EPA for 2010,

2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and beyond. These data will be used to verify emissions and inform 

GHG policy.
Draft Deliberative

98

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0058

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Would verification of ‘inputs to equations’ for previous years necessarily mean 

previous years GHG emissions were correct or incorrect?

Response: The EPA deferred the reporting date for many inputs to emission equations until 

March 31, 2015. Accordingly, these data for reporting years 2010 through 2013 (excluding those 

that are no longer required to be reported under this final rule) must be reported by March 31, 

2015. Although the EPA has performed some verifications during the deferral period, the EPA 

will use these previous years’ data to perform additional verification as needed and to inform 

future GHG policy. Should the EPA identify potential substantive errors30 in a previous annual 

report, the EPA will follow the process outline in 40 CFR 98.3(h), which provides a facility with 

45 days to either resubmit the corrected report or to demonstrate that the potential error is not in 

fact a substantive error. 

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0058

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: Isn’t submitting previous years ‘inputs to equations’ equivalent to requiring reporters 

to submit reports for previous years?

Response: The EPA deferred the reporting date for many inputs to emission equations until 

March 31, 2015. Accordingly, these data for reporting years 2010 through 2013 (excluding those 

that are no longer required to be reported under this final rule) must be reported by March 31, 

2015. However, the EPA is not requiring reporters to resubmit 2010 through 2013 annual 

reports. To avoid the burden on reporters that would result from recertification of these reports, 

the EPA is finalizing as proposed the provision that the reporter will not be required to resubmit 

previous reports for 2010 through 2013, but will be required to enter all relevant data (data for 

which reporting was deferred to 2015 and for which the EPA is not amending the reporting 

requirements) for previous years in the annual report for reporting year 2014. The EPA 

anticipates that this approach will result in minimal burden for reporters. See Sections III.A.3 of 

the proposal preamble for a discussion of this proposed decision, including how this approach 

minimizes burden on reporters.

 

30 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3) defines substantive error as an error that impacts the quantity of GHG emissions reported or otherwise 

prevents the reported data from being validated or verified. 40 CFR 98.3(h) states that once a substantive error is identified, an 

owner or operator shall, within 45 days of receipt of the notification, either resubmit the report that, for each identified 

substantive error, corrects the identified substantive error (in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part) or provide 

information demonstrating that the previously submitted report does not contain the identified substantive error or that the 

identified error is not a substantive error.
Draft Deliberative

99

11.0 Recordkeeping Requirements for IVT Users

11.1 Recordkeeping Format

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA is adding a requirement that reporters using “inputs to equations” data elements 

must use an EPA-provided electronic inputs verification tool. EPA is proposing that the “inputs 

to equations” data elements that would not be reported must be kept as records. These records 

must be in the format generated by the inputs verification tool (i.e., a file for downloading or 

printing). As such, the EPA determined that the data that must be kept as records would be 

sufficiently clear, as they would be in the resulting verification tool file. However, the EPA seeks 

comment on whether additional specificity within the recordkeeping requirements of each 

subpart would improve the clarity of the specific records that are required to be retained.

We strongly suggest that the recordkeeping section of each subpart be modified to clearly specify 

which records are to be maintained. e-GGRT is just a reporting tool; it is not a regulation. It is 

not appropriate for the reporting tool (which can change without notice-and-comment) to dictate 

which records are to be maintained. Such changes can only be specified in the rule, and the eGGRT tool can only reflect the rule requirements.

Response: The EPA agrees with the recommendation to specify in Part 98 each record that 

reporters must maintain, as this change improves the clarity of the specific records that are 

required to be retained. For a description of how the EPA has implemented this change in Part 

98, see Section II.C.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: The proposed rule would require facilities relying on the verification tool to maintain 

on-site single copy of the verification tool output that lists all “inputs to emissions equations” 

data elements. This requirement would substantially reduce the flexibility provided by existing

regulations, which provide facilities with a range of recordkeeping options. In the absence of any 

evidence that the existing recordkeeping requirements are inadequate, we urge EPA to maintain 

the existing requirements for facilities required to use the verification tool.

Response: The EPA is finalizing the proposed record format requirements that facilities subject 

to IVT maintain a record of data entered into IVT in the format provided by IVT. Specifically, at 

the time the facility completes entry of data into IVT, the facility is required to download from 

IVT a file that lists the entered IVT inputs and maintain a copy of the file as a record of the 
Draft Deliberative

100

entered inputs. The EPA is finalizing this proposed format because the format ensures that, 

should an on-site visit be necessary, EPA inspectors can readily access these data during site 

visits, enabling the EPA to quickly and efficiently perform calculations and data checks during 

site visits. 

The commenter does not dispute the EPA’s need for such format but raised the issue of limited 

flexibility in its ability to keep records. The EPA disagrees with the comment that this 

requirement “substantially” reduces the flexibility for the current rule, as the only change in 

format is that the data entered into IVT must be kept in the format provided by IVT. This format 

change does not change any other recordkeeping format provisions under Part 98. As currently 

required in 40 CFR 98.3(g), subpart A, this file generated by IVT may be maintained in 

electronic or hard copy format. Additionally, the file may be retained off-site if the file is readily 

available for expeditious inspection and review (e.g., archived or stored at a remote location), as 

is currently allowed under Part 98. 

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA states in the preamble to the proposed rule that because there may be more 

direct follow-up activities when using EPA’s proposed Verification Tool as an alternative 

verification approach for CBI data elements, the record retention period should be extended from 

three to five years. EPA claims that the Verification Tool will be used by over 2,000 facilities, 

for which they would like to have extended access to relevant records for potential follow-up, 

including on-site audits if necessary. EPA also proposes that this five year record retention 

requirement begin with records for reporting year 2010.

API contends that extending the recordkeeping requirement from three to five years for data 

elements entered into the Verification Tool is not warranted and is unduly burdensome. 

Extending the recordkeeping requirement imposes an unnecessary extra burden on reporting 

facilities, and EPA provides no justification for the extended retention period.

The proposed record format revision would require reporters to maintain an electronic or hard 

copy of the single file generated by the proposed inputs verification tool, listing all “inputs to 

equations” data elements entered into the tool.

All other records required under Part 98 would be maintained in the format currently required 

under Part 98.

API notes that the existing reporting rule provides reporters with flexibility due to the variety of 

formats acceptable for recordkeeping. In the proposed rule, however, EPA would remove some 

of this flexibility, while also increasing substantially the volume of records required. This 

volume of data is not amenable to storage at remote field locations, such that the records could 

be immediately accessible for potential on-site inspections. 
Draft Deliberative

101

As discussed above, to maintain accurate records and back-up documentation for demonstrating 

compliance, companies will have to rely on data centers and centralized archiving procedures in 

support of such remote locations as offshore production platforms, compressor stations, fuel 

supply terminals, to name just a few. 

Response: Regarding the comment that the proposed format change reduces “some” of the 

flexibility provided in Part 98 for keeping records, the only change in format is that the data 

entered into IVT must be kept in the format provided by IVT. This format change does not 

change any other recordkeeping format provisions under Part 98. The commenter has not stated 

or demonstrated that this change is significant or causes undue burden and we do not see a 

reason to allow additional formats. Facilities subject to IVT are required to maintain a record of 

data entered into IVT in the format provided by IVT. At the time the facility completes entry of 

data into IVT, the facility is required to download from IVT a file that lists the entered IVT 

inputs and maintain a copy of the file as a record of the entered inputs. The EPA is finalizing this 

proposed format because the EPA has determined that this format change does not cause undue 

burden to reporters and because the format ensures that, should an on-site visit be necessary, 

EPA inspectors can readily access these data during site visits, enabling the EPA to quickly and 

efficiently perform calculations and data checks during site visits. As mentioned above, this 

format change does not change any other recordkeeping format provisions under Part 98. As 

currently required in 40 CFR 98.3(g), subpart A, this file generated by IVT may be maintained in 

electronic or hard copy format. Additionally, the file may be retained off-site if the file is readily 

available for expeditious inspection and review (e.g., archived or stored at a remote location), as 

is currently allowed under Part 98.

Regarding the comment that the proposed revisions to recordkeeping are “increasing 

substantially the volume of records required”, we believe this comment is referring to the 

proposed requirement to maintain all records for 5 years (and not the format for keeping record 

of values entered into IVT). As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, the EPA 

determined that 5 years is a reasonable time frame given the large number of reporters affected 

by this proposed revision (over 2,000 facilities) and the likely increase in follow-up activities. It 

is important that relevant records are available to the EPA for follow-up activities with facilities, 

including on-site audits (if necessary) and to address potential errors, discrepancies, or questions. 

When an EPA employee visits a facility, it is important that the employee be able to examine not 

only the current year’s records but those from previous years as well, because previous years’ 

data will provide year-to-year comparisons, which are useful for verifying the current year’s 

data. Further, extending the 5-year record retention requirement to all subparts for IVT users is 

necessary for inspectors to address questions regarding the accuracy of equation inputs entered 

into IVT as they relate to other recordkeeping information not entered into IVT, such as a 

monitoring plan or recordkeeping information in a different subpart. Refer to Section II.C.3 of 

the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of why this proposed recordkeeping 

requirement is justified under the alternative verification approach being finalized. 

Regarding the comment that this volume of data would require use of centralized archiving 

procedures that would result in records not being readily available for on-site inspections, the 

EPA does not see any reason why the recordkeeping amendments in this action will necessitate a 

change in where records are kept (i.e., whether a reporter stores data on-site or in central data 

archives). The format change in this final action does not change any other recordkeeping format 
Draft Deliberative

102

provisions under Part 98. As currently required in 40 CFR 98.3(g), subpart A, this file generated 

by IVT may be maintained in electronic or hard copy format. Additionally, the file may be 

retained off site if the file is readily available for expeditious inspection and review (e.g., 

archived or stored at a remote location), as is currently allowed under Part 98. 

11.2 Recordkeeping—Duration for Subparts for Which IVT Is Required

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: MLCO is supportive of USEPA's proposed extension of the records retention period 

from three years to five years, as outlined in the proposed rule.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Commenter Name: Leslie Sue Ritts

Commenter Affiliation: National Environmental Development Association’s Clean Air Project

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0075

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: While NEDA/CAP believes that five years for data retention may be excessive, it is 

an acceptable trade-off to ensure the validity of the data submitted should EPA have questions 

about prior MRR GHG submissions based on subsequent reporting years.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0082

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EIA supports EPA in extending the record retention period from 3 to 5 years, for the 

same reasons that EPA cites in the proposed rule document.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support.
Draft Deliberative

103

Commenter Name: Russell A. Wozniak

Commenter Affiliation: Dow

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA notes in the preamble that the record retention time is proposed to be extended 

from three years to five years for all subparts for reporters that are required to use the Inputs 

Verification Tool. EPA notes that there may be more direct follow-up activities under this 

alternative verification approach, thus EPA is proposing to extend the record retention period 

from three to five years. Dow notes that our experience has been that EPA has been reviewing 

data and information submitted under Subpart X and that EPA has asked a number of questions 

regarding Subpart X data submittals which Dow has been able to respond to in a timely manner. 

Since the Inputs Verification Tool will be capable of “checking” the data used as inputs to 

emissions equations almost on a real time basis, we fail to see why EPA would need more time 

to review past report submittals than the rule currently allows. Thus, we comment that the three 

year recordkeeping requirement should be sufficient and there is not a need to expand the 

recordkeeping requirements to five years for all subparts of 40 CFR 98.

Response: The EPA needs a 5-year record duration because the EPA anticipates that there may 

be situations where the verification summary will indicate discrepancies between reported GHG 

emissions and the equations results calculated by IVT as well as other verification results that 

will require further attention. Some of these verification checks occur on a real-time basis, as 

noted by the commenter, but others occur following annual report submission. In certain 

situations, the EPA will need additional time to follow up with these reporters to resolve 

discrepancies given the large number of reporters affected by this revision and the likely increase 

of the follow-up activities as a result of today’s amendment. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble 

to the final rule for further discussion responding to this comment, including the EPA’s need for 

a 5-year record retention requirement and a description of the additional follow-up verification 

activities that could necessitate additional follow-up review of facility records.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA proposes to extend the record retention period from three to five years for 

“inputs to emission equations” data elements that are proposed for retained confidentiality. 

EPA’s rationale for doing so is to allow time to follow-up with reporters if there are questions 

regarding their reports, and to allow EPA inspectors time “for appropriate assessment of 

compliance.” [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,006] As to the first reason, while we understand the 

Agency’s need to verify the accuracy of information, including source category relied-upon 

“inputs to emission equations,” it is our understanding that the verification tool would generate 

an immediate flag of any input errors. As such, it does not make sense that an additional two 

years is needed to verify data generated using confidential “inputs to emission equations” data 
Draft Deliberative

104

elements, when compared to data generated using CBI elements from other GHGRP data 

categories (or data generated using no CBI data).

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068, Excerpt 3, and 

Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA proposes extending the record retention period from three to five years for 

reporters required to use the IVT.

EPA’s concern that more time may be needed for direct follow-up under the alternative 

verification approach for justification to the extension is not justified based on past experience 

with follow-up review Republic has undergone with EPA under Subparts C and HH. Republic 

has responded to a number of EPA questions in a timely manner within the year of the data 

submitted into e-GGRT. Therefore, additional time is not warranted.

Response: This revision to the recordkeeping timeframe is part of the new verification approach 

using IVT that is being finalized today. As explained in the proposal preamble, for this new 

verification approach, the EPA has determined that records need to be maintained for 5 years, 

given the large number of reporters affected by this proposed revision (over 2,000 facilities) and 

the likely increase in follow-up activities. It is important that relevant records are available to the 

EPA for follow-up activities with facilities, including on-site audits if necessary, regarding 

potential errors, discrepancies, or questions. The commenter did not object to the IVT approach 

nor did it identify or explain any deficiency in the EPA’s rationales for extending the 

recordkeeping period. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further explanation 

of why the EPA needs a 5-year record retention period for the alternative verification approach.

Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman

Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council31

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0085

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: ACC questions EPA’s proposal to extend the recordkeeping requirements to five 

years from the current requirement of three years for those submitters who will need to utilize 

this new inputs verification tool. EPA has not demonstrated a need for reporters to keep the data 

 

31 This comment was also supported by Dow (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0068).
Draft Deliberative

105

for two additional years. EPA should demonstrate a need for facilities to spend the additional 

resources necessary to keep such records.

Response: See the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077, Excerpt 4, for 

the EPA’s response to this comment.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: API recommends that EPA retain the three-year recordkeeping requirement for 

documentation and record retention for all subparts per the existing rule. Doing so will lessen the 

recordkeeping burden and prevent confusion as to which requirements apply to a given Subpart 

at a specific facility.

Response: Regarding the comment that the proposed 5-year record retention period would add 

more burden, please see Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this 

comment.

Also, the commenter appears to suggest that a 5-year record retention period would cause 

confusion as to which requirements apply to a given subpart for a specific facility. The EPA sees 

such confusion to be unlikely considering the record retention period applies to all of the records 

for a given facility. Further, it is not unique for different facilities to have different regulatory 

requirements. The EPA notes that currently under Part 98, facilities have different monitoring 

and reporting requirements depending on the specific subpart, and that facilities have been able 

to keep track of the different requirements to date. The EPA is confident in the ability of owners 

of multiple facilities to comply with applicable requirements for individual facilities. In any 

event, if a parent company prefers to have the same record retention period for all of its facilities,

there is nothing in this rulemaking that prevents owners from maintaining all records for a period 

of 5 years.

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: WM strongly opposes EPA extending the record retention period from three years to 

five years for reporters required to use the verification tool.

EPA’s stated reasons for extending the record retention period are in direct conflict with the 

Agency’s previous evaluation of this issue in its Response to Comments document and its 
Draft Deliberative

106

promulgation of the GHG MRR. In 2009, the Agency described the following rationale for a 

three-year record retention period:

“Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA require retention of records for three 

years rather than the five years specified in the proposed rule. Some of these commenters 

stated that three years is consistent with ARP, which is a comparable program that 

requires electronic reporting of similar, detailed data. Many contended that retaining the 

large amount of data required by this rule for five years rather than three years is overly 

burdensome and is not necessary. They indicated that three years of records is sufficient 

to allow verification of annual GHG reports.”

Response: Please see Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to 

this comment.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: Republic does not support extending the record retention. Republic urges EPA to 

examine why the 3-year record retention was chosen when the rule was promulgated in 2009 as 

the proposed change is in conflict with EPA’s previous evaluation [74 FR56281, October 30, 

2009]. EPA concluded that a 3-year time period was justified as follows:

 Sufficient time for EPA audit and review

 Reduces the recordkeeping burden

 Consistent with recordkeeping provisions of the ARP and other Federal reporting programs

Response: Regarding the comment that this 5-year record duration requirement conflicts with 

the EPA’s rationale in the 2009 promulgated GHGRP rule (74 FR 56260), please see Section 

II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response.

Regarding the comment that this 5-year record duration requirement is inconsistent with 

recordkeeping requirements in other federal programs, the other federal programs referred to by 

the commenter—i.e., Department of Energy (DOE) and Acid Rain Program (ARP)—are not 

using the alternative verification approach associated with today’s action. See Section II.C.3 of 

the preamble to the final rule for further discussion in response to this comment, including 

further explanation of why this 5-year record duration requirement is not inconsistent with 

recordkeeping requirements in other federal programs.
Draft Deliberative

107

Commenter Name: Sharon H. Kneiss and John Skinner

Commenter Affiliation: National Waste/Recycling Association/Solid Waste Association of 

North America

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0076

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The National Waste & Recycling Association and SWANA oppose extending the 

record retention period from three years to five years for reporters required to use the verification 

tool.

Response: See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA proposes to extend the record retention period from three to five years for 

“inputs to emission equations” data elements that are proposed for retained confidentiality. 

EPA’s rationale for doing so is to allow time to follow-up with reporters if there are questions 

regarding their reports, and to allow EPA inspectors time “for appropriate assessment of 

compliance.” Regarding EPA’s second rationale, while we appreciate the Agency’s need for 

compliance assurance, this should be accomplished by timely inspections.

Response: The EPA stated in the proposal preamble that the EPA had considered whether the 

current record retention period and record format requirements would be sufficient to allow the 

EPA to perform data verification under this alternative verification approach. As explained in the 

proposal preamble, the EPA determined that 5 years is needed given the large number of 

reporters affected by this proposed revision (over 2,000 facilities) and the likely increase in 

follow-up activities. While the EPA strives to do any on-site visits in a timely manner, it is 

important that relevant records are available to the EPA for follow-up activities with facilities, 

including on-site audits if necessary, regarding potential errors, discrepancies, or questions. See 

Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further description of why the EPA needs a 5-

year record retention period under the alternative verification approach.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: EPA proposes to extend the record retention period from three to five years for 

“inputs to emission equations” data elements that are proposed for retained confidentiality. 
Draft Deliberative

108

EPA’s rationale for doing so is to allow time to follow-up with reporters if there are questions 

regarding their reports, and to allow EPA inspectors time “for appropriate assessment of 

compliance.” [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,006]

Also, requiring these source categories to retain information longer than other source categories 

without confidential data elements would lead to unjustified prejudices against these source 

categories.

Regarding EPA’s second rationale, while we appreciate the Agency’s need for compliance 

assurance, this should be accomplished by a level playing field for all source categories. As 

currently drafted, sources in categories using CBI “inputs to emission equations” data elements 

would be unfairly subjected to potentially additional fines and penalties for noncompliance 

solely due to two extra years of required record retention, when compared to other source 

categories, solely due to EPA’s regulations requiring the use of emission equations.

Response: The EPA is amending Part 98 to provide an alternative verification approach due to 

concerns with potential disclosure of certain inputs. The commenter did not provide any 

information or otherwise explain the claim that 2 additional years of record maintenance for 

facilities using IVT would trigger additional fines and penalties. While the EPA recognizes the 

importance of a level playing field, different verification approaches may necessitate different 

reporting and recordkeeping requirements to ensure the success of the individual verification 

approach. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to the 

commenter’s claim that the 5-year record retention time places more burden on certain source 

categories.

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: For landfill reporters, the Agency’s stated rationale does not warrant extending the 

record retention period for merely one deferred data element [Quantity of Fuel Combusted]. The 

Agency noted that “if questions arise about inputs to equations that it may be necessary to 

examine other non-input recordkeeping information such as monitoring plan or recordkeeping 

information.” The monitoring plan is already a record that a facility must maintain for as long as 

the facility is required to report. WM would prefer to exercise the option of either reporting the 

fuel quantity to EPA via XML upload or maintaining the information in accordance with each 

facility Monitoring Plan.

Response: The EPA is adding to the final amendments an option for sources subject to subpart C 

(that do not meet the criteria for electric generators in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to elect not to use IVT 

and, instead, report inputs to emission equations. If a subpart C source elects not to use IVT, and 

is not subject to any other subparts required to use IVT, the source would not be subject to any 

requirements of today’s amendments. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for 

further discussion of this option.
Draft Deliberative

109

Commenter Name: Sharon H. Kneiss and John Skinner

Commenter Affiliation: National Waste/Recycling Association/Solid Waste Association of 

North America

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0076

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: National Waste & Recycling Association and SWANA request that the EPA revise 

this onerous requirement. For landfill reporters, extending the record retention period for a single 

deferred data element [“Quantity of Fuel Combusted”] is unwarranted, especially given that the 

deferred data element is, in effect, available to the EPA.

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090, Excerpt 5.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Since the record retention requirements only apply to facilities subject to the affected 

subparts (e.g., Subpart C), landfills required to report under the GHGRP but that do not have any 

Subpart C emissions (e.g., no stationary combustion subject to Subpart C), would then NOT be 

subject to the proposed revised record retention requirements, thus creating a variable record 

retention scenario on a site-by-site basis. Tracking which facilities are subject to, and not subject 

to this requirement will also create additional undue burden.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to Comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074, Excerpt 

8. The EPA further notes that the EPA is adding to the final amendments an option for sources 

subject to subpart C (that do not meet the criteria for electric generators in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to 

elect not to use IVT and, instead, report inputs to emission equations. If a subpart C source elects 

not to use IVT, and is not subject to any other subparts required to use IVT, the source would not 

be subject to any amendments in the final rule. See Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for further discussion of this option.

11.3 Recordkeeping—Duration for Subparts for Which IVT Is Not Required

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: TFI disagrees with EPA’s proposal to subject a facility with a source category with 

confidential “inputs to emission equations” and non-confidential data elements to a five-year 
Draft Deliberative

110

record retention period for all applicable source categories at the site. Again, this would unfairly 

prejudice TFI members in Subparts G, V and Z, when compared to sources in other categories.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064, Excerpt 

5 in Section 11.2 of this document.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: Moreover, the proposal breeds confusion by proposing to extend recordkeeping 

requirements for all other subparts that apply to reporters subject to just one of the Table 2 

Subparts. As currently structured, this proposal will greatly expand the recordkeeping burden for 

any facility that is subject to multiple subparts when one of them is listed in Table 2. In that case, 

the facility would be required to maintain all records under all applicable subparts for a period of 

five years. For example, if a facility such as a natural gas processing plant is required to use the 

proposed inputs Verification Tool under Subpart C (as noted in Table 2), and is also reporting 

under Subpart W, and/or NN, the facility would be required to maintain all records required 

under all applicable subparts for five years. This requirement imposes a significantly greater 

burden than previously estimated on the reporting facilities because some of the data (such as 

that required by Subpart W) is typically retained in central data centers and not at specific field 

locations that do not have adequate archiving capabilities.

Response: Please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074, Excerpt 

8 in Section 11.2 of this document, and Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule.

Commenter Name: Sharon H. Kneiss and John Skinner

Commenter Affiliation: National Waste/Recycling Association/Solid Waste Association of 

North America

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0076

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: EPA proposes to require additional records maintenance for not only the subparts 

requiring the use of the verification tool, but for all subparts. This is an unjustifiable expansion of 

the scope of the recordkeeping requirements. This proposal will increase the cost and 

administrative burden and could lead to confusion and noncompliance.

Response: Regarding the comment that the proposed amendment extending the 5-year record 

retention requirement to all subparts for IVT users is an “unjustifiable expansion of the scope of 

the recordkeeping requirements”, the EPA proposed this provision because (as previously 

indicated in the proposal preamble, September 11, 2013, 78 FR 55994) it determined that during 

an on-site visit, if questions arise regarding the accuracy of equation inputs entered into IVT, it 
Draft Deliberative

111

may be necessary to examine other recordkeeping information not entered into IVT, such as a 

monitoring plan or recordkeeping information in a different subpart, in order to fully investigate 

the accuracy of the data. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

explanation of the EPA’s rationale for finalizing this amendment.

Regarding the comment that this proposed amendment will “increase the cost and administrative 

burden”, the commenter provided no details to support this assertion or to contradict the EPA’s 

proposed impacts analysis, which concluded that this proposed requirement would impose no 

additional burden. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of 

why the EPA has concluded that this proposed amendment will not expand the recordkeeping 

burden.

Regarding the comment that this proposed amendment will “lead to confusion and 

noncompliance”, the EPA sees such confusion to be unlikely considering the record retention 

period applies to all of the records for a given facility. Further, it is not unique for different 

facilities to have different regulatory requirements. The EPA notes that currently under Part 98, 

facilities have different monitoring and reporting requirements depending on the specific subpart, 

and that facilities have been able to keep track of the different requirements to date. The EPA is

confident in the ability of owners of multiple facilities to comply with applicable requirements 

for individual facilities. In any event, if a parent company prefers to have the same record 

retention period for all of its facilities, there is nothing in this rulemaking that prevents owners 

from maintaining all records for a period of 5 years.

Commenter Name: Niki Wuestenberg

Commenter Affiliation: Republic Services

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077

Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: Reporters would be required to maintain records for not only the subpart requiring 

IVT (only Subpart C for Republic facilities), but also for all subparts under the GHGRP. This is 

an unnecessary administrative burden for a reporting rule resulting in an increase in cost to 

manage such data.

Response: Regarding the comment that the proposed amendment extending the 5-year record 

retention requirement to all subparts for IVT users is “unnecessary”, as previously indicated in 

the proposal preamble (September 11, 2013, 78 FR 55994), the EPA proposed this provision 

because we determined that during a site visit, if questions arise regarding the accuracy of 

equation inputs entered into IVT, it may be necessary to examine other recordkeeping 

information not entered into IVT, such as a monitoring plan or recordkeeping information in a 

different subpart, in order to fully investigate the accuracy of the data. See Section II.C.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule for further explanation of the EPA’s rationale for finalizing this 

amendment.

Regarding the comment that this proposed amendment will “result in an increase in cost to 

manage [records]”, the commenter provided no details to support this assertion or to contradict 
Draft Deliberative

112

the EPA’s proposed impacts analysis, which concluded that this proposed requirement would 

impose no additional burden. See Section II.C.3 of the preamble to the final rule for further 

discussion of why the EPA has concluded that this proposed amendment will not expand the 

recordkeeping burden.

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0090

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: EPA proposes to require reporters to maintain records for not only the subparts 

requiring the use of the verification tool, but for all records maintained for all applicable subparts 

under Part 98. This is an unjustifiable expansion of the scope of the recordkeeping requirements. 

This proposal will increase the cost and administrative burden of an already onerous rule.

Response: Please see response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0077, Excerpt 7, in this 

section of this document.

Commenter Name: David Friedman

Commenter Affiliation: American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0080

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: We urge EPA to avoid unnecessary confusion by maintaining the existing 

recordkeeping requirements for facilities that use the verification tool as an alternative 

verification approach. While we agree that the verification tool may be widely used, there is no 

basis to extend the recordkeeping requirement beyond three years. Applying a five-year 

recordkeeping requirement to all subparts that apply to facilities that use the verification tool will 

create confusion as different facilities reporting under the same subpart may have different 

recordkeeping requirements. Maintaining a uniform three-year recordkeeping requirement to all 

facilities reporting under any subpart will avoid this confusion. In the absence of any evidence 

that the existing recordkeeping requirements are inadequate, we urge EPA to maintain the 

existing requirements for facilities required to use the verification tool.

Response: Regarding the comment that the EPA has provided “no evidence that the existing 

recordkeeping requirements are inadequate”, please see Section II.C.3 for a detailed discussion 

on the EPA’s need to have a 5-year recordkeeping requirement for facilities using IVT.

Regarding the comment that this proposed amendment will create confusion because a parent 

company must track the record retention schedule (i.e., 3 years versus 5 years) for each facility,

please see the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074, Excerpt 8 in 

Section 11.2 of this document. 
Draft Deliberative

113

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: For reporters that are subject to inputs verification (aka Subpart C), the record 

retention period increases from three years to five years for all subparts that apply to the reporter.

It is unclear from the preamble and text of the proposed rule whether the record retention 

timeframe (i.e., three years or five years) is based on the applicability of each facility to the 

verification software requirement or if it is based on whether the reporter is subject to the 

verification software requirement. For example, a company may have a facility that is subject to 

Subpart C and therefore subject to the verification software requirement. For that facility, it is 

clear that records would need to be retained for five years. However, if that same company also 

submits a separate Subpart MM report (they are an importer of natural gas liquids), it is not clear 

what the record retention time is because the proposed language is based on the reporter not the 

facility. Thus, the following language change is recommended:

“98.3(g) Recordkeeping. An owner or operator that is required to report GHGs under 

this part must keep records as specified in this paragraph. Except as otherwise provided 

in this paragraph, retain all required records for at least 3 years from the date of 

submission of the annual GHG report for the reporting year in which the record was 

generated. The records shall be kept in an electronic or hard-copy format (as 

appropriate) and recorded in a form that is suitable for expeditious inspection and 

review. If a reporter facility or supplier is required under § 98.5(b) to use software 

specified by the Administrator to enter data to calculate the reported GHGs, all records 

required under Part 98 must be retained by the reporter facility or supplier for 5 years 

from the date of submission of the annual GHG report for the reporting year in which the 

record was generated. Upon request by the Administrator, the records required under 

this section must be made available to EPA. Records may be retained off site if the 

records are readily available for expeditious inspection and review. For records that are 

electronically generated or maintained, the equipment or software necessary to read the 

records shall be made available, or, if requested by EPA, electronic records shall be 

converted to paper documents. You must retain the following records, in addition to those 

records prescribed in each applicable subpart of this part:”

Response: The EPA agrees with commenter that the proposed rule needed additional 

clarification. We have revised 40 CFR 98.3(g) in the final rule to read, “....If the owner or 

operator of a facility is required under § 98.5(b) to use verification software specified by the 

Administrator, then all records required for the facility under Part 98 must be retained for 5 years 

from the date of submission of the annual GHG report for the reporting year in which the record 

was generated...” This change clarifies that for each facility, the record retention timeframe is 

based on whether the facility is subject to the verification software requirement for any subpart.
Draft Deliberative

114

Commenter Name: Jeff Applekamp

Commenter Affiliation: Gas Processors Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0070

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: For reporters that are subject to inputs verification (aka Subpart C), the record 

retention period increases from three years to five years for all subparts that apply to the reporter.

Is it unclear how long records must be maintained for data associated with previously submitted 

reports. For example, for a natural gas processing plant that is subject to Subpart C and Subpart 

W, what is the exact date that reporting year 2011 records no longer need to be retained? Some 

data was submitted in Sept 2012, while some data will be submitted in March 2015. In this case, 

it is unclear how the revised data retention requirement and the retroactive reporting 

requirements will work. As another example, for a natural gas compressor station that is subject 

to Subpart C, reporting year 2010 Subpart C data was submitted in September 2011. Because no 

additional reports will be submitted for that subpart, is it correct that the five year record 

retention period ends September 2016?

Response: The proposed revision to 40 CFR 98.3(g) specified the recordkeeping requirements 

for IVT users, including both record duration and the start date for this duration, as follows: 

“...all records... must be retained for 5 years from the date of submission of the annual GHG 

report for the reporting year in which the record was generated.” The phrase “from the date of 

submission of the annual GHG report for the reporting year in which the record was generated” 

refers to the date of submission of the annual report for the reporting year associated with the 

records. In the case of data reported for reporting year 2011 that will be reported as part of the 

reporting year 2014 annual report, this phrase refers to the date of submission of the reporting 

year 2011 annual report. Regarding the first example scenario provided by the commenter, the 

commenter is correct that the records associated with the annual report submitted in September 

2012 for reporting year 2011 must be retained until September 2017. Likewise, records reported 

in March 2015 that are associated with reporting year 2011 must be retained until September 

2017. 

Regarding the commenter’s example scenarios, both example scenarios included subpart C. 

Please note that in the final rule, the EPA provides an option for certain reporters to not use IVT 

for subpart C, but rather to report these data. Refer to Section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 

rule for a discussion of this new option and the EPA’s rationale for including the option in the 

final rule. If a reporter subject to both subparts C and W opts not to use IVT for subpart C, and 

the reporter is not required to use IVT for any other subpart, then the reporter must retain records 

for 3 years from the submission date of the annual report. However, if the reporter elects to use 

IVT for subpart C or uses IVT for any other subpart, the reporter must retain records for all 

applicable subparts for 5 years. 

Regarding the commenter’s second example of a natural gas compressor station that is subject to 

subpart C, if the reporter elects to use IVT for subpart C reporting or is otherwise required to use 

IVT, the commenter is correct that records generated for the reporting year 2010 annual report 

submitted for subpart C in September 2011 must be retained until September 2016.
Draft Deliberative

115

12.0 New Data Elements

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0057

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: What is the need to make the reporting of GHG longer and more tedious with the 

input of additional data? Why have to input additional data just to end up at the same place?

Response: If the commenter is referring to the requirement for 23 subparts to enter data into 

IVT, as stated in the preamble to this final action, the inputs to emission equations play an 

important role in the EPA’s ability to verify facility-level emissions and ensure compliance with 

the program. The alternative verification approach, including the use of IVT, is being finalized to 

address disclosure concerns identified for certain inputs to emissions equations while 

maintaining the EPA’s ability to verify reported emissions. 

Specifically, requiring that the inputs to emission equations (for which disclosure concerns were 

identified) be entered into IVT enables the EPA to calculate the emission equation results as well 

as to conduct verification checks on the inputs to emission equations. These checks are designed 

to ensure that calculations are performed correctly by the reporter and that appropriate data were 

used to calculate emissions.

If the commenter is referring to the addition of approximately 20 reporting elements in this final 

rule, these new data elements are needed as part of this alternative verification approach that 

would no longer require reporting of certain inputs to emission equations. These new reported 

data will allow the EPA to perform verification checks and minimize the number of follow-up 

activities, which will reduce burden on reporting facilities. 

Commenter Name: Timothy N. Montgomery

Commenter Affiliation: Ascend Performance Materials

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0066

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Ascend supports the proposed method of protecting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) proposed by the Agency. However, we believe that the amount of KA used to 

manufacture adipic acid should be substituted for cyclohexane for the verification of N2O 

emissions from Adipic Acid manufacturing based on the following information.

Subpart E Proposed Verification Criteria for Validation of N2O Emissions

We have used an EPA approved Alternate Method as allowed under 98.53(a)(2) to report N2O 

which would not require use of the proposed data element. In the event that an Alternate Method 

request was not approved by the Agency, the proposed data element would not fairly represent 

emissions from our manufacturing facility.
Draft Deliberative

116

EPA proposed that the annual quantity of cyclohexane fed to all production lines be used as the 

data element for the Input Verification Tool in e-GGRT for Subpart E (Adipic Acid Production). 

This proposed input assumes that adipic acid is manufactured wholly via the oxidation of 

cyclohexane to a cyclohexane/cyclohexanol (KA) mixture which is then further oxidized with 

nitric acid to adipic acid. This method assumes that all the KA used in the nitric acid oxidation 

comes from cyclohexane oxidation and all the KA is used to produce adipic acid. In reality KA 

can be purchased or sold commercially as well as produced using other raw materials than 

cyclohexane. We operate an alternate process to produce KA in addition to the cyclohexane 

based KA production.

Therefore we propose that the amount of KA used to manufacture adipic acid should be 

substituted for cyclohexane.

Response: See Section II.D.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment, 

including the EPA’s amendment of the proposed provision in the final rule. In addition, the EPA 

wants to clarify that the Agency has not made confidentiality determinations for any of the inputs 

to emission equations removed from reporting, either in this final rule or in any other final 

action.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.76(b) to include two new data elements: (1) 

annual ammonia production (metric tons) (40 C.F.R. § 98.76(b)(14)); and (2) annual methanol 

production (metric tons), if this quantity is not reported under Subpart X (40 C.F.R. § 

98.76(b)(15)). [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,018] 

TFI neither opposes the addition of these data elements to Subpart G nor EPA’s conclusion that 

these elements fall best within the “production/throughput data that are not inputs to emission 

equations” data category. 

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the addition of these two new 

data elements.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 15

Comment: EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c) to include a new data element, annual 

percent nitrous oxide emissions reduction for all production units combined (40 C.F.R. § 
Draft Deliberative

117

98.226(q)) and assign it to the “unit/process operating characteristics that are inputs to emission 

equations.” [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,009, 56,021] TFI neither opposes the inclusion of this 

data element in Subpart V nor EPA’s conclusion that this data element bests falls within the 

“production/throughput data that are not inputs to emission equations” data category.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the addition of this new data 

element.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe and Robert Glowinski

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association/American Wood Council

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: AF&PA has reviewed the additional four data elements EPA is proposing to add to 

the reporting regime for pulp and paper mills under Subpart AA and EPA’s proposal regarding 

the CBI status of each of those elements. We understand EPA’s thinking behind the need for two 

of the data elements and do not object to their addition.

However, the two other requirements in Subpart AA, section 98.276(m) are unclear and 

inconsistent with other reporting requirements:

 For each chemical recovery furnace and chemical recovery combustion unit for which you 

are not using Equation C–2c of subpart C to calculate CO2 emissions: Annual mass of steam 

generated (lb steam), individually for each fossil fuel type and for spent liquor solids.

 For each chemical recovery furnace and chemical recovery combustion unit for which you 

are not using Equation C–2c of subpart C to calculate CO2 emissions: Ratio of the unit’s 

maximum rated heat input capacity to its design rated steam output capacity (MMBtu/lb 

steam), individually for each fossil fuel type and for spent liquor solids.

As we understand these latter two requirements, pulp mills that do NOT to use Equation C-2c 

would still be required to determine steam generation by fuel type and the unit’s heat/steam 

capacity ratio. These requirements are unclear and unnecessary for several reasons.

First, this requirement for pulp mills is inconsistent with the new requirement for stationary fuel 

combustion units. Under section 98.36(e)(2)(ii)(D), EPA states that when Equation C-2c IS used, 

then the steam and heat/steam ratio must be submitted. We understand why EPA included inputs 

to the equation for stationary fuel combustion units using the equation, but we do not understand 

the need for this information for recovery furnaces that are NOT using the equation.

Second, determining the steam generation by fuel type would be very difficult. While most 

recovery furnaces only use spent pulping liquor as their fuel, some may use other fuels for either 

start-up or for flame stabilization. Generally these fuels are liquid. Other than using a percent of 

fuel to estimate the amount of steam generation per fuel type, we are hard-pressed to figure out 

how else such a determination can be made.
Draft Deliberative

118

AF&PA believes that the two new data elements in Subpart AA for facilities that do not use 

Equation C-2c are unclear, unnecessary, and burdensome, and requests that they be eliminated in 

the final rule.

Response: See Section II.D.3 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to this 

comment. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA did not include the two data elements 

at issue in the comment above in the final amendments of 40 CFR part 98, subpart AA.

13.0 Final Confidentiality Determinations for New Data Elements

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: EPA proposes to revise the Subpart G GHGRP regulations to impose two new data 

elements, and assign the two proposed data elements to data categories and makes confidentiality 

determinations for the new data elements. EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.76(b) to 

include two new data elements: (1) annual ammonia production (metric tons) (40 C.F.R. § 

98.76(b)(14)); and (2) annual methanol production (metric tons), if this quantity is not reported 

under Subpart X (40 C.F.R. § 98.76(b)(15)). [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,018] In turn, EPA 

proposes that these data elements fall within the “production/ throughput data that are not inputs 

to emission equations” data category. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,007] TFI neither opposes the 

addition of these data elements to Subpart G nor EPA’s conclusion that these elements fall best 

within the “production/throughput data that are not inputs to emission equations” data category. 

Also, TFI agrees with EPA’s conclusion that both data elements should be protected from public 

disclosure based on a prior EPA categorical determination for this data category. [Footnote: 78 

Fed. Reg. at 56,007] These data elements reflect annual production data that are sensitive 

information to a company and are held as CBI because their disclosure could cause competitive 

harm within the industry.

Response: The EPA notes that the commenter does not oppose either the addition of annual 

ammonia production and annual methanol production to subpart G or the EPA’s conclusion that 

these elements fall best within the “production/throughput data that are not inputs to emission 

equations” data category. Further, the EPA thanks the commenter for their support of a non-CBI 

determination for both data elements.

Commenter Name: Andrew T. O’Hare

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: PCA has submitted comments to past proposals urging that federal regulators take a 

closer look at submitted data before excluding them from CBI protections. To that end, cement 
Draft Deliberative

119

manufacturers support EPA’s proposal to classify the following data elements as CBI, as 

outlined in Section IV of the preamble: annual clinker production; annual average CO2 emission 

factor for a facility, averaged across all kilns; and annual average cement kiln dust (CKD) CO2

emission factor for the facility, averaged across all kilns.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations for the annual clinker production; annual average CO2 emission factor for a 

facility, averaged across all kilns; and annual average cement kiln dust (CKD) CO2 emission 

factor for the facility, averaged across all kilns.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: API concurs with the CBI determination proposed by EPA for the new data elements 

for Subparts P and Y.

EPA is proposing several additional data elements for reporting under the various Subparts of the 

GHGRP:

For Subpart P, two new data elements are defined as CBI including 40 C.F.R. § 98.166(e) for 

annual methanol production (metric tons), if this quantity is not reported under Subpart X; and 

40 C.F.R. § 98.166(b)(7) for name and annual quantity (metric tons) of each carbon-containing 

fuel and feedstock.

API agrees with the category assignments and CBI classifications of these new data elements.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations for the proposed new data elements for subparts P and Y.

Commenter Name: William C. Herz

Commenter Affiliation: National Lime Association32

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0089

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: The proposal adds a new data input item, lime production by type, which is also 

proposed to be considered CBI. NLA also supports this element of the proposal, because, like the 

 

32 This comment was also supported by HelperBroom LLC—Mississippi Lime (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-

0069).
Draft Deliberative

120

other inputs, lime production by type is highly sensitive business information that could be of 

competitive value in the market for lime products.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations for the proposed new data element lime production by type.

Commenter Name: Wade Foster, Manager, Scientific Programs

Commenter Affiliation: The Fertilizer Institute

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0064

Comment Excerpt Number: 16

Comment: EPA proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. § 98.226(c) to include a new data element, annual 

percent nitrous oxide emissions reduction for all production units combined (40 C.F.R. § 

98.226(q)) and assign it to the “unit/process operating characteristics that are inputs to emission 

equations.” [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,009, 56,021] TFI neither opposes the inclusion of this 

data element in Subpart V nor EPA’s conclusion that this data element bests falls within the 

“production/throughput data that are not inputs to emission equations” data category. EPA 

proposes to revise 40 C.F.R. §98.226(c) to include a new data element, annual percent nitrous 

oxide emissions reduction for all production units combined (40 C.F.R. §98.226(q)) and assign it 

to the “unit/process operating characteristics that are inputs to emission equations. [Footnote: 78 

Fed. Reg. at 56,009, 56,021] TFI disagrees with EPA’s proposal to release this information to the 

public. EPA concludes that the data could not be used to calculate nitric acid production for an 

individual train because it is an aggregate number. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 56,009] However, 

this is not the case if the facility only has a single nitric acid train with nitrous oxide abatement. 

Also, EPA asserts that the data element should not be afforded confidentiality protection because 

it is a publicly-available parameter through the voluntary Climate Action Reserve (“CAR”). 

While some TFI members may participate in the CAR and release this information, others do 

not. Thus, it is inappropriate to base the decision to release this information, in part, on the fact 

that some nitric acid producers voluntarily participate in the CAR. As such, TFI suggests that 

EPA not make a confidentiality determination for this data element as it has done for other data 

elements and, instead, allow individual reporters to assert confidential business information 

claims for this data element, as appropriate.

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that, in cases where a facility has only one nitric 

acid train with N2O, the data element “annual percent nitrous oxide emissions reduction for all 

production units combined” (40 CFR 98.226(q)) could be used to calculate nitric acid 

production. See Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of the EPA’s 

response to this comment, including the decision to not finalize the confidentiality determination 

for this data element.
Draft Deliberative

121

Commenter Name: Peter Pagano

Commenter Affiliation: American Iron and Steel Institute33

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0072

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: The new data elements related to flaring of iron and steel process gases under 

Subpart Y are listed in Table 6 of the preamble as data elements that do not support a CBI 

determination. AISI respectfully disagrees that such data are not CBI. The flared gases are 

process gases and therefore, reveal characteristics of iron and steel processes. AISI respectfully 

asserts that such data elements are details that may reveal operating efficiency, provides 

information that would allow competitors to infer production costs, process characteristics and 

therefore enable them to gain a competitive advantage. For these reasons, AISI asserts that the 

annual quantity of flare gas combusted (in MMscf per year) - when using Equation Y–3 of 

subpart Y; annual average molecular weight of flare gas combusted (in mmBtu per MMscf when 

using Equation Y–3 of subpart Y); and annual average carbon content of flare gas combusted 

(expressed as a decimal fraction when using Equation Y–3 of subpart Y) are CBI and must be 

afforded such protection in any final rule.

Response: The EPA is not finalizing the proposed addition of these three new data elements 

(annual quantity of flare gas combusted, annual average molecular weight of flare gas 

combusted, and annual average carbon content of flare gas combusted, all for normal operations 

and startup, shutdown, and malfunction [SSM] events combined) to subpart Y. See Section 

II.D.2 of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s rationale for this final decision.

Commenter Name: Karen Ritter

Commenter Affiliation: API

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0074

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: API concurs with the CBI determination proposed by EPA for the new data elements 

for Subparts P and Y

EPA is proposing several additional data elements for reporting under the various Subparts of the 

GHGRP:

For Subpart Y, EPA proposes three new data elements that are not considered as CBI: 40 C.F.R. 

§ 98.256(e)(11)(i) for annual quantity of flare gas combusted (in MMscf per year)(only when 

using Equation Y–3 of Subpart Y); 40 C.F.R. § 98.256(e)(11)(ii) for annual average molecular 

weight of flare gas combusted (in mmBtu per MMscf) (only when using Equation Y–3 of 

Subpart Y); and 40 C.F.R. § 98.256(e)(11)(iii) for annual average carbon content of flare gas 

combusted (expressed as a decimal fraction)(only when using Equation Y–3 of Subpart Y).

 

33 This comment was also supported by United States Steel Corporation (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0078).
Draft Deliberative

122

API agrees with the category assignments and CBI classifications of these new data elements.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations for the proposed new data elements in subparts P and Y.

Commenter Name: Paul Noe and Robert Glowinski

Commenter Affiliation: American Forest and Paper Association/American Wood Council

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0083

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: AF&PA has reviewed the additional four data elements EPA is proposing to add to 

the reporting regime for pulp and paper mills under Subpart AA and EPA’s proposal regarding 

the CBI status of each of those elements. We understand EPA’s thinking behind the need for two 

of the data elements and do not object to their addition. We also agree with the proposed 

approach to their confidentiality. Those two are:

 For each pulp mill lime kiln: Quantity of calcium oxide (CaO) produced (metric tons). EPA 

proposes this be considered CBI.

 For each pulp mill lime kiln: Percent of annual heat input, individually for each fossil fuel 

type. EPA proposes this not be considered CBI because these data have already been 

submitted to EPA under the 2011 ICR survey.

Response: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the EPA’s proposal to add two 

new reporting elements to subpart AA, and for the EPA’s proposed CBI determinations: quantity 

of calcium oxide (CaO) produced and percent of annual heat input (individually for each fossil 

fuel type) to subpart AA, both for each pulp mill lime kiln.

14.0 Additional Comments

Commenter Name: Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public and Regulatory Affairs

Commenter Affiliation: Waste Management

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0061

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Waste Management (WM) requests that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) extend the public comment period for 30 days for its Proposed Revisions to Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements, and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (hereinafter referred to as the “GHG Reporting CBI”) 78 

Fed. Reg. 55,994 (September 11, 2013).

Waste Management respectfully urges the Agency to consider a 30-day extension to the 

comment period so that we may have the time to successfully test the “inputs verification tool,” 

and provide pertinent comments as requested. We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Draft Deliberative

123

Response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that the public needed additional time to prepare 

comments on the proposed rule. Refer to the November 6, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 

66674) that extended the comment period from November 12, 2013, to November 26, 2013. 

Commenter Name: Bryan Brendle

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0062

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: Because of the suspension of government operations, and the related cancellation of 

the stakeholder webinar, now scheduled for October 28, the associations request that EPA extend 

the comment period for a period of 30 days beyond the October 28 stakeholder webinar, thereby 

receiving comments by November 27, 2013.

EPA’s latest proposed revisions to GHG reporting and related confidentiality determinations 

solicits comment on issues that are technically complex, and of interest to our members, 

requiring a thorough review and analysis. Significantly, many stakeholders plan to pose 

questions to EPA staff relating to the latest GHG/CBI proposal to more clearly evaluate possible 

impacts on October 28 on current GHG reporting methods.

Because of the highly technical nature of the GHG/CBI proposal, compounded by the difficulties 

associated with the cancellation of an opportunity for stakeholder dialogue, we request a 30 day 

extension of the comment period, to allow stakeholders sufficient time to prepare responsive 

comments.

Response: See the EPA’s response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0061, Excerpt 1.

Commenter Name: Andrew T. O’Hare

Commenter Affiliation: Portland Cement Association

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0067

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: EPA has proposed several revisions to the MRR for GHGs since promulgating the 

rule in 2009. Federal regulators have proposed three rulemakings during the last 12 months, and 

classify these proposed revisions as “currently active.” While cement manufacturers appreciate 

regulators’ efforts to address technical and CBI issues arising from implementation of the rule, 

regular revisions undermine business and regulatory certainty, and render difficult the 

comparison of data for individual facilities on a year to year basis.

Response: The EPA recognizes that regulatory changes made to Part 98 require facilities to 

adjust to the new reporting requirements. The amendments in this action respond to stakeholder 

concern regarding the reporting of many inputs to equations. The changes made in this action do 
Draft Deliberative

124

not change the monitoring or calculation methods used by the facility, and therefore will not 

impact the comparison of data from year to year.

Commenter Name: G. Woods

Commenter Affiliation: Littlejohn Engineering Associates

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0057

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Why does EPA think the GHG data being reported might be incorrect, especially 

since there are several areas where double reporting most likely occurs?

Response: Verification of the greenhouse gas emissions submitted to the EPA is a critical 

component of the GHGRP and is necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of reported 

data. There are many factors that could cause incorrect emissions to be reported, such as 

mathematical errors, other human errors associated with entering data, and a misunderstanding of 

rule requirements. The EPA anticipates that there will be errors in reported GHG values. For 

example, a reporter may enter correct values for monthly as well as annual production; however, 

the error may be related to the emission factor used to calculate reported GHG emissions, not to 

the production values. Based on the EPA’s experience in managing the GHGRP and other 

emissions reporting programs, the EPA has determined that reporting errors routinely occur. 

Because of the complexity of the industrial processes involved, the facility-to-facility variations 

in process design and operation, the amount of process monitoring and data processing involved 

in preparing the annual reports, and the level of detail of the reporting requirements, rule 

misinterpretations and data handling errors are expected to occur to some degree even with the 

most diligent reporters.

The EPA’s verification of reported data during the first four years of the GHGRP has identified a 

significant number of reporting errors, some of which are errors in reported GHG values. For 

reporting year 2010, this verification resulted in approximately 2,300 of the 6,700 reporting 

facilities resolving verification issues by responding to the EPA and/or resubmitting their annual 

report. For reporting year 2011, this verification resulted in approximately 3,000 of the 8,000 

reporting facilities likewise resolving verification issues. For reporting year 2012, this 

verification resulted in approximately 3,450 of the 8,320 reporting facilities likewise resolving 

verification issues. This verification experience under the GHGRP confirms that there are 

reporting errors.

Commenter Name: Unknown

Commenter Affiliation: Illinois Institute of Technology, Environmental Policy Class

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0060

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: 1) Does EPA anticipate systematic differences between the EPA model and other 

models used to calculate GHG emissions? 2) How does and how will EPA verify the models 
Draft Deliberative

125

used to calculate GHG emissions? 3) Will EPA analyze the positive or negative implications of 

the reported data either by state, region, nationally, or for individual companies? 4) If EPA 

discovers excellent GHG emissions by a company, will those best practices be shared with 

others?

Response: The EPA provides the following responses, which correspond to the numbers 

provided in the comments:

1. This rulemaking does not address the methodologies developed for calculating greenhouse 

gas emissions for the GHGRP, nor does it address how the methodologies differ from other 

models or methodologies that exist to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. For a detailed 

analysis of methodologies considered for the GHGRP, please refer to the docket for the 2009 

Proposed Rule for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508).

2. For information on how the EPA verifies data reported to the GHGRP, please see the 

proposed preamble to this action (78 FR 55994) as well as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program Final Rule in 2009 (74 FR 56260).

3. This rulemaking does not address whether or how the EPA will analyze the data reported to 

the GHGRP. For additional information on published GHGRP data and related documents, 

please see http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reportingdatasets.html.

4. This rulemaking does not address the sharing of best practices regarding GHG emissions. 

15.0 Out of Scope Comments

Commenter Name: Anonymous

Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0059

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: This reporting and responsibility requirement is an important step forward in climate 

action. Please adopt a strong and stringent final regulation. Require emitters to pay the full cost 

for any and all emissions released, through a strong mitigations program, administered by the 

government not industry, into which the full cost is paid and then government awards to actual 

emissions reduction sequester, mode shift, housing near transit, transit operations, etc. DO not all 

sequester which releases stored carbon (eg cutting down a forest to store underground or to 

replant a new forest) released carbon needs to be counted AGAINST the emitters as it increases 

emissions (Fracking is a good example of this - ground water contamination is eventually 

released to the atmosphere or if not is more deadly to humans than the original emissions - these 

results cannot be financed as emissions mitigations or carbon removal).
Draft Deliberative

126

Commenter Name: Margaia

Commenter Affiliation: Unknown

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0065

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: What I want to emphasize: PLEASE, IT'S TIME FOR STRONG RULES LIMITING 

CARBON POLLUTION FROM NEW AND EXISTING POWER PLANTS!...AND THAT 

MAY MEAN: ENFORCE THOSE RULES AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT!

When will the USA stand up for CLIMATE CHANGE?!!!! Seriously, not just in words!

President Obama is very eloquent in speaking of doing our best to "arrest" climate change,

but the various departments that could do something, just don't seem to follow suit!

It's very discouraging and disheartening for all of us citizens who want to do all we can

to save our environment.

Commenter Name: Glenn E. Davis

Commenter Affiliation: HelperBroom LLC - Mississippi Lime

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: MLCO is also concerned about the data elements presently classified as "ND" (no 

determination has been made for this data element) in USEPA's Table A-1: Final Data Category 

Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations. The specific concerns and suggested 

refinements to address these matters are included below.

While USEPA has addressed almost all of MLCO's concerns regarding subpart S data elements 

we consider CBI, one data element remains denoted as "ND" in USEPA's Table A-1: Final Data 

Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations. No CBI determination has yet been 

made for data element §98.196(b)(15), Annual lime production capacity (tons) per facility. 

While MLCO understands USEPA's "ND" designation, as well as its CBI justification 

procedures, we propose that this data element — which MLCO believes absolutely qualifies for 

CBI protection —be deemed CBI through the regulatory process in order to avoid any error or 

misunderstanding or inadvertent release of sensitive data considered CBI by the reporting 

facility. Section VI of our September 7, 2010 comment letter and Section III.A of our March 4, 

2011 comment letter, both included in Exhibit A, set forth our explicit rationale for this request. 

[See DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0069 for Exhibit A.] 
Draft Deliberative

127

Commenter Name: Various

Commenter Affiliation: Natural Resources Defense Council/Environmental Defense 

Fund/Earthjustice/Clean Air Task Force/Sierra Club

Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929-0088

Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: We disagree that EPA lacks the necessary information to set performance standards 

for methane. The agency has a mandatory legal duty to address these harmful emissions and 

robust Subpart W data only strengthens the imperative for addressing these harmful emissions.