1 AIR EMISSIONS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS RULE

EPA Comment Summary and Response Report

1. Harmonizing Report Due Dates

Comments: Many commenters (0026, 0028, 0029, 0035, 0036, 0039, 0041, 0044, 0045 and 0046) supported the concept of harmonizing report due dates. However, some of the commenters in this group felt that harmonizing the report due dates by reducing the reporting timeline for point sources to 12 months might compromise the integrity and accuracy of data, which must be quality assured and urged EPA to harmonize the re port due date at 17 months for all emission sectors (point, nonpoint and mobile).

One commenter (0028) supported a 12-month reporting schedule for point sources for the 2008 triennial year since his State had met this annual timeline for the last three years. Another commenter (0036) did not object to the 12-month schedule proposed for 2008 for point and nonpoint source emission inventories but did object to shortening the reporting time for mobile

sources due to resource restrictions. One comme nter (0030) expressed support for efforts by EPA and/or State agencies to streamline reporting re quirements and reduce reporting burdens on States and sources but thought it should not be at the expense of sources.

Two commenters (0014 and 0032) thought that a 12-month timeline for reporting point source emissions was achievable but preferred retaining the existing 17-month reporting timeline. One commenter (0043) noted that the existing 17-month timeline is used to review and enter a large volume of point source data. The commenter indicat ed that additional time is needed to collect Highway Performance Monitoring System Vehi cle Miles Traveled estimates which are not available until August for the inventory year. The commenter believed that the 12 month reporting due date proposed for 2008 would pose reporting problems, but thought it was preferable to the 6 month timeline proposed for 2011. Two commenters (0044 and 0046) thought the 17-month timeline for reporting nonpoint and m obile source emissions should be retained due to unavailability of data needed to develop the emission estimates.

One commenter (0042) did not support EPA-manda ted reporting dates and believed that States should have the flexibility to establish reporting da tes that meet State ad ministrative needs.

Response:

In the AERR rulemaking, EPA proposed to shorte n the timeline of 17 months for reporting under

the CERR to be consistent with the 12 months for reporting under the NOx SIP Call. A second alternative requiring 12 months for reporting of point sources and 17 months for nonpoint and mobile sources was also proposed. Most co mmenters expressed support for the concept of consolidating the reporting requirements under the NOx SIP Call and the CERR, but were concerned about the alternative of using the 12- month timeline for some or all sources for the 2008 inventory year.

EPA agrees with the concerns of the commenters re garding the proposal to tighten the timeline to 12 months for the 2008 inventory year and in this rulemaking has decided to implement the shorter timeline for reporting under the AERR starting with the 2009 inventory year. Since the2 2009 and 2010 inventory years require reporting for Type A (large point) sources only, one impact of this action is to delay implementi ng a 12-month timeline for reporting of all sources until the 2011 inventory year, which is the next 3-year comprehensive emission inventory year. For the 2008 inventory year, the 17-month timeline under the CERR will remain in place. This will provide additional stability for States using the new data submittal and operating procedures for the Emission Inventory System (EIS), which will be available for the 2008 inventory year. Maintaining the 17-month timeline will allow Stat e agencies to adapt to the new data reporting and system requirements without introducing additi onal uncertainty to the process. It will also provide time for EPA to correct any problems w ith the new system procedures before attempting to adjust the timeline for data submittals. EPA believes that completing the 3-year cycle emission inventory for the 2008 inventory year using a 17-month timeline will allow States to become sufficiently familiar with the new procedures to implement a 12-month timeline to report data from Type A sources for the 2009 and 2010 inventory years and to implement a 12-month timeline to report data from all sources for the 20 11 inventory year as part of the comprehensive 3-year cycle inventory.

EPA did not propose to extend the existing 12-month timeline for reporting under the NO

x SIP Call. Thus, the NO

x SIP Call 12-month timeline will be reta ined for the 2008 inventory year and harmonized reporting under the NO

x SIP Call and AERR will be delayed until the 2009 inventory

year.

It should be noted that although the timeline for data reporting by State agencies will be unchanged for the 2008 inventory year, EPA’s in ternal procedures for data handling will be updated with the goal of releasing the fina l 2008 National Emission Inventory (NEI) on a schedule that is considerably shorter than the 3 years that has historically been required.

EPA disagrees with the commenter who did not support EPA-mandated reporting dates. State reporting of emissions data by specified dat es is essential to developing national emission

inventories that are fundamental to understandi ng air quality problems and supporting national

level rules to reduce emissions. EPA will continue to work with its partners to ensure that the

timelines for data submittal are achievable and m eet the purposes of developing timely and high quality emissions data.

Comment: One commenter (0048) requested that states not be required to submit emissions data for sources subject to the NOx SIP Call or acid rain rules and have CEMs for NOx, SO2 and CO (and estimate emissions for CO 2 ). The commenter stated that the acid rain program provides data to the NEI for these sources. In addition, the commenter wanted EPA to accept complete data sets from states that would include these sources but asked that EPA not subject data for these sources to rigorous quality assu rance procedures used for other sources.

Response: EPA has tried to address the commenter’s concern that States not be required to report data that are directly reported to EPA under trading programs. Section 51.30 (a) (6) of the AERR (as proposed) allows States to not provide an nual data to EPA for sources participating in a trading program under Sections 51.123 and 51.1 24 (CAIR). Because CAIR was vacated and remanded to EPA by the U.S. Court of Appeals on July 11, 2008, the final rule eliminates all

references to Sections 51.123 and 51.124. States ar e still required, however, to provide complete

triennial emission inventories to EPA for all point, nonpoint and mobile sources.

EPA will be prepared to accept complete data sets from States to meet the requirements of the AERR. However, new data transmittal procedur es being developed as part of the new EIS will impose quality assurance and data integrity check s prior to acceptance of data by EPA. Data3 accepted by EPA will be considered a submittal under the AERR and may be subjected to the same quality assurance procedures as other data, re gardless of whether the data are used to support the NEI or are used for other purposes.

2. Accelerating Report Due Dates

EPA asked for comments on two alternatives for ti ghtening the timeline for submittal of data for the 2011 inventory year: (1) 6 months for submitta l of data from point sources and 12 months for nonpoint and mobile sources and (2) 6 – 12 mont hs for submittal of data from point sources and 12 – 17 months for nonpoint and mobile sources.

Comments: Most commenters (0005, 0007, 0014, 0021, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0032, 0036, 0037, 0038, 0041, 0042, 0043, 0044, 0045, 0046 and 0048) were concerned with or opposed to the proposed 6-month timeline for States to submit point source data for the 2011 inventory year. Commenters generally indicated that the accelerat ed schedule would make for a very short time for point sources to gather the data needed to re port to States and for States to process and quality assure the data. They believed this would result in incomplete and inconsistent data quality, due to the lack of time for entry and quality assuran ce of the data. One commenter (0009) supported EPA’s proposal to further accelerate the reporting schedule starting with the 2011 inventory year by requiring that point sources be reported within 6 months from the end of the inventory year.

Several commenters (0021, 0028, 0032, 0036, 0037, 0042, 0043 and 0044) who expressed concerns about the proposed 6-month point sour ce reporting timeline for the 2011 inventory year thought that tightening the timeline for poi nt sources to 12 months would be possible

. Some of the commenters (0028, 0032, 0037, 0042 and 0044) t hought that 17 months would continue to be needed for the nonpoint and mobile source inventor y sectors due to the unavailability of data on a shorter schedule from other agencies that is needed to develop the emission estimates. One commenter (0036) thought that 17 months would c ontinue to be needed for mobile sources but that nonpoint data could be submitted within 12 months.

Two commenters (0027 and 0038) expressed concer ns with the proposed 6-month timeline but thought that a 9-month schedule for submittal of point sources data would be possible.

Many commenters (0006, 0007, 0015, 0017, 0018, 0019, 0022, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0030, and 0031) thought the proposed 6-month timeline for States to submit data to EPA would result in States imposing shorter timelines for sources to submit their data to States. These commenters

believed that the shorter timelines would affect th e cost and accuracy of the reports provided by regulated businesses to States. Two of these commenters (0006 and 0031) noted that other reporting requirements such as those under Title V and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) help create efficiency in the system since these repor ts are due at approximately the same time. The commenters were concerned that requiring States to submit data to EPA on a 6 month timeline would require sources to submit data to States on a more compressed schedule and eliminate the efficiency gained by having State emission reports due at approximately the same time as TRI reports. One commenter (0028) pointed out that companies now complying with the Emission Statement requirements of the Clean Air Act (w hich require reporting within 6 months) must submit their estimates to their State by March 1 a nd the data are certified by June 30. A 6-month submittal schedule would require moving the certification step to mid-May to include the additional step of submitting the data to EPA by June 30. The commenter did not think that moving the certification step to mid-May would be possible since many companies would still be reviewing preliminary emission estimates at that time.4 Two commenters (0026 and 0035) wanted to retain the existing 17-month timeline for reporting point, nonpoint and mobile source data. One of the commenters (0035) expressed concerns that were based primarily on having to conduct a sim ilar data collection and compilation effort within California. The commenter thought that the time to conduct the California data collection effort made accelerating the timeline to less than 17 months unrealistic and c ould compromise data quality. The other commenter (0026) expressed opposition to the concept of a bifurcated reporting system which would require submittal of point and nonpoint/mobile source sector data on separate dates.

One commenter (0039) strongly opposed shortening the existing time frame of 17 months for data collection from point sources and thought that web-based submittal tools needed to move beyond the developmental stage before it might be possibl e to shorten the timeframe to 12 months. The commenter also thought that much of the activity data needed to develop the nonpoint source

estimates was not available for 12 – 15 months after the end of the inventory year and EPA should consider using previous year data as a surrogate for the inventory year.

Another commenter (0030) suggested that EPA encourage State agencies to implement online reporting systems to speed up the efficiency of reporting before finalizing the AERR. One commenter (0031) indicated that they already u sed a web-based reporting system to report their

air emissions to the State of North Carolina.

Response: EPA agrees with the concerns expressed by most of the commenters regarding the proposed 6-month timeline for submittal of point s ource data by the 2011 inventory year. When EPA developed the proposed rulemaking, a proj ect known as the “Rapid Inventory Development

Pilot” was initiated. EPA has now evaluated the r esults of the project and believes that 6 months for development and submittal of i nventory data is not yet achieva ble on a consistent basis with application of proper quality assurance procedur es for all emission inventory source sectors. However, the project did demonstrate that a timeline shorter than the existing 17 months is possible since a number of States were able to submit data to EPA 10 months after the emission inventory year.

EPA understands that some difficulties were encount ered by several of the participating States which indicated that additional time is needed for refinement of electronic tools and procedures to support, on a consistent basis, development a nd submittal of emissions data on an expedited timeline. To allow additional time for technologi cal improvements, EPA will retain the existing 17-month reporting timeline for point, nonpoint, and mobile sources for the 2008 inventory year (data due June 1, 2010) under the CERR. The 12-month timeline under the AERR will be implemented starting with the 2009 inventory year.

3. Reporting Biogenic Emissions

EPA proposed to remove a requirement in the existing CERR for reporting annual and typical ozone season day biogenic emissions.

Comments : All commenters (0009, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0035, 0036, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0046 and 0048) on the biogenic emissions reporting requireme nt supported EPA’s proposal to not include biogenic emissions reporting in the AERR.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenters and will implement this part of the AERR as proposed by removing the existing reporting re quirements (under the CERR) for annual and typical ozone season day biogenic emissions.5 4. Reporting Emission Model Inputs

EPA proposed an option for States to provide emission inventory estimation model inputs in lieu of actual emission estimates. This option would st art with the 2005 inventory year. The Agency also invited comment on whether States, in a ddition to providing emissions data, should be required to provide model inputs where they have used a widely availa ble emissions model.

Comments: Several commenters (0004, 0026, 0028, 0029, 0032, 0035, 0036, 0045 and 0046) expressed support for the option of providing emission inventory estimation model inputs in lieu of actual emission estimates. One commenter ( 0042) supported States being able to submit inputs in lieu of emission estimates, but believed that States should retain the ability to develop their own emission inventory data. Another comment er (0043) indicated a willingness to submit the inputs, but thought that EPA should maintain the option of allowing States to report emission estimates. One commenter (0028) supported the option for States to submit model inputs in lieu of emissions data and suggested that EPA develop emissions summaries based upon the submitted modeling inputs for use by States.

Several commenters (0026, 0029, 0036, and 00 45) supported the option of providing model inputs in lieu of emissions data but were concerned that EPA would make the option a requirement. Some of the commenters also noted that EPA has, in the past, overridden Statesubmitted model inputs and urged that EPA not do so in the future.

Two commenters (0035 and 0044) supported the option of reporting model inputs in lieu of emission estimates but did not support the proposal to require States to report model inputs. One commenter (0035) believed that requiring States to report model inputs would remove their option of reporting emissions using independentmodels or using differing classifications or categories of emission sources. The other commenter (0044) encouraged reporting of model inputs in addition to actual emission estimates to provide data for EPA strategy analyses and allow States to retain the ability to submit actual estimates to the NEI.

Other commenters (0042 and 0043) indicated they had no problem with States submitting inputs in lieu of emissions and relying on EPA to de velop emission estimates utilizing those inputs but

were concerned that such a shift could limit thei r ability to calculate their own emissions. One of the commenters (0042) utilized EPA models in de veloping their emission inventory and modified a number of default model parameters to more accurately reflect their emissions. The commenter believed that States should retain the ability to develop their own emission inventory data utilizing local data when available and hoped that EPA would continue to consider States that develop their own emission inventories as EPA move d forward with development of new tools. The other commenter (0043) was concerned that submitting only the model input data to the EPA would make emission estimates calculated by EPA inconsistent with their onroad and nonroad mobile inventories, since post-processing was performed on these inventories to improve the spatial and temporal alloca tion of the emissions data.

One commenter (0046) supported allowing States to report model inputs rather than emission estimates but only if EPA made the model outputs available to the States (e.g., typical summer day emissions needed for State Implementation Pl ans) and the steps used by EPA in developing the emission estimates were transparent.

One commenter (0037) had no problem with including the input files with their inventory submittal but felt strongly that EPA’s focus s hould be on quality assurance and quality control6 (QA/QC) of the data and not on compiling it. Th is commenter was against submitting input files

in lieu of emissions data for mobile and nonroa d sources and preferred to run the models since

this allowed the commenter to understand the results.

One commenter (0048) questioned the adequacy of providing model inputs in lieu of emissions to

EPA. The commenter believed that EPA should complete development of the new Emission Inventory System (EIS) before establishing an alternate reporting requirement. The commenter cited concerns with (1) compatibility between th e EIS and NIF, (2) how the States will access and provide data to EIS without subs tantial new expenditures, disrup tions and confusion and (3) the ability of a third party, lacking specific inform ation and knowledge about facilities, to properly

calculate emissions.

Response: EPA agrees with the majority of commenter s who supported the option of submitting input data in lieu of emission estimates and will make this an option under the AERR. Although the proposed rule indicated this option would be available for reporting emissions for the 2005 inventory year, EPA intends to delay implementa tion of this option until the 2008 inventory year since the final rule was not published before th e due date for data from the 2005 inventory year (June 1, 2007). Although EPA encourages States to submit model inputs where they have used a widely available model to develop emission estim ates, States will not be required to submit input data when they provide emission estimates.Submitting model inputs to EPA will assist EPA in adjusting assumptions used in inventories when conducting analyses necessary for national-level rule development.

EPA does not believe that States should be concer ned about limitations to their ability to develop their own emission estimates. Since the option of submitting inputs to models includes use of input values adjusted by States to reflect local conditions, use of those same inputs by EPA will not impact State efforts and will tend to enhan ce the consistency of estimates developed by the

State and EPA. The concerns of one commenter regarding differences that emerge when EPA and States conduct spatial and temporal alloca tions of emissions during post-processing of emission inventories for air quality modeling are no different than those that now exist. These differences are inevitable as independent operations are performed by States and EPA on similar

inventories and will not be exacerbated by States submitting input data to EPA.

The concerns expressed by several commenters re garding EPA developing requirements to submit input data in lieu of emissions data are unfounded. The proposal offered States the option of submitting input data in lieu of emissions data , but did not pr opose to make it a requirement. With regard to the comment that the focus of EPA activities should be directed toward QA/QC of the data rather than on compiling it, EPA notes that it is often involved in both activities in developing the NEI.EPA does not believe that QA/QC procedures are compromised by its efforts to develop data.

In addition, EPA does not believe that offe ring the option of submitting model inputs will significantly affect development of the EIS. The models primarily in question estimate nonroad

and onroad mobile source emissi ons and were developed by EPA . Although models are updated and inputs can change, the inputs and the interface with the new EIS will be required regardless of whether EPA or States operate the models. EPA does not believe that substantial new expenditures, disruptions and conf usion will be created by the new EIS. Rather, EPA expects that the new system, through use of standardized pro cedures developed with State input, will help address some of the problems that have long ex isted in developing data for submittal to EPA. The ability of a third party to estimate emissi ons from facilities also has little bearing on the question of submitting model inputs since the models at issue concern mobile sources. This is7 supported by the language under Section 51.15 (e), which states that “EPA may allow States to submit comprehensive input values for models cap able of estimating emissions from a certain source type on a national scale....” Models such as TANKS, Landfill, Chemdat, etc. are used by States for estimating individual point source emi ssions and therefore are not subject to the provisions of Section 51.15 (e)..

With regard to the comments about availabilit y and transparency of modeling data, EPA notes that improving “transparency” is one of the goals of the new EIS. Accordingly, EPA intends to make model input and model output data available to States as well as provide documentation on the steps used to develop emission estimates.

5. Reporting Summer Day Emissions

EPA proposed to retain the requirement for reporting of summer day emissions from all sources (except biogenic sources) at 3-year intervals, but to restrict it to States with ozone nonattainment areas or States covered by the NOx SIP Call or CAIR. The summer day emissions reporting requirement would be restricted to VOC and NOx emissions. Comments were invited on whether CO emissions should be required also.

Comments: Several commenters (0026, 0028, 0029, 003 6 and 0044) supported EPA’s proposal to retain the requirement for reporting of summer-day emissions (NOx and VOC) from all sources at 3-year intervals but to limit it to States with ozone nonattainment areas or sources covered by the NOx SIP call or Clean Air Interstate Rule.

Two commenters (0042 and 0043) thought that ozone season day NOx, VOC and CO emissions should be reported for all areas. One of the commenters (0042) believed that limiting the reporting requirement to ozone nonattainment areas would create gaps in the inventory which the CERR attempted to resolve. The other comment er (0043) cited regional haze “episodes” that tend to occur with ozone episodes as a r eason for continued reporting for all areas.

Two commenters (0046 and 0048) questioned the value of reporting summer day VOC and NOx emissions. One commenter’s (0046) experience was that summer day emissions were not used for attainment demonstrations which genera lly involved atmospheric modeling of episodic conditions. The commenter stated that summer day emissions were not used to evaluate control strategies presented in the SIP and believed that inventory products that do not directly support the SIP should not be required. Another comme nter (0028) thought that requiring ozone season and daily emissions for point, nonpoint and n onroad sources was redundant since the temporal parameters needed to calculate these emissions were required.

One commenter (0036) thought that summer day em issions of CO should not be reported while two other commenters (0028 and 0029) believed that reporting CO summer day emissions was necessary only for CO nonattainment areas.

One commenter (0045) requested that in the propo sed rule or in guidance, EPA specify exactly what it is requesting when it asks for summer day emissions.

Response : EPA agrees with the majority of the commenters that the reporting requirements for summer day emissions from all sources (except bioge nic sources) at 3-year intervals should only include States with ozone nonattainment areas (VOC and NOx) and States covered by the NOx SIP Call (NOx only). However, EPA believes that it is also appropriate to include summer day emissions reporting for sources in attainment coun ties that are covered by the modeling domain8 used to demonstrate reasonable further progress (R FP). EPA’s current guidance requires the RFP calculations to be done on an “average summer weekday emissions” basis. If the State takes

credit for reductions from outside the nonattainment area, the requirement would be to determine whether there were reductions (in average summer week day emissions) from those sources.

EPA believes that reporting of CO summer day emis sions is not necessary since, as noted by one commenter, other data elements already reported allow summer day emissions to be derived and CO emissions, unlike VOC and NOx emissions, are not used for tracking RFP. Therefore, reporting of CO summer day emissions will not be a requirement under the AERR, regardless of

ozone attainment status.

The AERR proposal indicated that “We are proposin g to retain the requirement for summer day emissions....” However, the CERR requires re porting of “work weekday emissions” for point sources and “summer work weekday emissions” fo r nonpoint and mobile sources. Although we did not receive comments on the work weekday versus summer day emissions issue, we realized that the preamble language indicated that no changes would be made to the summer day emissions definition contained in the CERR (beyond the proposal to restrict the requirement to ozone nonattainment and NOx SIP Call areas), but the proposed AERR regulatory language made additional changes to the definition of "summer da y emissions." Accordingly, in recognition of the conflicting language and as indicated in the pr eamble to the proposed rule, the final AERR will retain the definition of and requirement to report “work weekday emissions” for point sources and "summer work weekday emissions" fo r nonpoint and mobile source reporting in the CERR, revised only to the extent that it will rest rict the requirement to ozone nonattainment areas (including sources in counties that are covered by the modeling domain used to demonstrate RFP) and NOx SIP Call areas. In addition, the defin ition for summer day emissions has been revised to require the use of work weekday emissions (as required under the CERR) when estimating summer day emissions for reporting.

6. Reporting Winter Work Weekday Emissions

EPA proposed to delete the existing requirement that all States report emissions for a winter work weekday.

Comments: Most commenters (0009, 0026, 0028, 0033, 0036, 0042, 0044, 0045 and 0048) supported EPA’s proposal to delete the repor ting requirement for winter work weekday emissions. One commenter (0029) opposed EPA’s proposal to eliminate the existing reporting requirement, citing a need by States for this data in CO maintenance plans.

Response: Although most of the commenters agreed with EPA’s proposal to delete the reporting requirement for winter work weekday emissions , EPA finds the comment that CO reporting is needed for CO maintenance plans to be co mpelling. As noted by the commenter, CO maintenance plans require tracking of emission reduc tions to ensure continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS. While it is not necessary to follo w the requirements of the AERR to report emissions to EPA, doing so will aid in standardizi ng the data reported and facilitate review of the data by interested parties.

A concern not raised by commenters relates to re quests from States to discontinue monitoring of

ambient CO concentrations in certain areas that have been redesignated to attainment for CO. EPA’s approval of such requests is conditione d on the expectation that emissions will not

increase and areas will continue to maintain the CO NAAQS. To provide a means of ensuring9 that the CO NAAQS are maintained in areas that no longer have ambient CO monitors, emissions reporting becomes even more critical.

The AERR proposal indicated that EPA could work on a case-by-case basis with the few remaining CO nonattainmment areas regarding re porting of winter work weekday emissions. However, in the final rule, EPA has determined th at for those areas in which EPA determines that reporting is still needed, reporting emissions using the AERR requirements will ensure that CO emissions are reported periodically and that the data are in a standardized format that will

facilitate data review and thus help ensure attainment and maintenance of the CO NAAQS. Therefore, to monitor progress toward attain ing and maintaining the CO NAAQS, EPA will retain the requirement for reporting of winter wo rk weekday emissions of CO, but will limit it to

CO nonattainment areas and areas with CO maintenance plans.

7. New Data Elements

EPA proposed to add several data elements: contact name, contact phone number, emission release point type, control status, emission t ype and method accuracy description (MAD) codes.

Comment: Three commenters (0026, 0029 and 0044) supported EPA’s proposal to add new data elements to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) rule.

Response: EPA agrees with the supportive comments on the proposed new data elements. However, the need for one new data element (C ontrol Status) has been reconsidered by EPA. Comments and responses specific to this proposed da ta element are addressed later in this section.

Comment: Several commenters (0028, 0042, 0045, 0046, and 0048) indicated they were already reporting many of the new data elements and did not understand why they were being proposed for addition to the AERR. Three commenters ( 0028, 0045 and 0048) believe d that the new data elements should be added to the NIF or guidance documents rather than the AERR. One of the commenters (0045) suggested that a Federal-State task force be established to review, revise, finalize and implement changes in code details . The commenter was concerned that many changes resulted in significant impacts upon data collection and storage programs used by States, with significant resulting impacts on resources and timing issues for individual States. To limit the impacts, the commenter thought that identif ication of extensive lists of mandatory data elements should be limited to guidance documents developed in collaboration with state, local and tribal (S/L/T) agencies. The commenter urged that discussion of data elements and data formatting procedures and code tabl es be excluded from the rule.

Response: EPA believes that both data reporting rules and data reporting formats are needed for effective data reporting. Although the AERR and NEI Input Format (NIF) address many common data elements for reporting to EPA, their purposes are somewhat different. Data reporting rules such as the AERR identify data elements and timelines for reporting. Data reporting formats such as the NIF address the deta ils of how the data are to be reported to facilitate handling of the data by EPA.

EPA does not believe that using a data formatting protocol such as the NIF is an effective way to

communicate data needs with Stat e agencies. EPA has long codified data reporting requirements

since States need to understand what will be re quired and when it will be required by EPA to implement programs under the Clean Air Act. EPA continues to believe that codifying data elements for reporting and timelines for submittal of data are appropriate levels of detail to be addressed through the rulemaking process. This pro cess allows for all affected parties to review10 the basic requirements for submittal of data to EPA and provide comments for EPA review. The rulemaking process is a means of pr oviding assurances to affected pa rties that their concerns will

be heard and considered.

In response to the one commenter’s concerns rega rding discussion of the NIF and code tables in the proposed rulemaking, EPA discussed these mate rials in the preamble to impart additional clarity to requirements for data reporting. It was not EPA’s intent to include these materials by extension in the rulemaking notice. Text in the regulatory portion of the rulemaking notice does

not reference the NIF or associated code tables. The commenter suggested that a Federal-State task force be established to review, revise, finali ze and implement changes in code details. Such

a task force has been established to help with developing the new EIS. EPA expects the task force to update tools and guidance materials fo r data reporting and periodically review data elements and reporting codes for use by State agencies.

Comment: One commenter (0042) currently collected a contact name and phone number with each emission statement submission for point source emissions but did not track emission release point type, control status, emission type and M AD codes. The commenter was not opposed to collecting the additional data elements, but indicated a state rulemaking and modifications to their integrated data system will be required and urged EPA to provide sufficient lead time for the state to complete its rulemaking process.

Another commenter (0046) indicated that they already reported contact and release point information where provided by facilities. The co mmenter thought that it was difficult to report control information for point sources in a manner that supported automated projection of control strategy impacts and believed the problem was a lack of clear information on how the data elements were to be populated and how the da ta would be used. The commenter recommended that EPA clarify and encourage proper use of curre ntly available data elements before requiring

additional data.

One commenter (0028) questioned the inclusion of a data field for emission release point type since state quality assurance programs were more concerned with emission estimates than quality assuring stack characteristics necessary for air quality modeling.

Response: We understand that States need lead time to respond to changing data reporting requirements. Accordingly, EPA has retained the 17-month timeline for reporting under the CERR for the 2008 inventory year to provide st ates additional time to transition to the new reporting requirements under the AERR. The AERR reporting requirements will be effective beginning with the 2009 inventory year. Data su bmittals for the 2009 inventory year will be due to EPA by December 31, 2010, which should provide states sufficient lead time to adjust to the new reporting requirements under the AERR.. As discussed earlier in this section, EPA and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) have recently formed a workgroup to addr ess issues during development of the EIS. Developing better guidance materials is one of the focus areas and EPA is hopeful that the workgroup efforts will help address the comme nter’s needs for clarity on procedures for populating data elements.

Regarding the concern with quality assuring emis sions rather than stack parameters, EPA encourages States to do both since it is important fo r EPA to locate stack emissions and use other data provided by States to conduct accurate ai r quality simulations for support of air quality analyses and national rules.11 Comment: One commenter (0009) expressed support for the option of States having a code indicating "don't know" if the information need ed for the method accuracy description (MAD) codes is not available. Another commenter (0035) noted that the proposal indicated that the code

“don’t know” was included in the domain for me thod accuracy description codes but was not sure if similar codes were available for other proposed data elements such as emission release point type and control status. The commenter suggest ed that “N/A” be included in the domains for

these elements.

Response: As discussed earlier in this section, the da ta element for control status will not be

added to the AERR. EPA believes that “don’t know” or “N/A” codes for the proposed emission release point type data element are not needed since States should have these data.. However, in the event that data do not exist for emission release point type, States have the option of not selecting a code

Comment: One commenter (0028) thought that EPA should provide additional information on the need for method accuracy description (MAD) c odes and suggested that if these codes were added, only the coordinate data source code (State, facility, etc.) and the horizontal collection method code (map, global positioning system, etc.) be included.

Response: EPA understands that agencies may not be able to provide the data requested under the method accuracy description (MAD) codes. As explained in the preamble of the proposed AERR rule, where States do not have the request ed data, no additional work will be required since they will be able to use a code for “don ’t know.” The codes are required to meet EPA’s latitude/longitude data standard whic h applies to many EPA programs.

Comment: One commenter (0028) was concerned that so me of the data elements appeared to be proposed only for point sources and thought that EPA should clarify in the final rule what was

intended.

Response: The preamble in the proposal did not discuss if the new data elements were specific to inventory categories. However, Tables 2A, 2B and 2C in the regulatory portion of the rule were specific to each inventory category (point , nonpoint, nonroad mob ile, and onroad mobile) and did list all data elements proposed for each under the AERR.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that in order for the proposed emission release point type and related data to be submitted, EPA need ed to revise the NIF and the manner in which the

data are transferred. The commenter noted that EPA’s system does not currently allow reporting of “many-to-many” relationships that are necessar y to maintain the integrity of State data for facilities that have complex exhaust flow situ ations among several stacks. Currently, North Carolina must simplify data and lose the many-to- many relationships reported by some facilities

in order to submit the data to EPA.

Response: The “many-to-many” data relationship issu e is outside the scope of the AERR which is concerned only with the data reporting require ments. However, EPA understands the concerns of the commenter and agrees with the need to add the “many-to-many” data relationship capability to the new EIS.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that the AERR needed to make a distinction between control devices and changes in process. The comme nter asserted that many “control strategies”

utilize means to reduce emissions that are act ually process changes or redesigns (e.g. VOC coating changes, or low-NOx burners) and are not properly described in control device codes, but12 should be redefined as a separate sour ce classification code (SCC) or process definition/description.

Response: EPA does not believe the AERR needs to ma ke distinctions between process changes or use of control equipment. Both reduce em issions, and appropriate data source codes are available to indicate what process change or type of control equipment is responsible for the

resultant emission reduction.

Comment: One commenter (0048) noted that the proposal appeared to differentiate between primary and secondary controls with reference to control of a single pollutant. The commenter indicated that the efficiency of the final control device is what determines the control efficiency or percent reduction. In the case of particulate ma tter controls where a cyclone is used prior to a bag filter, the function of the cyclone is to cond ition the gas stream before the bag filter and has little to no effect on the net control efficiency resulting from the bag filter. The commenter thought that the data elements associated with controls should be part of the NIF requirements

and not included in the AERR.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that a pr imary control for particulate matter may have little impact on the overall or net control efficiency. However, EPA did propose a data element for “total capture and control efficien cy (percent)” which will address the commenter’s concerns regarding the net control efficiency. The data elements associated with controls will be part of the NIF requirements, but as explaine d earlier in this section, EPA believes it is appropriate to include data repor ting requirements and timelines in data reporting rules to provide States with an opportunity to comment on the b asic requirements of what data will be reported and when it will be required.

Comment: One commenter (0032) believed that the existing fields for control equipment and efficiency were adequate, but thought that EPA needed to improve and update the code options with the latest technologies and control devices (e.g., regenerative thermal oxidizer, etc.). The commenter also noted that although the current list does include a few options for control methods that involve operational changes rather than physical devices (e.g. process change, low solvent coating, etc), perhaps a more expansiv e list of nonphysical-device control methods could be developed.

Response: EPA believes the current code tables are ad equate for most applications, but agrees that the tables need to be reviewed and updated pe riodically. This task is being conducted as part of the new Emission Inventory System now under development by EPA.

Comment: Two commenters (0033 and 0034) thought that the addition of a control status code would not make the status of a facility any more clear and believed that the control status of a facility could be determined fro m other data elements already required for reporting under the CERR and proposed under the AERR (e.g., control device codes and control efficiency). One of the commenters (0033) thought that accurate assessments of future emissions could not be made without the more detailed information already required by the CERR regarding the specific control techniques in use and their efficiency. The commenter went on to state that EPA’s detailed reporting instructions have long provided for the "control device" data element to specify such nonphysical equipment control techniques as "low solvent coatings", "water-borne coatings", "process change", and several varieti es of combustion modifications. The commenter thought that the NIF format provided more detail regarding control types and efficiencies than the current proposal seeks to add and EPA should more carefully evaluate what is really needed and then provide guidance on how the existing data el ements can be utilized to meet those needs.13 Response: Control status was the only new data element proposed under the AERR that was not already in the NIF Version 3.0 and thus was perceived as a new data reporting requirement by several commenters. This new data element would require States to indicate if a source is controlled or uncontrolled. EPA agrees with th e concerns expressed by the commenters. The data reporting requirements proposed under the AERR for control types and efficiencies in combination with reporting codes for those data elements will be sufficient to discern whether

sources are uncontrolled or controlled and to what extent. Therefore, EPA has decided not to

include the control status data element in the final AERR.

Comment: One commenter (0034) thought that the existing requirements and data fields needed to be better explained and noted that the current fields for point sources do not ask for the total capture/control efficiency, which is required for nonpoint sources. The commenter thought that the capture efficiency along with the total capture/control efficien cy should be required for point sources since the current requirements for prim ary and secondary control efficiencies do not provide a way to determine the overall control e fficiency. In addition, the commenter did not

believe that “Rule Effectiveness” had ever been ad equately explained and said it was not apparent

how or if it could be used without knowle dge of how it relates to the other terms.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter’s suggesti on to add capture efficiency as a data element for point sources. The following new data fields were proposed in the AERR: “Primary capture and control efficiencies (percent)” and “T otal capture and control efficiency (percent)” and will be included in the final rule to provide for determining the overall control efficiency for

a source.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s concerns that Rule Effectiveness (RE) has not been adequately explained. Section 51.50 of the rule contains definitions for RE (a rating of how well a regulatory program achieves all possible emissi ons reductions) and Rule Penetration (a term used to quantify the percentage of a nonpoint source category covered by an applicable regulation). EPA notes that during the Spring of 2004, EPA convened a workgroup consisting of emission inventory staff from State, local and EPA offices to review existing RE guidance and develop a consensus recommendation for improveme nts to this guidance. The revised Rule Effectiveness guidance developed by the workgroup is found in Appendix B of the document

titled Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations – EPA-454/R05-001. (August 2005, updated November 2005). EPA believes the workgroup presented a clear rationale regarding development and implementati on of the new approach to adjusting emission inventories to address RE, explaining how RE can be used to adjust the control efficiency from

what could be realized under ideal conditions to what is actually emitted in practice due to less than ideal conditions. Accordingly, EPA has expa nded the regulatory definition of RE to explain how it is used in making these adjustments

Comment: Several commenters (0017, 0018, 0019, 0020, 0022, 0023 and 0031) were opposed to any additional reporting requirements for States that would be passed on to businesses but offered no specific concerns with i ndividual reporting requirements.

Response: The reporting requirements of the AERR will apply to States and not to sources. However, we recognize that in some cases, States will need to modify their data reporting rules to meet the requirements of the AERR for data el ements to be reported and the new timelines for reporting. EPA notes that the burden estimate from the Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request (ICR) indicates that the AERR will not increase the reporting burden on14 States and will impose no additional burden on sources although starting in the 2009 inventory year timelines for repor ting will be shortened.

8. Identification of New Emissions Related Data Requirements

EPA invited comment on whether or not additiona l emissions related data should be required.

Comment: Several commenters (0026, 0039 and 0048) encouraged EPA to include a specific requirement in the AERR for reporting hazardous ai r pollutant (HAP) emissions data for Title V facilities. Another commenter (0044) encouraged EPA to include requirements for reporting of HAPs from all emission sources. One commenter (0039) noted that States are attempting to provide HAP data to EPA by relying on data collect ed from facilities largely on a voluntary basis. These data are then supplemented by EPA with data from other sources. The commenter thought that collecting quality HAP data for use in modeling efforts such as the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) would re quire an EPA directive.

Response: EPA is not including requirements for reporti ng of HAPs in this final rule. However, EPA has developed national level inventories of HAP emissions on a 3-year cycle since 1990. These inventories have provided support for de velopment of HAP control programs, helped assess HAP air quality trends and provided a m eans to track EPA progress under the Government

Performance Results Act. The success of EPA’s efforts rests in large measure on the cooperation of States in submitting HAP data to EPA to s upport the development of national HAP emission inventories. Each emission inventory cycle has benefited from increased State agency participation in submitting HAP da ta. EPA believes it will be possible to continue developing and improving national level HAP inventories usi ng the cooperative approach employed to date but intends to closely monitor the participation of State agencies in this effort. EPA understands the concerns of some State agencies regarding th e need for a HAP data reporting rule and may, should the need arise, revisit this issue in the future.

Comment: One commenter (0035) thought that data element 41, “SIC/NAICS at the facility and unit levels,” in Table 2A, Data Elements fo r Reporting on Emissions from Point Sources should be separated into two fields: one for the facility and one for the unit. Another commenter (0037) thought that reporting NAICS at the unit level was not necessary since th ese codes are used for PSD applicability and in many cases there is only on e SIC/NAICS that describes the source. The commenter thought that reporting these codes at the unit level had little to do with emission

inventories.

Response: The CERR included a data element for reporting of SIC/NAICS codes for point sources but did not specify whether the codes should also be reported at the unit level. Table 2A to subpart A of part 51 in the AERR proposal clarif ied this requirement by including data element #41 for reporting of “SIC/NAICS at the facility and unit levels.” Guidance from the Census Bureau, which develops the SIC/NAICS codes, i ndicates that they are designed to reflect the primary economic activity of a source, which al so brings into question the reporting of these codes at the unit level. Based upon this informa tion, EPA has reconsidered the need for reporting

these codes at the unit level and revised data el ement #41 to require the reporting of “SIC/NAICS at the facility level.”

One additional revision concerns the reporting of SIC codes as an alternative to NAICS codes. Since the January 3, 2006 proposal, users of SIC codes have transitioned to the new NAICS codes, and EPA finds that retaining the referenc e to “SIC” as a reporting alternative is no longer necessary. Therefore, data element #41 has been revised to require the reporting of “NAICS at15 the facility level” and the definition for “SIC/ NAICS” has been revised to reference only NAICS

codes.

Comment: One commenter (0035) stated that data elements 49, 33 and 34 (emission release point type, X stack coordinate and Y stack coordi nate), and stack parameters are all associated with point source stacks and recommended that th ese fields be grouped closely together. The commenter also thought that all process related da ta such as SIC/NAICS, SCC, heat content, ash content, activity, and temporal data should be grouped together with the process ID code.

Response: EPA has attempted to group like-data elements together to the degree possible in the AERR. However, it is important to remember that how the data elements are grouped in the proposed AERR is unrelated to the groupings for data reporting using the NIF or XML schema. As an example, the NIF has an Emission Release Point table that includes data elements 49, 33 and 34. Temporal data elements for seasona l, weekly and daily emissions are found in the Emission Process table, while the Emission Period table contains data elements for hours per day, days per week and weeks per year. While data elements may not be listed sequentially in the proposed AERR, for purposes of data reporting, the da ta elements have been logically grouped in tables as recommended by the commenter.

9. Revisions to Specific Data Elements

EPA proposed deleting or revising data elements that have been grouped into the following areas:

a. Data Elements from NOx SIP Call

Comments: Several commenters (0026, 0028, 0029 and 0039) agreed with EPA’s proposal to combine the separate lists of required data elem ents for the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR) and the NOx SIP Call into a single new list of required data elements, eliminating several requirements from the NOx SIP Call: area de signation, Federal ID c ode (plant), Federal ID code (point), Federal ID code (process) maximum design rate, work weekday emissions, secondary control efficiency, source of fuel heat content data, source of activity/throughput data,

source of emission factor and source of emis sions data. Three commenters (0039, 0045 and 0048) suggested that the list of data elements be ma intained in the NIF rather than in the rule to allow for changes in required data elements without the need for rulemaking.

One commenter (0032) expressed support for deletin g several of the data elements as proposed: Area designation, Federal ID code (process), Ma ximum design rate, Work weekday emissions, Secondary control efficiency, Source of fuel heat content data, Source of activity/throughput data, Source of emission factor and Source of emissions data. The commenter thought that data elements for Federal ID code (plant), Federal ID code (point) and Federal ID code (stack/number) should be retained since plant identification c odes were necessary for identifying the facilities, especially during air dispersion modeling.

Another commenter (0036) supported retaining the “currently required data elements” but identified only the data elements not related to the NOx SIP Call.

One commenter (0045) thought that data elements related to the NOx SIP Call should be retained but included in guidance rather th an in the AERR. In a separate paragraph, the commenter stated that the data elements should be eliminated as proposed.16 One commenter (0048) thought that the data element for “Maximum design rate” should be retained since it may be required for classifyin g facilities as subject to Clean Air Act Title V requirements and will need to be recorded within the NIF as the basis for facility classification.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenters expressing sup port for the proposed deletion of data

elements related to the NOx SIP Call. The data elements for Federal ID Codes (Plant, Point, Process and Stack Number) were assigned to sources subject to the NOx SIP Call and perform

similar ID functions to the data elements in the proposed AERR for Facility ID code, Unit ID code, Process ID code and Stack ID code. EPA believes the NOx SIP Call ID codes are

redundant and can be deleted without compromising the identity of sources and emissions.

The concern about deleting the NOx SIP Call data element for “Maximum d esign rate” is not well

founded since the AERR retains a data element under point source reporting requirements for “Design capacity” which is defined as “a measure of the size of a point source, based on the maximum continuous throughput or output capacity of the unit...” Therefore, EPA believes that

the data of concern will continue to be collect ed under the data element for “Design capacity” in

the AERR.

b. Data Elements from Earlier Systems – Comments on Usefulness and Sufficiency

One commenter (0009) thought that the all the data elements that had been carried forward from earlier systems – heat content (fuel), ash content (fu el), sulfur content (fuel) for fuels other than coal, activity/throughput, hours per day in operation, days per week in operation, weeks per year in operation, and start time in the day – should be deleted. Three commenters (0036, 0037 and 0042) thought that the data element for start time should be deleted since it did not appear to be useful. Another commenter (0032) supported dele ting the data element for ash content (fuel).

Several commenters (0026, 0029, 0036, 0039 and 00 42) indicated that data elements for heat content (fuel), ash content (fuel), sulfur content (fuel) for fuels other than coal, activity/throughput, hours per day in operation, days per week in operation, weeks per year in operation and start time in the day were used for a va riety of applications and should be retained.

Three commenters (0028, 0032 and 0048) recommended retaining the data elements since they were used for a variety of applications. One of the commenters (0028) cited "heat content (fuel)", "ash content (fuel)", "sulfur content (fuel) for fuels other than coal", "activity/throughput" as

needed to check emission calculations. The co mmenter also thought that "hours per day in operation", "days per week in operation" and "w eeks per year in operation" were needed to calculate average ozone season day emissions and should be retained. Another of the commenters (0032) thought the data elements s hould be retained since they were used for calculating daily ozone precursor emissions, air dispersion modeling, estimating emissions and for developing alternative em ission reduction strategies.

One commenter (0004) recommended retaining the da ta element for activity/throughput since this information could be used as a surrogate for pr ojection of emissions or for development of growth factors.

Response: EPA agrees with the majority of commenters that data for elements for heat content (fuel), ash content (fuel), sulfur content (fuel) fo r fuels other than coal, activity/throughput, hours per day in operation, days per week in operation, weeks per year in operation should be retained since these elements are used for a variety of a pplications. Start time (hour) was specifically identified by three commenters as not being useful and EPA agrees that this data element should17 be deleted since it is either not applicable to the operation of sources or not used since temporal profiles developed to prepare emission invent ories for air quality modeling provide similar

information.

c. Data Elements for Point Source Stacks

EPA invited comment on which, if any, of these data elements for point source stacks should be deleted: stack diameter, exit gas velocity a nd exit gas flow rate. Any one of these can be

calculated from the other two.

Comment: Several commenters (0026, 0029, 0044 and 0045) recommended that we delete one of the point source stack data elements since ha ving data on any two of the elements will allow

the third to be calculated. The commenters did not indicate a preference for which one of the data

elements should be deleted. One of the commenters (0029) suggested that EPA make a distinction between reported and calcu lated data elements in the NEI.

Several other commenters (0004, 0028, 0032 and 0036) thought that exit gas velocity should be

deleted as a data element since their States collected data on stack diameter and exit gas flow rate.

A number of commenters (0039, 0042, 0043, 0046, and 0048) thought that all three data elements should be retained for a variety of reasons. Three of the commenters (0039, 0042 and 0048)

believed that all three data elem ents should be reported to make sure that the data were in agreement and to provide a means for checking data entry errors. Another commenter (0043) indicated that they would continue to meet the needs of their end users who are accustomed to having all three data elements reported and requested that EPA handle any data reporting changes as modifications to its software until States can develop modified reports to extract only the data that EPA requests.

One commenter (0046) thought that allowing States the option of which two stack parameters to report among flow rate, velocity a nd diameter would require having all three available for use and suggested that no changes be made to the reporting format.

Response: The commenters were largely divided into thr ee categories: (1) continue to report all three data elements, (2) delete any one of the three data elements and (3) delete the exit gas velocity data element.

The stack diameter can be calculated by dividing the gas flow rate by the gas velocity, however, no commenters suggested deleting the stack diameter from the list of data elements. EPA believes it is appropriate to report stack diameter data since it can be readily determined and has the least amount of uncertainty of the stack-related data elements.

One commenter (0046), who stated that all three da ta elements would be required to be reported

if States were able to choose two out of the thr ee for reporting to EPA, apparently interpreted the proposal in the broadest sense as allowing Stat es to select data elements on a source-specific basis. EPA was proposing to select data elements for reporting based upon preferences of the States and apply them universally to all point sources.

EPA believes that given the variety of practices among State agencies, flexibility in reporting

should be included in the AERR for stack-relate d data elements. Several States indicated a preference for deleting one of the data elements and others specifically asked that exit gas velocity be deleted. One commenter indicated their State collected stack diameter and exit gas18 velocity data which may be the practice in other States. EPA therefore believes it is appropriate to also offer several options for reporting of st ack-related data elements and will allow States to report all three data elements but also offer the option of reporting either stack diameter and exit gas flow rate or stack diameter and exit gas velocity.

Modified 3-Year Cycle Reporting Requirements

A provision of the CERR (section 51.35) allows States the option of developing their triennial inventories over three years and submitting th em annually in piecemeal fashion as they are completed. EPA proposed to allow States to continue the option of obtaining estimates from point sources and/or prepare one-third of their non point or mobile source emission estimates each year on a rolling basis and but would limit data submissions to a single package on the required

3 rd year submission date.

Comments: One commenter (0032) supported EPA’s pr oposal to submit triennial data as one single submission because his agency historica lly provided data as one submission. One commenter (0042) stated that his agency had always developed a single year’s inventory and submitted it as a single package and would prefer to continue this practice. Another commenter (0048) thought that the proposal was not practi cal due to staff turnover and EPA’s changing requirements. The commenter went on to suggest that a 5 year rolling basis be used to be consistent with the cycle his State uses for smaller sources.

Response: This proposal did not generate much in terest. The few comments received suggest that the existing provision of the CERR which a llows triennial emission inventory development over a three year period is impractical and is not utilized by the States. However, all commenters were supportive of the change to require one subm ission for triennial inventories. EPA agrees with the commenters that the change to require one submission under section 51.35 is appropriate and is modifying this provision as proposed. EPA notes that States may use the provisions of section 51.35 to equalize workloads but are not required to do so.

10. Point Source Reporting Definition

EPA proposed to expand the definition of what sources must be reported in point source format, so that fewer sources would be included in nonpoi nt source emissions. The requirement for point source format reporting would be based on whet her the source is a major source under 40 CFR part 70 for the pollutants for which reporting is required.

Comment: Many commenters (0026, 0029, 0036, 00 39, 0044 and 0045) expressed support for the agency’s proposal to use the definition in 40 CFR Part 70 for determining major source status to establish which sources should be reported as point sources. One of the commenters (0045)

was concerned about the resources needed to report additional point sources under the AERR and thought that data quality and av ailability could be impacted.

Response: Many comments were received in support of the proposal to change the reporting criterion from actual emissions to the 40 CFR part 70 definition for applicability which is based upon “potential to emit.” Since only one co mmenter expressed concerns about resources for reporting additional sources using the point source format but was still supportive of the change, EPA intends to implement this change as proposed.19 Comment: Several commenters (0026, 0029 and 0039) expressed support for the proposal to continue reporting actual emissions unde r the AERR as was required under the CERR.

Response: EPA agrees and will continue to require reporting of actual emissions. In limited situations, States may report model inputs in lie u of reporting source emissions and EPA will use the inputs to estimate actual emissions.

Comment: Three commenters (0004, 0045 and 0048) noted that the proposed definition for major source reporting would not include sources that have a Federally Enforceable State Operating permit (FESOP) in place to maintain th eir nonmajor status. The commenters thought that the definition for major point source reporti ng should be expanded to include sources with

FESOPs.

Response: The commenters did not present arguments for why the point source reporting

definition should be revised to include FESOPs. States with lower reporting thresholds for point sources than those included in the AERR proposal may report emissions from sources subject to those thresholds as point sources. This would include sources with FESOPs.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that the table (untitled) listed under the definition for

Point sources (page 81 of the FR notice) was inconsistent with the proposed reporting requirements using the Title V (and non-Title V) definitions. The commenter believed that the effect of the lower reporting threshold would be small especially if sources now reported as point sources were previously reported as nonpoint sour ces. The commenter noted that the definition

for Type A source seemed inconsistent with the pro posed change from actual emissions to “potential to emit” when determining sources th at meet Title V requirements and thus would report their emissions as point sources. The comment er also thought that the Table 1 to Subpart

A of Part 51 (Emission Thresholds by Pollutant for Trea tment of Point Sources as Type A Under

40 CFR 51.30 ) did not “appear to retain any relevancy.”

Response : EPA agrees with the commenter that there are some inconsistencies in the notice for the proposed rule. The preamble for the propo sal stated that EPA is “proposing to base the requirement for point source format reporting on whether the source is a major source under 40 CFR part 70 for the pollutants for which reporting is required....” This indicated that reporting thresholds for all point sources would be based upon the 40 CFR part definition of “potential to emit” (PTE). However, we further stated that “we are proposing to expand the definition of what sources must be reported in point source format so that fewer sources would be included in nonpoint source emissions.” Later in the preamble, we stated that “this change may require more sources to be reported as point sources every 3 rd year.” Both sentences imply that the change would apply only to Type B sources. Application of the 40 CFR 70 point source definition to all point sources would likely require some existing Ty pe B point sources to be reported each year as Type A sources, which was not identified as a likely change in point source reporting.

EPA used the definition for “Point source” to est ablish that use of the 40 CFR 70 major source definition would begin with the 2008 inventory year. Point source reporting for inventory years prior to 2008 would continue to be based upon use of “actual em issions.” However, the Point source definition referenced the table for reporti ng Type A and B sources and that table indicated that the reporting thresholds in the table were “in tons per year of actual emissions.” While EPA intended that the emissions reported would continue to be actual emissions, PTE was to be used to determine point source reporting requirements , and no consideration of this change was

included in the table.20 The proposed definition for Type A sources requires use of “actual annual emissions” to determine reporting requirements. However, th e use of actual annual emissions to determine Type A sources appears to conflict with the Poin t source definition (appli cable to both Type A and B point sources), which indicated that em ission reporting for the 2008 inventory year and later inventory years will be determined using the 40 CFR 70 definition of major source, which

uses PTE.

Given the confusing preamble langua ge and apparent conflict in th e text of the regulation, EPA will accept use of either approach to determ ine Type A and Type B point source reporting requirements prior to and including the 2009 inventory year. For the inventory years following 2009, EPA will expect States to use the 40 CFR 70 major source definition for all point sources to simplify reporting requirements, as discussed in the proposal preamble. Accordingly, EPA has revised the definition of Type A sources and Ta ble A to make clear that the 40 CFR part 70 definition of major source will be used to determine point source reporting requirements following the 2009 inventory year.

As noted by the commenter, the effect of using the 40 CFR part 70 definition for reporting of Type B sources may be small. In terms of to tal emissions from sources, there should be little effect since emissions previously reported as nonpoint will now be reported as point. The Supporting Statement prepared to estimate the burden associated with the point source reporting change estimated that the number of point sources reported by states would increase from 7,385 to 17,316. This is still well be low the total of 52,277 point sources reported by states under the existing definition of major sources for the 1999 inventory year. The commenter stated that Table 1 to Subpart A of Part 51 (Emission Thresholds by Pollutant for Treatment of Point Sources as Type A Under 40 CFR 51.30 ) did not “appear to retain any relevancy.” It is not entirely clear what is meant by this statement, but the table does repeat some of the information presented earlier in the no tice under the definitions (Section 51.50) and therefore is redundant. Despite that, the info rmation presented in both tables is consistent.

Comment: One commenter (0004) noted that the language in the preamble of the proposed rule states that EPA is “proposing to base the requirement for point source format reporting on whether the source is a major source under 40 CFR part 70 for the pollutants for which reporting is required, i.e. for CO, VOC, NO X , sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), PM2.5, PM10, and ammonia but without regard to emissions of hazardous air pollutants.” The commenter noted that lead

emissions were not identified as a criterion in de termining major source status under 40 CFR part 70, however, a table on Page 81 of the FR notice lists Type B point sources with a 5-ton threshold of lead emissions. The commenter thought that the language in the two cited sections

contradicted each other.

Response: EPA agrees that the preamble language s hould have included a reference to lead emissions since the table on Page 81 of the FR notice includes a point source threshold level for sources emitting lead. This reporting requiremen t remains in the AERR and is unchanged from

the CERR.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that Section 51.122 further “re-defined” the reporting requirements after having just re-defined them according to the Title V definition and recommended that the distinctions being made should be consolidated so they are clear.

Response: Section 51.122 presents reporting schedules for affected NOx sources that are consistent with subpart A requirements. It does not redefine reporting requirements for any

sources. The consolidation effort under the AERR for the NOx SIP Call consisted of moving21 data elements for emissions reporting under Secti on 51.122 to subpart A. Further consolidation of reporting requirements is possible but was not attempted under the AERR.

Comment: One commenter (0028) suggested that the AERR not limit point source reporting to major sources under 40 CFR part 70. The commenter was concerned that his State inventoried sources below the point source reporting threshol ds in the AERR as point sources and that it would be necessary to discard this data before submittal to EPA. Another commenter (0004) noted that States are able to report sources that are below the point source reporting thresholds and thought this flexibility would avoid a burde n on States of only reporting sources subject to the point source reporting thresholds.

Response: Section 51.20 (c) of the proposed AERR addresses the commenter’s concern as follows: “If your State has lower emission reporting thresholds for point sources than paragraph.(b) of this section, then you may use these in reporting your emissions to EPA.” This provision is discussed in the preamble under B. Proposed Emissions Reporting Requirements. As noted by the second commenter, it has always b een possible for States to submit data to EPA in point source format for sources with emissi ons below the point source reporting thresholds. Therefore, no reason exists to discard data for point sources with emissions below the reporting

thresholds in the AERR. These data should be included with other point source records reported

to EPA.

11. Burden Estimates

Comments: One commenter (0016) indicated the proposed changes would consolidate data on form A, harmonize data points and eliminate the inconsistent definitions that currently exist between the two forms (A and R) currently used for reporting. The commenter noted that these changes would reduce the reporting burden, elim inate confusion caused by differing definitions, and improve data accumulation but thought that ha ving triennial emission reports would deprive data users of accurate and timely information.

Response: The commenter appears to have confused emission reporting requirements for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) with the proposed reporting requirements in the AERR. Forms A and R are used for TRI reporting and address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Reporting of HAP emissions was not proposed in the AERR

The commenter was concerned about propo sed triennial reporting under the AERR. Comprehensive emissions reporting on a triennial basis under the proposed AERR is similar to the existing triennial CERR emissions data reportin g requirements. Again, EPA believes that the commenter has confused the triennial reporting requirements under the AERR, which remain largely unchanged from the CERR, with a recent EPA proposal to reduce the TRI reporting

burden.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought the estimate of 13 labor hours of reductions from 104 respondents was speculative. The commenter stated that no studies had been conducted to obtain data on the actual hours required and that rule changes can require modifications to data systems in use by the States and facilities which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement. Associated costs of tracking, trai ning, etc. would also need to be included.

Response: The burden hour estimate developed by EPA for the Information Collection Request (ICR) is an estimate but is based upon informa tion from a small sampling of State agencies to “ground-truth” the numbers. EPA believes that bur den estimate reduction is reasonable since it is22 based upon the elimination of some reporting requi rements and consolidation of reporting dates to create efficiency in reporting. EPA notes th at the burden reduction estimate is an average number and therefore, will vary from State to State.

EPA understands the commenter’s concerns that changes to data reporting rules can require changes to State agency data reporting systems and procedures. The ICR notes that Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs estimated under the supporting ICRs for the CERR and NOx

SIP Call are believed to be sufficient to accommoda te the modest changes in reporting burden under the AERR. Although there are several new data elements and some that have been deleted which will require programming changes, no fundame ntal system requirements have been altered that will require changes to State funding for capita l and operations and maintenance of State data systems. EPA believes the costs of reprogramming to meet the new AERR requirements should be accommodated within existing State budgets for maintenance of data systems.

12. Miscellaneous

Comment: Three commenters (0021, 0045, and 0048) supported consolidating all emission inventory reporting requirements into a central fede ral rule for all emission inventories needed by the U.S. EPA. One of the commenters (0021) al so supported the idea that only emissions data that are needed be required and recommended that th is be reflected in the NEI data entry interface with the elimination of all data fields that are not required.

Response: While the concept of consolidating all emi ssion inventory requirements in one data reporting rule has advantages, EPA does not believe this is advisable due to differing regulatory requirements among air programs. As an exampl e, emission inventories developed to support State Implementation Plans may have specialized nonattainment area data needs which are difficult to determine a priori. Attempting to in clude all possible requirements in a national air emissions reporting rule would lead to ineffici encies as States report data to EPA that are not

needed. EPA believes the AERR will be most c onsistent with the comment recommendation that only emissions data that are needed be required if the rule does not attempt to include all possible data elements that might be required for SIP inventories.

Comment: One commenter (0009) thought that changing the terminology from “area source” to “nonpoint source” reduced confusion when referring to a stationary source that is part of an aggregated source category rather than an indi vidual facility. Several commenters (0026, 0032, 0034, 0036 and 0048) reco mmended that EPA continue to use the term “area source” and not replace it with “nonpoint source” as discussed in the proposal. Their specific concerns are

summarized as follows.

One commenter (0026) thought that EPA’s proposal was confusing and recommended that if a change was to be made, the term “minor point source” be used.

Another commenter (0032) felt that “area source” wa s a better descriptor of the types of smaller, aggregated emission sources than the term “nonpoint source” since mobile sources would also be included in the proposed term. The commenter thought that the “area source” term had a similar meaning in the HAP program since it included sm aller emission sources and should be retained for emission inventory purposes.

One commenter (0034) argued that the rationale offered of avoiding confusion with the “area source” term as used in section 112 of the CAA was not appropriate since the AERR did not address hazardous air pollutants. The commenter noted that the “nonpoint source” term is23 commonly understood in the water programs with a different meaning and suggested that EPA

maintain the historical use of the term “area source” for air emission inventories.

Another commenter (0036) thought that replaci ng the term "area sources" with "nonpoint sources" to distinguish this category from area sources of hazardous air pollutants would create confusion. The commenter thought another cl assification would serve no useful purpose since the term "nonpoint sources" referred to onroad m obile, nonroad mobile and biogenic sources and not point sources that emit below the point source reporting levels.

The final commenter (0048) in this group thought that changing terminology from “area source” to “nonpoint source” was confusing and suggested using the “section 112 area source” to refer to the nonmajor or minor point sources of HAP,

Response: EPA disagrees with the majority of comme nters that using the term “nonpoint source” in place of “area source” will be confusing. A footnote on page 72 of the January 3, 2006, proposal provided the following explanation for the change : We use the term “nonpoint source” to refer to a stationary source that is treated for inventory purposes as part of an aggregated source category rather than as an individ ual facility. In the existing subpart A of part 51, such emissions are referred to as “area sou rces.” However, the term “area source” is used in section 112 of the CAA to indicate a nonmajor source of hazardous air pollutants, which could be a point source. As emissions inventory ac tivities increasingly encompass both NAAQS-related pollutants and hazardous air pollut ants, the differing uses of “area source” can cause confusion. Accordingly, EPA proposes to substitute the term “nonpoint source” for the term “area source” in subpart A and in section 51. 122 to avoid confusion.

EPA does not believe that substituting the term “minor point source” (as suggested by one commenter) will be any less confusing. The term “minor point source” is often used to denote sources that have agreed to limit their emissions through Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits (FESOPs) to avert applicability of the T itle V permit program. Since these sources are of sufficient size to receive operating permits, they are often reported as point sources to EPA. Thus, using the term “minor point source” for an emission inventory category (nonpoint sources) that generally consists of sources too small to report individually would only lead to more

confusion.

Although the CERR and AERR (as proposed) do not include reporting requirements for HAP emissions, many State agencies voluntarily report HAP emissions to EPA which are used for developing the NEI. EPA expects this practice to continue under the final AERR. EPA believes that identifying HAP emissions reported in aggr egate for source categories as “nonpoint sources”

rather than “area sources” will serve to limit c onfusion over applicability of control programs

under section 112 of the CAA.

EPA does not believe that the term “nonpoint so urces” is widely used when referring to the inventory categories designated “onroad mobile ,” “nonroad mobile” and “biogenic sources.” EPA generally uses the terms “onroad mobile”, “nonroad mobile’ and “biogenic sources” as identified in the CERR and AERR proposal when referring to these other emission inventory categories and believes this usage to be the most common among emission inventory preparers.

EPA agrees with one commenter who noted that the “nonpoint source” term is commonly understood in the water programs with a different meaning but disagrees that using it here will lead to confusion with the water program usag e. EPA believes the potential for confusion is24 negligible since the data reporting and regulat ory program requirements for air and water are distinctly separate requirements that are generally conducted by different staff within agencies.

Comment: One commenter (0036) opposed replacing Source Classification Codes (SCCs) with Process Classification Codes (PCC). The commenter not ed that the intention to make this change

was found in the definition of Process Cl assification Codes (PCCs) in the proposal.

Response: At the outset, EPA notes that it does not intend to replace SCCs with PCCs in the AERR rule. The language in the proposed rule referencing PCCs in addition to SCCs was included to provide flexibility in the event EPA decided to develop the new reporting codes. For several years, EPA has considered developing PCCs as a replacement for SCCs. There was no additional discussion of developing PCCs in the proposal since the replacement system had not moved beyond the concept phase. As of the final rule publication date, PCCs remain a concept. EPA wishes to assure the commenter that any decisi on to move ahead with development of PCCs as replacements for SCCs will be well coordinate d with State agencies due to the considerable effort that will be required by all to embrace a new coding system for data reporting. At this time, EPA has no intention of developing a re placement system for SCCs and has removed

references to PCCs from the final rule.

Comment: One commenter (0004) noted that EPA was proposing the rule “in an effort to improve EPA’s ability to compile a national inve ntory of air pollutant emissions” and wondered if this meant that EPA would have the same NEI timetable for HAPs and criteria air pollutants (CAPs). The commenter stated that it was more difficult for States to meet the proposed emission reporting timeline for HAPs than for CAPs and c ited several reasons for needing more time:

1. Minnesota, like many other States, has a ru le to mandate CAP emission reporting but not HAP emission reporting. The HAP emission inventory is established based on the CAP emission inventory and relies on voluntary data reporting from facilities, emission factor calculations, and data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

2. The HAP emission inventory covers hundreds of pollutants while the CAP emission inventory only accounts for fewer than ten pollutants.

3. The HAP emission inventory relies partially on TRI data. However, the due date for facilities to report TRI data is July 1 (6 mont hs after the end of the year). Usually, State

TRI data are available 11-12 months after the end of the year, but 2003 TRI data were not available until 15 months after the end of the year.

The commenter suggested developing two separate NEI time tables for HAPs and CAPs and providing a later due date for the HAP emission inventory.

Response : Although EPA encourages States to submit HAP data according to the requirements of the AERR, this is a voluntary action by Stat es, while CAP data reporting is required under the

rule

. The commenter’s concerns regarding the timel ine for developing HAP data appear based upon the proposed timelines for developing the NE I, which would require States to submit CAP data on an expedited schedule for the 2008 invent ory year and on a shorter schedule starting with the 2011 inventory. EPA believes that the comment er’s concerns regarding the need for separate CAP and HAP reporting timelines will be addressed by maintaining the 17-month timeline from the existing CERR for the 2008 emission inventory and by implementing the 12-month timeline from the final AERR beginning with the 2009 invent ory year. The 12-month reporting timeline under the final AERR that begins with the 2009 inventory will apply to CAP emissions only. Where States choose to submit HAP emission estimates voluntarily to EPA and they require25 additional time for developing a nd submitting those estimates, EPA will attempt to include the data submittals in the NEI development process.

Comment: One commenter (0041) opposed EPA's proposed addition of a new, five-month ozone season reporting requirement for NOx emissions. The commenter stated that Florida had no ozone nonattainment areas and was not subject to the NOx SIP Call, but was subject to the ozone season reporting requirement under the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) because of the State's projected impact on the Atlanta, Georgia, hour ozone nonattainment area. As a result, EPA proposed adding to the 3-year reporting cycle, a requirement to report NOx emissions from

all sources for the five-month ozone season. This requirement is in addition to the summer-day NOx and VOC emissions reporting requirement n eeded for regional-scale ozone modeling. The commenter did not understand the purpose of requi ring the additional ozone season data for States such as Florida which were not required to develop five-month emissions projections for purposes of the NOx SIP Call and considered it unr easonable to burden all point sources (CAIR and non-CAIR) and the State with a third reporting requirement (annual, summer day, and ozone season), when the need for such data under CAIR was not apparent.

Response: On July 11, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit vacated CAIR in its entirety. Accordingly, all refere nces to CAIR and its reporting requirements have been removed from the final AERR.

Comment: One commenter (0042) urged EPA to place more emphasis on emissions quality and

less on the dates for States to submit emissions data. The commenter had concerns over the current quality of the PM 2.5 and ammonia inventories because of the lack of federal emission factors and approved stack test methods. The commenter felt that EPA needed to assess the quality of its existing emission inventories, address deficienci es or inconsistencies between States, and make the information more readily available before it accelerated submission dates.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter’s recommendation that given a choice between improving the quality of emission inventories a nd accelerating submission dates, improving the quality of emission inventories is the correct choi ce. However, EPA does not agree that one must

choose between one or the other. EPA believes that development of the new EIS will allow the quality of the NEI to be improved while the timelin e for completion is shortened. This will be possible through the use of more automated data handling procedures which will not only speed the handling of data but will reduce data errors otherwise introduced through use of less automated procedures. It should be noted that EPA understands the need for caution with the new system until users become familiar with the new procedures and for this reason will not alter the reporting due date until the 2009 inventory y ear. This will provide for completion of two inventory cycles for Type A sources before the fi rst comprehensive 3-year inventory cycle is conducted for the 2011 inventory year.

Regarding the estimation of emissions for PM2.5 and ammonia, a similar comment was received on the proposed CERR. EPA’s response at that time is still applicable: We agree that improvements in many of the emission estimation techniques are highly desirable, particularly in some of the areas identified by the commenters. However, we know that there will always be the opportunity to improve emission estimation techni ques and that this is an evolutionary process. The CERR does not require the use of any specific emission estimation technique. There are emission estimation techniques available for all of the required pollutants and their major sources. Therefore, we believe that State or local agencies should be able to make emission inventory submittals that will be acceptable to EPA using current state-of-the-art-techniques (67 FR 39606, June 10, 2002).26 In the years that have passed since promulgati on of the CERR, state-of-the-art techniques for estimating PM2.5 and ammonia em issions have improved. As with the CERR, the AERR does not specify use of any emission estimation technique. EPA continues to believe that State agencies should be able to estimate PM2.5 and ammonia emissions and thus meet the requirements of the AERR.

Comment: One commenter (0044) observed that section 51.5 of the proposed rule highlighted guidance produced by the Emission Inventory Improvement Program (EIIP) as preferred tools for preparing emission inventories but noted that funding for EIIP has been discontinued and that other tools will emerge as methods of choice. The commenter thought section 51.5 should be revised to reflect the changing nature of emission estimation methodologies and allow use of other tools and methods for estimating emissions.

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter. The langua ge in section 51.5 from the proposal was unchanged from the CERR when EIIP was still an active program. EIIP has not been funded for several years and guidance materials produced by the program have not been updated to reflect

advancements in state-of-the-science emissions est imation techniques. Despite that, many of the documents are still useful for estimating emissions so EPA believes it is appropriate to reference them as a starting point for estimating emissions. As noted by the commenter, other techniques may be available which represent methods of choi ce and EPA agrees that such methods should be used where they represent advancements ove r estimation techniques presented in EIIP documents. Therefore, EPA is revising the langua ge under section 51.5 to al so reference use of state-of-the-art techniques that have emerged subsequent to the guidance materials developed

under EIIP.

Comment: One commenter (0044) noted that the preamble of the CERR included the question, What Happens if EPA Doesn't Get My Agency's Emissions Data? and that EPA’s response was that it would develop preliminary estimates for nonpoint and mobile sources and give States the option of accepting all or part of these inventor ies as their own submission. The commenter observed that the proposed AERR did not include this language and thought that without this commitment, serious resource issues might emerge for States/locals/tribes relying on these estimates for all or part of their data submitta ls. The commenter thought that Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) might be able to fill this gap.

The commenter stated that many agencies receive funding for inventory development and thought it was important for the entire inventory commun ity to collaborate early in the NEI process to ensure efficient use of' the available inventory res ources. Examples of efficient uses of resources cited by the commenter included the proposal fo r EPA to calculate biogenic emissions and the proposal to allow model input reporting in lieu of emission estimates. Another efficient use of resources would be the elimination of low-emissions source categories from the NEI which the commenter thought EPA should consider. Finally, the commenter thought the EPA should take a leadership role in collaboration efforts.

Response: When the CERR was promulgated and requirements for submitting complete

emission inventories were first im plemented, EPA felt the need to offer an alternative for State agencies that were developing and submitting statew ide data for all inventory sectors for the first time. Under the AERR, EPA is deleting the re porting requirement for biogenic emissions and including an option for States to submit inputs for mobile source data in lieu of emission estimates. EPA believes that these changes, comb ined with the experience developed by State27 agencies since the CERR was first implemented, will enable agencies to comply with the requirements of the AERR to develop emission estimates for all emission inventory sectors.

EPA agrees that there are efficiencies to be realized through collaboration and has embraced this approach in developing the new EIS, the datab ase within which the NEI resides. We envision taking the lead on several source categories that would benefit from a national approach which should alleviate some of the resource concerns noted by the commenter. In addition, we will collaborate with State agencies on approaches for developing their NEI data submittals for the 2008 inventory year and thus exert a leadership role as suggested by the commenter.

EPA understands the commenter’s concerns rega rding the treatment of low-emitting sources and source categories. It does make sense to focus limited resources on high-emitting sources and source categories. EPA has included a “de mi nimis percentage of total county and State emissions” under Section 51.20 of the rule which allows States to omit “low-emissions” nonpoint source categories. EPA trusts that States will utilize good judgment in evaluating whether or not nonpoint source categories qualify for this de mini mis exemption and will efficiently utilize their resources to address the most significant sources and source sectors while striving to maintain a balance with inventory completeness.

Comment: One commenter (0046) thought that states would need additional resources to meet the new due dates proposed by EPA for submittal of data and recommended that EPA adopt an iterative approach in developing the NEI to balance data quality and timeliness needs.

Response: EPA believes that the current NEI deve lopment process already incorporates elements of the iterative approach recommended by the commenter. The new EIS will move the NEI even closer to the iterative concept throug h increased transparency which will allow data submitters to observe and react to adjustments that EPA might make to their data as well as track development of the NEI from start through completion.

The timeline for implementation of the AERR will allow states to continue with their existing CERR inventory development efforts through the 2 008 inventory year and thus will not require

additional resources. The 12-month timelin e for submittal of data under the AERR will begin with the 2009 inventory year and EPA believes that States will be able to meet the new timeline with minimal or no additional resourcesMany Stat es are able to now meet the 12-month timeline for point sources, and the option of providing m odel inputs to EPA in lieu of emission estimates will provide additional resource savings for the onroad and nonroad mobile source sectors. EPA

believes the automated routines in the new EIS w ill also provide additional resource savings to States by facilitating the development of emissi on estimates. No additional resources will be required for for 2011 since EPA has decided agai nst implementing the more stringent 6-month timeline that was proposed based upon reviewer comments.

Comment: One commenter (0048) reminded EPA of the CAA requirements under section 130 regarding the development of emission fact ors for carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO X ). The commenter stated that EPA budget cuts have affected EPA’s efforts to develop emission factors and that the quality of emission estimates generated by facilities and States using emission factors has eroded.

Response: EPA is well aware of the requirements under section 130 of the CAA, which explicitly direct the Administrator to periodica lly review and revise emission factors for CO,

VOC and NO X . EPA is attempting to satisfy the require ments of section 130, but must balance these needs with other CAA directives, while workin g within the limits of allocated resources to28 accomplish its mission. Despite the difficulties of satisfying competing priorities, EPA believes

that the emission factors that are now available are sufficient to support development of data submittals and thus allow States to comply with the requirements of the AERR. EPA also notes that use of emission factors is only one method of estimating emissions from among a variety of approaches.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that EPA’s regulations regarding Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be “referen ced, summarized and endorsed for clarity and completeness, including a succinct repetition of statements regarding what emission inventory (point source) data are and are not considered CBI by EPA.”

Response: Section 51.15(d) of the AERR indicates that we do not consider the data included in Tables 2A through 2C of the AERR proposal to in clude confidential data and advises States to consult with their regional offices regarding cons istencies of federal and State requirements for handling confidential data. In general, States ha ve adopted regulations for handling CBI that are consistent with EPA’s requiremen ts that are in 40 CFR 70, part 2, Subpart B – Confidentiality of

Business Information.

EPA does not believe that referencing the requireme nts of part 2, Subpart B is needed in the AERR since States will use their own CBI regulations as guides for identifying data that should

not be included in AERR submittals. In additi on, EPA believes that little benefit would be derived from summarizing EPA CBI requirements within the AERR since misinterpretation of the part 2 requirements could result. Finally , EPA sees no need to endorse its own regulations since their very existence constitutes endorsement by EPA.

Comment: One commenter (0048) suggested that each emission inventory requirement be constantly reviewed by EPA and revised to reflect changes to needs or uses of the data by the federal sector so that only those data actually needed and used are required. The commenter recommended that a requirements list be genera ted which summarized various parts of the legislation and regulations that it addressed and for which requirements are included. This would assist in integration of future reporting requirements.

Response: EPA is conducting a review of emission inve ntory requirements as part of the EIS development process and has included its State partners in the review process through the

formation of a NEI Task Force. Members of the task force are largely from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) although several EPA regional offices also participate. One of the task force’s goals is to ensure that the participants understand the purpose of each data element requested from States.

The second request by the commenter would have EPA identify legislation and regulations that require each specific data element. Although doi ng this is possible, the connections in some cases are not direct and some data elements are needed to satisfy the requirements of a wide array of CAA requirements. In essence this request is being implemented through the NEI Task Force as it reviews the need for and application of each data element. EPA believes that attempting to formally identify all legislation a nd regulations that relate to each data element within the AERR

would be cumbersome and not an efficient use of resources.

Comment: One commenter (0048) believed that many data elements required by States to prepare emission inventories for State Implementation Plans (SIPs) may not actually be used or needed by EPA as a separate report. The comment er thought this process should be reworked to reduce redundancies and unneeded data to simplif y data collection and reduce inefficiencies,29 costs and potential confusion created by having separate sources for the same information with different sources and timing.

Response: The commenter appears to be endorsing a concept that EPA has followed in developing the CERR and AERR. The AERR does not attempt to address all the data requirements for SIP emission inventories alt hough many will be addressed. The second part of

the comment recommends that redundancies and diffe rences in timing in data reporting should be resolved. EPA agrees with this goal. The CE RR initiated this process and the AERR attempts to further consolidate data reporti ng requirements and resolve di fferences in reporting timelines.

Comment: One commenter (0048) suggested that the specific purposes and uses of the data required under the AERR be carefully evaluated against the consequences of accelerating the reporting dates. The commenter thought that existing data could be used to project and extrapolate emissions if the purpose of accelerating the timeline was to develop a national summary-level report. The commenter suggested that each subsequent report developed by EPA could then be updated based on the later submittal of better and more quality assured data by the States. The commenter agreed with the concep t of making environmental information available as soon as possible, but believed it was more important that data be quality assured which takes

time.

The commenter suggested that if the purpose of the data submittals was for modeling and as a modeling data clearinghouse, then the dates for wh ich the States need the data for such modeling

often will allow time for corrections. The comment er noted that data actually modeled for SIP development can often have significant differe nces and improvements after the required “raw”

data were submitted to EPA and thought that effort should be applied where it makes the most difference such as on large point sources (e.g., electric generating units) which dominate the emissions for a given pollutant.

Response: EPA has considered the consequences of shortening the timelines for submittal of data by States as suggested by the commenter a nd adjusted the timelines in response to comments received on the proposal (see preamble Section III.B., Harmonizing Report Due Dates and Section III.C., Accelerating Report Due Dates). The new timelines represent a balance between the need to develop data on a more expedite d schedule and the demand for improving the quality of the emission estimates arising from increasing uses of inventory data.

Data submitted by States to EPA are used for development of the National Emission Inventory (NEI). The NEI has several applications, one of whic h is to support analyses of emission trends in the U.S. EPA already utilizes a process similar to that described by the commenter to develop national-level emission estimates to depict recent year emission trends prior to completion of the NEI. EPA will consider using similar approach es for developing estimates for certain sectors of the NEI where there is reason to believe that emission estimates from earlier year inventories are relatively unchanged.

The NEI is also used to support a variety of air quality modeling applications. As noted by the commenter, the process of preparing emission inventories for modeling independently by EPA and States may result in inventory differences since the application of inventories often results in additional questioning and adjustment of inventory values. The additional transparency that will be incorporated into the new EIS should help addr ess some of these concerns since data suppliers

will now be able to monitor a nd understand changes to the NEI prior to conducting emissions modeling, as the NEI is prepared for use in air quality modeling applications.30 EPA agrees with the commenter’s suggestion that efforts to improve inventories should be focused where they will make the most difference. This is especially true with limited resources and EPA has embraced this concept in developing the NEI.

Comment: One commenter (0048) stated that area source emission factors were developed years ago and in many cases were matched to the St andard Industrial Code (SIC) employment classification system which has been replaced by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS). The commenter believed that methods and t echnology in the various source categories may have changed considerably and that it was important for EPA to update these emission factors for all the area source categories.

Response: EPA periodically updates point and nonpoint source emission factors and will consider the impacts of the NAICS as it conducts this process. In many cases it is possible to directly correlate the older Standard Industrial Codes directly with the new NAICS codes, but in some cases the source groupings are slightly differe nt and care will be needed to ensure that new factors are developed that correlate to groupings under the new codes.

Comment: One commenter (0048) stated that rule effectiveness (RE) under “New Data Elements” was a problem that EPA should solve with new studies and recommendations. The commenter stated that 80% RE had long been EPA’s standard default and the value was apparently obtained from a dated Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that looked at compliance issues specific to bag houses and particulate matter. The commenter did not believe that the study was intended to set an RE number to apply to all industries, all pollutants, and all

control devices and that it was not even clear th at it was intended to develop an RE value to adjust emission inventory data for use of bag houses. The commenter thought that EPA should make it a priority to develop accurate defau lt rule effectiveness values considering current enforcement practices and instrumentation and that RE should be by control device type and by industry process controlled. The commenter al so thought that EPA should develop accurate

default RE and Rule Penetration values based on current experience for area and nonroad sources since States generally do not have the resources to do this.

The commenter believed that RE concepts shoul d be used only to examine and develop new control strategies and that “basic” emission in ventories should represent the best available information on what is actually happening at the f acility. The commenter noted that start-up, shut

down and malfunction emissions were excluded from Title V emission reporting requirements and were a departure from reality.

Response: The rule effectiveness (RE) guidance cited by the commenter was updated by EPA in Appendix B to a document titled Emissions Inventory Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Qua lity Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze Regulations – FINAL , November 2005. This guidance reflect s the consensus of a workgroup that was formed in the Spring of 2004 to review and update the RE guidance. The workgroup included representatives of several EPA regional offices as well as State and local agency staff involved with development of emission inventories.

The revised guidance removes the previous reco mmendation for use of an across the board 80% default value for RE. In its place, this new guida nce provides inventory preparers with a listing of the factors that are most likely to affect RE, a nd ranks these factors in a priority order. Likely responses to evaluation of these factors were th en grouped into RE ranges, such that more positive responses to a number of the factors will lead towards selection of a higher RE value, whereas more negative responses will direct one to select an RE value from a lower range. EPA31 believes the updated guidance addresses concerns id entified by the commenter regarding use of

an 80% default value for RE.

One area of confusion noted by the commenter c oncerns the reporting of emissions from start-up,

shut-down and malfunction conditio ns. EPA recognizes that some permits contain alternative conditions for use during periods of start-up, s hutdown and malfunctions; however, to the extent that these emissions can be quantified and reported, they should be included in data submittals reported under the AERR to reflect “actual” emissions. EPA believes that accounting for emissions from start-up, shutdown and malfunc tions is appropriate for “basic” emission inventories which are used for inventory projections since omitting such emissions will tend to

underestimate actual emissions as the foundation fo r both the baseline and projection estimates. Similarly, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s belief that accounting for RE is not appropriate for “basic” emission inventories since RE is only applied when emission estimates are thought to deviate from what is actually emitted.

Comment: One commenter (0048) noted that Section III.B. of the rule addressed requirements

of the Paperwork Reduction Act and stated that “The informa tion collection requirements in the proposed amendments are mandatory for all States and territories (excluding tribal governments).” The commenter believed that tr ibes were not excluded from federal requirements and should be subject to the requirements of the AERR.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s asserti on to the extent that it argues that the AERR applies to all tribes. EPA’s actions with respect to tribes are governed by the Tribal Authority Rule (Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning and Management, 63 Fed. Reg. 7253 (February 12, 1998), codified at 40 CFR part 49, subpart A). As prescribed by the Tribal Authority Rule, Tribes may elect to seek treatment as State (TAS) status and obtain approval to implement the requirements of rules such as th e AERR through a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), but Tribes are under no obligation to do so. However, those Tribes that have obtained TAS status are subject to the AERR to the extent specifi ed in their TIPs. Accordingly, to the extent a Tribal government has applied for and received TA S status for air quality control purposes and is subject to the AERR under an approved TIP, EPA has cl arified that the use of the term State(s) in the AERR shall include that Tribal government.

Comment: One commenter (0048) stated that “The emission data uses cited are redundant with the purposes of the State in submittal of a SIP. In those cases, the judgment and technical criteria should be to have adequate data to determine if the SIP will lead to attainment and maintenance of the ambient air quality standards. This enco mpasses PSD, NSR and other elements referred to in this section. EPA’s responsibilities include the evaluation of the SIPs, not the States.”

Response: . Section III.B. of the proposal cites the following uses for the data: “The reported emissions data are used by EPA to develop and evaluate State, regional, and national control strategies; to assess and analyze trends in criteri a pollutant emissions; to identify emission and control technology research priorities; and to assess the impact of new or modified sources within a geographic area.”

The commenter appears to be concerned about th e portion of the text which indicates that EPA will use the data to “develop... state... control stra tegies.” Although this c ould be interpreted to be redundant with State responsibilities and acti ons, EPA often needs to develop, through independent means, ways to evaluate the adequ acy of State efforts to attain the NAAQS. In addition, EPA also has a responsibility to function as a safety net where States are unable or32 unwilling to fulfill their responsibilities under the CAA. In those cases, EPA must have the tools it needs to address air quality problems on a State or regional basis. Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s concerns regarding the redundancy of federal and State efforts.

Comment: One commenter (0045) recommended that EPA consider including reporting requirements for emissions of carbon dioxide data for Title V facilities. Another commenter (0048) thought it would be appropriate to include greenhouse gases from point sources as an option for States to report under the AERR.

Response: The FY-08 Omnibus Appropriations Bill included a requirement for “the Agency to use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act to develop and publish a rule requiring mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy.” This was a new development that occurred following the close of the AERR comment period and EPA believes that it is most appropriate to consider all alternatives for reporting greenhouse gas emissions in implementi ng the new directive. The AERR will no doubt help inform development of the mandatory greenhouse gas rule and EPA will explore opportunities to consolidate state emissions reporting requirements which appeared to be the

focus of the commenter’s recommendations.

Comment: One commenter (0048) requested that emissions of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) be reported on the basis of NO 2

.

Response: The definition of nitrogen oxides (NO X ) from the proposal reads as follows: “Nitrogen oxides (NO X ) means nitrogen oxides (NO X ) as defined in 40 CFR 60.2 as all oxides of nitrogen except N 2 O. Nitrogen oxides should be reported on an equivalent molecular weight basis as nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ).”

EPA believes the definition from the proposal a ddresses the concerns of the commenter and will

include this definition in the final rule.

Comment: One commenter (0048) stated that there is no need for reporting PM filterable and condensable emissions because only the total PM is regulated.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter based upon recent experience with attempting to

understand the content of State data submittals under the CERR for primary PM2.5 and primary PM10. Primary PM includes filterable and conden sable PM fractions. In some cases, it has not been clear if the primary PM reported included the condensable fraction and comparisons with earlier State data submittals have been conducted by EPA as a means of identifying the reported fractions. To address this uncertainty, the AERR was amended to include reporting of the component parts of PM which States need to develop primary (or total) PM. Reporting the fractions individually in addition to primary PM will ensure that EPA is able to identify where States have submitted filterable emissions only and efforts are necessary by EPA to augment

State data submittals to account fo r the condensable PM fraction. 

### This position is also supported by the recent PM2.5 final rule, in which EPA stated that “for purposes of

emission inventories... 

### , States should continue to describe the impacts of baseline emissions and develop future air quality strategies using information available on primary PM2.5 emissions, including condensable PM2.5. ” 

### Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. 20586, 20650 ( 

### April 25, 2007 ) (emphasis added).33 Comment: One commenter (0048) recommended that emissions of ammonia (NH 3 ) be reported

on the basis of NH 3 equivalence.

Response: There are several methods used for measu ring ammonia emissions from stationary and mobile sources, one of which uses NH 3 equivalence. EPA’s C onditional Test Method (CTM) 027 ( Procedure for Collection and Analysi s of Ammonia in Stationary Sources ) is a manual method for measuring concentrations of ammonia in parts per million (ppm). CTM 027 converts the ammonia to ammonia ion (NH4) for analysis by ion chromatography, and the ammonia ion

concentration results are then converted to an ammonia equivalent in parts per million.

The commenter's recommendation to report on th e "basis of NH3 equivalence" could be interpreted to imply that compounds other than ammonia be included in the reported mass. If so, EPA disagrees with this recommendation, since NH 3 is the pollutant identified in the AERR for reporting. In addition, to the extent that th e comment could be interpreted to mean that NH 3 equivalence should be the only method available for measuring and reporting ammonia emission, EPA does not agree, given the several methods presently available.

Comment: One commenter (0048) requested that the requirements under section 51.15 (a) (7) be modified to define hazardous air pollutants “as listed in the Clean Air Act Section 112,” and to encourage submittal of these data at least on an ever y third (or fifth) year basis. The justification for including these compounds in the inventory would be to provide speciation information for use in photochemical modeling and to quality assure emissions.

Response: As discussed earlier in this section, EPA does not intend to revise the AERR to include reporting of hazardous air pollutants liste d under Title III of the CAA. The existing regulatory text allows States to report emissions of hazardous air pollutants on a voluntary basis. Given the voluntary nature of HAP pollutant reporting, EPA sees no need to qualify the HAPs for reporting under the AERR by adding language to re ference Title III of the CAA. However, EPA has developed pollutant reporting codes only for CAA Title III pollutants so the effect of this will be for EPA’s data handling systems to recognize onl y CAA HAPs and thus is consistent with the commenter’s request.

Comment: One commenter (0048) recommended that the regulatory text under section 51.20 (c) be revised to read as follows: “If your State h as lower emission thresholds for point sources than paragraph (b) of this section, then you may use these in reporting your emissions to EPA as minor point sources to be reconciled with area source emissions as a whole to avoid gaps.” The commenter also recommended that the regulatory text under 51.20 (d) be revised to read: “All stationary sources that are not subject to reporting as point sources must be reported as area sources and avoid double counting.”

Response: EPA does not believe that the suggested re visions to the regulatory text are necessary. The additional text suggested by the commenter re lated to gaps and double counting are terms of art used by emission inventory preparers but are not well defined. As discussed in an earlier response in this section, EPA does not agree that using the terms “minor point sources” and “area sources” will add clarity to the reporting requirements.

During review of this comment, EPA became awar e of the restrictive nature of the language under section 51.20 (d) which required sources that were not subject to the point source reporting requirements to be reported as nonpoint sources. Although section 51.20 (c) allows states to use the point source reporting format for other sources that are subject to lower state point source reporting thresholds, the effect of 51.20 (d) is to restrict use of the point source reporting format34 to sources subject to state or EPA point source reporting requirements. The revised regulatory language under section 51.20 (d) in the final rule allows states to also report sources using the point source reporting format that are below the EPA or state point source reporting thresholds.

Comment: One commenter (0048) recommended that the regulatory text under section 51.30 be revised to read as follows: “All States are required to report two basic types of emission inventories to EPA: Every-year Cycle Inventory for Title V facilities ; and Three-year Cycle Inventory for area and minor point sources ” (suggested text additions are italicized).

Response: EPA believes the existing regulatory text for every-year cycle inventory reporting is sufficiently clear. Adding “for Title V facilities” includes a qualifier that could exclude sources that, for whatever reasons, have emissions that would subject them to the point source reporting requirements but do not have an operating pe rmit issued under the Title V program. The additional qualifier also would add a new class of sources that are regulated under section 112 of the CAA, which EPA did not intend to include in reporting under the AERR. The suggested text revision for the Three-year Cycle Inventory is incorrect since it would omit point source data elements required by Table 2A of the AERR.

EPA believes the annual and trie nnial reporting requirements presented in section 51.50 “What definitions apply to this subpart?” and the table that is included in the Point Source definition in this section provide an adequate description of what sources are to be reported as part of the annual and triennial reporting cycles.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that the te rms and definitions under section 51.50 were misplaced. The commenter stated that ifthe purpose of the regulation was to be “allinclusive, it is inadequate. If the purpose is to prescribe to the States the general concepts and requirements to meet policy needs, it is much overdone, with much of these definitions and specific details belonging in the NIF technical requirements....”

Response: The suggestion to include all technical de tails in the NIF data formatting guidance has been addressed in a response to earlier, similar comments in this section. The purpose of section 51.50 was to provide definitions for terms u sed in the rule to ensure that EPA and readers have a common understanding of many terms that inventory developers commonly use but in some cases have imprecise meanings. EPA believes that section 51.50 serves its intended purpose by providing an explanation of terms used in the rule that could otherwise be open to multiple interpretations.

Comment: One commenter (0048) noted that Primary and Total PM are used for the same meaning at different places in the AERR proposal.

Response: The commenter is correct. Under section 51.15, What data does my State need to report to EPA?

, the terms “Primary PM2.5” and “Primary PM10 are used to indicate the pollutants for reporting while the term “total” is used to indicate the sum of the filterable and condensable fractions (Primary PM). EPA h as revised the definitions for Primary PM2.5 and Primary PM10 under section 51.50 and removed references to total PM.

Comment: One commenter (0048) thought that Rule Effectiveness and Rule Penetration belonged in “modeled inventories” rather than in base case data sets of emission inventory reports. The commenter believed that application of either of these concepts required the use of judgments and assumptions that escape the definiti on of “data” and were no longer appropriate parts of the emission inventory. The commenter suggested that if EPA needed adjustments to data, they were more appropriately reflected in the SIP approval process.35 Response: Rule Effectiveness (RE), which includes Rule Penetration when applying the concept to the effectiveness of rules for area sources, was first developed in 1980 and has been used in emission inventory development since that time. RE studies conducted during the early 1980’s demonstrated that sources rarely achieved full compliance with rules on a continuous basis and that some adjustment of emissions was appropriate to better reflect “actual” air emissions to the atmosphere. Since RE is associated with developing estimates of “ actual” emissions, EPA

believes it needs to be considered in all emissi on inventories that attempt to reflect “actual” emissions. Judgments and assumptions are app lied in many aspects of emission inventory development due to the scale of inventories and application of state-of-the-art techniques to estimate emissions for many pollutants from a wide variety of stationary and mobile sources. EPA’s policy on RE encourages States to apply their knowledge of source operations to develop

their best estimates of actual emissions and thus is consistent with the AERR requirements for reporting actual emissions. If States are able to demonstrate that sources are in full compliance with rules during the time period represented by the emission inventory, then no RE adjustment

of the emissions is needed.