` 

# Summary of Public Comments and **Responses for Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule:**  **2013 Rev isions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule**  **and Confidentiality Determinations for New or**  **Substantially Rev ised Data Elements** ` **November 2013** 



## Response to Public Comments on the 2013 Rev **isions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and**  **Confidentiality Determinations for Ne w**  **or Substantially Rev**  **ised Data Elements**

**U. S. Environmental Protection A genc**  **y Office of A** 

**tmospher ic**  **Programs Climate**  **Change Division Washington, D.C.** v 

### FOREWORD This document provides EPA’s responses to public comments on the 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements. T he EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register on April 2, 2013 (78 FR 19802). The proposed amendments are designed to clarify the data reporting requirements for certain facilities; correct ambiguities or minor inconsistencies i n greenhouse gas monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements; amend monitoring and quality assurance methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities; and make other corrections identified as a result of working with the affected sources durin g rule implementation and outreach. In conjunction with this action, we proposed confidentiality

determinations for the new and substantially revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data elements. The notice also included prop osed amendments to Table A - 1 of subpart A to Part 98 to revise the values for the global warming potential (GWP) of some greenhouse gases (GHGs) and adding some GHGs (with associated GWP values) that are not currentl y included in the table. The proposed GW P values were from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and EPA assessments of data supporting GWP estimates for certain GHGs identified since Reporting Rule promulgation. During the 45 - day

public comment pe riod, EPA received over 2,400 comment letters in response to the April 2, 2013 proposal. The majority of these comments were received from a mass comment campaign. EPA also received nearl y 80 unique letters from industry representatives and associations, e nvironmental organizations, and municipalities. This document provides EPA’s responses to the significant public comments regarding these proposals. EPA received two comments and sets of materials from industry representatives following the close of the co mment period. Although the EPA is not required to respond to these comments, to the extent practicable the EPA has responded to the late comments and our responses to such comments are also presented in this document. The verbatim text of each comment extr acted from the original comment letters is included in this document, arranged b y subject. For each comment, the name and affiliation of the commenter, the document control number (DCN) assigned to the comment letter, and the number of the comment excerpt are provided. W here possible, EPA separated comments on specific topics into their respective data categories. However, in some cases, commenters made broad statements about the proposed amendments to Part 98 or general comments on the approach that could not be easily separated by

topic or data category

without potentially

affecting the intended meaning of the commenter’s statements. In such cases, we either repeated the comment excerpt in its entirety in each of the relevant sections of this document or r eferred the reader to the response to another similar comment. EPA’s responses to comments are generall y provided immediately f ollowing each comment excerpt. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar comments in the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this document, EPA has referenced the preamble to the final rule. In some cases, a commenter incorporated b y reference the comments of an other company or organization. Rather than r epeat these comment excerpts for each commenter, EPA has listed the comment excerpt only once under the name of the person, compan y or organization who submitted the comment andvi

included a list of commenters who indicated their support for that comment in a footnote. Copies of all comment letters submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room or electronically

through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934.vii

The primary

contact regarding questions or comments on this document is: Carole Cook (202) 343 - 9263 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Mail Code 6207 - J 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 For technical information, contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at: http://www.epa.gov/climatech ange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.html .1 **TA BLE OF CONTENTS**  **Section Page**  

### FOREWORD **................................ ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **v TA**  **BLE OF CONTENTS ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.. 1**  **1.0 Comments**  **on EPA's Legal Authority and Administrative Procedures .........**  **10 1.1**  **Comments on EPA administrative procedures ................................**  **............................. 10**  **1.2 Comments on legal authority for the revisions**  **................................ .............................**  **15** 

### 2.0 **Amendments to Table A -**  **1 ................................**  **................................ ...................**  **20 2.1**  **Comments on the revision of the GHGRP to complement the U.S. Inv entory and**  **relationship to the UNFCCC ................................**  **................................ ...........................**  **20 2.2**  **Comments on use of the IPCC AR4 to update Table A -**  **1 and proposed revised GWPs**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **25 2.3**  **Comments on inclusion of new GWPs from the scientific literature ..........................**  **39 2.4**  **EPA’s analysis of the additional F -**  **GHGs and GWPs from the scientific literature (including additional data or analysis submitted to support GWPS during the public**  **comment period) ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.............. 43**  **2.5 Relationship to other EPA Programs (e.g., Tailoring Rule and PSD programs) or**  **state programs ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.................. 45**  **2.6 Comments on applicability and new reporters**  **................................ .............................**  **69 2.7**  **Comments on EPA’s proposal to recalculate emissions from 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting years**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ .................**  **75 2.8**  **Othe r comments on proposed revisions to Table A**  **- 1**  **................................ .................**  **111** 

### 3.0 **Other Revisions to the General Provisions ................................**  **...................... 121**  **3.1 Revisions to General Provisions reporting requirements (e.g., ORIS code,**  **latitude/longitude) ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.......... 121**  **3.2 Clarification to extension for submittal of revised reports**  **................................ ........**  **128 3.3**  **Revisions to General Provisions definitions ................................**  **................................ 130**  **3.4 Comments on Rule issues not proposed**  **................................ ................................**  **....... 132**  

### 4.0 **Revisions to Subpart C ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **133 4.1**  **Revision to expand use of Tier 1 in Subpart C ................................**  **............................ 133**  **4.2 Revisions to Table C**  **- 1**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ...**  **134 4.3**  **Revisions to Table C -**  **2 ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **... 142**  **4.4 Revision to MSW default biogenic fraction**  **................................ ................................**  **. 150**  **4.5 Other comments on proposed Subpart C Technical Corrections**  **............................. 156** 2



### 5.0 **Revisions to Subpart E ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **156 6.0**  **Revisions to Subpart H ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **156 6.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements ................................**  **................................ ............**  **156** 

### 7.0 **Revisions to Subpart K ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **157 8.0**  **Revisions to Subpart L ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **157 8.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements for RY2013 ................................**  **....................... 157**  

### 9.0 **Revisions to Subpart N ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **158 10.0**  **Revisions to Subpart O ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **158 11.0**  **Revisions to Subpart P ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **158 11.1**  **Revisions to term definitions in Equations P -**  **1, P -**  **2, and P -**  **3 ................................**  **.... 158**  **11.2 Revisions to fuel and feedstock analysis requirements**  **................................ ...............**  **159 11.3**  **Revisions to reporting requirements ................................**  **................................ ............**  **160 11.4**  **Other comments on proposed subpart P Technical Corrections**  **.............................. 160**  

### 12.0 **Revisions to Subpart S ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **161 13.0**  **Revisions to Subpart Q ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **161 13.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **161** 

### 14.0 **Revisions to Subpart V ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **162 15.0**  **Revisions to Subpart X ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **162 15.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **162 15.2**  **Revisions to monitoring requirements ................................**  **................................ .........**  **164 15.3**  **Revisions to missing data requirements ................................**  **................................ .......**  **165 15.4**  **Other comments on proposed subpart X Technical Corrections ..............................**  **165 15.5**  **Comments on Rule issues not proposed ................................**  **................................ .......**  **166** 

### 16.0 **Revisions to Subpart Y ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **166 16.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **166 16.2**  **Other comments on proposed subpart Y Technical Corrections ..............................**  **168** 

### 17.0 **Revisions to Subpart Z ................................**  **................................ .......................**  **169 17.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements ................................**  **................................ ............**  **169** 

### 18.0 **Revisions to Subpart AA ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **170 18.1**  **Revisions to Table AA -**  **1 or AA -**  **2 ................................**  **................................ .................**  **170**3

**18.2 Revisions to reporting requirements, annual pulp and/or paper production**  **.......... 171**  **18.3 Comments on Rule issues not proposed**  **................................ ................................**  **....... 173**  

### 19.0 **Revisions to Subpart BB ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **174 20.0**  **Revisions to Subpart DD ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **174 20.1**  **Revisions to accuracy and precision requirements for weighing cylinders ..............**  **174** 

### 21.0 **Revisions to Subpart FF ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **174 22.0**  **Revisions to Subpart HH ................................**  **................................ ...................**  **174 22.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods in Equation HH -**  **1 ................................**  **.................. 174**  **22.2 Revisions to monitoring requirements**  **................................ ................................**  **......... 176**  **22.3 Revisions to oxidation fraction in Equations HH**  **- 5 through HH**  **- 8**  **........................... 179**  **22.4 Revisions to other calculations methods**  **in Equations HH -**  **6 through HH -**  **8 ............**  **192 22.5**  **Other comments on proposed subpart HH Technical Corrections ...........................**  **194 22.6**  **Comments on Rule issues not proposed ................................**  **................................ .......**  **195** 

### 23.0 **Revisions to Subpart II ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **210 24.0**  **Revisions to Subpart LL ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **210 25.0**  **Revisions to Subpart MM ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **210 25.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **210 25.2**  **Revisions to equipment calibration requirements ................................**  **...................... 211**  **25.3 Revisions to reporting requirements**  **................................ ................................**  **............ 211**  **25.4 Definitions: NGL and bulk NGL**  **................................ ................................**  **.................. 214**  **25.5 Revisions to Table MM**  **- 1**  **................................ ................................**  **.............................. 215**  **25.6 Other comments on proposed subpart MM Technical Corrections**  **......................... 216**  **25.7 Comments on Rule issues not proposed related to reporting and recordkeeping**  **requirements ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **................... 217**  

### 26.0 **Revisions to Subpart NN ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **218 26.1**  **Revisions to definition of LDC ................................**  **................................ ......................**  **218 26.2**  **Revisions to Equations NN -**  **5 and NN -**  **6 ................................**  **................................ .......**  **219 26.3**  **Revisions to reporting requirements for large customer meters ...............................**  **219 26.4**  **Revisions to reporting requirements ................................**  **................................ ............**  **221 26.5**  **Revisions to Table NN -**  **1 or NN -**  **2 ................................**  **................................ .................**  **222 26.6**  **Other comments on proposed subpart NN Technical Corrections ...........................**  **223**4



### 27.0 **Revisions to Subpart PP ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **223 28.0**  **Revisions to Subpart QQ ................................**  **................................ ...................**  **223 28.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements (i.e., dates of import/export) ...........................**  **223 28.2**  **Comments on Rule issues not proposed ................................**  **................................ .......**  **226** 

### 29.0 **Revisions to Subpart RR ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **227 30.0**  **Revisions to Subpart SS ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **227 31.0**  **Revisions to Subpart TT ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **227 31.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **227 31.2**  **Revisions to Table TT -**  **1 ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **. 230**  **31.3 Revisions to reporting requirements**  **................................ ................................**  **............ 234**  

### 32.0 **Revisions to Subpart UU ................................**  **................................ ....................**  **234 33.0**  **Revisions to Other Subparts ................................**  **................................ ..............**  **235 33.1**  **Comments on Rule issues not proposed for subpart G ................................**  **.............. 235**  

### 34.0 **Schedule for Implementation ................................**  **................................ ............**  **237 34.1**  **Proposed schedule for existing reporters ................................**  **................................ ....**  **237 34.2**  **Proposed schedule and BAMM for new reporters ................................**  **..................... 242**  

### 35.0 **Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments For New or Substantially Revised Data Elements**  **................................ ...............................**  **247 35.1**  **Approach to CBI determinations and data category assignments for new or revised data elements**  **................................ ................................**  **................................ ..................**  **247** 

### 36.0 **Impact of the Proposed Rule ................................**  **................................ .............**  **247 36.1**  **Comments regarding impacts/burden of new or revised GWPs in Table A -**  **1 .........**  **247 36.2**  **Comments regarding impacts/burden of the technical corrections ..........................**  **255** 

### 37.0 **General Comments on the Proposed Amendments ................................**  **........ 257**  **37.1 General support for the amendments**  **................................ ................................**  **.......... 257**  

### 38.0 **Out of Scope Comments ................................**  **................................ .....................**  **259 38.1**  **General comments on e -**  **GGRT or reporting questions ................................**  **............. 259**  **38.2 General comments outside of the scope of the amendments**  **................................ ......**  **260 List of Commenters** 5 **DCN Commenter Name**  **Commenter Affiliation** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0031 Anonymous Public Comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0032 - A1 Kim A. Wolfe, Environmental Compliance Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0034 - A1 Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate Earthworks EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy, President California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0037 Anonymous public comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0039 - A1 Darden Hood, President Beta Analytic Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0039 - A2 Darden Hood, President Beta Analytic Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0040 - A1 Kara M. Montalvo, Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 Kerry Kelly, Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs Waste Management (WM) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0042 - A1 Mike Roddy, Director of Environmental Affairs Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0045 - A1 Jo hn L. Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA ) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1 Marla Benyshek, Director, Fuels Regulatory Issues Phillips 66 Research Center EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Am erican Petroleum Institute (API) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0048 - A2 Donna M. Christensen, House of Representatives6 **DCN Commenter Name**  **Commenter Affiliation** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0050 - A1 Peter Anderson, Executive Director Center for a Competitive Waste Industry EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0051 - A2 Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs Southern Company

EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0054 - A2 Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship GE Appliances EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0055 - A2 Robert E. Cleaves, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Biomass Power Association (BPA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1 Fr ank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Services Department Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, Republic Services, Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy, American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, Am erican Wood Council (AWC)

EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Am erican Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (A FPM) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0061 - A1 Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs Portland Cement Association (PCA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0062 Frederick Sciance General Motors LLC EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1 Patrice Tompkins - Everidge Texas Instruments7 **DCN Commenter Name**  **Commenter Affiliation** Incorporated EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0064 - A1 Jo seph Otis Minott, Executive Director Clean Air Council EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0065 - A1 C. Lish Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safety, and Env ironment QEP Field Services Company EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 Jo hn Skinner, Executive Director and CEO Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0068 - A1 Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs Gas Processors Association (GPA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 Lorraine Krupa Gershman, Director Am erican Chemistry Council (ACC) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 Darin Schroeder Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A2 Darin Schroeder Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0072 - A1 Matt Hall Consumers Energy Company EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO Dominion Resources Services, Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 Eldon Lindt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services Xcel Energy, Inc. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0076 - A2 Jennifer Cleary, Director, Regulatory Affairs Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 Angela D. Marconi, Cherry Island Landfill Gas Manager Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 David Isaacs, Vice President, Government Affairs Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA)8 **DCN Commenter Name**  **Commenter Affiliation** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 Jo hn M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services Am erican Electric Power (AEP) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 Pamela Lacey, Senior Managing Counsel, Environment Am erican Gas Association (AGA) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0081 - A1 Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate Earthworks EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0081 - A2 Aaron Mintzes , Policy Advocate Policy Advocate Earthworks EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability Covanta Energy Corporation EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0083 - A2 Frank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Service Department County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0084 - A2 Ted Michaels, President, Energy Recovery Council (ERC) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0085 - A2 J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safety and Health Director Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2 Gary Glasser, Vice President, Field Services, Methane Gas Group, Tetra Tech BAS (TTBAS) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0087 - A2 David Marshall, David McCabe & Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Sierra Club EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0087 - A3 David Marshall, David McCabe & Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Sierra Club EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0089 - A1 Mass Comment Campaign sponsoring organization unknown EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2 Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer Intel Corporation EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0091 - A1 L. Y. Young Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0092 - A1 G. Hogan Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0093 - A1 N. Rapp Mass comment campaign9 **DCN Commenter Name**  **Commenter Affiliation** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0094 - A1 D. Lassaw Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0095 - A1 L. Usechak Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0096 - A1 V. Jones Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0097 - A1 C. Gross Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0098 - A1 C. Dykstra Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0099 - A1 V. Anderson Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0100 - A2 Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0101 - A1 J. Lisak Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0102 - A1 M. Ballin Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0103 - A1 K. Rowlett Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0104 - A1 G. Seger Mass comment campaign EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0105 - A2 Jo nathan Lewis, Senior Council - Climate policy Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Clean Air Council EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 Peter Anderson, Executive Director Center for a Competitive Waste Industry EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0108 - A1 D. McKee EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0109 - A1 J. Redpath EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0110 - A1 K. Sorvig EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0111 - A1 B. Clark EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0112 - A1 T. Motes EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist 3M Company EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 Sean P. Flynn, Environmental Manager; Gregory Wilkins, Environmental, Auditing, and Processes Manager Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Petro leum Company LP10



### 1.0 **Comments on EPA's Legal Authority and Administrative Procedures 1.1**  **Comments on EPA administrative procedures Commenter Name:**  Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate **Commenter Affiliation:** Earthworks **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0034 - A1 **Comment:** I am writing to respectfull y request that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) grant a 60 - day

extension of time to submit public comments on the proposed revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (“Draft R ule”), Docket No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934. The Draft Rule would amend almost all subsections of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, a rule that creates a mandatory reporting program for the major emitters of greenhouse gases in the United States. This program is essential to forming an appropriate response to climate change

– it would be impossible for the EPA to effectivel y regulate the threats posed b y climate change without accurate and comprehensive data on national greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Dr aft Rule and its supporting documents contain thousands of pages of extremely technical anal ys is and calculations that cannot be meaningfully reviewed b y the public before the May 17, 2013 comment deadline. **Response: 1**  EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We cannot agree to extend the formal comment period past the May 17, 2013 deadline. As described in the proposal preamble, EPA intends to publish a final rule in time for its provisions to take effect b y J anuary 1, 2014 and extending the comment deadline would impact the Agency 's ability to meet that schedule. The Agency

balances any

request for an extension of the comment period with our need to thoroughl y review, integrate, and respond to submitted comments and to publish a final rule in time to give regulated entities sufficient notice before an y changes come into effect. In recognition that the proposed rule and the anal ys es contained in the docket may take considerable time to review, EPA provided a longer comment period than the stand ard 30 day s after publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and posted the proposed rule on its website when it was signed by the EPA administrator on March 8, 2013, nearl y three weeks before the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Registe r . This is comparable to the 60 - day comment period that EPA provided for review of the proposed Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (FR 74 16448, April 10, 2009), for which EPA did not provide an extension.

**Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safe ty , and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2

1 The EPA provided an initial response to the commenter on May 7, 2013. See USEPA Letter from Anhar Kirimj ee to Aaron Mintzes, Earthworks, Docket ID. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934.11

**Comment:** EPA did not provide adequate notice of the Proposed Rule’s substantive impacts or an adequate opportunity

to comment on those impacts. Section 307(d) of the Clean Air Act governs this rulemaking because the Administrator determined that statute would apply pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 7607(d)(1)(V). 78 Fed. Reg. at 19803. Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(3) requires the Administrator to publish notice of the proposed rulemaking as provided under Section 553(b) of Title 5, United States Code (the Administrative Procedure Act or “APA”). Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(5)requires the Administrator to “allow any pe rson to submit written comments” on the Proposed Rule. 42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(5). The APA contains a similar requirement for the agency to give interested persons an opportunit y to participate through written comments. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c). To satisfy the requir ements of Clean Air Act Section 307(d) and APA Section 553b, the opportunity to comment must be meaningful. Safe Air for Every one v. EPA, 488 F.3d 1088, 1098 (9th Cir. 2007); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Department of Energy , 728 F.2d 1477, 1490 (Em. Ct. App. 1983), cert denied 467 U.S. 1255 (1984). The notice provided to the public must be sufficient to afford a reasonable opportunity to partici pate in the rulemaking process. Forester v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 559 F.2d 774, 787 - 88 (D.C. Cir. 1977). The courts have explained that a notice of rulemaking must focus on the significant implications of the proposal so as to enable criticism o r formulation of alternatives. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1, 48 - 49 (D.C. Cir. 1976); United Church Bd. for World Minis tries v. SEC, 617 F. Supp. 837 (D. Colo. 1985). The notice of proposed rulemaking did not provide adequate notice or opportunity to comment because it obscured the substantive impact of the rule. The proposal is incorrectl y described as a “Technical Corre ction” to the Reporting Rule, see 78 Fed. Reg. at 19806 - 07, when in fact the Proposed Rule makes a substantive change to certain major source thresholds and subjects additional facilities to permitting requirements. This mistaken description of the Propose d Rule as a mere technical correction made it more difficult for sources to recognize its true impact. Because EPA downplay ed and obscured the substantive impact of the proposed rule, QEPFS and others in the industry

did not become aware of its significanc e until quite late in the public comment period. This substantially delay ed industry ’s response and hindered our ability to provide meaningful comments. The mischaracterization of the Proposed Rule likely restricted the participation of other stakeholders and members of the public. For example, given their limited resources, state regulatory

agencies have little reason to pay attention to or comment on technical corrections to the Reporting Rule. Sources report GHG emissions directly through the EPA’s Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool without state involvement. However, these state agencies must implement the revised Table A - 1 and the Tailoring Rule. The rule should have highlighted these issues in order provide the state agencies notice of the Propos ed Rule’s substantive impacts and give them an opportunity to comment. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The notice of the proposed rulemaking was titled "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality D eterminations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements". The summary published in the Federal Register (79 FR 19802, April 2, 2013) stated:12

"The EPA is proposing to amend the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and to clarify or change specific provisions. Particularly , the EPA is proposing to amend a table in the General Provisions to reflect revised global warming potentials of some greenhouse gases that have been published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to add global warming potenti als for certain fluorinated greenhouse gases not currently listed in the table." Furthermore, at 79 FR 19806, the proposal preamble identifies the changes as technical corrections "and other amendments . " Therefore, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the summary and description provided in the proposal preamble obscured the substantive impact of the rulemaking. Additionally , in recognition that the proposed rule and the anal ys es contained in the docket may take considerable time to review, EPA pr ovided a longer comment period than the standard 30 day s after publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and posted the proposed rule on its website when it was signed b y the EPA administrator on March 8, 2013, more than three weeks before the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register (on April 2, 2013) . EPA also published a factsheet on its website describing the proposed changes to Table A - 1. Therefore, interested stakeholders have received adequate notice and opportunity to provide th eir comments to EPA. In regards to the ability

to comment on the proposed rule's effect on the tailoring rule, see the response to DCN No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 , Excerpt 5.

**Commenter Name:**  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:**  Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 18 **Comment:** GPA is concerned that EPA has not provided stakeholders with adequate time to carefully study the proposal and prepare more meaningful comments. The proposed rule is presented as a minor technical amendment to a routine Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 114 data request. However, Table A - 1 to Subpart A of Part 98 is specificall y cited in the new source review (NSR) and Title V regulations as the source of factors to be used to determine whether a facility is subject to regulation under those rules. GPA members operate thousands of centralized gathering and processing facilities and the proposal to change the methane global war ming potential (GWP) factor in Table A - 1 from 21 to 25, a 19% increase, has the potential to change the regulatory

status of many

facilities that are borderline with respect to Title V and/or NSR major source applicability. Additionall y, GPA members have d evoted significant resources to developing and implementing data collection, management, and reporting tools using the current published Part 98 emission factors to compl y with the GHGRR. Because EPA did not evaluate the impact this change will have on cur rent GHGRR programs, and more importantly , the regulatory

status of facilities across the country and across industries, EPA should have allowed stakeholders additional time to evaluate the impact of these rules on their current GHGRR programs and the regu latory status of their facilities.13

**Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 , Excerpt 2.

**Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Nu mber:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** In addition to the statutory mandate to conduct rulemaking through notice and comment, EPA stated in the Tailoring Rule preamble that “because an y changes to Table A

– 1 of the mandatory GHG reporting rule regulatory text must go through a rulemaking, [incorporation of Table A - 1] will assure that the values used for the permitting programs will reflect the latest values adopted for usage by EPA after notice and comment.” In order to fulfill that promise, EPA must now give notice of and solicit comment on the Proposed Rule’s effect on the Tailoring Rule. In this case, EPA has solicited comment only on the mechanics of the GHG reporting process, and has said it will let the chips fall where they may with respect to major source thresholds and permitting. This does not provide a sufficient opportunity for the public to comment on the most significant issue raised b y the Proposed Rule. QEPFS respectfully

requests that the Administrator pub lish a notice soliciting public comment on the impacts that the proposed rule would have on the Tailoring Rule, the Indian Country minor source rule, the permitting thresholds applicable to each rule, and related implementation issues. We request that EPA establish a new period of at least 60 day s for the public to comment on these issues. Failing that, QEPFS requests that the Administrator extend the existing public comment period b y an additional 60 days. **Response:** Regarding the relationship between this final rule and other EPA programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the impacts of this final rule on other EPA programs, see Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. EPA is not extending the formal comment period p ast the May 17, 2013 deadline. See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0034 - A1 , Excerpt 1.

**Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 12 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** GPA has several concerns related to the timing of implementation; particularl y, EPA needs to address impacts to other regulatory programs (e.g. NSR and Title V) that reference the emission factors in Par

t 98 prior to adopting the new factors. Impacts of Part 98 revisions to the NSR and Title V rules must be addressed through a rulemaking process.14

As noted above, increases in GWPs, such as for methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, will li kely

push many

"borderline" GHG emission facilities into the NSR and Title V regulatory

programs, perhaps retroactivel y. EPA indicates that it is not reopening the decision made in the Tailoring Rule, or an y other rules or programs that reference Table A - 1 . In GPA’s view, this is precisel y the effect of the proposed revision. The substantive effect of the proposed revision, the uncertainty

surrounding past and future regulatory determinations, and the potential for enforcement actions based on the new crite ria all require clarification through rulemaking prior to final adoption of the revised GWP factors. EPA cannot address this issue with any thing less. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066, Excerpt 5, and Section II.A.2.c of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the relationship of the proposed amendments to other EPA programs.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Contr ol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0050 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** Neither the Federal Register nor the Supporting Materials for the Docket contain the document referenced in Document EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0015 as the actual document relied upon for the calculations that serve as the basis for the proposed rule change, which is identified as: Solid Waste Industry

for Climate Solutions ( SWICS ), 2012. SWI CS 2.2 Methane Oxidation Addendum 2012. Addendum to the “Current MSW In dustry Position and State of - the - Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency , Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills.” Prepared for Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions ( SWI CS ); prepared b y SCS Engineers. Version 2.2, Revised January 2 009. Addendum is dated November 19, 2012 This is to request that this document by SWI CS be added to the Supporting Documents and the comment period for Subpart HH be extended for one week from the time that this SWI CS document is provided in the Supporting Documents for this Docket. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. The document cited by the commenter has since been published in the Federal docket. As noted by the commenter , the document cited is referenced in the memorandum " Review of Methane Flux and Soil Oxidation Data" (EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0015). This memorandum extensively reviews the SWI CS document and summarizes the data and options provided in the referenced document. EPA has determined that the memorandum, which is the basis fo r the proposed amendments to subpart HH , sufficiently summarizes the content of the referenced document. As such, EPA does not agree to extend the formal comment period past the May 17, 2013 deadline. However, EPA has accepted and addressed comments submitted within a reasonable period of time past the May 17, 2013 deadline to take commenter concerns into consideration.15



### 1.2 **Comments on legal authority for the revisions Commenter Name:**  Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Uti lity Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** UARG emphasizes that EPA’s authority to require reporting of GHG emissions and related data under this rule is of limited scope and purpose. Under the fiscal y ear 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress authorized funding for EPA to develop and publish a rule “to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy o f the United States.” Pub. L . No. 110

– 161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2007). The joint explanatory statement accompanyingthe legislation directed EPA to “use its existing authority

under the Clean Air Act” (e.g., authority under CAA §114) to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule covering those “upstream production and downstream sources” the Administrator deems “appropriate,” and to determine “appropriate thresholds” and frequency for reporting. 74 Fed. Reg. 16,448, 16,454 (Apr. 10, 2009). Congress also author ized EPA to rely on the existing reporting requirements for electric generating units [(“EGUs”)] under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments.” Id. The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (“GHGRP”) that has resulted is wholly out of proportion to that mandate . Facilities are expending enormous resources tracking, quality assuring, and reporting vast amounts of information on even the smallest quantity of GHG. This is particularl y true with respect to the Subpart C requirements for combustion sources to report GHG from all activities no matter how de minimis. EPA also continues to spend significant resources for both its own staff and Agency contractors to implement the GHGRP and its electronic reporting requirements. Since its initial promulgation in October 20 09, EPA has promulgated more than twenty revisions to the GHGRP rules. Although UARG understands that many of these rule revisions have been directed at correcting errors or simplifying data collection and reporting, the need for those revisions only under scores the alread y complicated nature of the program. EPA’s authority

under CAA § 114 is limited by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) and its implementing regulations. To lawfully require a data collection, EPA must prepare and receive approval from th e Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) of an Information Collection Request (“ICR”) that demonstrates the “practical utility” of the covered information. 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(iii). Under 5 C.F.R. § 1320.3(l), Practical utility means the actual, no t merely the theoretical or potential, usefulness of information.... In determining whether information will have ‘practical utility ,’ OMB will take into account whether the agency demonstrates actual timel y use for the information.... (emphasis added). A s a result, each new piece of information EPA proposes be reported by facilities and anal yz ed b y EPA, and each new detail EPA proposes to specify in its existing rule must be carefully

scrutinized to determine whether the revision is both consistent with that authority and necessary

to carry out its obligations under the Consolidated Appropriations Act.16

Now that the program has been in place for several y ears, and EPA has provided Congress the information it sought, EPA should be considering whether ther e are way s to reduce (rather than increase) the amount of information require to be reported. **Response:** As discussed the preamble to the proposed 2009 GHG reporting rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), Section 114(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administr ator to require certain persons on a one - time, periodic or continuous basis to keep records, make reports, undertake monitoring, sample emissions, or provide such other information as the Administrator may reasonabl y require. The information may be require d for the purposes of developing an implementation plan, developing an emission standard under sections 111, 112 or 129, determining if an y person is in violation of any standard or requirement of an implementation plan or emissions standard, or ‘‘carrying out an y provision’’ of the Act (except for a provision of title II with respect to manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines). As EPA stated in the 2009 proposal preamble (74 FR 16454): The scope of the persons potentially subject t o a section 114(a)(1) information request (e.g., a person ‘‘who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set forth in’’ section 114(a)) and the reach of the phrase ‘‘carrying out any provision’’ of the Act are quite broad. EPA’s authority to request information reaches to a source not subject to the CAA, and may be used for purposes relevant to any provision of the Act. Thus, for example, utilizing sections 114 and 208, EPA could gather information relevant to carrying out provisions involving research (e.g., section 103(g)); evaluating and setting standards (e.g., section 111); and endangerment determinations contained in specific provisions of the Act (e.g., 202); as well as other programs. Given the broad scope of section 114 of the CAA, it is appropriate for EPA to gather the information required b y this rule because such information is relevant to EPA’s carrying out a wide variet y of CAA provisions. As described in the preamble of the proposed 2009 GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research. The GHGRP provides data to develop and inform inventories and other U.S. climate programs b y advancing the understandin g of emission processes and monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. For example, GHGRP data published through the Greenhouse Gas Data Publication Tool may be used by state and local entities to better understand the contributi on of emissions from specific regional industries, or b y EPA regulatory programs to review emissions from certain facilities within an industry

to inform policy

decisions. As EPA stated in the preamble for the proposed amendments (78 FR 19802, April 2, 201 3), the amendments reflect EPA’s engagement with reporters and stakeholders and our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of Part 98 provisions. The changes improve the GHGRP by clarifying compliance obligation s and reducing confusion for reporters, improving the consistency of the data collected, and ensuring that data collected through the GHGRP is representative of industry and comparable to other inventories. The proposed changes correct errors, simplify dat a collection and reporting for reporters, and reduce the burden associated with implementing certain provisions of 40 CFR part 98. The changes to Table A - 1 of subpart A reflect improved scientific understanding. Specifically , the changes to Table A - 1 allow for improved understanding of the radiative forcing from reported GHG17

emissions and supply , based on GWP values that are more up - to - date relative to the values previously

provided in Table A - 1. Updating these values ensures that the GWPs for these compoun ds allow their atmospheric impacts relative to other GHGs to be accurately assessed. The changes also make the emissions reported under the Part 98 consistent with other programs. For more on this, see Section II.A.1 of the proposal preamble (78 FR 19807) and Sections II.A.1 and 2 of the final rule preamble. With these considerations, the amendments to the final rule are both consistent with EPA’s existing authority

under Section 114(a) and necessary to carry out its obligations under the Consolidated Ap pro priations Act. Furthermore, the information collection requirements in this rule for new reporters have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act , 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The OMB has previously

approved the information collection requirements for 40 CFR part 98 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, assigned OMB control number 2060

– 0629, ICR 2300.10. The EPA has recently submitted a request for approval for an I C R renewal that incorporates the burdens and costs imposed by all of the current ICRs under the GHGRP, including this rulemaking. When this I CR is approved by OMB, the Agency

will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to dis play the OMB control number for the approved information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

**Commenter Name:** J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safet y and Health Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) **Doc um**  **ent Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0085 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** We support UARG’s contention that the GHG reporting rule has transformed into something that is wholly

out of proportion to its Congressional Mandate and that our facilities, as well as our peers in the industry , are expending an extraordinary amount of time, effort and resources tracking, quality assuring and reporting de minimis GHG emissions ancillary to those flue gas emissions we have been historically reportin g under 40 CFR, Part 75. EPA is also spending significant resources (staff and contractors) to implement the reporting rule and its electronic reporting requirements

– with most of the effort being spent on the de minimis fraction of emissions. As a result , we believe EPA should be focusing on way s to reduce (rather than increase) the amount of information that is required to be reported under this program. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 , Excerpt 1.

**Commenter Name:** John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services **Commenter Affiliation:** American Electric Power (AEP) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 118

**Comment:** AEP emphasizes that USEPA's authority to require rep orting of GHG emissions and related data under this rule is of limited scope and purpose. Under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Congress authorized funding for USEPA to develop and publish a rule "to require mandatory reporting of greenhouse g as emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States." Public Law 110 - 161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008). The joint explanatory statement accompanyingthe legislation directed USEPA to "use its existing authority

under the Clean Air Act" (e.g., authority under CAA § 114) to develop a mandatory

GHG reporting rule covering those "upstream production and downstream sources" the Administrator deems "appropriate," and to determine "appropriate thresholds" and frequency for r eporting. Congress also authorized USEPA to rely on the existing reporting requirements for EGUs under section 821 of the 1990 CAA Amendments. The reporting rule that has resulted is wholly out of proportion to that mandate. Facilities are expending enormo us resources tracking, quality assuring, and reporting vast amounts of information on even the smallest quantity of GHG. This is particularly true with respect to the Subpart C requirements for combustion sources to report GHG from all activities no matter how de minimis. USEPA also continues to spend significant resources for both its own staff and Agency contractors to implement the reporting rule and its electronic reporting requirements. Although AEP understands that many of the revisions USEPA has made to the rule have been directed at correcting errors or simplifying data collection and reporting, the need for those revisions only

underscores the already

complicated nature of this reporting rule. In AEP's case, our 2010 - 2012 Subpart C GHG emissions, wh ich represent "new" reporting requirements beyond existing requirements under Title IV of the 1990 CAAA, added onl y 0.14%, 0.17% and 0.34% to our corporate GHG emissions respectively . Considering Continuous Emission Monitoring Sy stems are onl y certified b y EPA to within 5% of actual (for Subpart D reporting), all efforts to collect Subpart C emissions should be considered de minimis. Each new piece of information that USEPA proposes be reported b y facilities and anal yz ed b y USEPA, and each new detail USEPA proposes to specify in its existing rule must be carefull y scrutinized to determine whether the revision is both consistent with that authority and necessary to carry out its obligations under the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Now that the program has been in place for several ye ars, and USEPA has provided Congress the information it sought, USEPA should be considering whether there are way s to reduce (rather than increase) the amount of information require to be reported. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 , Excerpt 1.

**Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7414, is cited as the basis for the Proposed Rule, but Section 114 does not empower EPA to change the thresholds for major19

source determinations. Section 114 governs recordkeeping and inspections. Itallows EPA to require sources to provide data about air emissions. 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(iii)(1). An y amendments to major source and permitting thresholds must be proposed and finalized under EPA’s authorit y to implement the relevant permitting program. Mor e specificall y, amendments to the PSD program must be made pursuant to Sections 160 - 169 , the Indian Country minor source rule must be amended pursuant to Sections 171 - 179B , and the Title V program must be amended pursuant to Sections 501 - 507 . In order for the substantive aspects of the Proposed Rule to be evaluated and processed under the appropriate sections of the Clean Air Act, it should be routed through the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (" OAQPS "). OAQPS published the Tailoring Rule and traditionally

handles substantive permitting regulations. In this case, the Proposed Rule was published by

the Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0 075 - A1, Excerpt 1. See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comment s on the relationship of the proposed amendments to other EPA programs.20



### 2.0 **Amendments to Table A -**  **1 2.1**  **Comments on the revision of the GHGRP to complement t he U.S. Inventory**  **and relationship to the UNFCCC Commenter Name:**  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comme nt:**  GPA understands that the United States, as a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC ), is obligated to report its Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and that the emissions are to be determined using internationally - accepted m ethods agreed upon by the Parties. Starting in 2015, the UNFCCC requires the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) to use the factors published in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report ( AR4 ). GPA supports EPA’s efforts to ensure consistency

between the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program ( GHGRP ) and the Inventory . **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Commenter Affiliation:** California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0068 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** CWC CG understands and supports the need to ensure consistency and comparability with national inventory

data submitted by

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Parties. As part of this, UNFCCC parties decided on March 15, 2012, to require countries submitting annual reports in 2015 and beyond to use global warming potential (GWP) values established by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), replacing the current standard established by I PCC ’s Second Assessment Report (SAR). **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.21

**Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA proposes to revise the Table A - 1 (40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart A) global warming potential (GWP) values for greenhouse gases (GHG s), and add GWP values for certain F - GHGs. The changes are being proposed to ensure continued consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory

of U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks (the “Inventory ”). The new GWP values are set forth in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Notably , for TFI members, EPA proposes to raise the GWP value for methane from 21 to 25, and to lower the GWP value for nitrous oxide from 310 to 298. TFI supports consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory . **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 2 **Docum ent Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Over the past y ear, AGA has encouraged EPA to incorporate recent emissions data reported b y natural gas system operators under 40 C.F.R. Part 98 Subpart W in the annual Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) in order to update and improve the accuracy

of the Inventory ’s estimated methane emissions for the natural gas value chain. Thus, we support EPA’s proposed revisions in the GWP for methane to reflect changes previously

agreed to by

the United States and other parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, because this change in Tab le A - 1 of Subpart A will allow EPA to use the Subpart W reported data to update the annual Inventory . See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19807 - 09, Table 2, and 19846, Proposed Table A - 1. While we are disappointed that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report increased the GWP o f methane from 21 to 25 times that of CO 2 on a 100 - ye ar time frame, we understand that EPA is bound to use this GWP in the Inventory , and we strongl y support being able to update the Inventory using the new Subpart W reported data, because we anticipate th at this new data will demonstrate that methane emissions from the natural gas value chain are lower than currently estimated. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

2 The comments by American Gas Association (AGA) were also supported by Xcel Energy, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1).22

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

**Commenter Name:**  Mike Roddy , Director of Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0042 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** Seminole also disagrees with EPA's cited basis for the proposed revisions. As noted above, EPA has proposed GWP revisions to achieve consistency between its Inventory , which is prepared to compl y with international commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [Footnote: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2011, at iii, EPA 430 - R - 13 - 001 (April 12, 2013), available at http://www.epa.goviclimatechange/D ownloadsighgemissions/US - GHG - Inventory - 2013 - Upfront.pdf

], and its GHGRP, which is developed in response to domestic legislative directives to require reporting of GHG emissions [Footnote: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110 - 161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008).]. Yet, while consistency and regulatory

certainty is a generall y laudable goal, EPA's proposal does an ything but achieve such aim. Instead, industry is faced with adjusting data collection and reporting protocols for revised GWPs after onl y three ye ars of reporting under the GHGRP, the possibility of frequent future revisions to GWPs (as the IPCC issues future assessment reports including the currently underway

Fifth Assessment Report), the potential for on - going revisions to past emissi on reports as GWPs are continuall y23

tweaked, and unknown ripple effects from these changes on other regulatory programs that rel y on these GWPs, such as the Title V and PSD permitting programs under EPA's "Tailoring Rule." **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 3 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** API agrees with EPA's intention noted on page 78 FR 19808, that the GWPs values would not be updated each time new values are published. However, API notes that EPA seems to contradict thi s statement on page 78 FR 19809 where it is stated the EPA intends to periodicall y update Table A - 1 as GWPs are evaluated or re - evaluated b y the scientific community . API believes this second statement is in reference to specialt y, fluorinated greenhouse g ases that are not included in the AR4 list of greenhouse gases. APInotes that although the IPCC periodically updates GWP values, the UNFCCC has only officiall y adopted the updated factors in the AR4 for GHG reporting starting the second commitment period (post 2012). With the exception of the specialt y gases, EPA should only update the GWP values used by the GHGRP when the UNFCCC adopts new values for reporting to the IPCC. This maintains consistency with IPCC's reporting requirements per EPA's reporting obligations for the national GHG inventory . **Response:** For the response to this comment, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule. **Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** GPA has concerns that future revisions to the GWP values by the IPCC will drive further rule revisions b y EPA. If EPA’s desire is to ensure consistency between the Inventory and GHGRP, future changes to the GWP values based on IPCC revisions seem inevitabl e. If future changes are adopted, they may , like the current proposal, require sources to constantl y change their data gathering and evaluation protocols for reporting, and require sources to continually

revise (or have EPA revise) their prior y ear submiss ions. Also, constant changes to

3 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 011 4 ).24

Table A - 1 will not provide certainty to regulated sources as they evaluate modifications (and the timing of them) to determine NSR and Title V applicability based on GHG emissions. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  9 Comment: TFIhas concerns with future revisions to the GWP values by the IPCC and if (and how) they

will be implemented by

EPA. If EPA’s desire is to ensure consistency between the Inventory and GHGRP, future changes to the GWP values based on IPCC revisions seem inevitable. If future changes are adopted, they may , like the current proposal, require sources to constantly

change their data gathering and evaluation protocols for reporting, and require sources to continually

revise (or have EPA rev ise) their prior y ear submissions. Also, constant changes to Table A - 1 will not provide certainty to regulated sources as they evaluate modifications (and the timing of them) to determine PSD and Title V applicability based on GHG emissions. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Southern Company **Documen t Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0051 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** Southern Company understands EPA’s expressed desire to use the AR4 GWPs to ensure consistency

with the GWPs used in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sink s (hereafter referred to as “Inventory”); however, doing so sets a troublesome precedent and creates conflicts that are fully described in the UARG comments referenced above. EPA states in the preamble, “it is not now EPA’s intent to revise the GWPs in Tab le A - 1 each time new data are published,” but it is likely that once EPA makes this initial effort to establish consistency with the GWPs used in the Inventory , it will want to maintain that consistency despite the data quality and consistency

issues raise d in the UARG comments. Southern believes it is impractical to change the GWPs listed in Table A - 1 each time the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change decides to require new GWPs to be used for the Inventory . Changing GWPs creates confusion between reporting ye ars that makes it difficult to compare emissions across reporting ye ars.25

**Response:** See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. Regarding comparing emissions across reporting years, please see, Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. 

### 2.2 **Comments on use of the IPCC AR4 to update Table A -**  **1 and proposed revised GWPs**  **Commenter Name:** Mike Roddy , Director of Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0042 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** As an initial matter, EPA's wholesale reliance on IP CC assessment reports is inappropriate. For example, the IP CC assessment reports are not prepared in accordance with U.S. standards for scientific assessments. Rather, the IP CC is governed by its own official "Principles Governing IP CC Work," which emphasizes that approval of the contents of the assessment reports i s obtained on the basis of consensus among IP CC member governments. See http://wvvw.ipcc.ch/

pdf / ipcc - principles /ipcc - principles.pdf, at 2. In other words, the contents of IPCC ass essment reports may be as much a product of international, political consensus - seeking as they are of scientific inquiry . In contrast, EPA must ensure that it adheres to applicable federal standards regarding the quality , objectivity , integrity , and utility of information disseminated by federal agencies. See, e.g.,. Pub. L . No. 106 - 554, § 515; 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002). For this reason, and for applicable reasons stated in petitions pending before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging EPA's "Endangerm ent Finding," EPA's reliance on IP CC reports is inappropriate. **Response:** We disagree with the commenters that the reliance on, and specifica l l y the use of GWP values from, IPCC reports is inappropriate. We note that this comment has been raised and addres sed in other GHG rulemakings. See, e.g., Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 FR 66510 (Dec. 15, 2009). It is EPA’s view that the peer - reviewed scientific assessments of the IP CC are among the best reference materials for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues surrounding global climate change. Furthermore, as discussed in Section II.A.1 and Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, it is EPA’s intent that the GHGRP supplement and complement existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research, including the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC, which has historically relied on GWP metrics published by the IPCC . During the development of the GHG Reporting Rule, EPA generall y proposed and finalized estimation methodologies and reporting metrics that were based on recent scientific data and that would allow comparisons between the Inventory , other U.S. climate pro grams, and the GHGRP. The goal of Part 98 is to collect data of sufficient accuracy and quality

to inform future climate policy deve lopment. In this final rule, EPA is adopting the proposed AR4 values for certain compounds currently listed in Table A - 1 to ensure more accurate CO 2 e emission and supply estimates are collected for the GHGRP. The IPCC AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports, following advances in scientific knowledge on the radiat ive efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs and of CO 2 . Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of these gases in the atmosphere, the26

AR4 values are more appropriate for suppor ting the overall goal of the reporting program to provide accurate emissions data that is consistent with other programs. Therefore, we are finalizing the incorporation of the AR4 GWPs in Table A - 1 to subpart A . See Section s II.A.1 and II.A.2 of the preamble of the final rule for additional information.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Num ber:**  6 **Comment:** The science addressing GWPs is hardly settled or free from controvers y. Indeed, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report explains in some detail that there are considerable uncertainties associated with the GWPs that EPA has proposed to adopt. See generally I PCC, Climate Change 2007: The Phy sical Science Basis, Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group IContribution, Ch. 2.10 at 210 - 16 (2007). The IPCC has noted that the GWPs it has adopted are derived using significant simplifications intend ed to avoid critical uncertainties that characterize potentiall y more robust GWP derivation methodologies. Id. at 211. Those simplifications include: (1) setting g(t) = 1 (i.e., no discounting) up until the time horizon (TH) and then g(t) = 0 thereafte r, (2) choosing a 1 - kg pulse emission, (3) defining the impact function, I (ΔC), to be the global mean RF, (4) assuming that the climate response is equal for all RF mechanisms and (5) evaluating the impact relative to a baseline equal to current concentrations (i.e., setting I(ΔCr(t)) = 0). As the IPCC acknowledged, these simplifications have been the subject of considerable criticism, and because of shortcomings in scientific knowledge, there is no way in which to conduct an objective assessment of their impacts. Id. Accordingl y, there is not a strong scientific basis for updating the GWPs in Table A - 1 of subpart A of Part 98 to reflect the values adopted in the Fourth Assessment Report. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final r ule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services **Commenter Affiliation:** American Electric Power (AEP) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Commen t:**  USEPA has proposed revising the global warming potentials ("GWPs") for GHGs that are contained in Table A - 1 of subpart A of Part 98. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,807. The GWPs in Table A 1 were derived primarily from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ("IPCC") Second Assessment Report, although GWPs for GHGs that were not identified in the Second Assessment Report were taken from either the IPCC Third Assessment Report or Fourth27

Assessment Report. USEPA's proposed rule would replace the existing GWPs wi th those the IPCC adopted in its Fourth Assessment Report. USEPA states that it is proposing these changes to: (1) ensure comparability of data collected in the GHGRP to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (hereinafter referred to as " Inventory ") that the USEPA compiles annually to meet international commitments and to GHG inventories prepared by other countries; (2) reflect improved scientific understanding; and (3) promote consistency across the estimation methods used in the rule. The science addressing GWPs is not settled or free from controvers y. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report explains in some detail that there are considerable uncertainties associated with the GWPs that USEPA has proposed to adopt. The I PCC has noted that the GWPs it has adopted are derived using significant simplifications intended to avoid critical uncertainties that characterize potentiall y more robust GWP derivation methodologies. The IPCC acknowledged these simplifications have been the subject of consider able criticism and, because of shortcomings in scientific knowledge, there is no way in which to conduct an objective assessment of their impacts. Accordingl y, there is not a strong scientific basis for updating the GWPs in Table A - 1 of subpart A of Part 9 8 to reflect the values adopted in the Fourth Assessment Report. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safet y and Health Director **Commenter A ffiliation:**  Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0085 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We object to EPA’s proposed revisions to GWPs in Table A - 1 of Subpart A of Part 98. As UARG points out in their comments, there are considerable scientific uncertainties associated with the GWPs being considered, and the proposed GWPs are not necessaril y improved or more technically precise than the values EPA has already adopted. Given these shortcomings, there is no way to objectivel y determine if they are more or less accurate than the GWPs we have been using historicall y for reporting. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 4

4 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).28

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The semiconductor industry utilizes fluorinated gases as an essential part of our manufacturing processes. In man y instances, there are no known substitutes to the use of these gases. A fraction of the gases are emitted and, therefore, the global warming p otential (GWPs) that apply to fluorinated gases are important to tracking, managing, and reporting of our GHG emissions. In that context, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) play s a very important role. [Footnote: As indicated on their websit e, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading internati onal body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Enviro nment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of know ledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio - economic impacts. In the same y ear, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly estab lishing the IPCC. The IPCC reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio - economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. Because of its scientific and intergovernment al nature, the IPCC embod ies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authorit y of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy - relevant and yet policy - neutr al, never policy - prescriptive.] IP CC has both the responsibility and the ability to review and standardize scientific information on Climate Change. IPCC is the international le ad in assessing climate change and determining a scie ntifically

based and standardized list of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and their associated GWPs. The IPCC also provides detailed guidance for the preparation of national greenhouse gas inventories to ensure that those inventories are consistent and comparable across all of the Annex I countries. The role of the IPCC, and EPA’s commitment to report emissions using I PCC methods, is well articulated in the preamble to the proposed rule, where it states that EPA is proposing revisions to Table A - 1 “to ensure continued consistency with the Inventory

as the Inventory begins to use GWPs from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.” We strongl y support that goal. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. EPA is adopting the GWPs for compounds included in the IP CC AR4 for Table A - 1 of subpart A as proposed. This approach is in keeping with the Agency ’s decision to use methods consistent with the Inventory and similar U.S. domestic programs . See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble for additional information. Based on comments that EPA should not include compounds that are not included in an IPCC study or peer - reviewed as well as comments on permitting applicabilit y, the EPA is reevaluat ing its approach to assigning GWPs for compounds not included in the I PCC AR4 . Inthis final rule, we are not finalizing the 26 additional F - GHGs (with associated GWP values) not included in the IPCC AR4 that were proposed to be added to Table A - 1 in the 2013 Revisions proposal.29

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

**Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Af**

**filiation:** 3M Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** 3M is generally support ive of the proposed changes. Consistent with our past comments, we support EPA's proposed addition of GWP values to Ta ble A - 1 to ensure consistency

with the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). By

basing these additions on published literature and data obtained from chemical manufacturers, EPA ensures that the changes reflect the most recent and accurate emissions data. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 , Excerpt 1.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 5 **Document Con trol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** WM supports the Agency ’s proposed use of a 100 - ye ar timeframe for GWPs consistent with the IP CC’s AR4 and the UNFCCC reporting guidelines for annual inventories.

5 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also s upported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1). This comment was also submitted by Republic Services, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1).30

Furthermore, w e support EPA’s statement that it is not the Agency ’s intent to revise GWPs each time new data are published. (78 FR 19808). **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section I I. A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 6 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** AGA also supports EPA’s proposal to adopt only GWP values based on a 100 - ye ar time horizon, rather than a 20 - year horizon, because the UNFCCC parties agreed to use a 100 - ye ar time horizon to compare the global warming potential of CO 2 compared to that of methane and other greenhouse gases. See 89 Fed. Reg . at 19810. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 7 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** We support EPA's continued use of the 100 y ear GWP and the statement that the GWP will not be revised as new IPCC reports are published. The County feels that consistency in reporting is very

important and that changes such as this have the potential to cause concern and confusion for the regulated community as well as the public at large. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)

6 The comments by American Gas Association (AGA) were also supported by Xcel Energy, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1). 7 This comment was also submitted by Tetra Tech Bas (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2) and Delaw are Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0 077 - A2).31

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment E xcerpt Number:**  1 **Comment:** A primary

purpose of the Proposed Rule is to update GWP values in Subpart A, Table A - 1. For INGAA members, this affects reporting of methane and N 2 O emissions for natural gas transmission and storage facilities. INGAA understand s that EPA is proposing GWP revisions based on the current understanding of best science and for consistency with the national inventory annuall y prepared b y EPA. INGAA supports the proposed revisions, which would increase the methane GWP to 25 and decreas e the N 2 O GWP to 298. As reporting regimes are updated, the timing is appropriate to revise the current Table A - 1 values, which are from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) First Assessment Report (FAR), to more recent values published in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Although IPCC reports and EPA documents discuss other time horizons for assessing GWP, I NGAA strongl y supports retaining a one hundred year time horizon as the standard for defining GWP values. Shorter or longer tim e horizons should not be considered as the standard for the GHG MRR or other EPA programs. Although INGAA supports this change, EPA should strive to retain AR4 GWP values in future years rather than resorting to ongoing GWP revisions that would require rec alculation of GHG inventories. For INGAA members, N 2 O emissions are not significant. The methane GWP revision increases calculated methane CO 2 e emissions by nineteen percent. INGAA notes that while this revision warrants recalculation of reported emissions from previous y ears (i.e., 2010

– 2012), this change is similar in magnitude to other uncertainties inherent to GHG reporting under the GHG MRR. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. EPA is retaining a 100 - year time horizon as the standard metric for defining GWPs. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. Regarding periodic updates to Table A - 1 see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule.

**Comment er Name:**  John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** In Subpart A

– General Provisions, EPA ha s proposed to increase the GWP of methane from 21 to 25 bringing the GHG MRR into agreement with the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). We believe that EPA should work to ensure the latest s cience is used to develop inventories, but we do not have the scientific background to evaluate the proposed change of GWP from 21 to 25; however, we do support the Agency ’s proposed use of a 100 - ye ar timeframe for GWPs consistent with the IPCC’s AR4 and the UNFCCC reporting guidelines for annual inventories. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. No changes have been made as a result of this comment. See Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule.32

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

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

**Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1033

**Comment:** EPA Should Not Continually Adopt IPCC Revisions to the GWP Values. In the preamble to the 2013 GHGRR Revisions, EPA states that while it is adopting the GWP values as set forth in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, it does not, at this time, envision “revis[ing] the GWPs in Table A - 1 each time new data are publi shed.” (FR 19,808). GPA supports this position. However, EPA recognizes that IPCC is working on its Fifth Assessment Report (FR 19,808). EPA should again confirm in the final rule preamble that it does not intend to continually adopt IPCC revisions to the GWP values for purposes of the GHGRP and Inventory , and will not require that reporters (or EPA), should it adopt revised I PCC GWP values, revise prior reports based on IPCC - revised GWP values. **Response:** Regarding future revisions to Table A - 1, see Secti on II.A.2 . a of the preamble to the fin al rule for EPA's response. For the response to the comment recommending EPA not require reporters to submit revised reports for prior reporting periods, please see Section III .B of the preamble to the final rule.

**Co mmenter Name:**  Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The GWP/100 for methane should be updated, but to the most current authoritative value of 33× CO, not the out of date 25× value, and supplemental emissions tables should be compiled with GWP/20 values for methane of 105× CO 2 . Previously , EPA has required reporting entities to use a value of 21× CO 2 for meth ane’s GWP calculated on a 100 - ye ar basis (GWP/100) which derives from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1996 Second Assessment Report (AR2). In its suggested revisions, EPA proposes to update methane’s GWP/100 to 25× CO 2 from the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report AR4). [Footnote: I PCC Fourth Assessment Report Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing. (2007)(FAR), at pg. 212, Table 2.14.] Subsequent to the completion of AR4, the National Aero nautics and Space Administration (NASA) published in Science further updates in the value for methane’s GWP/100 to incorporate net direct and indirect radiative forcing impacts from aerosols, which the prior AR4 estimates did not contemplate. This is the b est and most current, authoritative value for methane’s GWP, 33× CO 2 on a 100 y ear basis, which is one - third greater than EPA’s 4 - ye ar out of date proposal, and 105× CO 2 on a 20 - ye ar basis(GWP/20). [ Footnote: Drew Shindell, “Improved Attribution of Climat e Forcing Emissions,” 326 Science 716 (2009); W.J. Collins, et.al., “Global and regional temperature - change potentials for near - term climate forcers,” 13Atmos.Chem.Phy s.2471(2013).] EPA should conform its GWP conversion to NASA’s current published conclusi ons, because that is the U.S. agency

in charge of calculating the best estimates to which EPA should defer.34

Otherwise known net impacts from aerosols will be ignored in the reported (calculated) emissions values, and decision makers will not be informed of the correct impact of sources of methane emissions when developing climate action plans. There is a significant value in incorporating the most reliable data into decision - making, and the proposed GWP/100 for methane, which is one - third too low, fails to accord this need its due. If EPA is not willing to act on NASA’s latest research that was peer reviewed and has not been controverted, then we urge the Agency

hold open this item until September of this y ear when the IP CC’s initial Fifth Assessment (AR5) w ill be released, and at that time, use that Report’s methane GWP. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Commenter Affiliat ion:**  Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA states that “it is not now EPA’s intent” to revise the GWP values when AR5 is released. 78 Fed. Reg . at 19808. This is unreasonable, and will potentially compromise the integrit y of the GHG RR and possibly future regulatory

efforts based thereon. We urge EPA to reconsider this part of its proposal. EPA’s stated rationale for choosing not to update the GHG RR GWPs with new consensus values in the future is that the United States is bound by UNFCCC reporting guidelines to use the AR4 GWP values starting in 2015 for purposes of annual reports of national GHG inventories to the UNFCCC . EPA apparently perceives some “conflict” i n having different GWPs for certain pollutants in the two inventories. 78 Fed. Reg . at 19810. We disagree. We understand the benefit in reporting national inventories from around the world on a consistent basis, and fully support US reporting to the UNFCCC based on the GWP values in AR4 until the parties to the UNFCCC agree on another update to those values. However, US GHG inventory

reporting to UNFCCC is not the same

— and indeed need not be the same

— as domestic reporting of GHGs under the GHG RR. The two programs have different purposes and do not cover the same emissions or sources. For example, the original GHG RR, as well as EPA’s proposed revisions, require reporting of a wide variet y of pollutants that are not required to be included in the national inventories reported to UNFCCC . See, e.g.,74 Fed. Reg. at 56270, 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810 - 14. Nor are the GHG emissions sources covered b y the GHGRR and the national UNFCCC inventories the same (for example, most agricultural emissions are not inc luded in the GHG RR. [Footnote: EPA does not currentl y collect an y agricultural emissions data under the GHG RR; while Subpart JJ of the rule was intended to collect emissions data for manure management, appropriations language has prohibited EPA from impl ementing this Subpart. Agricultural sources (not including manure management) emitted about 6% of US GHG in 2011, according to the US national GHG inventory (see http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US - GHG - Inventory - 2013 - ES.pdf, Table ES - 2).] 74 Fed. Reg. at 16466 - 67, and emissions sources are grouped quite differentl y in35

the two inventories. Nor does the UNFCCC inventory reflect the 25,000 ton facility reporting threshold contained in the GHG RR. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the purp oses of the two inventories are not the same. The GHG RR has significant potential regulatory implications, and in fact presently can impact the applicability

of certain federal regulatory programs; two examples are the PSD and Title V permitting programs, 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808 - 09. Another important purpose of the GHG RR is to assist states in their anal ysis of GHG emissions and trends, thereb y supporting potential GHG emission regulations. 74 Fed. Reg. at 56265. It is clear that US national and state regul ation must be based on the latest and most robust scientific consensus of climate science, including appropriate GWPs. Simply put, the advance of US regulatory policy should not be slowed by

a non - identical international emission reporting process designed for other purposes. This is especiall y so given the staleness of the international reporting data

— 1995 GWPs from the SAR will continue to be used until 2015, when 2007 GWPs will be substituted, and if international guidelines are updated on the same sched ule, those GWPs will be used until around 2027. US domestic regulatory

policy must not be grounded on data that could be outdated by as much as two decades. In sum, the GHG RR inventory and the national GHG inventory are different documents, produced for d ifferent purposes, and need not use the same GWP values. Furthermore, any administrative convenience achieved b y using the same GWP values in both inventory programs is strongl y outweighed by the need to use the most current and comprehensive GWP values in the domestic GHG RR. [Footnote: We note that EPA is proposing to require reporting of certain pollutants that are not included in AR4. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810 - 11. This, of course, will also result in some administrative inconvenience, but is nonetheless app ropriate and reasonable.] **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the pr eamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Co ntrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** We do understand that EPA states it does not intend to conform to AR5 GWPs . [Footnote: 78 FED REG . 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19808.] Previously , it may be noted, EPA explained its refusal to use current GWP data because it wanted to maintain a consistent time series. [Footnote: EPA, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory, at pg . ES - 3.] Apparentl y the belief that consistency

over time super s edes accuracy has been abandoned. Now, EPA states th at it cannot use the best science because it must be consistent with the distinct Inventory

– as if the two entities inhabit different planets. [Footnote: 78 FED REG . 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19808.] Or, that it must conform to the dictates of the UNFCCC

– as if the U.S. is not a member of the United Nations, or if it has no influence on its policies, ye t, at the same time, have no concern over conflicts with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which did win the Nobel Prize.36

On the bottom line, EPA has alway s had a bureaucratic reason to eschew the best science with the effect, if not the intent, of dramaticall y understating the responsibility of sources of methane for greenhouse gas emissions. There is no valid reason wh y this particular decision in the hearing notice cannot, if necessary , be held until the initial AR5 report is published this September in order to determine the IP CC’s latest GWPs , and we urge it to do so. Waiting perhaps two months to make a final decision on methane’s GWP would not , as the notice incorrectly avers, prevent the stakeholders from having predictable requirements, because, in fact, there would onl y be one single change in the GWP in this time period, not two

– as if, even if there were two, three or four changes in the GWP , the task of inserting the number 33 instead of 25 into one cell of a spreadsheet imposes confusing and undue administrative burdens on multi - billion dollar corporations. Decision - makers and the public are entitled to the best science, not the exaltation of bureaucracy over knowledge. Even if the Agency would need to hold the decision on the methane GWP for a month or two, it will have both the best science without two successive changes. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the pre amble to the fi nal rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director, **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Council **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0064 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA Should Update the GWP When the AR5 is Released. The Fifth Assessment Report (“AR - 5”) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is currently underway and expected to be finalized in October 2014. The most recent Assessment Report was released six y ears ago and EPA is just now updating numbers to be consistent with it. The Clean Air Council is very

concerned, given EPA’s track record on this issue, which at this rate AR - 5 GWP numbers will not be incorporated until 2020. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 . a of the preamble t o the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The choice of GWP values used in the GHG RR is important. As EPA explained in its original GHG RR proposal:37

Because GHGs have different heat trapping capacities, they are not comparable without translating them into common units. The GWP , a metric that incorporates both the heat trapping ability

and the atmospheric lifetime of each GHG , can be used to develop comparable numbers b y adjusting all GHGs relative to the GWP of CO 2 . 74 Fed. Reg . 16452 at 16453. This has severa l significant ramifications in the context of the GHG RR. First, “[w]hen quantities of the different GHGs are multiplied by their GWPs , the different GHGs can then be compared on a CO 2 e basis.” Id . Second, “[a] ggregating all GHGs on a CO 2 e basis at the source level allows a comparison of the total emissions of all the gases from one source with emissions from other sources.” Id. Third, and importantly , most stationary sources are not subject to the GHG RR and thus are not required to report their GHG emissions unless their aggregate facility emissions exceed 25,000 tons of CO 2 e per y ear. See, e.g.,74 Fed. Reg . at 56266 - 67. The choice of GWP thus impacts not only the amount of GHG emissions reported b y a facility , but also whether it is requi red to report at all. See 78 Fed. Reg . at 19839; see also 40 C.F.R. §98.2(b) (requiring use of GWP conversions for emissions to determine whether a source meets the GHG RR reporting threshold). As EPA has recognized, “[a]ccurate and timel y information on G HG emissions is essential for informing man y future climate change policy decisions.” 74 Fed. Reg. at 56265. This is clearl y true for the GWP values used in the GHG RR as well

—in order for the GWPs of various GHGs to adequatel y perform the functions descri bed above, they must be as up - to - date and accurate as possible. EPA’s proposed revisions to the GWPs in the GHG RR are an important step in the right direction, but are substantially too limited. The present GHG RR uses GWP values that are woefully outdate d. Approximately every six y ears, the IPCC has updated its assessment of climate change science, reflecting improved scientific understanding of climate change. The 2009 GHG RR generally

used GWP values from the IPCC Second Assessment Report (“SAR”), which was published in 1995. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808. These values have since been superseded by the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001) and Fourth Assessment Report, referred to as “AR4” (2007). [Footnote: P. Forster et al., 2007, "Changes in Atmospheric Const ituents and in Radiative Forcing."Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Universit y Press. (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html .)] EPA now proposes to use GWP values from AR4. 78 Fed. Reg. 19808. We fully support EPA’s decision to update the GWP values used in th e GHG RR based on improved values contained in updated IPCC assessment reports. We agree with EPA that: “the IPCC AR4 ...is among the most current and comprehensive peer - reviewed assessments of climate change. The AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports, following advances in scientific knowledge on the efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs and CO 2 . Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of these gases in the atmosphere, the values provided are more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program38

to collect GHG data than the SAR GWP values currently included in [the present GHG RR] . ” 78 Fed. Reg. at 19808 (emphasis added). However, the AR4 represents consensus climate science from one period in time

—2007

— just as the SAR represents the state of that science in 1995. But climate science is not frozen. Rather, it continues to advance, and work on the next (fifth) consensus assessment of the climate science (“AR5”)

—

potentially

including revised GWPs for some GHGs

—is presently underway . Publication of the relevant section of AR5 (the Working Group I report) is anticipated in September 2013. [Footnot e: See https://www.ipcc - wg1.unibe.ch ]. EPA’s logic in proposing to replace the GWP values in the SAR with those in the AR4 will apply with equal force to replacing the GWP values in the AR4 with those in the AR 5 when they become available in the near future. Because the GWPs to be provided in the AR5 will reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of increasing the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere, the values to be provid ed in the AR5 will be more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to collect GHG data than the AR4 GWP values proposed to be included in the revised GHG RR. [Footnote: Consensus GWP values for important GHGs can and do change significantly as more mature, comprehensive and accurate science is reflected in succeeding IP CC assessments. For example, the GWP of methane, the second most prevalent GHG emitted in the US (see, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html), increased from a value of 21 in the SAR to a value of 25 in the AR4, an increase of almost 20%. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19807 - 09 and Table 2.] **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .a of the pre amble to the fina l rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Co mment:**  We strongl y agree with EPA that it must, at a minimum, update the long - obsolete SAR values now used in the GHG RR and that the AR4 values are the most appropriate to use until the AR5 issues. Once the next report issues, EPA should incorporate it a s soon as possible. If EPA is able to further revise the rule with AR5 GWP values in time to allow their use for the 2014 reporting year, it must do so. I f not, EPA must finalize the rule with AR4 values and prepare for further updates. Therefore, EPA must , at a minimum, amend its proposal to clearl y state its intention to include of the latest GWP values from subsequent IPCC assessment reports or other generall y accepted sources when they

become available to prevent future use of GWPs that are based on out dated, and therefore inappropriate, data. In particular, given the scheduled publication of AR5 GWPs later in 2013, EPA should finalize this rule with the stated intention of further revising the rule when the GWPs in AR5 become available.39

**Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the proposed incorporation of IP CC AR4 GWP val ues into Table A - 1. For the response to the comment recommending EPA revise Table A - 1 after IP CC AR5 is issued, see Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney **Commenter Affiliation:** Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0100 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EDF supports the agency ’s efforts to update GWP values consi stent with IP CCAR4 . We support the agency ’s efforts to deplo y the most up - to - date scientific information and agree that doing so will be critical to help ensure the MRR produces rigorous information. The agency has alread y used updated GWP values from IP CC AR4 in the context of other rulemakings and doing so will help ensure consistency across several important programs. [Footnote: See 78 Fed. Reg . at 19,808 - 09. AR4 values were used in EPA’s joint rulemaking with the National Highway Traffic Safet y Administration entitled “L ight - Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards,” 75 Fed. Reg . 25,324 (May 7 2010); see also id at 19,808 (addressing PSD and Title V permitting).] Building on the importance of incorporating the latest scientific information, we respectfully urge the agency

to consider: In corporating an y further - revised GWPs on account of IP CCs Fifth Assessment Report or other newly - available information as quickly as practicable; and In cluding GWP values on both a 100 - year and 20 - ye ar time frame, which can provide policy makers with critical additional information on short - lived, potent greenhouse gases like methane. [Footnote: See Ramón A. Alvarez, Stephen W. Pacala , James J. Winebrake , William L . Chameides & Steven P. Hamburg, Greater Focus Needed on Methane Leakage from Natural Gas In frastructure, 109 PNAS 6435 (2012) (describing the importance of understanding the warming potential of methane on different time frames when evaluating fuel switchi ng scenarios).] **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. Regarding the use of GWPs from the IPCC AR5, see Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the use of a 20 - year GWP for methane, see Section II.A.2.b of the preamble to the final rule. 

### 2.3 **Comments on inclusion of new GWPs from the scientific literature Commenter Name:**  Peter Zalzal, Staff Attorney **Commenter Affiliation:** Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0100 - A2 **Comment Excer pt Number:**  2 **Comment:** EPA has also proposed to include 26 new fluorinated gases in Table A - 1 that were not included in IP CCAR4 , either because these gases had not y et been developed or because they had short atmospheric lifetimes or low GWPs . [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg . at 19,811. ] As a result,40

GWPs for those gases “are not currently included in threshold calculations for applicability or in the CO 2 e totals reported by facilities and suppliers.” EDF strongl y supports the agency’s proposal to include GWPs for these gases. Up - to - date GWP information for fluorinated gases is especiall y important given the swiftly changing landscape in this area, where new fluorinated gases are being developed and others are becoming less prevalent. Some of these gases have very low global warming potentials though others are quite potent, and accurate GWP information will help characterize these emissions going forward. Consistent with our above comments, we respectfully request that EPA revisit these GWP values as new fluorinate d gases are produced. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. However, we are not finalizing the 26 new fluorinated gases and associated GWPs in Table A - 1 in this rulemaking. Based on comments that EPA should not include compounds that are not included in an IPCC study or peer - reviewed as well as comments on permitting applicability , the EPA is reevaluating its approach to assigning GWPs for compounds not included in the IPCC AR4 and may address these additional compounds in a separate rulemaking (see Section I.D of the preamble for additional information) . Regarding the EPA’s intent to update the GWPs in Table A - 1 in the future, s ee Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule . **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **C ommenter Affiliation:**  American Chemistry Council (ACC) 8 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** ACC recognizes the value of timely and precise reporting of greenhouse gas emission data from facilities through EPA’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program. To effectivel y track current emission trends, it is essential that the Agency uses the most accurate GWP values available to ensure the validity of the data, especially

if it were to be used to support a future rulemaking. ACC supports EPA’s proposed addition of GWPs for F - GHGs not previously included in Table A - 1, as well as the GWPs for F - GHGs listed in EPA’s separate Federal Register Notice of Data Availability

dated April 5, 2013.2 **Response:** EPA thanks the c ommenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0100 - A2, Excerpt 2.

8 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106)41

**Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 9 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** When discussing the GHGs and GW Ps listed in the 4th Assessment Report, IPCC states: “The species in Table 2.14 are those for which either significant concentrations or large trends in concentrat ions have been observed or a clear potential for future emissions has been identified.” However, this proposed rule indic ates that EPA is contemplating identifying US - onl y GHGs and setting US - only GWPs rather than working through the IPCC to add GHGs and set GWPs that are consistent and accepted internationally . EPA acknowledges in the preamble that the GWPs for the US - only GHGs could be an order of magnitude over - estimates which means they are likel y to have to be revised in the future. Changes to the GWPs have consequences beyond the reporting rule and should be minimiz ed. SIA asks that EPA work with I PCC to identify GHGs and GWPs so they may go through the international review process and will be consistent for all countries. Consistency

with the IP CC is very

important to our efforts to manage GHGs. Semiconductor manufacturing is a global business and, as such, unilateral action taken b y one country can negativel y impact our efforts to track, reduce and report reductions in GHG emissions and place the semiconductor manufacturers in that country at a competitive disadvantage. To ensure a level playing field and consistency in emissions repo rting with respect to climate change, the semiconductor industry

has worked collectivel y through the World Semi conductor Council (“WSC”) to develop consensus GHG emissions reduction goals. WSC members use the IPCC 4th Assessment Report GWPs to track progress towards their goals. Efforts by EPA to track and regulate GHGs in a manner at odd s with the IPCC will negativel y impact the US semiconductor industry . Importantl y, if EPA adop ts its own set of F - GHGs and GWPs, separate from those of the IPCC, we and EPA will b e required to keep two sets of records on GHG emissions. IPCC is an effective entity

in this arena, and we see no benefit in separate EPA action when consistency is so critical to addressing GHGs internationall y. Therefore, with regard to the GWP revisions proposed he re, SIA supports updating GWPs to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report values. SIA does not sup port action on any of the other GWPs in this proposal or the addition of GHGs not listed in Table 2.14 of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. **Response:** T he 26 additional F - GHGs (with associated GWP values) proposed to be added to Table A - 1 in the 2013 Revis ions proposal are not included in the final rule (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule) . However, we disagree with the comment that the EPA should list GWPs in Table A - 1 only after those GWPs have been published in an IPCC Scientific Assessment Report. See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A - 1 in the future .

9 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporate d (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).42

**Commenter Name:** Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer **Commenter Affiliation:** Intel Corporat ion **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 A **Comment:** Table 2 in the preamble to the proposed rule lists proposed changes in GWP values to 23 materials currently

listed in 40 CFR part 98, table A - 1, with the intent of making those values consistent with the IP CC Fourth Assessment report. Intel agrees that the values in 40 CFR part 98 should be consistent with IP CC and therefore agrees that these changes should be made. EPA then proposes to add 26 new fluorinated greenhouse gases (listed in table 3 of the preamble) to Table A - 1. These gases are not currentl y listed in the IP CC fourth assessment report, but instead are proposed for listing based on data provided by manufacturers or through other available sources. While we recognize the importance of continuing to collect data on compounds whose global warming impact is not yet well understood, Intel believes that it is important to maintain consistency between the values used by EPA and those published by the IPCC and therefore does not recommend adding GWP values to Table A - 1 that have not yet been reviewed b y IP CC or added to its table of values. In addition to the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, other important regulatory programs utilize the GWP values published in this table, most notably the prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD ) and Title V permitting programs. Changes in the GWP values can resu lt in sources being covered b y these rules that previously were not, or even alter the determination of whether an individual project triggers permitting requirements. In addition, if a source is operating under a plant - wide applicability limit (PAL ) permi t, compliance with the permit or the ability to take actions without exceeding the PAL can be impacted every time the GWP values change. Given these potentially significant compliance implications, Intel believes that it is appropriate to publish new value s in Table A - 1 only when they

have been through a level of scientific process and peer review that makes future changes to the values less likely . We believe that the most widely

accepted criteria for demonstrating this level of scientific acceptance is publication in the periodic IP CC reports, and that publication of new values in Table A - 1 should be limited to those values that have been published in the latest version of the IP CC report. This will help minimize changes over time in GWP values, and maximi ze a regulated source’s ability to predict its future permitting requirements. Sources that are obligated to comply with limits or permit requirements that are tied to these values depend on as much predictability as possible to plan and ensure ongoing compliance with these requirements. Frequent changes in these numbers makes such predictability difficult to achieve, and can significantly impact a source’s ability to build environmental compliance decisions into its business plans. For these reasons, Intel believes that the 26 proposed new values listed in table 3 of the preamble to this proposed rule should not be proposed for inclusion in Table A - 1, but should instead be brought to IP CC for consideration for inclusion in future lists of GWPs published by that group. **Response:** T he 26 additional compounds identified in the scientific literature proposed to be included in Table A - 1 are not included in this final rule (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule) . However, we disagree with the comment that EPA should list GWPs in Table A - 1 only after those GWPs have been published in an IPCC Scientific Assessment Report. See Section II.A.2 .a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A - 1 in the future .43

As noted by

the commenter, other regulatory programs (e. g. , the Tailoring Rule) codify the GWPs in Table A - 1 of Subpart A of 40 CFR part 98 for emissions calculations using CO 2 e for determination of applicability . See Section II.A.2. a and II.A. 2. c of the preamble to the final rule for the EPA’s response to these concerns .

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

### 2.4 **EPA’s analysis of the additional F**  **- GHGs and GWPs from the scientific**  **literature (including additional data or analysis submitted to support GWPS during the public comment period)**  **Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** 3M Company **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** 3M has comments on two of the chemicals which it produces and which have been added to Table A - I. **Name CAS No.**  **Chemical Formula GWP (100 yr.)**  EPA Proposed FK - 5 - 1 - 12

Perfluorketone; FK 5 - 1 - 12myy2; n Perfluoroctane; Octadecafluorooctane 75 - 13 - 8 CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 1.8 3M Comment FK - 5 - 1 - 12

Fluoroketone; KF - 5 - 75 - 13 - 8 CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2 144 **Name CAS No.**  **Chemical Formula GWP (100 yr.)**  1 - 12mmy2 3M believes that fluoroketone is the appropriate description for this material. n - Perfluoroctane and octadecafluorooctane should be removed from the listing. These compounds are described by CAS 307 - 34 - 6 and a chemical formula of C 8 F 18 . We are also requesting that a GWP of 1 be assigned for this chemical. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA describes the methodology that was used to assign a value of 1.8. 3M would agree with EPA's preamble statement that, “ ..... we do not anticipate that the proposed value would result in substantial over - reporting for the magnesium so urce category .” However, it is our understanding that the summation of direct and indirect values has not been consistently applied in Table A - I. It does not appear that an indirect component has been included in the GWP value assigned to an y other compound. As a result, the G WP being assigned to this chemical would be disproportionately higher than other compounds on this table. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. EPA is not finalizing the 26 additional F GHGs (with associated GWP values ) emitted or supplied by reporters proposed to be included in Table A - 1 in this rulemaking (see Section I.D of the preamble to the final rule) . See Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to comments on the periodic update of GWPs in Table A - 1 in the future.

**Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** 3M Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** 3M has comments on two of the chemicals which it produces and which have been added to Table A - I. **Name CAS No.**  **Chemical Formula GWP (100 yr.)**  EPA Proposed C7 Fluoroketone,

Novec 774/FK - 6 - 1 - 12 813 - 44 - 5 and

813 - 45 - 6 C7F14O Chemical

Blend 1 3M Comment C7 Fluoroketone,

FK - 6 - 1 - 14 813 - 44 - 5 and

813 - 45 - 6 C7F14O Chemical

Blend 1

Consistent with most other entries into Table A - 1, the trade name should be excluded and FK - 6 - 1 - 12 should be changed to FK - 6 - 1 - 14. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 , Excerpt 1.45

**Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** 3M Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** There is also a minor spelling error in Table A - I. Hexadecofluo roheptane should be changed to hexadecafluoroheptane and PFC - 6 - 1 - 12 should be changed to PFC - 6 - 1 - 16. (Note: The designations listed in the preamble are correct.) **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 , Excerpt 1. 

### 2.5 **Relationship to ot her EPA Programs (e.g., Tailoring Rule and PSD**  **programs) or state programs Commenter Name:**  David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 10 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 00 78 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** An y changes to the GWPs in Table A - 1 and an y changes to the gases listed in Table A - 1 unavoidabl y create discontinuities in the assessment of emissions under the permitting rules. This in turn can create shifts in the permitting requirements that are solely the result of the changes to Table A - 1. We recognize that the Reporting Rule wi ll continue to evolve. Nonetheless, to use it for permitting, we must have an orderl y and non - punitive way to change emissions tracking and compliance determinations when the Reporting Rule changes. A one ye ar transition period in the effective date of the new GWPs will support such an orderl y transition. The first instance where the GWP changes will be important to compliance under the Tailoring Rule is for compliance with Title V operating permit requirements. To the extent the new GWPs increase the CO 2 e assessment of a facility ’s emissions, that change can cause a source’s potential to emit (PTE) to rise such that it becomes a major source. In such an instance, the source needs at least one year from the change in the GWPs, to assess the impact and, if need be, submit a Title V application. We understand that this is current EPA policy with regard to facilities becoming subject to Title V for the first time and we ask that EPA affirms this as soon as possible. Additionally , if a source has taken a s ynthe tic minor limit on its CO 2 e emissions to remain below the Title V permit threshold, and now finds it can no longer meet the s ynthetic minor limit with the new reporting rule GWPs, three things are needed:

10 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).46

The source should have the option of continuing to use the prior accounting methods for up to one y ear, to have time to change its emissions tracking s ys tem and determine if the s ynthetic minor is no longer viable. If it is determined that the sy nthetic minor is no longer viable, the source should have one ye ar to file for a change in the s ynthetic minor limit or file a Title V application, if needed. There should be no penalty for non - compliance with the sy nthetic minor limit or Title V permitting requirements so long as the necessary applications were fil ed within one y ear of the change in the GWPs. The first two measures are consistent with a one year delay in the effective date of the new GWPs under the tailoring rule. The final measure can be implemented through agency guidance. One SIA member has deter mined that the new GWPs will cause noncompliance with an existing sy nthetic minor permit CO 2 e limit at one of their facilities simply because of the new weighting of emissions. EPA should provide this facility

– and others in the same situation

– with a cl ear way of transitioning to the new GWPs without facing noncompliance with their current permit limit as early

as the day

the new GWPs are adopted. The one y ear delay in the effective date of the revision to Table A - 1 provides that. **Response:** Consistent w ith the approach set forth in the Tailoring Rule, EPA is not granting a delay of the effective date of the Table A - 1 values for permitting purposes. However, to the extent that a source has a change in its T itle V applicability as a result of this GWP revi sion, there is a 12 - month transition period built into the T itle V rules. Furthermore, for some PSD programs, states will have to amend their state rules and SIPs in order to use the new GWPs, so sources in these states will be allotted additional time. Se e Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer **Commenter Affiliation:** Intel Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  3 **Comment:** Since the GWP values published in the reporting rule are also utilized in these important compliance programs, the final rule should provide clear guidance on how some of the issues that arise when the GWPs are changed should be handled. In the case of Title V permitting, if the new GWPs increase the CO 2 e emissions of a facility such that it becomes a major source the effective date of the rule should be at least one ye ar from the publication date to allow the source to assess the impact and submit a Title V application if one is necessary , or determine how they

might take on a s ynthetic minor limit to avoid Title V. Additionally, if a source has taken a s ynthetic minor limit on its CO 2 e emissions to remain b elow the Title V permit threshold, and is unable to meet the s ynthetic minor limit with the new GWPs , the one ye ar delay

in effective date would allow the source the needed time to determine if the sy nthetic minor permit is no longer viable using the updat ed emissions calculations. If it is determined that47

the sy nthetic minor is no longer viable, the source should have one y ear to file for a change in the sy nthetic minor limit or file a Title V application, if needed. There should be no penalty for non comp liance with the s ynthetic minor limit or Title V permitting requirements so long as the necessary applications were filed within one y ear of the change in the GWPs . **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to th is comment. **Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 11 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** Just as a source can become subject to Title V for the first time, a source can become subject to PSD review for the first time. As with Title V, sources need time to determine if they are now over the PSD applicability threshold and to create a mechanism to evaluate PSD app licability

for projects that previously were not subject to a PSD review. A facility in this position should have one year from the date the rule is final to implement the change in the GWPs when conducting PSD applicability determinations. Further, if a s yn thetic minor source limit has been established for PSD, the same treatment should be given that is proposed above for a s ynthetic minor limit relative to Title V. That is, the facility should be allowed to use the current GWPs for one ye ar and also have that one y ear to have the s ynthetic minor limit removed. For sources that are alread y subject to PSD review, the outcome of applicability determinations for projects will change. Because of this, EPA must clarify that a facility

that is alread y subject to PSD has one year from the date that the GWPs are adopted to implement the GWP changes and appl y them to PSD applicability determinations for specific projects. At the very minimum, any

project that is permitted or has begun construction within 90 day s afte r the GWP changes must be excluded from reevaluation with the new GWPs. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. With respect to sy nthetic minor limits established solely in terms of CO 2 e, whether the limit was taken to avoid PSD or Title V, as explained in the preamble, the source should analyze any permit and regulatory

provisions governing the calculation of CO 2 e for purposes of compliance with the permit. Even where the calculation of C O 2 e under those provisions would change for a source, the EPA believes most sources will still be able to comply with sy nthetic minor source permits because there is no GWP change for CO 2 and the change in GWP for the other GHG compounds is generall y small . Thus, we do not expect the GWP revisions to significantl y alter CO 2 e emissions for most ty pes of sources, particularl y sources in which most of their GHG emissions result from fuel combustion. However, where a source anticipates difficulty in compliance with its sy nthetic minor source limit, it should work with its permitting authority to address its specific situation.

11 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).48

**Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 12 **Doc um**  **ent Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** The final area where the GWP changes come into play is compliance with existing CO 2 e emissions limits. Those limits are in three categories: PSD avoidance limits (a limit on the CO 2 e emissions of a project to keep the project out of PSD). These kinds of permit limits should be treated the same as Title V s ynthetic minor limits, as described above. The source should be able to seek a revision to the limit to be consist ent with the new GWPs during the one ye ar period before the new GWPs go into effect. There must also be assurance that past projects will not be s ubjected to reevaluation under PSD simply because the reporting rule has changed since the project was permitt ed or started. BACT limits . The change to the GWPs that apply when determini ng compliance with a BACT limit that is expressed on a CO 2 e basis could put a source out of compliance simply due to the GWP change. Sources should be allowed to use the old repo rting rule GWPs and methods for a ye ar after the new GWPs are set and also be allowed to seek a redetermination of the limit within that y ear without having to reopen the PSD permit and the BACT determination. PAL s . Sources should have one y ear from the date the new GWPs are set in order to convert to the new emissions tracking method and file a request to recalculate the PAL limit to address the change if that is also needed. If the change in the reporting rule GWPs presents a problem in meetin g the PAL that cannot be fixed by re - determining the PAL itself, an off ramp must be available to remove the PAL without any punitive implications. [Footnote: This situation can arise if the profile of GHGs has changed since the PALwas set such that the P ALwas set with one set of gases but compliance reflects another set of gases such that the impact of the GWPs is small on the baseline gases but large on the current gases. In this instance the PAL redetermination will not necessarily mean an increase in the PAL level and a path for compliance under a set of unforeseen circumstances.] **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for additional guidance and the response to EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2, Excerpt 7.

**Commenter Name:** Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer **Commenter Affiliation:** Intel Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4

12 The comments of the Semiconduc tor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).49

**Comment:** In the case of PSD applicability , setting the effective date of the final rule at one ye ar after publication should help alleviate problems in determining applicability of recent projects. In this case, EPA should make it clear that the new GWPs would only be applied to any new major source or major modification that has not begun actu al construction by the effective date of the rule (i.e. one year after publication). Projects that have begun actual construction prior to that effective date should not be subject to a reevaluation of PSD applicability based on the new GWP values. Baseli ne actual emissions determinations, and baseline adjustments used to set PALemission caps, also may

rely on past GWPs and reporting protocols. A source should alway s have the option of making a determination of baseline actual emissions using past reporte d emissions. For emissions in y ears that pre - date GHG reporting, a source should be able to use prior reporting methods, if all the data needed to determine baseline actual emissions with the new GHG reporting methods is not available. If updating historic al emissions determinations with the new GWPs and the newly

added greenhouse gases is not possible, it should be acceptable to use whatever data is available. If changes to calculated PALlevels are needed, sources should have one y ear to convert to the ne w GWPs and at their option file a request to recalculate the PAL limit to address the change. Such a calculation should not require reopening the permit, and should instead be handled as a technical correction. When new materials are added to Table A - 1, it is possible that the source may be lacking information about the baseline level of emissions of those materials since there was no regulatory requirement to track them prior to their addition. In that instance, Intel believes that the source should be all owed to adjust the baseline upward for those materials based on the current emissions, or at the very least be allowed to use engineering estimates of past emissions based on current knowledge. Otherwise, the source could lose some of its PALheadroom not due to emissions increases, but simply by adding materials that the source was not able to include in its baseline. If the change in the reporting rule GWPs presents a problem in meeting the PALthat cannot be fixed by redetermining the PAL itself, an off ramp must be available to remove the PAL without any punitive implications. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Until July

2011, when the Indian Country Minor Source Rule was promulgated, the only mechanism for obtaining perm its in Indian Country was via the PSD and/or Title V permitting programs. Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country , 76 Fed. Reg. 38748 (July

1, 2011). As such, operators did not have the option to permit their facilities as “sy nthetic mino r” sources based on federall y enforceable emission limits. In the absence of a minor source permitting program, facilities were not allowed to account for emission controls when calculating their potential to emit (“PTE”) unless the controls were specifica lly required b y a federall y enforceable emission standard, such as a new source performance standard or a50

national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants. With the promulgation of the Indian Country Minor Source Rule EPA introduced a minor source p reconstruction permitting program requiring preconstruction permits starting on September 2, 2014.The Indian Country Minor Source Rule also introduced a s ynthetic minor permitting program allowing sources to appl y for federally enforceable emission limits on a voluntary basis starting in August 30,2011. Due to the historic lack of a minor source permitting program, most minor sources in Indian Country are not permitted at all. Because they lack federally

enforceable limits, the Proposed Rule would increase these sources’ PTE by four tons CO 2 e for every ton of potential methane emissions, regardless of whether their methane emissions are effectivel y controlled. The proposed change to the GWP will likely push many

borderline true minor sources above the Title V and PSD GHG major source thresholds. These sources would be heavil y impacted b y a requirement to obtain a Title V permit and by the fact that they

would become subject to PSD. Under the current GWP potential values, these true minor sources in Indian Country are not subject to preconstruction permitting. If they are suddenly

subject to regulation as PSD major sources due to an unforeseen change in how EPA calculates CO 2 e , planned expansions to these facilities will be disrupted by the delay s, regulatory

b urdens, and litigation risks that are inherent in PSD permitting. Being suddenly subjected to PSD would also affect sources b y restricting their flexibility

to expand in the future. Sources that are currently just below PSD thresholds can be modified witho ut PSD review so long as the modification, by itself, would not increase emissions by

more than the PSD threshold for new sources (i.e., 100,000 tpy CO 2 e ). However, if the new GWP values subject the facility to PSD, it loses that flexibility . A future modi fication would trigger PSD review if it increases emissions of GHGs or an y criteria pollutant by more than its significance threshold. The Proposed Rule creates uncertainty for Indian Country sources. This uncertaint y is magnified b y the fact that EPA is j ust now rolling out the minor source rule. **Response :**  Major sources of emissions locating in Indian Country prior to the effective date of the “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian Country” final rule (the Tribal NSR Rule) should have gotten P SD permits or worked with the appropriate EPA regional office to identify a mechanism to effectivel y limit their emissions to minor source levels prior to construction. The Tribal NSR Rule has greatly simplified the process by providing such major sources with the option to obtain a “s ynthetic minor” permit with enforceable requirements to limit emissions to below the major source thresholds instead of getting a major source permit. Major sources must obtain either a major source permit or a s ynthetic minor permit prior to construction or making a major modification. Minor sources

– those with PTE below the major source threshold but at or above the minor source thresholds in the Tribal NSR Rule

– that will construct or modify

their sources in Indian Country after September 2, 2014 must obtain minor source permits prior to construction. Existing sources were required to register with the appropriate EPA regional office b y March 1, 2013, or within 90 days of beginning operation. EPA does not intend that exist ing minor sources would become subject to major NSR permitting requirements just because of the change in the GWP. So, an existing “borderline” minor source in Indian Country would not become subject to the PSD requirements for previously

permitted constru ction, simply because of the GWP change. However, when that existing source is modified in the future , it would be required to use the most current GWPs, which could result in the source being considered major for PSD and be ing required to obtain a51

major s ource (or s ynthetic minor) permit. In addition, if a previousl y minor title V source becomes a “major source” under title V b y appl yi ng the revised GWPs,the source generall y would have one ye ar from the effective date of the GWP change to submit an application for a part 71 (title V) permit or to be issued a s ynthetic minor permit to avoid title V applicabilit y. See also Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for additional explanation of how the revisions in this rule could interact with permitting requirements.

**Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** In its proposal to make the amendments to Table A - 1 effective for existing sources in the 2013 reporting year and for new sources in the 2014 reporting ye ar, EPA considered onl y the ability

of sources to collect and report emissions data. EPA failed to consider the ability of sources and permitting agencies to implement the substantive impacts of an amendment to Table A - 1. QEPFS urges EPA to postpone the effective date of the new GWP factors until at least 2017. A delay ed effective date is particularl y important for source s in Indian Country . If the Proposed Rule is finalized in 2013 as proposed, such sources are likel y to appl y for a large number of voluntary s ynthetic minor permits as a protective measure. This would create an unnecessary burden on both industry

and EPA. A delay ed effective date would mitigate this by allowing Indian Country

sources an opportunity

to voluntarily

permit their facilities as sy nthetic minor sources in an orderl y manner. Oil and gas companies like QEPFS have very long business planning cy cles. Companies have already committed significant capital to ordering long lead time equipment for planned facilities in Indian Country based on the current permitting thresholds and applicable GWP values. We require a lead time of three to four years to work through those projects that are already underway , reevaluate future projects that are planned, and adjust our business plan. A phase - in period is particularl y important in Indian Country where historically

there has been no preconstruction permit program f or minor sources. **Response:** See response to comments EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1, Excerpt 6.

**Commenter Name** : Tim Higgs, Corporate Environmental Engineer **Commenter Affiliation:** Intel Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2 **C omment Excerpt Number:**  2B52

In addition to the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, other important regulatory programs utilize the GWP values published in this table, most notably the prevention of significant deterioration ( PSD ) and Title V permitting programs. Changes in the GWP values can result in sources being covered b y these rules that previously were not, or even alter the determination of whether an individual project triggers permitting requirements. In addition, if a source is operating under a plant - wide applicability limit (PAL ) permit, compliance with the permit or the ability to take actions without exceeding the PAL can be impacted every time the GWP values change. Given these potentially significant compliance implications, Intel believe s that it is appropriate to publish new values in Table A - 1 only when they

have been through a level of scientific process and peer review that makes future changes to the values less likely . **Response:** Regarding the effect of the revisions to the GWP value s on the PSD or Title V programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. For the comment regarding EPA’s intent to periodically update the GWPs in Table A 1, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the fi nal rule.

**Commenter Name:** Matt Hall **Commenter Affiliation:** Consumers Energy Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0072 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA, via the final Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule), established thresholds for PSD applicability for CO 2 equivalent ( CO 2 e ) emissions. In that rulemaking, EPA required that “wherever y ou perform an emissions calculations involving CO 2 e for the purposes of determining the applicability of PSD or Title V requirements, y ou use the GWP values codified in the EPA’s mandatory GHG reporting rule.” These applicability determinations are the bas is for permitting actions which require periodic compliance demonstrations. Often, those compliance measures are memorialized in the permit by referencing the source of emission factors. If the GWP values in Table A - 1 are included in a permit, and EPA revi ses those values, then a previous determination may be called into question. This is troubling because EPA has not indicated how they intend to reconcile changes to existing applicability

determinations in this proposed rulemaking; again, an unnecessary an d complex exercise that can and should be avoided b y grandfathering previous filings and determinations made under prior EPA - approved GWPs. Instead, the proposed rule states that “(t)o the extent that a Table A

– 1 amendment raises permitting implementation questions or concerns, EPA’s regional offices and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manage the PSD and title V programs, will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns.” It is not in the public interest to create such widespread uncertainty , with likely non - uniform responses by EPA’s 10 regions and the 50 states, when all parties acted under the GWP science approved b y EPA at the time of submittal. Past actions should not be subject to liability when completed in good faith under an EPA approved program.53

**Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment . **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 13 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** WM is deeply concerned over the lack of clarit y provided b y EPA with respect to the practical and

/or legal effect of the revisions to the GWP values on regulatory programs such as PSD or Title V permitting. As the Agency knows, the GWP values are used by EPA and authorized states to determine the applicability of the PSD and Title V permitting program s. The Agency has made it clear that it is considering applying the revised GWP values to prior reporting years under the GHG Reporting Rule. However, the Agency has provided almost no guidance as to whether the change to the GWP values and previousl y repo rted data would also affect prior PSD and Title V determinations. The preamble to the Technical Corrections ambiguousl y provides that EPA will "work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance" on questions regarding PSD and Title V applicability . 78 Fed. Reg. 19802, 19809. This statement provides no direction to either the states or the regulated public with respect to the legal effect of EPA’s rule changes, or EPA’s intentions for the manner in which the proposal may affect important regulatory programs. EPA’s vague statements with respect to PSD and Title V permitting create a tremendous amount of uncertainty

for the regulated community . By failing to clarify

the legal effect of the revisions to the GWP values on the PSD or Title V programs, EPA has created the potential for significant confusion with respect to the status of certain GHG reporters relating to PSD and/or Title V. This concern is substantial for facilities within the municipal waste landfill sector, which will be subject to an approximate 20% increase in GHG emissions as a result of the proposed GWP revision, and is expected to have the most new GHG reporters as a result of the rule. Moreover, EPA’s failure to clarify

the effect of the proposal on exis ting facilities may leave open the possibility

for agency

enforcement action, a citizen suit, and/or the reopening of a previousl y approved permit. **Response:** Regarding the potential retroactive impact, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of the revisions to the GWP values on permitting under the PSD or Title V programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment.

13 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).54

**Commenter Name:** John L . Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Dry e & Warren LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0045 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** SMA is concerned about the impact of the revised GWP values on the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting programs. While the agency appears to recognize the need for guidance on this issue, particularl y with respect to permitting applicability determi nations, SMA urges the agency to issue uniform guidelines concurrently with the issuance of the final revised GWP values, rather than rel yi ng on a potentially piecemeal approach through the EPA’s regional offices. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,809. In particular, EPA should issue guidance clarifying that pending permit applications or applicability determinations should be assessed on the basis of the GWP values that are in force as of the date of the permit application or applicability determination. Moreover, th e agency should make clear that existing permits, pending permits, and permit applications at the time the revised GWP values are adopted should not be required to be amended to reflect the new GWP values. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble t o the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Numbe r:**  9 **Comment:** Regardless of whether EPA proceeds with its proposed revisions to the GWPs in Table A - 1, the Agency

should reconfirm that the GHG emissions rep orted pursuant to the GHGRP do not figure into determinations as to the applicability of other CAA regulatory programs. Indeed, this position is consistent with EPA statements in the fi nal “Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule,” 75 Fed. Reg. 31,514 (June 3, 2010) (“Tailoring Rule). For instance, EPA noted i n the Tailoring Rule that the GHGRP requires reporting of actual emissions in metric tons while applica bility determinations under the prevention of significant deterioration (“PSD”) and Title V pe rmitting programs are based on estimates made in short tons . I d. at 31,532. The Tailoring Rule emphasizes the importance of maintaining the traditional PSD and Title V approaches to determin ing the applicability of those programs and concludes that consistency of those approaches with the methodology used in the GHGRP is unnecessary . Id. at 31,532 - 33. At a minimum, EPA sho uld make clear, if it finalizes its proposed changes to the GHGRP, that those changes have no bearing on other CAA programs like PSD and Title V, and that the positions stated in the Tailoring Ru le remain valid. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment.55

**Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 14 **Docume nt Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** More important than the impact on reporting of emissions is the impact that changes to the GWPs has on compliance with EPA permitting requirements under the Tailoring Rul e. One of the advantages of the comprehensive GHG reporting s ys tem that EPA has created under 40 CFR Part 98 is the abi lity of government and industry to rely on it when complying with EPA permitting requirements. [Footnote: While emissions quantification needs under the permitting rules (determining applicability or co mpl yi ng with permit limits) will not alway s match those of the reporting rule, it is critical that parties can rel y on the reporting rule for appropriate methods to determine emissions. Some departures are necessary . There is a difference in the gases that are regulated and, in permitting, there is the potential need to track emissions over shorter time periods or for specific uses of gases. Even in those instances where departures are needed, the reporting rule provisions are the appropriate point of departure for emissions tracking under the permitting rules.] Industry needs to be able to rel y on the reporting rule for emissions analyses under EPA permitting programs, for con sistency between reporting and compliance demonstrations and consistency across facilities. We understand this is EPA’s position as well and we ask that this position be affirmed. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c. of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 15 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** WM is not aware of any precedent under the Clean Air Act that would require existing facilities to apply new standards or emission factors retroactivel y, or that would subject existing facilities to regulatory requirements based on such retroactive application. In this context, for example, EPA must clarify that prior permit determinations should not be reopened or collaterally

attacked based on revised (increased) GHG emission estimates. If emissions from a non - Title V facility

would increase above major source thresholds as a result of the GWP revision, the tr ansition to Title V status may not be deemed to have occurred at any point prior to EPA’s promulgation of the proposed rule. L ikewise, to the extent that a non - PSD source would exceed PSD major source thresholds as a result of the GWP revision, such status may onl y be applied prospectivel y. Most importantly , modification projects undertaken prior to the GWP

14 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2). 15 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).56

revision may

not be reopened on the basis of changed emission estimates or PSD status, and the Tailoring Rule PSD requirements may only appl y to modific ation projects that occur after the rule revisions. Under no circumstances should any calculated increase in GHG emissions resulting from the proposed GWP revisions be interpreted for regulatory applicability

purposes to constitute or relate to a facility modification. Given the legal precedent regarding retroactive rulemaking, EPA could not have intended that the PSD /Title V implications of the proposed rule would be retroactive. Specificall y, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently made clear that retroa ctivity is not favored in the law. Bowen v. Georgetown Univ . Hosp ., 488 U.S. 204, 208 - 209 (1988). Absent an express statutory grant, courts generally

will not find that an agency rule has retroactive effect. The general disfavor of retroactivity

is based o n considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations, all of which are applicable considerations in the current context. Landgraf v. USI Film Products , 511 U.S. 244, 270 (1994). In determining whether a regulation has retroactive effect, courts consider "whether it would impose new duties with respect to transactions alread y completed." Id . at 280. Courts have distinguished between regulations that impose new sanctions on past conduct, which are invalid unless specificall y authori zed, and regulations that merel y "upset expectations," which are invalid only

if arbitrary

and capricious. Nat'l Petrochemical &Refiners Ass'n v. EPA , 630 F.3d 145, 159 (D.C. Cir. 2010). These two categories are generall y referred to as "primary" and "sec ondary " retroactivity, respectivel y. Applying these principles to the Technical Corrections, the retroactive application of PSD or Title V would be considered as having "primary " retroactive effect because it would impose new sanctions on past conduct (e. g., construction/modification without a PSD permit). As such, the rule would likely

be challenged and struck down because the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to implement rules with primary retroactive effect. Sierra Club v. Whitman , 285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Because of the lack of clarity , and to avoid legal challenges that will delay and encumber the rulemaking, WM requests that the Agency explicitly

provide in the Technical Corrections that the revisions to the GWP values would not retroactively appl y to PSD , Title V, or an y other regulatory

program that relies on the GWP values. By contrast, the GWP revisions may only apply prospectivel y, in a manner that provides clear notice to affected facilities with respect to the manner in which the revisions will be implemented and the legal effect of the revisions on related regulatory

programs. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Dominion Resources Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 357

**Comment:** In no circumstances should changes to the GWPs or GHG reportin g requirements, if finalized, affect permit applicability determinations under other CAA programs. At a minimum, EPA should make clear that an y changes to the GWPs and GHG reporting requirements applied retroactively

would have no bearing on any permit app licability

determinations pertaining to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD), minor source NSR and Title V made prior to the effective date of a final rule. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **C omment Excerpt Number:**  5 **Comment:** The retroactive revision of GHG emission data will create regulatory uncertainty concerning whether these changes will affect permitting under other EPA regulatory programs (i.e., Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V). EPA's proposal does not provide sufficient guidance to landfills concerning whether the proposed changes to the GWP value of methane would affect prior PSD or Title V determinations. EPA has vaguely stated it will "work with permitting a

uthorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance" on questions regarding PSD and Title V applicability . 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,809. This statement does not provide sufficient direction to the states, landfill owners, or others concerning the impact of the proposed retroactive application of the revised GWP value of methane. Importantly , EPA's lack of clarity

concerning this issue raises the possibility of reopening a previously approved permit, a citizens lawsuit, and/or an EPA enforcement act ion. To eliminate these problems, NSWMA urges the Agency to provide explicitly

in the Technical Corrections clarification that the revisions to the GWP values would not retroactively appl y to PSD, Title V, or an y other regulatory

program that relies on the GWP values. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A - 1 to determine applicability and to set emission levels for CO 2 equivalents. Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and58

changes to emission factors in other subparts may affect permitting program applicability and limits for a source. In order to minimize confusion and re - work, these changes should onl y appl y to projects that occur after the effective date of EPA’s amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (40 CFR 98). The changes should have no retroactive impact on: Prior PSD or Title V permit determinations; Calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations; or for pending permit appli cations that are deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, M anager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 16 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** On page 78 FR 19808, EPA indicates that amending Table A - 1 may affect emissions reported under the PSD or Title V permitting programs. The Preamble states that sources assessing the applicability under the PSD or Title V permitting program should be aware of the proposed changes to Table A - 1 that may affect the CO 2 e emissions of the source once the Table A - 1 amendment is promulgated and effective. For example 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a) references Table A - 1 of 40 CFR 98 to calculate CO 2 e emissions for the aggregate of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, h ydrofluoro carbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride emissions. Changes in GWP should have no retroactive impact on prior PSD or Title V applicability determinations or permit applications that were deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of this rule. This includes, but is not limited to, evaluati ng compliance with permit or regulatory

limits or determining whether a source is subject to PSD permitting or NSPS requirements. Such situations should not be affected by the new GWP ’ s and no reanal ys is of the prior applicability

determination shall be re quired. Existing permit conditions with CO 2 e limitations, based on the prior GWPs, should continue to use the GWPs in effect when the permit was issued. Existing permit conditions expressed in CO 2 e emissions may

be updated in periodic Title V renewals by a simple ratio of the new GWP/prior - GWP. Such permit condition updating should be considered an Administrative Amendment not requiring EPA notice and comment. Minor source facilities with existing permits that have a negative GHG permitting applicability (Title V or PSD) based on GWPs in use at the time of permit issuance shall not be required to initiate a permit modification or perform PSD review due strictl y to the use of a revised GWP.

16 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).59

In addition, retroactive application of GWP values may interfere w ith baseline emissions and other data submitted to state programs, such as California. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. Regarding existing title V permits, n othing in this final rule changes the procedural requirements for title V permit amendments. The permit amendment requirements for an y specific circumstance may vary according to the requirements of the state program and the specific relevant facts. EPA expects th at permit holders will coordinate with their permitting authorities if permit amendments are necessary and that permitting authorities will continue to provide notice of amendments to EPA, consistent with the requirements of Part 70.

**Commenter Name:** Gro ver Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** If Part 98 revisions are incorporated into the NSR and Title V r ules, they must not apply retroactivel y. If the Part 98 GWP revisions are also incorporated into the NSR and Title V programs, GPA urges the EPA to clarify

that these factors would not be applied retroactively to past applicability determinations and that no reanal ys is of the prior applicability determinations should be required. Existing permit conditions with CO 2 e limitations, based on the prior GWPs, should continue to use the GWPs in effect when the permit was issued. Existing permit conditions express ed in CO 2 e emissions may

be updated in periodic Title V renewals by a simple ratio of the new GWP/prior - GWP. Such permit condition updating should be considered an Administrative Amendment not requiring EPA notice and comment. Minor source facilities that were not subject to GHG permitting applicability (Title V or PSD) based on GWPs in use at the time of permit issuance or start of construction (e.g. for facilities located in Indian Country) must not be required to initiate a permit modification or perform PSD review due strictly

to the use of a revised GWP. **Response:** For EPA’s response to this comment, s ee Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule and the response to EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2, Except 3 . **Commenter Name:** Li sa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)60

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  13 **Comment:** The Proposed Rule indicates that amending Table A - 1 affects emissions reported under the PSD and Title V permitting programs [78 FR 19808]. The preamble states that for sources assessing applicability under the PSD or Title V permitting program, the proposed changes to the GWP Table A - 1 values could affect the CO 2 e emissions from sources subject to PSD and Title V permits under the Tailoring Rule. Changes in the GWP should not be retroactively

applied to applicability

determin ation for PSD review or Title V operating permits that were submitted and deemed administrativel y complete prior to the effective date of this rule. Compliance under existing permits should be evaluated based upon the GWP that was used to determine CO 2 e em issions levels in those existing permits. In the final rule, EPA should clearl y explain application of revised GWPs for PSD and Title V permitting consistent with these principles. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  2 **Comment:** AFPM is concerned about the potential impact on present Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on the previous version of Table A - 1. Facility permitting can cons ume significant resources of affected facilities and state agencies. The revisions create the possibility that facilities whose operations are or were permitted at a certain level may , as a result of the rule, now exceed limits in recently - issued permits b ased upon EPA’s revisions to the global warming potentials (GWPs). The resulting effects could reach much further than individual facilities. As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA programs, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A - 1 to determine applicability

and to set emission levels for CO 2 equivalents ( CO 2 e ). Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and changes to emission factors in other subparts may directl y affect permitting program applicability and l imits for a source. To minimize confusion and adjustment to previous submissions, these changes should only appl y to projects that occur after the EPA’s amendments to the GHG Reporting Rule have been promulgated. The changes should have no retroactive imp act on prior PSD or Title V permit determinations, calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations, or pending permit applications that are deemed administratively complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes. AFPM recommends no retroactive adjustments to permits and permit applications that are deemed administratively complete based on previous Table A - 1 data. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's resp onse to this comment.61

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 17 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** EPA’s Proposed Changes to the GWP Values and Emission Factors Should Not Have a Retroactive Impact on Prior Permitting Actions. Be yond the future implications for facilities reporting emissions data, ACC is concerned about the potential impact on present Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on the previous version of Table A - 1. The revisions could create the potential for facilities to exceed limits in their recently - issued permits based s olel y on EPA’s revised GWP values. The resulting effects could reach much further than individual facilities. As EPA notes in the preamble, other EPA rules and regulations, such as the Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, use the GWP values in Table A - 1 to determine applicability and to set emission levels for CO 2 equivalents. Therefore, an amendment to the GWP values in Subpart A and changes to emission factors in other subparts may directl y affect permitting program applicability

and limits for a source. To min imize confusion and avoid placing an unnecessary

burden on permitting authorities and permit holders, ACC believes EPA’s proposed changes to GWPs and emission factors should apply onl y to projects that occur after the effective date of EPA’s amendments to the GHG Reporting Rule. The changes should have no retroactive impact on prior PSD or Title V permit determinations, calculations of project emission increases or decreases for netting calculations, or pending permit applications that are deemed administratively

complete prior to the effective date of these rule changes. ACC recommends that EPA grandfather permits and permit applications, based on previous Table A - 1 data, that are administratively complete before the effective date of changes to Table A - 1. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** OCC echoes ACC's concern about the potential implications on PSD and Title V permits that include GHG emission limits based on earlier Table A - l data. The EPA should grandfather permits and permit applications that are administrativel y complete based on Table A - 17 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).62

l data available on the submittal date of the permit application. Retroactively changing the data during the approval process would cause increased burdens on th e Agency. We believe it is important for the Agency to focus its limited resources on meeting the critical time lines of many other important projects. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response t o this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** The technical corrections acknowledge permit applicability impacts by

the change in GWP under the Federal PSD and Title V program [78 FR 19808 - 19809]. However, the proposed rule does not provi de a regulatory anal ys is of how retroactivel y applying GWP will impact PSD or Title V permitting obli gations and any enforcement actions associated with previous determinations. There is a huge concern that such a change will stall current permit projects and possibly

reopen existing permits which were previousl y approved. Landfills rel y on these permits to install combustion devices for compliance under New Source Review Perfor mance Standards (NSPS) and for landfill gas renewable energy projects both of which reduce GHG emissions. We strongl y suggest that EPA consider language to provide regulatory protec tion from inadvertent compliance implications resulting from a retroa ctive change in GWP along with providing clear guidance in the Technical Corrections that the revisions to the GWP values have no retroa ctive effect on PSD or Title V permitting. Most imp ortantly , new or modification projects undertaken before the GWP revision may not be reopened on the basis of changed emission estimates or PSD status, and the Tailoring Rule PSD requ irements may only apply to new or modification projects that occur after the rule revisions take effect. Additionally , when the new GWP is utilized under PSD and Title V permitting, regulated facilities should be allowed to appl y the new GWP both to baseline (pre - project) emissions as well as to any emission increases from the modification project. The change in GWP should be treated no differentl y than a change to an emission factor or quantification method where there is no retroactive liability

for emission changes outside of a subsequent facility modification that increases emissions. **Response:** Regarding the inclusion of permit applicability impacts, see Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the retroactive application of the revised GWPs, see Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the f inal rule.

**Commenter Name:** Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy , President **Commenter Affiliation:** California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB)63

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 **C omment Excerpt Number:**  3 **Comment:** Although it is CCEEB's preferred option to make all changes prospectivel y, now, and into the future, if EPA proceeds with its preferred option we strongl y s uggest that EPA consider new language that provides regulatory p rotection (e . g ., from Title V or PSD permitting obligations, and an y enforcement actions) from inadvertent compliance obligations that result from retroactive changes in an individual facility 's previously submitted GHG Mandatory Reports. Any

such actions should be accompanied by a thorough regulatory anal ys is of how language in the Federal Clean Air Act supports such an action. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Comment er Name:**  Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Commenter Affiliation:** California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0068 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Potential retroactive triggering of regulatory requirements (e.g., EPA’s GHG Tailoring Rule). Retroactively appl yi ng the revised GWPs, such as methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, can increase a facility ’s annual GHG emissions (that previously fell below regulatory

thresholds) to now exceed regulatory thresholds and trigger regulatory requirements. In other words, if the EPA requires facility inventories to be revised retroactivel y, there is the potential for facilities that pr eviously determined that a regulation did not apply (based on the now outdated GWPs), to now reverse that conclusion. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to retroactivel y compl y with the relevant regulation(s), an d more importantly , can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perhaps facing legal action or penalties? Conversely , if a GWP is reduced, such as nitrous oxide where the GWP is being decreased from 310 to 298, facilities that have narrowly tri ggered a regulatory

threshold may learn that this regulation no longer applies to their facilit y. **Response:** See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy , President **Commenter Affiliation:** California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 164

**Comment:** Retroactive application of GWPs can trigger regulatory requirements and possibly enforcement action. Increases in GWPs, such as for methane where the GWP is being increased from 21 to 25, when applied retroactively , can push borderline facilities with respect to their GHG emissions into regulatory programs, perhaps retroactively . CCEEB's concern is not to focus on the EPA Mandatory Reporting program, but does relate to the implications to the Federal PSD and Title V programs. Taking EPA's preferre d approach, previous y ear facility inventories will be revised and published. When this occurs, there is the potential for facilities that previously

made determination that a regulation did not apply , based upon the now outdated technical factors that thi s conclusion was incorrect. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to now have to retroactivel y compl y with the relevant regulations, and more importantly , can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perh aps facing legal action, penalties and fines? Conversel y, if a GWP is reduced, facilities that have narrowl y triggered a regulatory threshold may learn that this regulation no longer applies to their facility . What is the remedy under this circumstance? **Re sponse:**  See Section II.A.2.c and Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Docu ment Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** The GHG MRR is linked to the Federal PSD (Tailoring Rule) and Title V programs. By taking EPA's preferred approach, previous y ear facilit y inventories will be revised and published. When the change in GWP is applied to prior reporting ye ars, previous PSD and Title V determinations could be affected. For example, the municipal waste landfill sector will be subject to a 20% increase in GHG emissions due to the change in GW P which could cause a non PSD major source to exceed the PSD major source threshold. In these circumstances, would there be a legal obligation for these facilities to now have to retroactivel y comply with the relevant regulations, and more importantly , can these facilities be found to be "out of compliance" perhaps facing legal action, penalties and fines? EPA’s should provide clarit y on this issue and include a statement that GWP values would not retroactivel y apply to PSD, Title V, or an y other regulatory program that relies on GWP values. **Response:** Regarding the relationship between the final GWP amendments and the Tailoring Rule and permitting under the PSD and Title V permitting programs , see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regardin g retroactive application of amended GWPs, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department65

**Document Control Nu mber:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** When the new GWP is utilized under PSD and Title V permitting, regulated facilities should be allowed to apply the new GWP both to baseline (pre - project) emissions as well as to an y emis sion increases from the modification project. The change in GWP should be treated no differently

than a change to an emission factor or quantification method, such as AP 42 guidance, where there is no retroactive liability for emission changes outside of a subsequent facility modification that increases emissions. **Response:** Regarding the relationship between the final GWP amendments and permitting programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding retroactive application of amended GWPs, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 18 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  8 **Comment:** One approach that EPA could take to address these concerns would be to establish two different tables in the regulations that would be used to determine PSD/Title V applicability depending on the date. For example, the existing Table A - 1 to subpart of part 98 would be used to determine GHG emissions under sections 51.166, 52.21, 70.2, and 71.2 until the effective date of the rule, and a new Table A - 1(a) containing the revised GWP values would then be used to determine GHG emissions aft er that date. This approach would be similar to the biogenic deferral rule where EPA amended sections 51.166, 52.21, 70.2, and 71.2 to provide that prior to a date certain (July

21, 2014), the mass of GHG emissions shall not include biogenic emissions. For pending permit applications, if the application has been determined to be administratively complete b y the effective date of the rule, then the applicant would not be required to revise emissions using the revised GWPs. This approach has been used b y the Agency in its 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS PSD implementation determination that grandfathered existing permits [ Footnote: In earl y 2013, EPA issued the Final Rule, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 78 Fed. Reg. 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013). This rule strengthened the annual PM2.5 standard to 12 μg/m3 and retained the 24 - hour PM standard at a level of 35 μg/m3. The existing annual standard, 15.0 μg/m3, was set in 1997. Grandfathering of existing permit applications also is addressed in the new rul e. Traditionally , 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(k)(1) and 51.166(k)(1) require that PSD permit applications include a demonstration that new major stationary sources and major modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of an y NAAQS that is in effect as of the date the PSD permit is issued. However, in this rule, EPA grandfathered existing permit applications from demonstrating compliance with the new NAAQS for PM2.5 if the (a) the application is determined to be complete b y December 14, 2012, or (b) the public notice on the

18 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Distr icts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).66

draft permit or preliminary determination is published before March 18, 2013 (the day the revised PM2.5 standards become effective).] Likewise, EPA could require facilities renewing or modifying existing permits after the effective date of the Technical Corrections to update GHG emissions using the revised GWP values. EPA must clarify , however, that such application submittals would not be considered modifications that would themselves trigger PSD Tailoring Rule requirements. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We disagree with the commenter's recommendation that the original Table A - 1 be retained in the regulatory text. Including two versions of Table A - 1 in the regulatory text could be confusing to many reporters and increases the potential for reporters to accidentall y use GWP values from the wrong table. Regarding EPA's response to concerns on the applicability , compliance schedule, or calculation methodologies for major or minor source determinations, permit limits, or other such compliance requirements, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule . **Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** TFI has concerns with how state and independent programs that rel y on the GWP values set forth in the GHGRP may change in light of EPA’s modification of the values in accord with the Fourth Assessment Report. As EPA is aware, several TFI members participate in national and regional nitrous oxide offset programs. The programs rel y on the current GWP value of 310 for purposes of calculating the climate reserve tonnes (CRTs) of carbon offset credits. If EPA changes the nitrous oxide GWP value from 310 to 298, and recalculates prior ye ar GHGRP values, the entities in charge of these programs may similarly back - calcu late prior ye ar CRTs, which would lead to lower offsets. This would be unfairl y prejudicial to those participating in these programs, would serve as a disincentive to future participation, and would add additional uncertainty to the overall carbon markets. As such, if EPA moves forward with its proposed lowering of the GWP value for nitrous oxide, we request that EPA make clear in the final rule that it encourages state and independent programs rel yi ng on the GHGRP GWP values to maintain the prior value of 310 for all CRTs calculated prior to the new value taking effect as part of the GHGRP . **Response:** Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect on past y ears’ reports, and III.B of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM)67

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 09 34 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** AFPM is concerned about the potential of increased complexity in comparing emissions between programs and between years. Some states aligned the GWP values in the state reporting programs to match the EPA val ues so that the reporting burden would be reduced. These states will either have to propose and approve rule changes that match this proposed change b y EPA or certain facilities will be required to report two sets of data; one to EPA and one to the state o r local program. In order to ensure consistent reporting across federal, state and regional reporting programs, the Agency must ensure that the reporting revisions currentl y and in the future are well coordinated with state and local reporting programs. **Response:** Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Co mmenter Affiliation:**  California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0068 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Retroactive application of AR4 GWPs or other technical changes that influence GHG emission estimates not only has the potential to trigger other EPA regulations, but also State regulatory

programs. For example, the State of California is activel y i mplementing its Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembl y Bill 32, AB 32) GHG reduction program, direc ted and enforced b y the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The program requires ambitious statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The 1990 GHG emissions target was a result of extensive inv entory anal ys is by CARB, as well as the present and future "business as usual" levels and the emissions cap targets. These estimated statewide GHG emissions levels and annual emissions reports rely on GWPs for measuring the State’s performance in meeting i ts goals. In addition, in order to streamline GHG reporting efforts and minimize costs for reporting entities, CARB has coordinated with EPA to make their GHG reporting program and online reporting s ys tem consistent with EPA’s. At this point, CARB’s report ing program is in alignment with EPA’s reporting program with some exceptions, including but not limited to the following: a) CARB requires additional information or level of detail for specific reporting entities. b) CARB requires independent third - part y verification of GHG emissions reports exceeding a specified threshold. c) CARB has begun implementing its Cap - and - Trade Program. As there is further alignment between the programs, policy decisions at the federal level regarding technical changes will impa ct the more rigorous State or local level GHG programs.68

CWCCG recognizes that technical factors affecting GHG emissions estimates will change in the future and CARB will have to puzzle through how to incorporate those changes into the AB 32 program; howeve r, retroactive application of these factors creates a set of complicated issues that can have far - reaching impacts. In California, applyingGWPs retroactively affects the 1990 emissions inventory , “business as usual” levels, emissions caps and compliance o bligations under the Cap - and - Trade program, as well as previously submitted annual GHG reports. EPA needs to carefull y consider the unintended consequences of its policy decisions regarding the retroactive application of GWPs. **Response:** Regardin g retroact ive impacts, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** Revising the GWPs is not only unwarranted based on the available science, it would engend er significant problems by creating inconsistent GWP s tandards throughout the United States. EPA’s remaining policy rationales for revising the Table A

– 1 of subpart A of Part 98 GWPs

– maintaining consistency with GHG inventories reported b y foreign natio ns and “promot[ing] consistency across the estimation methods used in the rule”

– reflect a generall y sound preference for harmonizing GHG emission estimations. EPA’s proposed action would, however, have the opposite effect. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,8 06. For i nstance, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”), which operates in the northeastern states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshir e, New York, Rhode I sland, and Vermont to cap and reduce CO 2 emissions from the power secto r, relies on the GWPs provided by the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. See RGGI Model Rule § XX - 1.2(as) (Dec. 31, 2008). The RGGI states are in the process of revising their regulations to update certain elements of the RGGIprogram, but they

will mai ntain their reliance on the Third Assessment Report GWPs. See Updated Model Rule § XX - 1.2(aw) (Feb. 7, 2013). If EPA moves to adopt the Fourth Assessment Report’s GWPs, the Agency will create unnecessary

divisions between its repo rting protocols and the re gulatory provisions of the RGGI states. **Response:** Regarding retroactive impacts, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the effect of these final amendments on state and regional programs, see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to th e final rule. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 869

**Comment:** Under California’s gree nhouse gas reporting rule “global warming potential values listed in Table A - 1 of 40 CFR Part 98 are used to determine the CO 2 equivalent of emissions.” 17 CAL .CODE REGS.tit. 17 § 95102(a)(65). It is unclear whether California’s regulation is intended to i ncorporate future revisions to Table A - 1 or to only

adopt Table A - 1 as it existed at the time California promulgated its reporting regulation. EPA should fully examine this question before proceeding with any revision to the Table A - 1 GWPs and consult with state officials regarding potential disruptions to the state’s new GHG regulatory

program. Regardless of the effect of a potential GWP revision, EPA’s modification of Table A - 1 could be problematic. If, for instance, California’s regulation is intended to incorporate all future EPA revisions to Table A - 1 automatically, EPA changes to Table A - 1 will distance California’s requirements from the requirements imposed by the RGGI states at the same time that these jurisdictions are attempting to align their programs and further integrate them. On the other hand, even if EPA’s modifications to the Table A - 1 have no effect on California’s require ments, finalizing EPA’s proposed revisions to the GWPs would nevertheless create a significant break between federal and state requirements. Instead of taking such action, EPA should endeavor to bring consistency to these state and federal requirements. **Re sponse:**  See Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 

### 2.6 **Comments on applicability and new reporters Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Manage ment (WM) 19 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** Because the retroactive application of the revised GWP values to prior y ear GHG emission reports is unnecessary , undul y burdensome, and confusing, WM urg es the Agency to apply the revised GWP values on a prospective basis only . Specificall y, WM supports EPA’s proposal to require existing GHG reporters to incorporate data changes into the 2013 calendar ye ar report due as of March 31, 2014. L ikewise, WM agre es that new reporters that will be subject to the requirements of Part 98 as a result of the proposed GWP revisions should not be required to collect or report data until calendar y ear 2014, with the GHG report due as of March 31, 2015. 78 Fed. Reg . at 198 33. **Response:** Regarding the prospective application of the amendments, see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the schedule, see Section III.A of the preamble to the final rule.

19 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).70

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Publi c & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 20 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** WM also does not support the expansion of applicability that will occur in the MSW Landfill sector due to the revision of the GWP for methane, and we note that there are other sectors (e.g., Subpart FF: Underground Coal Mines, Subpart NN: Natural Gas) that are not facing this issue because their applicability threshold is not based on CO 2 e emissions. Requiring reporting from more very small landfills and requiring other very small closed landfills to continue reporting is costly and has limited policy

relevance. We further note that the applicability

determination for MSW L andfills is alrea dy based on the methane generation level, which was converted to tons CO 2 e . Emissions of CO 2 from combustion have never been considered in determining applicability under the rule. Given the increased cost and limited utility of these "side effects" of re vising the GWPs, we recommend that that EPA establish both a methane - based reporting threshold for Subpart HH to replace the CO 2 e based reporting threshold, and a methane - based requirement for exiting the program. As noted below, these changes are easil y i mplemented by simply establishing a methane reporting threshold of 1190 metric tons/year or more and b y adding new language to clarify off - ramp provisions for both the five - ye ar exit threshold (1190 metric tons CH 4 ) and the three - ye ar exit threshold (714 t ons metric tons CH 4 ). EPA could modify

language in both "TABLE A - 3 to Subpart A of Part 98

– Source Category List for § 98.2(a)(1)

– Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years" [ Footnote a: Source categories are defined in each applicable subp art ] and Subpart HH, § 98.341 as follows: **TABLE A -**  **3 to Subpart A of Part 98 Source Category List for § 98.2( a )(1)** Source Category

L ist for §98.2(a)(1) Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years "Municipal solid waste landfills that generate CH 4 in amounts equivalent to 25,000 **1190** metric tons CO 2 e or more per year, as determined according to subpart HH of this part. As for exiting the program requirements, amend Section 98.341 as follows: **§98.3 41 Reporting Threshold**  (a ) You must report GHG emissions under this subpart if your facility contains a MSW landfill and the facility meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1), except as provided for in (1) or (2) below. (1 ) If reported emissions are less th an 1190 metric tons CH 4 per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or

20 Id.71

operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and e xplains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive year of emissions less than 1190 metric tons methane per year. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or op erator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more. (2 ) If reported emissions are less than 714 metric tons CH 4 per year for three consecutive years then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the third consecutive year of emissions less than 714 metric tons methane per year for Subpart HH. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of t he three consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more. Subpart HH facilities would still calculate and report methane as well as CO 2 e emissions for EPA inventory

purposes but rule applicability and program exit provisions would be based upon methane emissions

– not CO 2 e . The proposed exit provisions do not consider ancillary Subpart C anthropogenic emissions because MSW Landfills that meet the exit provisions are very small and primaril y closed landfills, and they do not operate Subpart C devices. Sub part C emissions are either non - existent or at such negligible amount that by including these emissions would not prevent a Subpart HH facility from exiting the program. Therefore, we believe reporters will not exit the program prematurely due to exclusion of Subpart C anthropogenic emissions. The methane based reporting threshold allows the Agency to avoid increasing the reporting program burden for the MSW landfill sector and EPA staff. It would also prevent subjecting additional small and primarily clos ed landfills with negligible emissions to reporting requirements and new compliance costs. Existing reporters will not be delayed five additional ye ars or more from exiting the reporting program. It also allows EPA to meet national and global inventory pro gram commitments without needlessly affecting GHG MRR applicability . **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:**  Waste Management (WM) 21

21 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).72

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** The purpose of the change in GWP is to align with global inventory practices, not to broaden applicability

of the GHG MRR. In the Preamble to the technical corrections EPA clearl y states, "The changes are being proposed for two reasons.....to ensure consistency with the Inventory as the Inventory begins to use GWPs from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Second, we propose to add GW Ps for F - GHGs that are not currentl y included in Table A - 1..." (78 FR 19807). Adding new reporters or delaying exit for existing reporters is not the intent of changing the GWP; yet the collateral damage is significant for MSW L andfills. The methane emissio ns at MSW landfills have not changed. No ph ys ical or operational changes have occurred at the MSW Landfills. The change in GWP is simply a change in calculation; a change, nonetheless, that significantl y impacts GHG MRR applicability for Subpart HH reporte rs. **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 09 34 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** Republic recommends the EPA consider the significant impacts that are inadequatel y addressed in the Impact Anal ys is and allow an alternative approach to the reporting threshold for Subpart HH. As an alternati ve approach, we recommend EPA establish applicability

and reporting threshold that is not based on CO 2 e emissions as this approach has done for other industry

sectors identif

ied in Table 2 - 3 in the Impact Analy sis. A methane - based reporting threshold for S ubpart HH would be appropriate since the applicability determination for MSW landfills is already based on a methane generation that is converted to tons CO 2 e . A methane - based applicability and reporting threshol d approach will not impact how Subpart HH ca lculates and reports CO 2 e and methane under the GHGRP. Also the number of existing applicable MSW landfills will remain the same. This approach will however reduce the GHGRP reporting burden for the regulated community and EPA while resolving many of the i ssues discussed with the GWP change. As such Republic request the EPA to consider the following modified language in both “TABLE A - 3 to Subpart A of Part 98

– Source Category L i st for §98.2 ( a )(1)

– Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years” and Subpart HH, §98.341 as follows: **TABLE A -**  **3 to Subpart A of Part 98 Source Category List for § 98.2( a )(1)** Source Category

L ist for §98.2(a)(1) Source Categories a Applicable in 2010 and Future Years73

“Municipal solid waste landfills that generate CH 4 in amounts equivalent to 25,000 **1190** metric tons CO 2 e or more per ye ar, as determined according to Subpart HH of this part.” Republic requests EPA consider the following language to address the of f - ramp provisions by amending Subpart HH, Section 98.341 as follows: **§98.341 Reporting Threshold** (a) You must report GHG em issions under this Subpart if your facility contains a MSW landfill and the facility

meets the requirements of §98.2(a)(1), except as provided for in (1) or (2) below. (1 ) If reported emissions are less than 1190 metr ic tons CH 4 per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of rep o rting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive year of emissions less than 1190 metric tons methane per year. The owner or o perator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more. (2 ) If reported emissions are less than 714 metri c tons CH 4 per year for three consecutive years then the owne r or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of repo rting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the third consecutive year of emissions less than 714 metric tons methane per year for Subpart HH. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive years and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. Unless the facility is no longer accepting waste, the owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 1190 metric tons methane per year or more. **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** Given the increased cost and limited utility of the “side effects” of revising the GWPs, we recommend that EPA es tablish a methane - based reporting threshold for Subpart HH74

to replace the CO 2 e based reporting threshold, and a methane - based requirement for exiting the program. Such an approach allows the Agency to avoid increasing the reporting burden for the MSW landf

ill sector and EPA staff, while not impacting EPA’s need to meet national and global inventory program commitments. **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry Island Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** DSWA encourages EPA to consider a revision to the applicability threshol d for subpart HH. If the applicability threshold was based on metric tons of methane, rather than CO 2 e , the revision of the GWP would not result in bringing additional closed facilities into the rule, or delaying closed facilities from exiting the rule. We suggest the use of 1,190 metric tons of methane as the applicability threshold for the rule. **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commente r Affiliation:**  Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 22 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13 **Comment:** Instead of utilizing a reporting threshold based upon equivalency (e.g. CO 2 e ), we recommen d that EPA establish a methane - based reporting threshold for Subpart HH to replace the CO 2 e based reporting threshold. EPA could simply establish a methane reporting threshold of 1190 metric tons/y ear or more which is equivalent to 24,990 metric tons CO 2 e based on the current methane GWP change, especiall y with regard to closed landfill sites. **Response:** See Section II.R of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

22 This comment was also submitted by Tetra Tech BAS (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2) and National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA )(Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2).75



### 2.7 **Comments on EPA’s proposal to recalculate emissions from 2010, 2011 , and**  **2012 reporting years Commenter Name:**  Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Dominion Resources Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** EPA Should Define an d Implement a Simple Process Using e - GGRT Notices and Messages to Inform Reporters of Revisions to Previous Year's Reported Values and Logging Reporter Comments Regarding Errors. If EPA implements Option 2, a correspondence folder should be initiated at th e time EPA revises a facilit y's previous ye ars' reports in e - GGRT. In this way , the reporter can submit confidential comments to EPA, if necessary , in case an error or other issue arises. Currently in e - GGRT, a facility reporter cannot initiate a correspon dence. Only EPA can open the dialogue. The reporter is notified of the correspondence via electronic mail prompting the reporter to go into e - GGRT and read the correspondence. Therefore, our suggestion involves programming e - GGRT to automatically

open a co rrespondence folder for each facilit y when a previous year's report is revised b y EPA. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** John L . Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, K elley Dry e & Warren LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0045 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** SMA supports EPA’s proposed option (Option 2) regarding revision and republication of emission estimates for prior ye ar (2010 - 2012) reports in light of the proposed adoption of updated global warming potential (GWP) values. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,834.Independe nt recalculation of CO 2 e emissions for the 2010 - 2012 reporting y ears by the agency is onl y reasonable, rather than imposing the burden on each facility of recalculating and resubmitting the reports. The proposed revisions to the GWP values involve data poi nts entirel y outside the control of, and wholly unrelated to actual emissions from, reporting facilities. Reporting facilities have already fulfilled their obligations for 2010 - 2012, and the agency ’s decision to revise the GWP weighting assigned to the rep orted emissions should not impose additional burdens. Moreover, the alternative

– requiring each facility to resubmit their own prior reports

– would set a poor precedent b y potentially limiting the agency ’s freedom to make future changes to GWP values (or other aspects of how emissions data are interpreted) due to concerns with imposing additional burdens on reporting facilities. In sum, the GWP values are data elements outside the control of reporting facilities and within the agency ’s discretion to chang e76

as appropriate based on science. However, in making such changes, the agency should not impose additional burdens on facilities that already have fulfilled their reporting responsibilities. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** The preamble notes that EPA revisions to reports from previous y ears (i.e., “Option 2”) would be communicated to reporters prior to public release via e - GGRT. INGAA supports using e - GGRT for communication. However, in some cases reporter review of the information could identify

an obvious error, and reporters should be able to comment on the values revised by EPA. INGAA recommends implementing a simple process for tw o - way communication between EPA and reporters through e - GGRT. This process should be defined and discussed in the final rule and allow reporters to comment on EPA revisions. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's respons e to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Dominion Resources Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA has proposed to revise the CO 2 e emission estimates in annual reports for reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using the proposed revised GWP values, and has proposed two options to accomplish this [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,833] . EPA's "Option 1" would require all reporters who submitted annual reports for 2010, 2011, and 2012 to resubmit their prior y ear reports using the revised GWPs. Under "Option 2," EPA would itself calculate the revised CO 2 e emissions. To the extent the GWPs are revised and applied retroactivel y to emiss ions in previous annual reports, we prefer Option 2 as the "default" option with the ability for reporting entities to either voluntarily

revise their previous annual reports themselves or to provide comment on EPA's revised emission calculations if deemed necessary. This approach, unlike Option 1, would not directly impose the burden of review and certification of emission estimates/revisions on the reporting entity . However, if EPA does move forward with Option 2, it should not foreclose an opportunity

fo r reporting entities to review and provide input to this process. There is no reasonable basis to preclude such review. EPA should provide the opportunity and a mechanism77

for reporting entities to review and, if deemed necessary , provide corrections to rec alculated CO 2 e emissions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. EPA should also allow reporters the option to revise, certify and resubmit previous reports on their own if they so choose. **Response:** For the response to the comment supporting EPA's recalculation of CO 2 e emissions and supply

for reporting y ears 2010 through 2011, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. EPA intends to provide an opportunity for facilities to view their recalculated facilit y - level CO2e totals before publication. The Age ncy does not believe it will be useful to formally solicit comments on the recalculated GWPs. Because application of the new GWPs will be a very simple recalculation that has no bearing on a facility ’s annual report, EPA does not want to place any addition al burden on reporters. However, if a reporter were to find an error, we would as alway s welcome feedback through our Help Desk. EPA will also review the recalculated CO 2 e values to ensure they

are accurate before making them available to the public.

**Com menter Name:**  Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy , President **Commenter Affiliation:** California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  4 **Comment:** As science evolves in the area of climate change, technical changes to important factors, such as GWPs will also continue to evolve. EPA is proposing a far - reaching policy to apply some technical changes retroactivel y. These changes currentl y impact many industry sectors, such as the oil and gas, and municipal solid waste landfill sectors, and only three reporting years are impacted by this decision (2010, 2011, 2012). This policy would have the far reaching effect of requiring retroa ctive updates to former reports for an y technical changes that impact GHG emissions, no matter how man y reporting ye ars were involved. The bureaucratic and regulatory

ramifications of this decision are far reaching. CCEEB recommends that all updates be pro spective. **Response:** We disagree with the commenter that the decision to provide revised CO 2 e values has far reaching ramifications for individual reporters or the reporting program in general . No additional burden is placed on reporters b y this decision . E PA is not requiring reporters to submit revised reports for reporting ye ars 2010 through 2012 or requiring facilities to review the recalculated CO 2 e values calculated b y the EPA. For additional information on the publication of CO 2 e emissions and supply d ata for reporting years 2010 through 2012 using the revised GWPs finalized in this rulemaking , see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertili zer Institute (TFI)78

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** TFI has concerns, should EPA proceed with its proposal to “recalculate” CY2010 - CY2012 GHGRP emissions, regarding how this will be implemented. E PA proposes that either reporting entities revise their prior reports, or EPA will revise the prior reports. [Footnote: I d. at 19,833 - 19,834] Should EPA disregard TFI’s comment that prior GHGRP reports not be revised to reflect the new GWP values, TFI beli eves that EPA should recalculate the values, not mandate that reporters revise their prior reports. However, EPA should allow reporters the opportunity to review, and as necessary

inform EPA of errors, prior to EPA making the “recalculated” emissions publi cly

available. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA notes in the preamble that two options are being considered for recalculating the CO 2 e emissions for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012 due to the proposed changes to the Global Warming Potentials ( GWP ) for several GHG compounds. Option #1 would require the owner/operator to recalculate the CO 2 e emissions, recertify , and resubmit these earlier reports. Option #2, EPA’s preferred option, would result in EPA recalculating the emissions from the previous ye ars. Although this option does not place an increased burden on reporters, the reporters would not have the opportunit y to provide feedback on the revised emissions prior to EPA republishing the numbers. If EPA selects Op tion #2, the sy stem should be designed such that the owner/operator could provide input on the updated emission values. In addition to options #1 and #2, Dow suggests that EPA consider a third option where the new GWP’s are used starting in Reporting Year 2013, and that EPA and company resources are not used to revise the reporting quantities for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. The final rule should allow for an option for a reporting entity to update the values, but should not require an across the board update for the first three reporting y ears. Most changes would be relativel y minor from combustion sources due to the changes to the GWP for methane and nitrous oxide, and that other emission factor changes are relatively minor in nature. Therefore, the rule should not require a revision to the previousl y reported values. Should the RY 2010

– 2012 emissions be used for a baseline for a future regulatory GHG emission control program, EPA could make a sector based revision at the appropriate time, if ne eded. EPA is setting a precedent of significant concern by proposing to require that the older emission reports continue to be updated due to detailed rule changes. This also creates uncertainty in the79

future as undoubtedl y there will be additional emissi on factor changes and GWP changes as better scientific information becomes available. Again, we suggest that EPA only require emission values to be reported using the rules, emission factors, and GWP values that were in effect for a specific reporting y ear . **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Frank R. Caponi, Division Engineer, Air Quality Engineering, Technical Services Department **Commenter Affiliation:** Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** In the Reporting Rule EPA is proposing to revise global warming potentials (GWPs) and presents two options for appl yi ng the m retroactively . H ow EPA handles treatment of the proposed revised GWPs in this revision will establish a significant policy direction for the many technical revisions that are likely to occur in the future. To this end, we do not concur with the proposed options but instea d, recommend that all technical revisions, now, and into the future, be applied prospectivel y. Not taking this approach can bring about enormous ramifications. **Response:** We disagree with the commenter that the decision to provide revised CO 2 e values has f ar reaching impacts or ramifications for individual reporters or the reporting program in general. EPA is not requiring reporters to submit revised reports for reporting ye ars 2010 through 2012 or requiring facilities to review the recalculated CO 2 e values calculated by the EPA. For additional information on the publication of CO 2 e emissions and supply data for reporting years 2010 through 2012 using the revised GWPs finalized in this rulemaking , see Section III.B of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** In the Proposed Rule preamble [78 FR 19834], EPA requests comments on the preferred option for updating annual reports using revised GWPs for reporting ye ars 2010, 2011, and 2012. “Option 1” would require re porters to resubmit prior y ears’ reports using the revised GWPs. For “Option 2”: “The EPA would independently recalculate revised CO 2 e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and2012 reporting year emissions or supply for each facility

using the revised GWPs in Tab le A

– 1. Under this scenario, through e - GGRT, each reporter would be able to see the EPA’s revision of its emission or supply totals in previously

submitted 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports before that information is publically available.” [78 FR 19834]80

The pre amble also indicates that emissions would be recalculated for each facility and that EPA prefers Option 2, where EPA updates calculations for previous reporting y ears. INGAA supports Option 2 and agrees that EPA recalculation of the previous inventories (i .e., Option 2) is the preferred approach. However, INGAA strongl y opposes the preamble stipulation that, “although the reporter would be able to view the estimate, the reporter would not be able to comment on or change the revised estimate.” It is unreason able to preclude comments from reporters if EPA recalculations show an obvious error. INGAA agrees that updating previously reported inventories to address GWP revisions is a straightforward calculation. However, mistakes happen and reporters should be abl e to ensure that emissions attributed to their facilities are not erroneous. Itis imperative that reporters have the opportunity to review revised CO 2 e emissions calculated b y EPA. Communications between EPA and reporters can be conducted through e GGRT, and it is reasonable to limit the ty pes of comments that reporters provide, such as comments that identify

calculation errors. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** John Skinn er, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We support EPA’s statement that it is not the Agency ’s intent to revise GWPs each time new data are published (78FR 19808), however technical and scientific data will continue to evolve overtime, and future updates to the reporting program are likel y. The currently proposed changes impact man y industry sectors, suc h as oil and gas, and MSW landfills, but this update only impacts three reporting y ears (2010, 2011 and 2012). This policy would have the far reaching effect of requiring retroactive updates to former reports for any technical changes that impact GHG emiss ions, no matter how man y reporting ye ars were involved. The bureaucratic and regulatory

ramifications of this decision are far reaching **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 00 35 - A2 , Excerpt 4 . **Commenter Name:** Sarah A. Deslauriers, Program Manager, California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Commenter Affiliation:** California Wastewater Climate Change Group (CWCCG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0068 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment :**  The primary focus of CWCCG’s concerns is not the revision of GWPs in the future; rather it is the EPA’s proposal to retroactivel y apply revised GWPs to the 2010, 2011, and 2012 emissions reports. The EPA proposes two options for retroactivel y appl yi ng A R4 GWPs. One option is to have reporters resubmit their prior year reports using the revised GWPs. The other81

option (EPA’s preference) is for EPA to independently recalculate revised carbon dioxide equivalent ( CO 2 e ) emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting ye ar. Neither of these approaches is acceptable. While CWCCG recognizes the importance of ensuring consistency across emissions reports and supports the planned (i.e., future) application of AR4 GWPs as discussed for New Reporters, we do not supp ort the retroactive application of these GWPs to reporting years 2010, 2011,and 2012. Should EPA decide to go forward with appl yi ng the proposed revised GWPs retroactivel y, it will establish a significant policy change that will result in many future techn ical revisions and significant future ramifications for reporting entities, well beyond an y administrative burden or other issues that have been discussed in the Preamble. The CWCCG recommends that all technical revisions within the GHG Mandatory Reporting Program be applied prospectivel y (i.e., in the future) at a reasonable beginning point. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affi liation:**  American Chemistry Council (ACC) 23 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** The proposed revision raises some practical considerations that should be considered b y the Agency. By EPA’s own admission, obtaining revised emission estimates for some facilities "could be difficult." Additionall y, depending on which of the proposal’s options are pursued, the associated costs for facilities to compile, calculate, and certify the results

—

up to $3.5 million -- would be unnecessarily burdensome and prohibitively expensive. Based on these concerns, ACC suggests that EPA not require reporters to revise their certified emissions reports from prior y ears when a GWP or other factor is changed by EPA. A more r easonable approach would be for the Agency to revise the emissions data (as described in Option 2 in the proposal) and then present it in the database as a parallel metric, leaving the certified facility - reported data unchanged. These revised emissions dat a should be clearl y marked as having been revised from what was reported by a facility previously . In addition, EPA should give facilities 30 day s to review the changed data and note any issues before finalizing such revisions. Going forward, this would en able EPA to create a parallel metric that automatically

updates as GWPs and emissions factors are revised and allow EPA to report updated U.S. emissions to the IPCC. Alternativel y, EPA could revise the emissions data on a sector basis, which would leave th e reported facility emissions data unchanged. Both of these approaches would ensure that a facilit y’s reported emissions data appropriately remain the official emissions report for that facility while creating a "continuous" emissions baseline dating to 20 10.

23 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).82

**Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Eldon L indt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services **Commenter Affiliation:** Xcel Energy , Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA has requested comments on the two options for revision and republication of emissions estimates for prior y ears. Xcel Energy supports EPA recalculating the CO 2 e emissions for 2010, 201 1 and 2012. Therefore, we support EPA’s Option 2 but are requesting reporters have the opportunit y to comment on EPA’s recalculated values and provide corrections. Currently , Option 2 only

allows reporters to view the data. Having the option to comment and identify possible errors in recalculated values is an important part of the stakeholder process and ensures that data comparisons to 2013 and future years are based on accurate information. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Com ment Excerpt Number:**  13 **Comment:** EPA should not impose the burden of review and certification of emission estimates by reporters. There is no practical value in recalculating emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and reporters should not be expected to dev ote resources to such an endeavor. On the other hand, EPA’s proposed rule unnecessarily attempts to foreclose the opportunity to correct EPA calculations. If EPA decides to move forward with Option 2, the Agency should announce that it will accept and tak e into account any information submitted by reporters that is intended to correct or otherwise influence EPA’s recalculated CO 2 e emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.83

**Commenter Name:** Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 24 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** EPA has requested comments on the two options for revision and republication of emissions estimates for prior y ears. AGA supports Option 2, in which EPA proposes to recalculate the CO 2 e emissions for 2010, 2011 and 2012. We appreciate EPA’s offer to run this calculation internall y so that individual reporters do not face this burden. However, AGA requests that reporters have the opportunity to comment on EPA’s recalculated values and provide corrections if needed. Currentl y, Option 2 would only allow reporters to view the data. Having the option to comment and identify possible errors in recalculated values is an important part of the stakeholder process and ensures that data comparisons to 2013 and future ye ars will be based on accurate information. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of th e preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Doc um**  **ent Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 17 **Comment:** With respect to revised emissions estimates for 2010, 2011, and 2012 based on revised GWPs: AF&PA and AWC question the need for revising these estimates. The Greenhou se Gas Reporting Rule has been an evolving requirement throughout that period -- with new sources being added and emission estimating methods being revised, as well as improvements in estimates as facilities gained experience and, in some cases, switched fro m reporting based on BAAM. Thus, even if total estimates for 2010, 2011, and 2012 were revised to reflect the proposed new GWPs, that would still not make, e.g., 2010 total emissions directly comparable to 2013 emissions. I f EPA nonetheless sees a signific ant value in revising past y ears’ estimates, we do not believe EPA should revise the emission estimates itself based on new GWPs alone (i.e., “Option 2” on p. 19,834 of the proposed rule). Rather, EPA should (1) give facilities the option of recalculating estimated emissions for prior y ears themselves and submitting the revised estimates to EPA within 12 months after the rule is finalized, and (2) update prior ye ars’ estimates

— whether based on facilities’ own submissions or EPA doing the recalculation itsel f

— not only using revised GWPs, but also reflecting other revisions EPA has made to emission estimation methods. For example, revised emission estimates for recovery furnaces should reflect not only the different GWPs EPA is proposing, but also the lower de fault methane and nitrous oxide emission factors in the proposed rule. Another example is the important clarification of dry basis for the High Heat Value (HHV) and proposed change in the

24 The comments by American Gas Association (AGA) were also supported by Xcel Energy, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1).84

HHV itself for wood and wood residuals in Table C - 1. In many instanc es these other improvements to emission estimation methods will have a greater impact on total facility estimated greenhouse gas emissions than the revised GWPs, so it is important that they be reflected in recalculated emissions from past y ears if the pas t y ears’ estimates are to be compared to more recent years, as well as to make the past years’ estimates more comparable to greenhouse gas emissions being reported b y other countries. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** Portland Cement Association (PCA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0061 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** PCA members support clarit y and predictability with respect to calculation and submission of GHG emissions data pursuant to the requirements of the MRR. Retroactively revising data submitted in prior reports undermines regulatory and business certaint y and may have the unintended consequence of altering GHG mitigation strategies currently being deploy ed by cement makers. To promote regulatory certainty , PCA members recommend that EPA reject both options, whether it constitutes an independent recalculation o f CO 2 e emissions on the part of cement makers as outlined under Option 1, or the EPA supplying revised emissions for each facility based on the new data, per Option 2. Whereas both options undermine regulatory certaint y, Option 1 includes the added disadvantage of increasing paperwork and administrative burdens b y requiring cement makers to recalculate reports already submitted for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 reporting ye ars. Furthermore, EPA estimates that Option 1 impose on reporters a total one - time cost of $3.5 million for re - submittal and recertification of 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports. Option 2 also creates regulatory confusion. While Option 2 shifts the paperwork burden associated with revising the prior ye ar reports to regulators, it denies a reporting entity the authority to calculate emissions from facilities over which it is responsible for compliance with PSD permits, among other requirements. EPA concedes that Option 2 is flawed because reporters would be unable to submit revised emission estimates or comment on the estimation methods used to calculate the updated CO 2 e totals; therefore, they would have less control over the revised data. While EPA claims that the calculation is very straightforward for most reporters, EPA further concedes there coul d be some uncertaint y associated with the revisions to subpart L emission data if Option 2 is selected. It is because of this built - in uncertaint y that causes PCA members to oppose an y revisions whatsoever to the reports filed for the past three reporting years. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.85

**Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Numbe r:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** In the 2013 GHGRP Revisions preamble, EPA proposes to implement the new GWP values starting with the reporting of CY2013 GHG emissions, due by March 31, 2014. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,832]. Further, EPA recognizes that other EPA programs, such as the GHG “tailoring rule,” cross reference the Table A - 1 GWP values for purposes of calculating GHG emissions under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitting pr ograms. [I d. at 19,808 - 19,809]. As proposed, the Inventory would first start using the revised GWP values in 2015 (reflecting CY1990

– CY2013) emissions, but EPA is proposing to “recalculate” the CY2010 - CY2012 GHGRP emissions and is silent on whether it would recalculate the CY1990 - CY2013 Inventory emissions. TFI suggests that EPA should not recalculate either the CY1990 - CY2012 Inventory emissions or the CY2010 - CY2012 GHGRP emissions as these emissions are in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used by sources for purposes of evaluating applicability

of the PSD and Title V “tailoring” rule. TFI feels that changing values already made available will also undermine public confidence in the overall database. **Response:** See Section II I. B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Kara M. Montalvo, Director, Environmental Compliance & Permitting **Commenter Affiliation:** Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) **Doc um**  **ent Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0040 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** In this rulemaking action, EPA proposes to implement new global warming potential ( GWP ) values for greenhouse gas ( GHG ) pollutants to ensure continued consistency with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) Fourth Assessment Report. EPA also has proposed to "recalculate" the GHGRP emissions for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using these revised GWP values. As such, EPA proposed two options for retroac tively recalculating and reporting prior y ears GHG emission estimates, as follows: Option 1

— Reporting entities recalculate GHG emissions provided in prior reporting y ears using the revised GWPs and resubmit these reports to EPA; or Option 2

— EPA recalcul ates GHG emissions from prior reporting y ears using the revised GWPs and applies that data to prior reporting ye ars.86

There are significant issues with either option currently being contemplated by

the EPA. Most notably , under either option, EPA is requirin g that emission estimates previously calculated in good faith be reassessed based on a revised rule that is being implemented as many as 3 ye ars after the data was first reported. It is inappropriate to retroactivel y assess data based on regulatory

require ments that were not in place at the time the emissions reporting took place. The only real difference between the two options is the entity that is required to perform the work associated with recalculating and re - reporting GHG emissions data. Regardless of which entity is required to perform these additional calculations, it creates a substantial reporting burden without an y real benefit. Even if EPA addresses this reporting burden by selecting Option 2, reporting entities will still incur additional workload resulting from their desire to ensure they are in agreement with EPA's revised calculations. It seems more logical from a legal, scientific, and workload perspective to apply the new GWPs once they are approved in a forward - thinking manner rather than appl yi ng them retroactively . As such, SRP recommends that EPA consider and adopt a third option in which changes to GWPs that affect emission estimates be applied prospectively to future GHG emission reports. **Response:** See Sec tion III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Mike Roddy , Director of Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 00 42 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** EPA should not recalculate prior Inventory or GHGRP emissions as they are already in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used to evaluate applicability

under other regulatory

program s, including for PSD and Title V permitting under EPA's Tailoring Rule. Changing prior values may also undermine public confidence in the overall database. If EPA nevertheless decides to revise prior reported emissions, EPA should recalculate the values itself, and not mandate that sources revise prior reports. However, EPA should allow sources the opportunit y t o review, and, as necessary , inform EPA of errors, prior to EPA making the "recalculated" emissions publicly available. EPA should also make it cl ear that an y prior reported emission data that is recalculated based on any new GWP has no relevance to prior regulatory

determinations made in reliance on prior GWP value, including for Title V or PSD applicability

under the "Tailoring Rule." **Response:** S ee Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.87

**Commenter Name:** Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** Portland Cement Association (PCA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0061 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** As a general policy rationale, EPA suggests it is promoting transparency by claiming that revision of GHG emission estimates in reports for ye ars 2010, 2011, and 2012

— either b y reporters or b y the EPA

— would allow for the comparison of emission data submitted for those reporting ye ars with data submitted in 2013 and future reporting years and ensure that published annual GHG reports are based on a common metric. According to EPA, this would allow regulators and the public to more efficiently anal yz e changes in GHG emissions and industry trends in a time series. PCA disagrees with the above rationale. Cement makers have established, by

means of a long history

of tracking their GHG emissions, implementatio n plans for increasing energy

efficiency

and mitigating GHG emissions, all pursuant to various reporting programs that have not retroactivel y altered data for purposes of previous years’ recordkeeping. Furthermore, b y revising methodologies and data retroa ctivel y to alter previously filed reports and den yi ng the regulated community an y control over new methodologies, EPA is undermining transparency

in the regulatory

process. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's respons e to this comment. **Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** An area where we do have concern is with EPA's proposal to apply the revisions to prior reporting ye ars. EPA's preferred approach is to independently recalculate revised CO 2 e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting ye ar emissions on the basis that it would allow for the comparison of emissions data submitted for those reporting ye ars with data submitted in 2013 and future reporting ye ars. A second proposed option is to have reporters resubmit their prior year reports using the revised GWPs. We do not concur with either of these approaches but believe a third approach is necessary ; recommending that all technical revisions within the GHG MRR, now, and into the future, be applied prospectivel y. We recommend that all technical revisions within the GHG MRR now, and into the future, be applied prospectivel y. This approach will have the lowest impact on GHG regulatory permitting programs at the federal, state and local level s. If EPA believes that its GHG reporting program should be comparable over the ye ars, then a less disruptive approach could be to re - calculate emissions and only

report the global emissions change associated with the technical corrections. If a higher lev el of resolution is desired this report could also include the overall emission changes at the industry

sector level; but not at a facility level. Also, this approach should not be selective in its updates, but include all technical updates that significantly impact emission88

estimates. This approach allows global comparisons of GHG emissions throughout the ye ars, but avoids the facilit y level impacts that will occur with retroactive application of technical changes. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Numb er:**  3 **Comment:** EPA Should Not “Recalculate” Earlier GHGRP Data Utilizing the New GWP Values. Since the stated purpose of the GHGRP is to “inform” and “complement” the Inventory , it is not clear wh y it is necessary to recalculate the GHGRP emissions rathe r than simply update the Inventory . In the preamble, EPA recognizes that other programs, such as the GHG “tailoring rule,” cross reference the Table A - 1 GWP values for purposes of calculating GHG emissions and determining applicability under the NSR and Ti tle V permitting programs. GPA recommends that EPA not recalculate the CY2010 - CY2012 GHGRP emissions, as these emissions are in the public domain and the GWP values used to derive them were also used b y sources for purposes of evaluating applicability of the NSR and Title V “tailoring” rule. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 25 **Documen t Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** ACC has a few concerns with EPA’s proposal to use these new GWPs and emission factors to revise and republish CO 2 e emissions estimates for the reporting years of 2010, 201 1, and 2012. First, the precedential nature of this activity creates a considerable amount of uncertaint y regarding how similar situations will be handled in the future. For instance, as the IPCC continues to update GWPs, it is unclear how, or even if, EPA plans to revise its own GWPs to remain consistent with new IPCC revisions. It is also unclear how often EPA may opt to revise or upgrade emission factors, and whether those changes will require older reports to be revised. These uncertainties need to be c onsidered and addressed by the Agency .

25 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).89

**Response:** For the response to the comment regarding EPA plans to revise GWPs in the future, see Section II.A.2 of the preamble. For the response to the comment regarding updates to emission factors and revision of p rior y ear reports, see response to EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1, Excerpt 17.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 26 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerp t Number:**  5 **Comment:** Facilities often include emissions data in various documents besides GHG reporting to EPA, such as company reports, trade association data, SEC or other federal agency reports or filings, and the California Cap - and - Trade Program (the ARB Mandatory GHG Emissions Reporting Program). Multinational companies also may be including emissions data in reports or filings required b y foreign countries on entities. Any revisions by

the Agency

to past data could create inconsistencies between EPA ’s published data and the original data included in a variety of other filings or publications. EPA’s revisions of data, if done on a company specific level, could create concerns and additional filing obligations for companies that have already certified and reported this information in, for example, their annual reports. Specifically , revisions to these numbers may

raise unnecessary

questions as to the accuracy of this data. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Jennifer Cleary , Director, Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 093 4 - 0076 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Due to the revised global warming potentials in Table A - 1, EPA intends to revise CO 2 e emission estimates in reports for ye ars 2010, 2011, and 2012 to allow for the comparison of emission data submitted for tho se reporting y ears with data submitted in 2013 and future ye ars to ensure that the published annual GHG reports are based on a common metric. EPA proposed two options for those revised estimates. Under the first option, reporters would use the electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting tool (e - GGRT) to convert alread y - reported data. Under the second option, EPA would independently recalculate revised CO 2 e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting year emissions or supply for each facility

using the revised GWPs in Table A - 1. EPA sought comment on the two options and expressed preference for the second option. AHAM agrees that the second option is the preferable one because it removes the added burden on reporters to recalculate previousl y reported data. Bec ause , under the second option, the reporter would not be able to comment on or change the revise d estimate, EPA stated that it 26 Id.90

would publish the revised estimates with a caveat explaining h ow the estimates were obtained and explaining that the emission val ues are not those submitted and certified by reporters. AHAM believes that for the second option to be workable, such a caveat is necessary to avoid confusion and accuratel y represent the data. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final r ule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 27 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We agree with the EPA that it is vitally important that reporters have consistent and predictable requirements to avoid additional compliance burden and costs. Further, it is important for stakeholders who use GHG MRR information to have access to accurate emissions estimates based on comprehensible and consistent information from year to year. The Agency’s plan to change prior facility emissions reports will undermine both goals. **Retroactive Application of the Revised GWP Values is Unwarranted and Will Imp ose**  **Unnecessary Burden on GHG Reporters:** WM objects to the retroactive revisions to GHG reports based on the proposed GWP values, because such revisions would be unnecessary and unduly

burdensome for GHG reporters. We understand that under the UNFCCC guid elines for national inventories, EPA is required to recalculate national emissions when emission factors or other methodological approaches change. However, the GHG Reporting Program is independent of the national inventory , and should not be bound to that practice. Furthermore, the Agency ’s rationale that retroactive changes to facility

emission reports will assist the Agency with its national inventory is weak in light of the very

different methods used to estimate national and facility emissions. As EPA has acknowledged, it calculates the national GHG inventory using top - down national energy data and other national statistics. But, the national data is not "broken - down at the geographic or facility level." 74 Fed Reg. 16455. To the extent facility - level e missions reported under the GHG MRR are used to validate or improve the national inventory , EPA can make appropriate updates in the context of the national inventory . I t is not necessary to revise retroactively

all facility - level emissions that were report ed properl y under the existing rule. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

27 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).91

**Commenter Name:** Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affai rs **Commenter Affiliation:** Southern Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0051 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Southern Company does not support any

revision of 2010, 2011, and 2012 emissions if the proposed GWPs are adopted. If new GWPs are adopted, Southern Company suggests including on EPA’s Facility L evel Information on Greenhouse Gases Tool (FLIGHT) that the emissions data from each ye ar (in this case 2010, 2011, and 2012) were calculated using other GWPs than are currently b eing used. EPA should list both the previous and new GWPs in FLIGHT. An yone searching the emissions’ data sets could apply the updated GWPs as desired. Addressing the emissions in this way will eliminate the need to revise even more reports if EPA decides to update the GWPs again in the future. If EPA decides to require revision and resubmission of prior year reports, it should allow reporters to resubmit voluntarily their own reports or, at a minimum, EPA should give reporters the choice of using option 1 or 2, and the ability to critique and revise any agency recalculations of CO 2 emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, if it selects option 2. **Response:** For the response to the comment recommending reporters be given the opportunity to review and comment on re calculated CO 2 e values prior to publication, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. Annual reports certified and submitted for previous reporting years are available for review at any time through the e - GGRT Website. EPA will not modify annual reports submitted by reporters. Reporters that identify errors in their original reports must correct those errors in e GGRT and generate and certify a revised annual report. For additional information on the publication of CO 2 e emissions and supply data for reporting y ears 2010 through 2011 using the revised GWPs finalized in this rulemaking, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. **Commenter Name:** Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occi dental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment :**  OCC also underscores the request that EPA not require reporters to revise emissions reports from Reporting Years 2010, 2011, or 2012. The clerical and paperwork burden on industry should be streamlined as much as possible. A programming modification would easil y update emissions data universally without the need for responses from each individual facility and eliminate the time consuming reentry of data at the plant level This method would provide uniformity

with a resulting higher degree of accuracy and consistency

across all reporting entities. As stated by

the ACC: "Option 2 would enable EPA to automatically revise its baseline without the need for company review." Whenever these changes are automatically conducted, an e - GGRT generated email advising the DR, ADR and Agents is recommended.92

**Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the p reamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** EPA also asked whether EPA should require both recalculating the reports for prior ye ars 2010 to 2012 and requiring those who did not meet the thresholds requiring that they report under the existing GWPs do so for those years if the new GWP’s bring them in the ambit of the rule. [Footnote: 78 FE D REG. 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19833.] We believe that the prior reports should be recalculated with the latest data for methane, because the higher 2009 value for its warming potential, as well as the 2007 values, are not due to a change in circumstance over time, which may not have pertained to earlier periods, but rather to a better understanding of methane’s secondary effects that have alway s existed. However, we do not advocate that earlier non - filers from prior years should be required t o report for earlier ye ars even if the new GWP values now make that necessary on a going forward basis. **Response:** For the response to the comment regarding publication of CO 2 e emissions and supply data for reporting y ears 2010 through 2011 using the revised GWPs final ized in this rulemaking, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. EPA is not requiring new reporters who became subject to reporting onl y as the result of changes in the GWP values to submit reports for previous reporting ye ars. For additiona l information regarding this decision, please see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 5 in Section 2.7 of this document.

**Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** 3M Company **Documen t Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** We share the concerns expressed by the American Chemistry Council ( ACC) in their comments on the modification of past reports based on updated Table A - 1 data. **Response:** S ee Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for the response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA)93

**Commenter Affiliation:** Interstat e Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** EPA recalculation should lessen the burden for EPA (to review reports) and reporters (to revise reports), and INGAA agr ees that reporter re - certification of previous reports would be burdensome and is not necessary . However, if errors occur in EPA recalculations and reporters cannot comment, significant burden could result due to an erroneous public record for an affected facilit y. The preamble implies that there may be complications with recalculation for one subpart (i.e., Fluorinate Gas Production in Subpart L ), but an y concerns regarding a select industry should not limit the ability

of reporters to comment on emissions attributed to their facilities. While I NGAA supports EPA recalculation of previous annual emissions according to Option 2, INGAA strongl y supports the right of reporters to review and comment on the revisions. EPA revisions to 2010 to 2012 reports should supplement the previous compan y reports and reporters should not be obligated to recertify

previous submittals, but allowed to comment if errors are evident. As a supplement to Option 2 and implemented as an option at the reporter’s discretion, EPA could a llow reporters to revise their previous submittals. EPA notes that reporters would be able to review revisions through e - GGRT, and that tool could be used to address all necessary communications associated with revisions to previous annual reports. **Response:** For the response to this comment, see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services **Commenter Affiliation:** American Electric Power (AEP) **Document Control Number:** EP A - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** USEPA's two proposed options for obtaining the revised calculations are critically flawed. Option 1 would impose a significant and unjustified burden on reporting entities. USEPA has not submi tted an Information Collection Request to the OMB that would authorize the imposition of this new burden. Given the unnecessary nature of the recalculated emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, USEPA would not be able to justify requiring reporting entities t o submit this additional information. Option 2 would eliminate the additional reporting obligation for reporting entities that would be imposed under Option 1 by requiring USEPA to recalculate emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, but it would still require OMB approval before USEPA can expend funds to create the revised CO 2 e emission values. USEPA also states that "Option 2 would not give reporters the opportunity

to provide feedback on their individual revised emissions or supply totals, or allow them to ce rtify

the amended totals at an y point before or after republication." Instead, USEPA would publish the revised emission calculations "with a caveat explaining how the estimates94

were obtained and explaining that the emission values are not those submitted a nd certified b y reporters." In fact, USEPA requests comment on whether its proposed Option 2 approach would be sufficient or if there is a need for review and certification of revised emission estimates by reporters. From a practical perspective, using AEP as an example, applying the proposed GWP changes to our 2012 emissions would result in a change of only 0.011%. Such an insignificant change does warrant expenditure of any resources on AEP's or EPA's part to resubmit the 2010 - 2012 reports. USEPA should n ot impose the burden of review and certification of emission estimates by reporters. As explained above, there is no practical value in recalculating emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, and reporters should not be expected to devote resources to such an en deavor. On the other hand, USEPA's proposed rule unnecessarily attempts to foreclose the opportunity to correct USEPA calculations. If USEPA decides to move forward with Option 2, the Agency should announce that it will accept and take into account an y inf ormation submitted by

reporters that is intended to correct or otherwise influence USEPA's recalculated CO 2 e emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012. **Response :**  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection require ments for 40 CFR part 98 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB control number 2060 - 0629, ICR 2300.10. This includes collecting and verifying annual reports and making reported data available to th e public in a manner that is useful and eas y to understand. The I CR will be modified to reflect the burden change from this final rule. Although we agree with the commenter that the changes in the calculated CO 2 e will be small for some facilities, we note that certain industries (e.g., adipic acid plants, nitric acid plants, magnesium recycling and casting, and HCFFC - 22 production plants), will have significant changes in their calculated CO 2 e values as a result of the revisions to the GWPs. While we could simply publish recalculate d CO 2 e values for those industries most affected b y the GWP revisions, the costs associated with recalculating the CO 2 e emissions for all facilities are nominal since onl y m inor computer programming will be necessary and, once wri tten, the same program code can be easily applied to all reporters. The costs of EPA recalculating CO 2 e values for all reporters using the most up to date GWPs available is far outweighed b y the benefit of having a complete and consistent data set for all reporting y ears. **Commenter Name:** Kim A. Wolfe, Environmental Compliance **Commenter Affiliation:** Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0032 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** Page 6 of 77, "Section III of this preamble discusses the effective date of the proposed revisions for new and existing reporters and the options EPA is considering for revising and republishing emissions estimates for the reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2 012."95

Recent changes in 40 CFR 98 are geared to reduce the reporting burden for facilities. There would be an undue burden to resubmit GHG emissions for calendar ye ars 2010, 2011 and 2012. The change in emissions will not be significant to justify the revising and republishing of emissions estimates. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 7.

**Commenter N ame:**  Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Southern Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0051 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** In section III( B) of the preamble of the proposed changes to the rule, EPA gives two options for revising and republishing emissions from 2010, 2011, and 2012 using the proposed GWPs. Option 1 allows reporters to resubmit their prior year reports using the new GWPs. Opti on 2 puts a bigger burden on EPA as “EPA would independently recalculate revised CO 2 e emissions” for the prior year reports.[Footnote: Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 63 / Tuesday, April 2, 2013 / Proposed Rules pg.19834] Southern Company does not support either of EPA’s proposed options. Option 1 is inappropriate because recalculating, recertifying, and resubmitting three ye ars of data would be extremely burdensome and time consuming. Option 2 is inappropriate because the new emission totals would not be c ertified b y each facility ’s designated representative. If EPA recalculates the emissions, the reporters will not have the ability to recertify

the data. **Response:** After reviewing the comments submitted by stakeholders, the EPA has selected option 2. For a dditional information on our reasons for selecting option 2, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. We disagree with the commenter that review and re - certification of the 2010 through 2012 annual repo rts by

reporters is necessary . Th e EPA will make no changes to the original annual reports submitted and certified by reporters. Instead, the EPA plans to revise CO 2 e values for each facility

separatel y from the annual reports and to clearl y identify the revised CO 2 e values as part of EPA ’s anal ys is of the submitted data . The recalculated values will be reviewed b y EPA staff prior to publication. We also note that the reported emissions of each individual GHG are not impacted by

the change in GWPs. Only their relative impact as assessed by their GWP value changes. We therefore see no need for reporters to recertify their 2010, 2011, and 2012 annual reports. Please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Af**

**filiation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 496

**Comment:** The technical corrections are geared at reducing the reporting burden for facilities. This would not be achieved by retroactivel y revising the GHG emissions reports for the reporting ye ars 2010 through 2012. Revising previous reports places an unnecessary workload burden on the EPA and the regulated community . In addition to the burden of recalculating prior ye ars emissions, the re troactive revisions will create a great deal of confusion for stakeholders that rely on the GHG reports and raise questions about the validity of prior reporting efforts. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 7.

**Comm enter Name:**  Matt Hall **Commenter Affiliation:** Consumers Energy Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0072 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Consumers Energy fails to see the value in revising previously filed emission reports under the GHG Reporting Rule. The proposed rule states that “This would allow the EPA and the public to more efficiently anal yz e changes in GHG emissions and industry trends in a time series”. The cost associated with retrieving historic data and recalcul ating the reports, either by the reporters themselves (Option 1) or b y EPA staff (Option 2

– preferred by EPA), is not justified; especially

in light of ongoing budgetary concerns at the Federal level. There are changes in data collection and reporting occ urring all the time (e.g. facilities upgrading their monitoring equipment to provide more accurate data). Nothing about this proposed rule justifies the many millions of dollars needed to revise historic reports. If EPA desires to engage in historical data anal ys is, it should be justified through EPA’s Congressional budget process, not heaped upon the backs of businesses that filed prior reports in good faith under EPA’s approved GWPs . **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Exc erpt 7.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** EPA’s two proposed options for obtaining the revised calculations are critically flawed. Option 1 would impose a significant and unjustified burden on reporting entities. EPA has not, as required b y the PRA, submitted an I CR to the OMB that would authorize the imposition of this new burden. Compare id. (noting that “this option would present an additional burden on reporters”) with id. at 19,842 (erroneously claiming that the proposed rule would not impose a new burden because the “proposed amendments ... do not make any substantive ch anges to the reporting requirements”). Indeed, given the unnecessary nature of the recalculated emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, EPA would not, consistent with the PRA’s standards, be able to justify

requiring reporting entities to submit this additiona l information. It also does not97

appear that EPA’s estimate of a “total one - time cost of $3.5 million for resubmittal and recertification,” id. at 19,834, took into account the fact that the designated representative (“DR”) responsible for certifying 2013 r eports may be different from the DR who certified the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reports. EPA cannot assume that such resubmission and recertification will be a mechanical process. Option 2 would eliminate the additional reporting obligation for reporting entit ies that would be imposed under Option 1 by requiring EPA to recalculate emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012, but it would still violate the requirements of the PRA, which requires OMB approval before EPA can expend funds to create the revised CO 2 e emission values. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 7.

**Commenter Name:** J. Michael Brown, Environmental, Safet y and Health Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0085 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Further, it would be a significant and unjustified reporting burden on the entities subject to this rule to recalculate and resubmit emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012. Accordingl y, we do not support EPA’s proposal to apply revised GWPs retroactively to prior y ear reporting periods (2010 through 2012). We also see no practical value in the second option EPA is considering (i.e., EPA performing the recalculation of historical data without input from the sources). While we do not think EPA should revise the GWPs at all, if they were to do so, OVEC requests that an y revised GWPs only be used for future y ear calculations and data submittals. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 7.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 28 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 23 **Comment:** Retroactive revision of GHG emission data will also burden GHG reporters because they will be forced to either recalculate emissions (under Option 1) or validate the Agency ’s calculations (under Option 2). In addition to the burden of recalculating prior y ears emissions, the retroactive revisions will create a great deal of confusion for stakeholders that rel y on the GHG reports and raise questions about the validity of prior reporting efforts even outside of the mandatory

reporting requirement. For example, over the last several y ears, companies such as WM have been at the forefront of voluntaril y reporting GHG emissions (using similar methods

28 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).98

as required under the GHG reporting rule) and other sustainability metrics to a wide variety of interested stakeholders such as investors, suppliers, and/or customers. Revising the GWP values on a retroactive basis may also require revisions to numerous reports, plans, or even certifications that were prepared based on the best available information at the time. Such reports may now be considered inaccurate based on EPA’s retroactive data changes. Companies would have a significant burden in trying to correct prior submissions o r even verified certifications, and then communicating to stakeholders as to wh y those submissions have changed. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2, Excerpt 7. The EPA disagrees with the commenter that providing recalculat ed CO 2 e values for reporting ye ars 2010 through 2012 would result in any additional confusion to the public or investors. The EPA is not making revisions to the original certified annual reports submitted by reporters. The EPA will continue to make non - con fidential versions of each report available online and to publish separatel y the recalculated CO 2 e values for reporting ye ars 2010, 2011, and 2012 with an explanation of how and why the EPA recalculated the CO 2 e values. We also note that the changes in the GWP values in Table A - 1 do not impact the underl yi ng emissions reported for each individual GHG emitted or supplied by a reporter. For additional information on EPA's reasons for recalculating CO 2 e emissions and supply data and our approach to publication , please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 093 4 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** EPA requested comment on options for recalculating revised CO 2 e emissions from 2010 - 2012 reporting ye ar emissions based on the revised GWPs in Table A - 1. AFPM supports Option 2 that EPA independently recalculate revised CO 2 e emissions from the 2010, 2011, and 2012 reporting year emissions. However, AFPM members prefer that EPA simply revise the sector - based calculations based on these revisions rather than reporting revisions for each facility . Revisions for each facility will not be significant as methane emissions ty pically total no more than 1 to 2 percent of total CO 2 e emissions at most refineries and petrochemical facilities and only sector - wide reporting will provide meaningful results. Given that reporting would be revised on a sector - wide basis, there would be no need for review and certification of revised emi ssions estimates by

reporters and revised calculations by the EPA as proposed in Option 2 would be sufficient for publication. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. However, we disagree with the commenter that onl y sector - based emissions ar e important. Trends in emissions reported b y individual facilities can also be very useful. For example, changes in a facility 's emissions reveal facilities that have successfully implemented GHG emission mitigation methods. In other cases,99

sector - level em issions may mask changes that are occurring at the facility level. For example, increases in emissions for one large facility may mask reductions at several smaller facilities. Although we agree with the commenter that the changes in the calculated CO 2 e wi ll be small for some facilities, we note that certain industries (e.g., adipic acid plants, nitric acid plants, magnesium recycling and casting, and HCFFC - 22 production plants), will have significant changes in their calculated CO 2 e values as a result of the revisions to the GWPs. While we could simply publish recalculate d CO 2 e values for those industries most affected by the GWP revisions, the costs associated with publishing recalculat ed CO 2 e emissions for all facilities are nominal; only

minor computer programming will be necessary and once written the same program code can be easily applied to all reporters. The costs of recalculating CO 2 e values for all reporters using the most up to date GWPs available is far outweighed b y the benefit of having a comp lete and consistent data set for all reporting y ears. **Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Ex cerpt Number:**  14 **Comment:** If EPA does modify prior ye ars' reporting, the County recommends that the revision take place on an industry - wide or sector basis rather than on an individual facility basis. This will avoid permitting complications and public c oncern. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 , Excerpt 3.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 29 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** WM’s Recommendations: For the reasons previously described, WM does not support EPA’s proposal to apply the revised GWPs retroactivel y to previously submitted reports under the GHGMRR . I f the Agency determines that some level of time series consistency is necessary ; however, WM urges the Agency to recalculate emissions for whole sectors (e.g., MSW landfills reporting under Subpart HH ) rather than recalculating individual facility emissions . The newly

recalculated emissions for aggregated sectors would more closel y align with the national emissions inventory and would mitigate potential adverse regulatory complications.

29 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).100

**Response:** For the response to the comment recommending GWP values not b e applied retroactively , please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For the response to the comment recommending that CO 2 e values be recalculated at the sector level rather than the facility - level, please see response to comment EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1, Excerpt 3.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 30 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** API does not agree that modifying the prior y ear's GHGRP reporting data with the updated GWP values is needed at all. The GHGRP and the National Inventory are separate programs, although API does agree that the methodologies, factors, and GWP's u sed should be the same. However, this does not mean that prior y ear's data under the GHGRP or the National Inventory needs to be modified when changes to the GWPs are made. The only reason EPA has articulated (in the preamble) for modifying prior y ears' G HGRP reporting data is to enable comparison against the National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks. If the UNFCCC requires that previous national inventories be updated using the AR4 GWPs, EPA can make these adjustments at the sector level. How ever, our understanding of the IPCC reporting requirements is that AR4 GWP are to be applied for reporting years post 2012. APIwould like to point out that National Inventory and the GHGRP will never be completel y comparable due to the differences in the scope and boundary for each of the two programs. If EPA is intent on modifyingprior ye ar GHGRP reported emissions, then there is no need to modify individual facility

reports as proposed. To enable comparison against the National Inventory , which is EPA 's stated intent, EPA can easily appl y the ratios between the former GWPs and the proposed GWPs at the sector level. It is completel y unnecessary and a waste of time and money

to either require reporters to modify and resubmit their reports or for EPA to d evote the manpower and monies to modifying individual facility reports. Sector level data are alread y available to EPA through the GHGRP data for each GHG gas. EPA can convert from the previous GWP values to the AR4 values for each GHG ty pe at the aggregat ed sector level. For example, methane emissions from all refineries in 2011 were 762,056 tonnes CO 2 e . This total can be updated to the AR4 values simply by multiplying by

the ratio of 25 (the AR4 GWP for CH 4 ) over 21 (the GWP value for 2011 reporting). This would result in 907,209 tonnes CO 2 e emissions using the AR4 GWP values. There is absolutely no need for EPA to make GWP adjustments to the GHGRP facility level data.

30 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 201 2 - 0934 - 0114 ).101

APIis opposed to Option 1 as proposed by EPA. Reporters should not be burdened with having to update and resubmit all previous reports. API is also opposed to Option 2, because there is a potential for EPA to introduce an error and reporters have no opportunit y to comment on or approve the re visions EPA makes to the reports. If EPA does recalculate the published data at the aggregated sector level, then a caveat explaining EPA ’ s recalculation should be included with any published revised data along with a technical document explaining the proc edures EPA took in modifying the prior reported data - including the QA/QC steps taken to ensure the recalculation was done correctl y. In addition, EPA should not modify the reporting forms or the XML schema for 2010 through 2012 reports to incorporate th e new GWP values. Should a company need to resubmit a report for the ye ars 2010 through 2012, the revised report should not apply the AR4 GWP values. **Response:** For the response to the comment that only sector - level CO 2 e values should be revised rather than facility - level CO 2 e values, please see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1, Excerpt 3. For additional information on EPA's reasons for publishing recalculated CO 2 e emissions and supply

data for reporting years 2010 through 2012 and our approach to publication, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For reporters submitting new or revised 2010 through 2012 annual reports, we will provide guidance on our website.

**Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vi ce President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** The retroactive revision of GHG emission data wil l significantly burden GHG reporters because they

will be forced to recalculate emissions themselves, or verify recalculations performed by EPA. In addition to being a burden on existing reporters, there is no need for EPA to force retroactive revisions of facility emissions that were reported properl y under the existing GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule. EPA is only required to recalculate national emissions under the national emissions inventory

— a completel y independent program. NSWMA recommends that if EPA decides to make an y retroactive changes to emissions in the GHG Reporting Program, it does so by recalculating emissions for whole sectors, such as MSW Landfills reporting under Subpart HH, rather than for individual facilities. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 , Excerpt 3.102

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** Re public strongl y urges EPA to not retroactivel y change the GWP. EPA has the responsibility

to consider the enforcement challenges, inconsistent retroactive implementation, reporting burden and facility level GWP approach that disproportionally affects the M SW landfill section for the reasons previously described. Republic recommends EPA revise the GWP on an industry - wide sector level instead of at the facility level. This approach will allow EPA to still align with global inventory practices while significantly reducing the burden on both the EPA and the regulated community . Further, a GWP recalculation on an industry - wide sector level will minimize the potential impact on regulatory complications and reduce the confusion of an increase in emissions due to a methodology change. **Response:** For the response to the comment regarding retroactive implementation of revised GWP values, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For the response to the comment recommending the CO 2 e values be revised for sectors rather than individual facilities, please see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1, Excerpt 3.

**Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Co ntrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** If EPA is intent on modifying prior year GHGRP reported emissions, then there is no need to modify

individual facility

reports as proposed. To enable comparison against the National Inventory , which is EPA’s stated intent, EPA can easil y appl y the ratios b etween the former GWPs and the proposed GWPs at the sector level. It is completel y unnecessary and a waste of time and money to either require reporters to modify and resubmit their reports or for EPA to devote the manpower and monies to modifying individu al facility reports. Sector level data are alread y available to EPA through the GHGRP data for each GHG gas. EPA can easily convert from the previous GWP values to the AR4 values for each GHG ty pe at the aggregated sector level. There is absolutely no need for EPA to make GWP adjustments to the GHGRP facility level data. Should EPA disregard GPA’s recommendation to simply apply a ratio at the aggregated sector level, EPA should recalculate the values, not mandate that reporters revise their prior reports. However, EPA must allow reporters the opportunity to review, and as necessary inform EPA of errors, prior to EPA making the “recalculated” emissions publicly available. It is unacceptable for unverified facility - level data to be publicall y available.103

**Resp onse:**  For the response to the comment recommended only sector - level CO 2 e values be recalculated, please see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1, Excerpt 3. For the response to the comment recommending reporters be given the opportunity to review and comment on recalculated CO 2 e values that we intend to publish separately , please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry I sland Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** DSWA understands that the United States has committed to using the AR4 GWPs for national GHG inventory reporting for 2015 an d future ye ars. Based on that commitment, DSWA does not oppose the revision; however we are concerned about applying the revision retroactively

to GHG reporting for 2010 through 2012. EPA has requested comments regarding the method of implementing the revi sion. DSWA is concerned that an y revision of previously certified data will create confusion for data users and generate questions regarding the reliability of reporting as a whole. DSWA recommends that EPA apply the revision to the GWP to future reporting only . Revision to previous reports has puts a burden on the regulated community by increasing work load (if the reporting communit y performs that changes) and creates confusion for the public b y “increasing” emissions of local sources when no actual chang e has taken place. DSWA understands that tailoring rule permits are linked to GHG MRR reporting results so that revision of these reports has an impact on some potential to emit (PTE) and permitted limits. These revisions have the potential to cause proble ms for ongoing projects that have alread y permitted using the GWP of methane as 21. If EPA feels the need to have a comparative number for 2010 through 2012 reporting ye ars, DSWA recommends that the revision take place on an industry wide scale rather than an individual facility basis. This will avoid permitting complications and public concern. **Response:** For the response to the comment stating that EPA should not recalculate facility level CO 2 e emissions for previous reporting ye ars because it would resul t in uncertaint y and confusion for reporters and the public, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For the response to the comment recommending sector - level CO 2 e values be revised rather than facility - level CO 2 e values, please see the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1, Excerpt 3. For the response to the comment that recalculating CO 2 e values would impact permitting, please see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule . **Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA)104

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** The retroact ive revision of the GHG emissions data is contrary to well - settled principles of law disfavoring retroactivity . The United States Supreme Court has repeatedl y and consistently

ruled that the retroactive application of laws and regulations is disfavored. Se e, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994); Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 208 - 09 (1988). The federal appeals courts have noted the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to enact rules with primary retroactive effect . Sierra Club v. W hitman, 285 F.3d 63, 68 (D.C. Cir. 2002). EPA has not proffered a justification for proposing to apply the revised GWP retroactivel y, and in any event, for the reasons set forth above, should not do so. **Response:** Although the EPA is revi sing certain GWPs currently in Table A - 1 and making other minor rule revisions, none of these changes apply retroactively to reporters. EPA is not requiring new reporters who became subject to reporting only as the resul t of changes in the GWP values to submit reports for previous reporting ye ars. Nor are we requiring existing reporters to submit and certify

revised annual reports for previous reporting y ears or review and certify revised CO 2 e values calculated b y the EPA. In stead, the EPA will publish revi sed CO 2 e emission estimates for facilities in a separate analy sis, based on the emissions data previously submitted by

reporters in their 2010, 2011, and 2012 annual reports. The EPA is not making any revisions to reports previously

submitted and certified by reporters. Instead, the EPA plans only to publish a version of the CO 2 e values for reporting ye ars 2010 through 2012 using the revised GWPs in Table A - 1 to provide a consistent time series for comparison to those values reported in 2013 and subsequent ye ars. For additional information on EPA's reasons for publishing CO 2 e emissions and supply

data based on the revised GWPs in Table A - 1 and our approach to publication, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy , President **Commenter Affiliation:** California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **C omment:**  EPA has focused on recalculating emissions retroactivel y based upon only technical changes to the GWPs, but has neglected to consider other proposed significant technical changes that can impact the overall emission estimates. For example, EPA pro poses to increase the cover methane oxidation rates at landfills from 10% to up to 35%. This action has the potential to significantl y reduce methane emission estimates at landfills and perhaps counter the proposed methane GWP increase, y et EPA will not co nsider this change in its proposed retroactive recalculation. This example demonstrates, in part, the difficulty EPA faces when appl yi ng a retroactive application of technical changes, rather than prospective application of its actions. **Response:** See Sect ion III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.105

**Commenter Name:** Robert W. Lucas, Climate Change Project Manager and Gerald D. Secundy , President **Commenter Affiliation:** California Council for Environmental and Economic B alance (CCEEB) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0035 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Retroactive application of technical changes that impact GHG emission estimates can not only

impact application to other EPA regulations, but also po tentially state programs. For example, the State of California has adopted and is actively implementing its AB 32 GHG reduction program, which is being implemented by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The program requires statewide GHG emissions t o be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, and also has the goal of a far - reaching GHG reduction of 80% below 1990 levels b y 2050. California also has a mandatory

GHG reporting program that has attempted to align itself with the EPA program. Among man y differenc es, the California program requires third - party independent verification of GHG emission reports, and the certified emission estimates from the program are used to determine applicability of California's Cap - and - Trade Program. In addition, the 1990 GHG emi ssions target was a result of extensive inventory anal ys is, by

CARB, and the present and future "business as usual" and cap targets were all determined through this same inventory process. GHG inventory

calculations and emissions reports rely heavil y on GW Ps. It has been the goal of California and much of industry to make the GHG reporting programs consistent with the EPA program. GHG reporting programs are costl y to implement so it only makes sense to condense efforts into one action. Therefore, as alignme nt of the programs increases, policy decisions at the federal level regarding application of technical changes will increasingl y i mpact the far more complex GHG control programs at the state or local level. It is recognized that technical factors that affe ct GHG emissions will change over time and CARB will have to grapple with how to incorporate these changes into the very complex AB 32 program, however application of these factors retroactively

will bring with it a lay er of issues that can have far - reachi ng impacts. In California, appl yi ng GWPs retroactivel y affects emission targets, emission caps and compliance obligations under the cap - and - trade program, as well as previously submitted GHG reports. EPA needs to consider the unintended consequences of its far - reaching policy decisions regarding the retroactive application of GWPs. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rul e for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 31

31 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).106

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** WM does not oppose the Agency ’s proposal to revise the GWPs in Table A - 1 to conform to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) Fourth Assessment Report ( AR4 ). The U.S. has committed to submitting its National GHG Inventory for 2015 and future ye ars using the GWPs published in the AR4 . However, consistent with that commitment, WM supports the Agency’s use of the revised GWPs to calculate facility emissions solely on a prospective basis, once it finalizes and publishes these Technical Corrections. As described below, WM believes that the retroactive application of the GWP values to the GHG reporting rule and/or other potentially affected programs such as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (" PSD ") or Title V permitting programs would be inappropriate from both a policy and legal perspective. **Response:** For the response to the comment on retroactive application of GWP values, please s ee Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule. For the response to the comment that recalculating CO 2 e values would impact PSD and title V permitting programs, please see Section II.A.2.c of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 32 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** EPA’s Intent to Apply Revised GWPs on a Retroactive Basis is Inconsistent with the Goals and Scope of the Overall Proposal . While the Agency

is proposing to make retroactive changes to facilit y emissions using revised GWPs , which for MSW landfills will increase facility emissions by

about 20 percent, EPA is not proposing to recalculate facility emissions to reflect other changes to reporting methodologies. WM is concerned that this inconsistency in approach will fail to provide accurate o r meaningful data in the overall context of the Technical Corrections. For example, the Agency ’s Technical Corrections include changes to refine methane oxidation rates at landfills from 10 percent to 25 or 35 percent, which could significantl y reduce esti mates of landfill methane emissions. Yet the Agency has not proposed to make retroactive changes in facility emissions to reflect these refined methodological changes. Accordingl y, the Agency’s intent to make retroactive changes to facility emissions based on GWP is internally inconsistent with the overall scope of the proposed rule changes, and reflects an arbitrary selection of particular revisions to apply on a retroactive basis. The revised GHG emissions data will have little value if revisions address one change (e.g., GWP value) but not others (e.g., methane oxidation rates).

32 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).107

Retroactive revision of GHG emission data will also burden GHG reporters because they will be forced to either recalculate emissions (under Option 1) or validate the Agency ’s cal culations (under Option 2). In addition to the burden of recalculating prior ye ars emissions, the retroactive revisions will create a great deal of confusion for stakeholders that rely on the GHG reports and raise questions about the validity of prior repo rting efforts even outside of the mandatory reporting requirement. For example, over the last several ye ars, companies such as WM have been at the forefront of voluntarily reporting GHG emissions (using similar methods as required under the GHG reporting r ule) and other sustainability metrics to a wide variety of interested stakeholders such as investors, suppliers, and/or customers. Revising the GWP values on a retroactive basis may

also require revisions to numerous reports, plans, or even certifications that were prepared based on the best available information at the time. Such reports may now be considered inaccurate based on EPA’s retroactive data changes. Companies would have a significant burden in trying to correct prior submissions or even verified certifications, and then communicating to stakeholders as to wh y those submissions have changed. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Retroactively revising the GWP value of methane from 21 to 25 is arbitrary and capricious, as it is internally inconsistent with other aspects of EPA's proposal. The increased GWP for methane would result, mathematicall y, in an increase in facility emissions by nearl y twenty percent. This will almost certai nl y require some landfills that were not previously subject to the GHG reporting rules to report their emissions. However, EPA is not proposing to make retroactive changes to landfill emissions that reflect the revised proposed methane oxidation values. So me landfills may see a change in their methane oxidation rates from ten to thirty - five percent, which could significantly reduce estimates of their emissions. However, EPA has chosen not to apply

this retroactivel y, and has not provided an y justification f or its selective retroactive application of one aspect of the proposed rule (GWP) and not another (methane oxidation). Such decisions should be supported by record evidence, and in this case, there is no explanation by

EPA for its decision making in this r egard. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc.108

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 12 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** The EPA has neglected to consider other significant technical changes that will impact the overall emission estimates when retroactively changing the GWP. Specifically , MSW landfills expect to see an increase in modeled emissions by 20% if the proposed GWP for methane changes to 25 from the existing GWP of 21. However, proposed changes that could significantl y reduce landfill emission estimates by refining the methane oxidation methods from 10% up to 3 5% are not considered. By excluding such reductions when retroactivel y increasing the GWP for methane undermines the value of the data. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** J ohn Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** EPA's proposed retroactive approach to updating pas t reports is based only on the proposed technical changes to the GWPs, but has neglected to consider other proposed significant technical changes that can impact the overall emission estimates. For example, EPA has proposed to increase the cover methane ox idation rates at landfills from 10% to up to 35%. This action has the potential to significantly reduce methane emission estimates at landfills and perhaps counter the proposed methane GWP increase (20%), y et EPA will not consider this change in its propos ed retroactive recalculation. This example demonstrates, in part, the difficulty EPA faces when applying a retroactive application of technical changes, rather than prospective application of its actions . **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pr eamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 33 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Nu mber:**  4 **Comment:** In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asks whether the agency should recalculate the national level of emissions in prior y ears using the updated GWPs. It is important

33 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).109

that any comparative analy sis of GHG levels be based on the same GWPs. It makes sense that once the GWPs are changed, all subsequent comparative anal ys es would be based on the new GWPs. However, the prior GWPs need to be retained, perhaps as an appendix to the rule. It is appropriate to retain the GWPs used in the past so that, in the future, parties will be able to understand what set of GWPs were used in past reporting and anal ys es. If the old Table A - 1 is not retained in the rule, it will not be possible to do that. Also, going forward an y anal ys is by EPA should expli citly

note which set of GWPs was used in the anal ys is. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input. We agree with the commenter that GWP values used in previous reporting ye ars should be available to both reporters and the public to avoid confusi on over which GWPs were in effect at the time reports were submitted. However, we disagree with the commenter's recommendation that the original Table A - 1 be retained in the regulatory

text. Including two versions of Table A - 1 in the regulatory text could be confusing to many reporters and increases the potential to for reporters to accidentall y use GWP values from the wrong table. Instead, these GWP values remain available in the published Federal Register from the final Part 98 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2 009). We will also provide guidance to reporters submitting 2010 through 2012 reports on our website, where we already provide a significant amount of guidance and support materials for reporters. For additional information on EPA's publication of the revi sed CO 2 e data, please s ee Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** Portland Cement Association (PCA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0061 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** There is no precedent about which PCA is aware for the retroactive revision of reports, or operating permits. Prior history is quite the contrary . PCA notes that EPA has over the ye ars made modifications to AP - 42 air emission factors but not obliged facilities to modify alread y approved operating permits. Only once the permits expire are the new factors then used. EPA has never required reporting entities to change or alter data included in past operating permits for the purpose of attempting to clarify longer term trends in concentration levels of regulated pollutants. EPA’s current proposal to alter data pursuant to revised Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) is therefore inconsistent with long established regulatory norms. Any major departure from regulatory norms would constitute arbitrary and capricious action on the part of EPA. **Response:** See Section III.B.2 of the pre amble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commen ter Name:**  Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA)110

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** GPA recommends that Table A - 1 be divided into two tables; one table applicable for the 2010 - 2012 reports, and a separate table that is applicable for 2013 and bey ond. The current format does not make it clear which factors are applicable for the initial reporting period of 2010 - 2012, which leads to proble ms with future auditing, and makes the 2010 - 2012 reports out of compliance with the GHGRR. **Response:** See the response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 , Excerpt 4.

**Commenter Name:** John M. McManus, Vice President, Environmental Services **Commenter A ffiliation:**  American Electric Power (AEP) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** USEPA has proposed to revise the CO 2 e emission estimates in annual reports for reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using the proposed revised GWP values, and has proposed two options to accomplish this. USEPA's "Option 1" would require all reporters who submitted annual reports for 2010, 2011, and 2012 to resubmit their prior y ear reports using the revised GWPs . Under "Option 2," USEPA would itself calculate the revised CO 2 e emissions. These proposals are unnecessary and seriousl y flawed, and USEPA should not proceed with these proposed actions. The GWPs USEPA has proposed to adopt are not necessarily improved o r more technically

precise than the values USEPA has already adopted based in the IP CC's Second, Third, and Fourth Assessment Reports. Recalculation of past emission estimates based on these new GWPs cannot, therefore, guarantee greater accuracy . According ly , there is no practical reason to proceed with recalculating emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012. **Response:** The EPA disagrees with the commenter that recalculating the CO 2 e emissions using the revised GWPs is unnecessary and seriously

flawed. The IP CC AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports. The revised values represent advances in scientific knowledge of the relative radiative efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs compared wi th CO 2 . Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the effects and lifetimes of these gases in the atmosphere, the AR4 values are more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to provide accurate emissions data that is consistent with other programs. To allow comparison of the facility - level CO 2 e emissions and supply data reported in 2010 through 2012 with that reported in 2013 and future ye ars, the EPA has decided to publish a version of the CO 2 e values based on the GWPs revised in this rulemaking in addition to the annual report values that reporters have submitted and certified. For additional information on EPA's reasons for publishing separate CO 2 e emissions and supply estimates and o ur approach to publication, please see Section III.B.2 of the preamble to the final rule.111

**Commenter Name:** Matt Hall **Commenter Affiliation:** Consumers Energy Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0072 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA’s intent to revise previousl y filed reports based on their “new” GWP values is extremely troubling and an unnecessary and complex paperwork exercise premised on GWP values that may

change again as new scientific discoveries arise. Instead, pr ior reports and findings should be grandfathered from an y future revisions to Table A - 1 (i.e. continue to rel y on the Table A - 1 data at the time of the regulatory action); any

other approach is revisionist and adds great uncertaint y to established regulato ry processes and determinations. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 6.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Num ber:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** The GWPs EPA has proposed to adopt are not necessaril y improved or more technicall y precise than the values EPA has already adopted based in the IP CC’s Second, Third, and Fourth Asses sment Reports. Recalculation of past emission estimates based on these new GWPs cannot, therefore, guarantee greater accuracy. Under such circumstances, there is no practical reason to proceed with recalculating emissions for 2010, 2011, and 2012. **Respons e:**  See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0079 - A2 , Excerpt 6. 

### 2.8 **Other comments on proposed revisions to Table A -**  **1 Commenter Name:**  Matt Hall **Commenter Affiliation:** Consumers Energy Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0072 - A1 **Comme nt Excerpt Number:**  4 **Comment:** EPA’s proposed rule brings up a fundamental question on lingering scientific uncertaint y in the GHG Reporting Rule; if EPA intends to periodicall y revise foundational material, including GWPs and equations, wh y are reporters calculating the CO 2 e emissions instead of reporting out the quantities of the individual Greenhouse Gases? EPA acknowledges the capability

to calculate CO 2 e emissions based on submitted GHG data. Thus, EPA should seriously evaluate the option of streamlining the rule by having reporters supply onl y the direct emissions data (not the subsequent calculations per GWPs to determine CO 2 e ), which is

– in most instances

– alread y being collected for compl iance purposes for other112

CAA programs, as a compliance tool for the GHG reporting program. This would save reporters time and resources as well as give EPA staff the ability to historicall y review CO 2 e data for research purposes. **Response:** As explained in the preamble to the proposed GHG reporting rule (74 FR 16543, April 10, 2009), because GHGs have different heat trapping capacities, they are not directly comparable without translating them into common units. The GWP of each GHG embodies the heat - trappin g ability

and atmospheric lifetime of that GHG relative to that of CO 2 . For reporting purposes, aggregating all GHGs on a CO 2 e basis at the source level allows a side - by - side comparison of the total emissions of all GHG gases from one source with emissions from other sources. To facilitate the calculation of CO 2 e, EPA has included a “roll - up” function in e - GGRT that automatically converts the chemical - specific emissions and supplies entered by reporters who use the e - GGRT web - forms or downloadable reporting forms into CO 2 e based on the Table A - 1 GWPs. In addition, EPA makes applicability tools and calculation spreadsheets availabl e to facilities and suppliers to simplify calculation of CO 2 e in other contexts. Thus, the burden associated with requiring facilities and suppliers to calculate and report their own CO 2 e emissions is limited. For a number of reasons, it is useful, and in some cases necessary , for facilities and suppliers to calculate and/or certify

their own CO 2 e emissions or supplies. First, for those source or supplier categories with a CO 2 e threshold, the CO 2 e values calculated using the GWPs in Table A - 1 are used to de termine the applicability of Part 98 to a particular facility or supplier. For example, facilities use the GWPs to calculate facilit y - level CO 2 e emissions for comparison to the 25,000 metric ton CO 2 e per year emission threshold in 40 CFR 98.2(a)(2), accord ing to the requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(b), to determine whether the facility is subject to reporting. In this case, the facility must calculate its own CO 2 e before it ever reports to EPA. Second, under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(2) and (3), reporters may cease report ing (with some conditions) if their emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year for five consecutive years, or less than 15,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year for three consecutive ye ars. To ensure that reporters are aware of the magnitude of their CO 2 e emissions, it is important for reporters to certify their CO 2 e emissions each year. This is accomplished by certifying their CO 2 e totals via the e - GGRT sy stem when their reports are submitted. Third, for some subparts, reporters are required to cal culate CO 2 e to determine which methods they are allowed to use to estimate emissions. For example, under 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(v), subpart L reporters use the GWPs in Table A - 1 to convert F - GHG emissions to CO 2 e for the different F - GHGs emitted by each proce ss vent. The CO 2 e is used to determine whether or not the reporter may

use engineering calculations to develop an emission factor for that vent.

**Commenter Name:** Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Task F orce (CATF) et al.113

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** EPA proposes “to adopt only GWP values based on a 100 - ye ar time horizon, although other time horizons are available in the IPCC AR4 (e.g., the 20 - year or the 500 - ye ar GWPs).” 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810. We support EPA’s use of 100 - ye ar GWPs in the GHG RR, but urge EPA to also use 20 - ye ar GWPs. EPA should make facility GHG emissions data available using both the100 - ye ar GWP and 20 - ye ar GWP, and facilitie s which emit 25,000 tons per y ear of GHGs, calculated using either a 100 - yror 20 - yrGWP, must be required to report their GHG emissions under the GHG RR. GWP is an index based on the time - integrated global mean radiative forcing of a pulse emission of a s pecific amount of a given compound, relative to that of the same mass of CO 2 . [Footnote: AR4 (Working Group I) at Section 2.10.1]. However, GHGs not onl y have different heat trapping capacities, but also different longevities in the atmosphere. Therefore, a given compound will have different GWPs when considered over different time horizons. For example, while CO 2 has an atmospheric lifetime of between 50 and 200 years, methane’s life is relativel y short

— 12 y ears. [Footnote: See, e.g., http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html ]. As a result, methane will have a higher GWP at shorter time horizons, as its effect diminishes in the later years compared to CO 2 . Accord ing to the IP CC’s AR4, methane has a 100 - year GWP of 25, but a much higher 20 - ye ar GWP of 72. [Footnote: AR4 (Working Group I) at Section 2.10.2.] In light of the above, the use of different time horizons for GWPs in the GHG RR will have important policy

i mplications. The exclusive use of a 100 - ye ar GWP implies that the only period of concern for climate change is 100 years; i.e., that pollutants should only be weighted by

the climate damage that they produce during a full century after they

are emitted. Ho wever, climate damages such increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, worsening air quality , and other impacts are alread y affecting Americans today , and will continue over the coming y ears and decades, not just a century

from now. [Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg . at 66524 - 25.][Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg. at 66533.][Footnote: 74 Fed. Reg. at 66525.] Further emissions will exacerbate these impacts over the coming decades. Methane’s climate potency and short lifetime make controlling methane emissions now particularly critical. While reductions of carbon dioxide emissions are essential to mitigate climate change, CO 2 already emitted will continue for man y ye ars to warm the climate at dangerous rates and to dangerous levels (due to its long lifetime in the atmosphere). Red ucing emissions of methane and other climate warmers with relatively short lifetimes (“short - lived climate pollutants” or “SLCPs”) is critical to slow down rapid warming, and to reduce the peak of the warming. Conversely , if we allow methane emissions to c ontinue to significantl y increase, those emissions will substantially increase the pace and severity of climate change. However, the 100 - yrGWP that EPA uses exclusively weights emissions in a way that s ystematically de emphasizes the importance of reducin g emissions of methane and other SLCPs. As the EPA and other global bodies have recognized, the solution to this puzzle is not to focus on reductions of SL CPs over CO 2 , or the other way around, but rather to recognize that reductions of both SL CPs and CO 2 are imperative if we are to make progress in slowing the onslaught of global warming. See, e.g., Statements by Climate and Clean Air Coalition (an international initiative which was founded in part by the United States); the United Nations114

Environment Programme; and the Executive Body of the Convention on L ong Range Transboundary

Air Pollution. [Footnote: Available at http://www.unep.org/ccac/ShortL ivedClimatePoll utants/tabid/101650/Default.aspx .] [Footnote: United Nations Environment Programme, (2011): Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone: Summary for Decision Makers(available at: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/BlackCarbon_SDM.pdf) , at 2.] [Footnote: Report of the Ad - hoc Expert Group on Black Carbon at paragraph 27, http://www.unece.org/env/documents/2010/eb/eb/ece.eb.air.2010.7.e.pdf]. Therefore, EPA must require reporting under the GHG RR based on both a 100 - year and a 20 - ye ar tim e horizon, including requiring emissions reporting from facilities that exceed the reporting threshold using either a 100 - yrGWP or a 20 - yr GWP to calculate GHG emissions. EPA’s rationale for requiring reporting in the GHG RR based solely on a 100 - ye ar GWP time horizon is simply

to maintain consistency

with the UNFCCC’s agreement to report national inventories for international purposes based on the 100 - year GWP. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19810. As we have pointed out, the GHG RR and UNFCCC inventories are not identi cal and have different purposes. Therefore, there is no overriding need to limit reporting of GHG in the GHG RR to the precise approach used b y the UNFCCC. Rather, at bottom, it appears that EPA’s reluctance to require additional reporting based on 20 - ye ar GWP is grounded in administrative convenience. But this perceived benefit in a 100 - ye ar GWP - only approach is clearl y outweighed b y the importance of providing both 100 - and 20 - ye ar GWPs to enable policy makers to make informed decisions on the best strategi es to address climate change issues without overemphasizing either reductions of SL CPs or CO 2 . To enable enhanced reporting with both 100 - ye ar and 20 - year GWPs, EPA would likely have to propose and finalize amendments to 40 C.F.R. §98.2(b), which currentl y requires potential reporters to determine whether they are covered by

the GHG RR using the 100 - ye ar GWP figures in Table A - 1. If EPA provides 20 - year GWPs in a separate table, the coverage provision could simply

be amended to require potential reporters t o report if their emissions meet the 25,000 ton CO 2 e threshold based on either set of GWPs in each of the two tables. At this time, we do not take a position on whether 20 - ye ar GWPs should also be used to determine emissions control obligations under other Clean Air Act programs. The two - table approach we propose would defer this possibility for now because the PSD and Title V programs determine their applicability to sources based on calculations which use only Table A - 1 GWPs, meaning that providing altern ate 20 - ye ar GWPs in another table for reporting coverage purposes would not affect those programs. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 51.166(b)(48) & 52.21(b)(48). Enhanced reporting would, of course, help policymakers decide whether extended control coverage for sources of SCLPs would be appropriate. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.115

**Commenter Name:** Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director, **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Council **Document Control N um**  **ber:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0064 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** EPA Should Adopt a 20 - ye ar Time Horizon for Methane’s Global Warming Potential. EPA made the decision to use the “100 - ye ar [global warming p otential (“GWP")] listed in the IP CC's Second Assessment Report (“SAR”) to be consistent wi th the international standards under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) (IPCC, 1996).” [Footnote: U.S. EPA, Methane

– Science, http://www.epa.gov/outreach/sci entific.html (last visited May 15, 2013).] EPA reiterated that policy position in the recent proposal stating that: “[w]e are proposing to adopt only GWP values based on a 100 - ye ar time horizon, although other tim e horizons are available ...[b]ecause the pro posed changes are intended to make the GHGRP reporting methods more consistent with the Inventory , we are not considering the use of other GWPs based on other time horizons.” 78 Fed. Reg. 19,810. However, the IPCC has stated that “if the policy emphasis is to help guard against the possible occurrence of potentially abrupt, non - linear climate responses in the relativel y near future, then a ch oice of a 20 - ye ar time horizon would yield an index that is relevant to making such decisions re garding appropriate g reenhouse gas abatement strategies.” [Footnote: IP CC, Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios 229 (John T. Houghton et al., ed., Cambridge University Press 1995).] Further, as discuss ed above, the purpose of the GHGRP is not to be consistent with the Inventory , it is to inform regulation of GHGs under the CAA. Undercounting the GWP of methane is willfully

undercutting t he CAA and its effectiveness in addressing climate change especial ly for short - lived climate forcers such as methane. The political and scientific communities have recognized the need to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050

– and up to 80% in developed countries

– to avoid “ the likelihood of massive and irreversible disrupt ions of the global ecos ys tem. ” [Footnote: Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commissio n to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee o f the Regions: Limiting Global Climate Change to 2 Degrees Celsius : The Way Ahead for 2020 and Be yond 3 (2007), http://eur - lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0002:FIN:EN:PDF.] Scientists at the U.N. Climate Conference in 2007 agreed in the “Bali Climate Declaration b y Scient ists” that “[i]n order to stay below 2oC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 y ears, so there is no time to lose.” [Footnote: Climate Change Research Centre, 2007 Bali Declaration by

Scientists (2007), http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au /bali/.] Furthermore, methane breaks down in the atmosphere after an average of onl y 12 years, so the 20 - ye ar time horizon accounts for methane’s inte nse, short - term impact better than the 100 - ye ar time horizon, which underestimates b y averaging it over a longer period. Because the 20 - ye ar time horizon will have a large effect on emissions regulations and better comports with the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the short term, it sh ould replace the 100 - ye ar time horizon. (See Attachment A, dis cussing recent studies on the time horizon for global warming potential).116

“Methane ’s relativel y short atmospheric lifetime, coupled with its potency as a greenhouse gas, makes it a candidate for mitigating global warming over the near - term (i.e., next 2 5 y ears or so)”. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Num ber:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Each GHG has a different residence time in the atmosphere before they decay or are absorbed, from 0.38 y ears for methylene chloride to 50,000 y ears for PFC - 14, with 12 y ears for methane. [Footnote: IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Chapter 2: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (2007), at p. 212.] In order to equate the comparative warming potential for each GHG to CO 2 , the same residency must b e assumed to perform the calculation, even though, in fact, the gases remain airborne for vastl y different periods. The current convention for that common denominator is 100 y ears, which initially was the proxy

for CO’s duration in the atmosphere. [Footnot e: Id.] However, global warming does not proceed linearly over time, but rather, accelerated by positive feedback loops, changes in climate can ramp up rapidly and irreversibl y in the near term as tipping points are crossed. [Footnote: Timothy M. L enton, e t al.,“Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate sy stem,” 105 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 6, at pp.1786 - 1793.] In response to this implacable reality , a growing body of scientific opinion has more recentl y urged a two - pronged strategy to address those points of no return. This is not to suggest either ignoring or demoting the long - term consequences. Rather, the recommendation is only to recognize that, in order to sustain the viability of human institutions until that far - off day arrives, we must first insure that quick action is taken to avert crossing key tipping points, after which further remedial action is no longer possible: “Policy must evolve and incorporate the emerging science in order to be effective. There is a growing need to c reate a two - pronged framework capable of not onl y mitigating long - term climate change but also managing the magnitude and rate of change of near term R[adiative] F[orcing]. Short - lived pollutants (black carbon and tropospheric ozone) and medium - lived pollutants (methane) account for more than half of the positive RF generated in y ears 1 to 20.” [Footnote: Stacy C. Jackson, “Parallel Pursuit of Near - Term and L ong - Term Climate Mitigation,” 326 SCI ENCE 526 (2009), excerpted from 526 - 527. See, also, Alissa Kend all, et al., “Accounting for Time - Dependent Effects of Biofuel Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations,” Environ. Sci. Techn. (August 14, 2009), p.6907.] Once the need for such a two - pronged strategy is understood, then attention quickly turns to methane as the most important GHG for that approach, as Dr. Jackson alludes to in his above117

statement. According to climate scientists at NASA, the combination of methane’s warming potency , and its short lifetime in the atmosphere, play s an especially crit ical role in the near term when we confront those critical tipping points. Methane’s residency is 12 years, and, when measured in the next 20 instead of 100 ye ars, is 105 times as powerful as CO 2 : [Footnote: IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report: Chapter 2: Chang es in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (2007), at p. 212.] “[F]easible reversal of the growth of atmospheric [methane] and other trace gases would provide a vital contribution toward averting dangerous anthropogenic interference with globa l climate...[Methane] deserves special attention in efforts to stem global warming...Given the difficulty of halting near - term CO 2 growth, the only practical way to avoid [dangerous interference] with climate simultaneous efforts to reverse the growth of [methane]. Similarly , Robert Watkins, the co - chair of the IPCC’s Third Assessment, recently wrote in the disappointing aftermath of Copenhagen: [Footnote: James Hansen, “Greenhouse gas growth rates”, 101 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCI ENCES 46 (November 16, 2004), p.161094.] “This month’s Copenhagen talks focused on the leading climate change culprit: CO 2 . But reversing glo bal temperature increases b y reducing carbon emissions will take man y decades, if not centuries. Even if the largest cuts in CO 2 contemplated in Copenhagen are implemented, it simply

will not reverse the melting of ice already occurring ...The most obvious strategy

is to make an all - out effort to reduce emissions of methane. Methane’s short life makes it especially interesting in the short run, given the pace of climate change. If we need to suppress temperature quickly in order to preserve glaciers, reduci ng methane can make an immediate impact. Compared to the massive requirements necessary to reduce CO 2 , cutting methane requires only modest investment. Where we stop methane emissions, cooling follows within a decade, not centuries. That could make the dif ference from an y fragile s ys tems on the brink.” [Footnote: Robert Watson and Mahamed El - Ashry ,“A Fast, Cheap Way to Cool the Planet,” The Wall Street Journal (December 29, 2009).] Indeed, EPA, itself, has long observed methane’s critical importance for add ressing short term climate impacts: “This relativel y short lifetime makes methane an excellent candidate for mitigating the impacts of global warming because emission reductions could lead to stabilization or reduction in methane concentrations within10 - 20 ye ars.” [Footnote: EPA, U.S. Methane Emissions1990

–2020: Inventories, Projections, and Opportunities for Reductions (EPA430 - R - 99 - 013, 1999), at p.1 - 2.] For these reasons, we strongl y recommend that the GHG reports convert methane emissions into carbon dio xide equivalents using 20 - ye ar GWP values on supplemental tables, to accompan y the 100 - ye ar values, so that decision - makers seeking to address the distinct set of near term climate issues will have the proper facts on which to act. In the case of methane, as noted, that would be a multiplier of 105× CO 2 ’s warming potential when using the latest data, and 72 times CO 2 ’s,118

when using the data from AR4. This additional supplementation also comports with the UNFCCC protocols. The Second Assessment stated that wh ile the UN Framework held there should be one set of consistent100 y ear based GWP values across reporting nation’s inventories, it also specificall y provided that “[p]arties may also use other time horizons.” [Footnote: EPA, Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming Potential Warming Values (April 2002), at p.9.] **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Ener gy Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We support the U.S. EPA’s proposal to include the 100 - ye ar GWP of 25 published in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. Methane is a potent greenhouse ga s, more potent that even recognized b y the 2007 IPCC GWP: When accounting for aerosol effects, NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia University scientists estimated methane’s true 100 - ye ar Global Warming Potenti al at 34. Over shorter time period (i.e. 20 - years), increasingl y the focus of United Nations Environmental Programme and U.S. State Department efforts, methane is over 70 times more potent than CO 2 . While we understand that the EPA’s aim is to make the Rule more consistent with its inventory

prepared i n accordance with UNFCCC guidance, the potency of methane elevates the importance of accurate quantification of methane emissions. For this reason specificall y, we urge the U.S. EPA to reevaluate its assumptions for the methane emissions from critical sour ces of methane, such as landfills, especially since more recent data exists within the agency . **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** C. Lish **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comme nt campaign 34 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0065 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** Thank you for updating the latest Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHG RR). Although the proposed rule will increase the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane, I am concerned that the GWP for methane does not reflect the latest science. The Intergovernme ntal Panel on Climate Change is due to release its latest GWP estimates for methane this September. I

34 This comment is part of a mass comment campaign (Docket Id. No EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0089). The comment text in this excerpt was also submitted by 2,382 commenters in form letters received by the Federal Docket Office.119

urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt their methane figures when they become available. I ask the EPA to adopt a GWP for methane over a 20 - ye ar timeline in addition to the 100 - ye ar timeline. Methane belongs to the class of short - lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). Whereas carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) may remain in the atmosphere between 50 and 200 years, methane lasts just 12. For this reason, any G WP for methane calculated onl y over a 100 - year time period will substantially

undervalue its atmospheric effects. Underestimating the global warming effects of methane emissions will have huge implications for all kinds of policy decisions including whethe r a facility

meets the 25,000 tons of CO 2 equivalents threshold for reporting under the rule. With the threat of climate change ever closer, I appreciate that the EPA is updating its GHG RR. At this critical time, it is essential that the EPA continue to m ake use of the best available science in its regulatory

decisions. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 .b of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** C. Gross **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comment campaign 35 **Document Cont rol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0097 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** I am concerned that, while the updated EPA Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHG RR) increases the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane, the figure may not reflect methane's true impact. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which first sounded the alarm on climate change, has stated that methane is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide. That’s much greater than the estimate that the EPA is proposing to use a nd raises concerns that the GWP for methane is not based on the latest science. Since methane is among the short - lived climate pollutants (SL CPs), it is also vital to consider its impacts over a time frame reflective of its actual 12 - ye ar life span rather than solely over the 100 ye ar period more suitable to CO 2 . Obviously , an y GWP fo r methane calculated only over a 100 - ye ar time period would undervalue its actual atmospheric effects, resulting in inaccurate and potentially

harmful rule making and decisions on facility compliance. While Iappreciate the EPA updating its GHG RR, it is e ssential that it employ s the best available science to ensure that its rules and decisions correctly address this very

serious issue. Iurge the EPA to adopt the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's methane figures when they become available later this y ear.

35 The commenter submitted comments under a mass comment campaign. See excerpts for DCN EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0934 - 0065.120

**Response:** See Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** M. Ballin 36 **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comment campaign **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0102 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  1 **Comment:** I am a Canadian citizen concerned about the environment and climate change. I rel y on scientific organizations like y ours to be accurate and effective in taking account of all potential damage to the atmosphere. Please consider all sci entific evidence in the case of the impact of methane. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** D. McKee 37 **Commenter Affiliation:** None **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0108 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is due to release its latest GWP estimates for methane this September. I urge the EPA to adopt their methane figures when they become availabl e as they are the most accurate and comprehensive. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** K. Sorvig **Commenter Affiliation:** None **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 01 10 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHG RR) needs updating, and I appreciate yo ur efforts toward that end. However, I am concerned that the update should use the best available scientific and statistical methods of estimating methane's potential impact. This would

36 The commenter submitted comments under a mass comment campaign. See comment excerpts for DCN EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0065 - A1. 37 The commenter submitted comments under a mass comment camp aign. See excerpts for DCN EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0934 - 0065.121

mean using the figures about to be released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and ensuring that the estimates correlate with the relatively short atmospheric retention of methane, which mak es its impact very immediate, and would be underestimated by looking at the hundred - ye ar period commonly used in regard to CO 2 . Using the right measures has further impact in such calculations as the thresholding of report ing for facilities, something th at is alread y skewed due to the legal definition of methane compressor stations as point sources no matter how man y of them are clustered in a facility . Please use the IPCC and related data in setting yo ur standards. **Response:** See Section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 

### 3.0 **Other Revisions to the General Provisions 3.1**  **Revisions to General Provisions reporting requirements (e.g., ORIS code, latitude/longitude)**  **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 38 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to revise the reporting requirements of 98.3(c )(1). EPA is proposing that facilities that do not have a ph ys ical address report latitude and longitude coordinates. This proposed addition is not intended as an option for an y facility whose phy sical address coincides with their fa cility operations. It also is not intended for use by suppliers and importers and/or exporters covered b y Part 98, or facilities reporting under subpart W in the natural gas distribution (40 CFR 98.230(a)(8)) or onshore petroleum and natural gas production (40 CFR 98.230(a)(2)) industry segments. APIhas no objection to this revision. **Response:** The EPA acknowledges the commenter's summary and feedback on this portion of the proposal, but the EPA is making no changes to the proposed rule to respond to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2

38 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).122

**Comment:** Under current § 98.3(c)(1), facilities must report their phy sical address, including city , state and zip code. EPA say s it intended this provision to require reporting of the phy sical address where the reported emissions occur. Because some facilities apparently do not have an assigned street address and their mailing address is not co - located with their phy sical address, EPA now proposes to require facilities without an assigned street address to report latitude and longitude coordinates instead. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,814. EPA also pro poses to add a requirement to §98.3(c)(13) for all facilities with a power generating unit to report the facility Office of the Regulatory

Information Sy stem (“ORIS”) code for “each power generation unit.” I d. at 19,814 - 15, 19,844. UARG generally

does not object to the reporting of this information. Most EGUs already report such numbers under 40 C.F.R. Part 75. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. §§ 75.53(e)(1), 75.64(a)(1)(ii)(H). Moreover, UARG has previously asked EPA in the context of comments on its Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (“e - GGRT”) to use the ORI S code for electric utilities rather than developing a separate facilit y code for this program. UARG repeats that request here. UARG also notes that because ORIS codes are assigned to power plants, not gene ration units, under EPA’s proposal, the same ORIS code would be reported for each “generation unit” at a single facility . As for reporting of latitude and longitude, consistent with UARG’s overall comments regarding the over - expansiveness of the alread y p romulgated rules, UARG requests that EPA consider whether that level of detail really is needed or whether a nearby mailing address would suffice. UARG also requests that, consistent with limits on its authority under CAA § 114, EPA explain how the Agency is using or plans to use that information (i.e., how the information has practical utility ). **Response:** The practical utility of location data for regulated emissions sources is well established. EPA relies upon accurate location information for internal verification purposes and for external publication of geographic GHG inventories. EPA has found that when facilities supply a mailing address in lieu of a phy sical street address, the reported address is often far from the ph ys ical location where emissions occur, or the actual location of the emissions cannot be readil y determined. Additionally , without location data the Agency cannot implement the inspections authorized under section 114(a)(2) of deriving sound regulations for the diverse population of regulated sources, the EPA finds requiring sources without phy sical street addresses to report latitude and longitude to be a reasonable approach for determining this fundamental attribute of sources. For EPA’s response to the comment regarding the use of ORI S codes, see Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 39 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Co mment Excerpt Number:**  8

39 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company and Marathon Petroleum Company LP ( EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).123

**Comment :**  EPA is proposing to include instructions on entering Parent Company Names. The rule would require reporters to refer to reporting instructions for e - GGRT regarding the standardized conventions for the naming of a parent co mpany . The proposed language is: 98.3(c)(11)(viii) " The facility or supplier must refer to the reporting instructions of the electronic GHG reporting tool regarding standardized conventions for the naming of a parent company. " EPA intends to provide a pick list of company names. The pick list was developed based on the following steps: (1) Names were standardized and research was conducted to verify the name submitted was the highest - level of the company in the U.S. (2) For GH G reporters who also report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), standardized names were sourced from the TRIparent company database (3) For the sectors covered by the GHG reporting program onl y, parent companies were derived from internet research (4 ) The List of Parent Companies with local government agencies was removed. EPA has provided a st yl e guide for naming the parent company if your parent company is not alread y on the pick list. The pick list is available for download. 98.3(c)(11) requires reporting "Legal name(s) and phy sical address( es ) of the highest - level United States parent company (s) of the owners (or operators) of the facility or supplier and the percentage of ownership interest for each listed parent compan y as of December 31 of the ye ar for which data are being reported..." API has reviewed the pick list of parent company names and is concerned with EPA assigning, in some cases, a name to meet the requirement for reporting the legal name of the highest - level U.S. parent compan y that i s inconsistent with the name previousl y reported by e - GGRT registered facilities. It is more appropriate for reporters rather than EPA to determine the name of their highest level U.S. parent company given the complicated structure of many companies. If E PA finalizes this amendment, APIrequests that reporting companies be provided a mechanism to revise a parent compan y name in the pick list or reach an agreed upon the name with EPA in the event the reporting compan y disagrees with the name assigned b y EPA . This should be done before the list is uploaded into e - GGRT for the 2013 reporting year. EPA should not revise or eliminate a parent compan y name previously reported b y a facility

in e - GGRT without first consulting with the reporter. API suggests a meeti ng with EPA to revise the list of parent compan y names for APImember companies prior to finalizing the amendments. Alternativel y if EPA wants reporters to use the company names in the pick list for the purpose of reporting the name of the parent compan y, API recommends §98.3(c)(11) be revised as follows: "(11) Legal name(s) and phy sical address( es ) of the highest - level United States parent compan y(s) of the owners (or operators) of the facility or supplier **or the name(s) from the "**  **GHGRP : Established**  **Parent Company Names" list** and the percentage of ownership interest124

for each listed parent company as of December 31 of the y ear for which data are being reported according to the following instructions:..." Also, neither the redline edits to Subpart A or the preamble information for the proposed rule indicate if the compan y naming convention needs to be revised for previously submitted reports, or if the new naming convention only applies to reports submitted starting in 2013. APIobjects to having to resub mit previous reports just to update the parent company name. **Response:** See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Sean P. Fly nn, Environmental Manager; Gregory Wilkins, Environmental, Audi ting, and Processes Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Marathon Oil Company; Marathon Petroleum Company LP **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** We would like to specifically identify that the EPA proposed par ent compan y list included the name of Marathon Petroleum Company L P, but it did not include the name of Marathon Oil Company

or Marathon Oil Corporation. In June of 2011, Marathon Oil Corporation split into two separate independent publicly - traded companie s, Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Petroleum Corporation. Marathon Oil Corporation is headquartered in Houston, TX and is an upstream compan y focusing on oil and gas exploration and production. Marathon Petroleum Corporation is headquartered in Find lay , OH and is a downstream compan y focusing on refining and marketing. These are independent, publicl y - traded companies, with no affiliation. If EPA's intent is to list the highest operating entity , it should list Marathon Oil Company and Marathon Petrole um Company L P. If y our intent is to list the highest parent compan y in the chain, yo u should list Marathon Oil Corporation and Marathon Petroleum Corporation. Marathon Petroleum Company L P has reporting obligations under the reporting rules, whereas Marath on Petroleum Corporation does not operate any assets and has no reporting obligations. **Response:** See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3125

**Comment:** UARG objects to EPA’s proposal to revise the rules to require compliance with a document

– i.e., the e - G GRT reporting instructions

– that has not gone through rulemaking or been approved b y the OMB in an ICR. Although the rules authorize EPA to specify a “format” for the submission of electronic reports, see § 98.5, the substance of the information that must be reported must be defined in the rule and supported by an approved ICR. EPA cannot defer to “reporting instructions” the specification of substantive elements of the rule. Although EPA suggests that its instructions are simply identifying a naming conve ntion for use in the required reports, they

are inappropriately

and unlawfully

dictating the substance of what can be reported. **Response:** See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** J. Michae l Brown, Environmental, Safet y and Health Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0085 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** We object to EPA’s proposal to revise the rules t o require compliance with the e GGRT reporting instructions as they have not gone through rulemaking or been approved by OMB. **Response:** See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** UARG objects to the requirement in the current versio n of e - GGRT and the accompan yi ng reporting instruction that facilities limit percent ownership information for parent companies to a percent ownership in the entire facility . As explained above, many facilities with EGUs have complicated ownership structur es. Rather than several entities having a distinct percent ownership in the entire facility , they often have a distinct percent ownership in only one or more of the EGUs located at the facility . For example, one unit may be owned in some equal or unequal p ercentage by companies X and Y, whereas another unit may be owned in some equal or unequal percentage b y companies W, V, and X. In such a case, some companies with ownership interest in a specific EGU may have no percent ownership in the rest of the facili ty , and no ownership interest in the facility as a whole. In 2011, such facilities were able to report information on percent ownership in a manner that was consistent with the actual ownership. In 2012, EPA removed that flexibility and now proposes to cod ify its inflexible approach. UARG questions the consistency of EPA’s inflexible approach with the requirement in § 98.4(e)(1) that126

facility officials certify

a report as “true, accurate, and complete,” given that EPA is limiting those officials’ abilit y to control the substance of their own reports. UARG also believes that allowing facilities to report the percentage of ownership in individual generating units better facilitates EPA’s goal of “accuratel y attribut[ing] GHG emissions to the correct parent companies.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,815. **Response:** This comment is out of scope for this rulemaking as EPA did not propose an y changes to reporting of parent compan y percentages. **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Americ an Chemistry Council (ACC) 40 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** ACC supports the proposed changes to Subpart A, including providing latitude and longitude data in lieu of an address, reporting the Off ice of the Regulatory

Information Sy stem (ORI S) code for each power generation unit and submitting extension requests at least five business day s prior to the expiration of the extension. However, while ACC is supportive of EPA providing guidance to report ers on specifying a parent company , ACC is concerned with EPA’s proposal to, in some cases, assign a name to meet the requirement for reporting the legal name of the highest - level U.S. parent company that is inconsistent with the name previously reported b y e - GGRT registered facilities. It is more appropriate for reporters, rather than EPA, to determine the name of their highest level U.S. parent company given the complicated structure of many companies. EPA should include a mechanism for either including p arent company names already reported in e - GGRT for the prior reporting ye ars, or allowing names to be added prior to uploading reports into e - GGRT. **Response:** See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** The use of latitude and longitude data in lieu of a phy sical address should be implemented. The EPA should determine whether the coding contained in the RMP Guidance for RMP*eSubmit will be used. There are over 20 location codes to place the latitude and longitude. For example, specific i nstructions on whether the centroid of the plant or the "administration building" would clarify

what is needed. Also, e - GGRT should have a FAQ entry to instruct the

40 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106)127

regulated communit y on how to make changes from a physical address to latitude and longitud e information and the consideration in making changes to the lat/long if the exact lat/long for the designated location changes in the future. Currently there is nothing on the e - GGRT s ys tem that indicates a procedure for changing a ph ys ical address of a f acility following a facilit y change based on an y number of reasons. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. EPA has amended the final rule text in §98.3(c)(1) to state that a facility without a phy sical street address should provide the lati tude and longitude representing the geographic centr o i d or center point of facility operations, this would be analogous to the code “CE” in the RMP Guidance. EPA will also draft an FAQ to explain the format for this data and the process a facility must go through to update their certificate of representation to provide a latitude and longitude, if they do not have a phy sical street address, and under what circumstances the latitude and longitude should be updated should facility operations move in the futur e. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 41 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment :**  EPA is proposing that faci lities with a power generation unit would report the ORIS code for each power generation unit. As shown in the redline for Subpart A, this revision is added as a new paragraph (13) under 98.3(c ). API suggests that this revision be added under 98.3(c )(12 ), as it only applies to Part 75 units (i.e. units subject to Subpart D). **Response:** EPA is not finalizing the proposed paragraph at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(13). See Section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Na me:**  Eldon L indt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services **Commenter Affiliation:** Xcel Energy , Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** 40 CFR §98.3(c)(13) - ORIS Code We agree that the use of this code will make verification and reporting easier. In addition to reporting the number to EPA, we strongly urge you to publish this number in any data set containing plant level data which EPA creates or publishes. Xcel Energy makes the following

41 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).128

additional comments related to EPA’s proposal requiring ORIS codes for each power generation unit. There is a discrepancy

between the definition of an ORI S code in §98.6 and the proposed revision in §98.3(c)(13). The definition indicate s that the ORI S code is a four digit number assigned to each power plant while the proposed revision in §98.3(c)(13) requires an ORIS code for each power generation unit. This discrepancy needs to be resolved. The ORI S code needs to align with the code ass igned by EIA , which is an integer containing between one and five digits. The EIA and FERC format contains the integer formatted without a thousand coma separator. The EPA should include a clear and concise applicability statement for this requirement. We recommend that all plants which are subject to both EIA’s form 860 reporting requirements, and MRR be required to include the ORI S code with Subpart C and/or D submissions. We believe the proposed definition for the ORI S code being applicable to power plants owned by utilities could be misconstrued. **Response:** EPA is not finalizing the proposed paragraph at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(13). See section II.A .4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Chris M. Hobson, Chief Environmental Officer, Senior Vice President, Research & Environmental Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Southern Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0051 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** Southern Company su pports EPA’s proposed requirement to report Office of the Regulatory

Information Sy stem Codes (ORIS) codes for the facilities that have them. The definition of ORI S code that EPA proposed to add to section 98.6 is correct; however, EPA’s use of ORI S code i n section 98.3(c)(13) is not correct and does not match the proposed definition. ORI S codes are given to facilities not to individual units. Section 98.3(c)(13) should state “ORIS code for each power generation facility” not “ORIS code for each power gener ation unit”. **Response:** EPA is not finalizing the proposed paragraph at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(13). See section II.A.4 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. 

### 3.2 **Clarification to extension for submittal of revised reports Commenter Name**  **:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 42

42 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).129

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** For submitting report revisions, 98.3(h)(1) and (2), EPA is proposing to require reporters to submit a request for an y additional extension beyond the 30 - day automatic extension at least 5 business day s prior to the expiration of the initial 30 - day extension. APIsupports these revisions. **Response :**  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** Under § 98.3(h)(4), the owner or operator of a facility th at has discovered a substantive error in a previously submitted annual GHG report, or that has recei ved notice from EPA of an alleged error in a report, may request an extension of the otherwis e applicable 45 - day period for submission of a revised report or other response. However, a 30 - day extension is automatically

granted only

if the request is received within a certain tim e period and then only if EPA does not respond to the request b y the end of the initial 45 - day period. EPA proposes to revise the provision to provide an automatic 30 - day extension, but then to set a new timeframe and new criteria for an y additional reques ts. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,815, 19,844. Specificall y, a request for an additional extension would have to be submitted at least 5 business day s prior to expiration of the 30 - day

extension, and EPA would have to make an affirmative finding based on the request that additional time was warranted. Id. UARG supports revision of this rule, which reflects that fact that the 45 day period often is not sufficient. The change would relieve EPA from any obligati on to track and consider action on initial extension reques ts. However, rather than provide for an automatic initial extension, UARG suggests that EPA consider simply extending the initial deadline to 75 day s. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their general support for this proposed change. Regarding the comment to change the 45 - day initial period and 30 - day extension to one 75 - day period, EPA has noted that most verification issues within the first two y ears of e - GGRT reporting are resolved within the initial 45 - day period. EPA is making the 30 - day extens ion automatic, if applied for, to ease burden on reporters with complex verification issues and also to ease burden on EPA staff. Since it is clear that most reporters do not need the 30 - day extension to resolve their verification issues, EPA is finalizing this change as proposed.130



### 3.3 **Revisions to General Provisions definitions Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 43 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 17 **Comment:** API believes most of the definitional changes to the continuous bleed and intermittent bleed pneumatic devices definitions shown in the redline version of the proposed rule are alread y in the final rule. It appears that the only change proposed that is not alread y in the final rule is changing the "do" to "does" in the intermittent bleed pneumatic devices definition. **However, API asserts that more extensive changes to the pneumatic controller definitions and emission**  **factors are needed to provide clarity and correct misconceptions about certain devices, i.e. controllers.**  Based on the 2011 data reported under Subpart W of the GHGRP, pneumatic controllers seem to be the largest source of emissions in the Onshore Petrol eum and Natural Gas Production sector, representing 17 MMT CO 2 e . Intermittent bleed controllers represent 61% of the calculated emissions when using the emission factors provided by EPA in the rule. This significant contribution of emissions from intermitt ent bleed controllers is counter to APImembers ’ knowledge of and experience with pneumatic controllers. Based on operational knowledge and experience, APIcontends that the emission factor for intermittent bleed pneumatic controllers is as much as an ord er of magnitude too high. For example, using a t ypical intermittent bleed level controller and a 10 Bbls/day liquid production rate as an example, yields a total gas volume per hour of 0.72 scf/hr to 2.16 scf/hr dependent on the range setting of the level (2" to 6" range from discussions with instrumentation technicians) and the volume per dump. Given that the EIA ’ s listing of wells by production rate category show about 79% of oil wells in the US being lower than 10 Bbls/day production and 98% of gas wells in the US being lower than 10 Bbls/day liquid production, this seems to be a realistic production value. This example illustrates that the volume from an intermittent bleed controller actuall y spans the volumetric emission factor for a low bleed device in Table W - 1A of the rule and is nearl y an order of magnitude lower than the Table W - 1A volumetric factor for an intermittent bleed ty pe device. APIis concerned that the misrepresentation of the magnitude and contribution of emissions for pneumatic control lers may lead to regulatory

actions that would be based on invalid emission estimates. APIintends to look further into both the emission factors and definitions for pneumatic controllers and suggests forming a technical workgroup with EPA to resolve these concerns. In the meantime, while investigating improved definitions and emission factors for pneumatic controllers, API recommends that the naming conventions for pneumatic devices in tables W1 - A, W - 3, and W - 4 be modified to use the actual pneumatic devi ce naming conventions used in the

43 The comments of the American Petroleum I nstitute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).131

rule, i.e. High - bleed pneumatic devices; Intermittent bleed pneumatic devices; and Low - bleed pneumatic devices should be used over Low Continuous Bleed Pneumatic Device and High Continuous Bleed Pneumatic Device. This chan ge will conform names throughout the GHGRP and reduce opportunities for confusion b y reporters or agencies. Also, APIwishes to clarify that pneumatic devices which do not control a process condition are not within the scope of the rule. **Response:** Regar ding changes to the subpart W tables, EPA notes that no such changes were included in the proposed rule and, therefore, are out of scope for this rulemaking. EPA may consider these or similar edits in a future rulemaking. Regarding the requested clarificat ion of pneumatic device applicability within the GHGRP , the comment does not provide enough information to de velop a response. EPA suggests the commenter submit a question to the GHGRP Help Desk at GHGReporting@epa .gov with the specific subparts and description of the pneumatic device use to which they are referring.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comme nt Excerpt Number:**  18 **Comment:** The proposed definition of FBCs is too broad to sufficientl y distinguish between FBCs and other combustion technologies. The GHGRP does not currentl y contain a definition for FBCs . In order to facilitate the application of FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors for certain fuels, EPA has proposed a definition for FBCs that is based on the maximum temperature reached within the combustor . UARG agrees that the bulk bed temperatures as measured in a fluid bed combustion unit will no t exceed 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the proposed definition would likely encompass FBCs . However, the proposed definition may not be sufficientl y exclusive to ensure that onl y FBCs are subjected to the proposed FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors. Fo r example, certain solid fuel gasifiers can operate at temperatures less than 1,900 degrees Fahrenheit. As a result, if EPA finalizes this definition, any FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors that the Agency adopts could apply

to some non - FBC combustors that actually have different N 2 O emission profiles. In order to avoid an y potential overlap between FBCs and other combustion technologies, EPA should adopt a definition of FBCs that is based on the unique phy sical attributes of fluidized bed combustion rather than on the temperatures reached in a combustor . UARG suggests that EPA adopt the following definition for FBCs : Fluidized Bed Combustor ( FBC ) means a combustion technology (e.g., a fluidized bed boiler) which emplo ys a mixture of solid fuel reacting in an excess air environment in the presence of solid particles, the latter of which may be chemically reacting or inert, and of a132

diameter ty

picall y from several hundred to 6,0 00 microns, that are suspended in an upward flowing gas stream b y gas of a velocit y that is usually less than 30 actual feet per second. Because this definition incorporates the process characteristics that are unique to FBCs , it would ensure that an y FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors that EPA adopts would not extend inappropriatel y to other combustion technologies. **Response:** The EPA is not finalizing the definition of “Fluidized Bed Combustor (FBC)” because the associated subpart C emissions factors are not being finalized at this time. See section II.B of the preamble for response to this comment. 

### 3.4 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** EPA has proposed a number of changes to various subparts of the GHG reporting rule. EPA will be required to finalize the rule amendments and then update the reporting tool (e GGRT) to reflect the changes. Dow has greater than 10 reporting sites, some of which are very large with numerous sources, and respectfully requests that EPA provide at least 60 day s between the time that e - GGRT is made available and the date that the annual report must be submitted. Thus, if e - GGRT is not ready for data entry

by February 1 stt of a given ye ar, Dow requests that the report submittal date be adjusted to equal the date that is 60 day s after the e GGRT is available for data entry for a given reporting y ear. Dow also requests the EPA give consideration to revising the reporting deadline to June 1 st of every y ear. Several of our reporting personnel are required to prepare and submit a large number of major environmental reports during the first and second quarters of each y ear including reports such as State Air Emission Inventories, SARA 312, and SARA 313 reports. Extending the reporting due date for 40 CFR 98 would help to relieve the burden on reporting personnel during the fi rst quarter of each ye ar. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their feedback. Regarding the reporting deadline for annual e - GGRT reports, that section of the rule was not open for comment during this rulemaking and, therefore, that portion of this comm ent is out of scope. Regarding when e - GGRT is opened for reporting each ye ar, EPA notes that this timeframe is not regulated and, thus, is out of scope for this rulemaking. However, EPA appreciates the commenter's helpful feedback and does strive to provide reporters with as much time as possible to complete reporting each y ear. **Commenter Name:** Eldon L indt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services **Commenter Affiliation:** Xcel Energy , Inc.133

**Document C ontrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We believe that in addition to the ORIS code, adding the predominate NERC Region and sub - regional connections is an additional step that will allow added value for both the Agency

and consumers of the data. While proposing this data collection, we recognize that a small minority

of plants will have electrical connections to more than one of these entities, This could be noted b y a checkbox indicating the plant is actively connected to more than one region with additional information supplied in a narrative form. **Response:** The EPA agrees that the NERC Region is an important attribute for electricit y generating units, however, the EPA has not elected to add this reporting requi rement under Part 98 The final amendments use the term “plant code” rather than “ORIS code.” The plant code is either the ORIS code, or, in the absence of such, the facilit y identifier assigned by the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division for electronic reporti ng. In most cases, the plant code will be the ORI S code, which can be used to determine the NERC Region. 

### 4.0 **Revisions to Subpart C 4.1**  **Revision to expand use of Tier 1 in Subpart C Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Comment er Affiliation:**  American Petroleum Institute (API ) 44 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment :**  EPA is proposing to allow the Tier 1 methodology for Table C - 1 fuels that are combusted in a unit with a maximum rated heat input capacit y greater than 250 MMBtu/hr if the fuel provides less than 10 percent of the actual heat input to the unit. APIsupports the additional flexibility this revision provides. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility A ir Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14

44 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).134

**Comment:** Under §98.33(b)(1), use of the Tier 1 calculation methodology for fuels listed in Table C - 1 is limited to units with a maximum rated heat input capacity of 250 mmBtu/hr or less. EPA proposes to expand use of Tier 1 to allow its use for Table C - 1 fuels at larger units subject to certain restrictions, as long as the fuel provides less than 10% of the annual heat input to the unit. 78 Fed. Re g. at 19,815, 19,847 - 48. UARG supports this revision and urges EPA to consider additional revisions that would further reduce the burdens of calculating and reporting GHG emissions under Subpart C, particularl y for activities that could be considered de mi nimis. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 4.2 **Revisions to Table C -**  **1 Commenter Name:**  Jonathan Lewis, Senior Council - Climate policy **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Task Force (CATF) and Clean Air Council **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0105 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** Table 4 of EPA’s proposal details the revisions that the Agency intends to make to the default CO 2 emission factors and high heat values for several of the fuel ty pes listed in Table C - 1 of Subpart C, 40 CFR part 98. See 78 Fed. R eg. at 19815 17. For “Wood and Wood Residuals (dry

basis),” EPA proposes to increase the default high heat value slightly (f rom 15.38 mmBtu/short ton to 17.48 mmBtu/short ton) and to leave the default CO 2 emission factor unchanged (at 93.80 kg CO 2 /mmBtu). I d. at 19816. EPA’s proposal to increase the default high heat value and maintain the existing default CO 2 emission facto r for wood and wood residuals is consi stent with the recommendations made in a memorandum sent to EPA by Dick Richards, et al., of SAI C on June 15, 2012, titled “ Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” (“SAIC Memo”) . The SAIC Memo points out that the current high heat value for wood and wood residuals “assumes moisture content of 12 percent” even though data from the GHG Reporting Program indicate that the moisture content of wood fuel used b y industry ranges “signi ficantl y.” SAI C Memo at 19. SAIC suggested the following change to EPA: **Recommendation:** SAIC recommends that EPA revise Table C - 1 to indicate the basis for the existing default HHV, provide a dry basis default HHV (17.48 MMBtu/short ton), and include a f ootnote instructing users how to convert the dry basis value to wet basis using measured moisture content. The footnote should read as follows: Use the following formula to calculate a wet basis HHV for use in Equation C - 1 usi ng the following formula: HHV w = ((100

– M)/100) * HHVd , where HHVw = wet basis HHV, M = moisture content (percent), and HHVd = dry basis HHV from Table C - 1. Id.135

Because SAIC’s recommended approach to the default high heat value for wood and wood residuals is an improvement over the current appro ach, we support EPA’s proposed decision to revise Table C - 1 accordingl y. We respectfull y urge the Agency to: • Finalize its proposed revision to the default high heat value for wood and wood residuals; and • Finalize its proposed decis ion to leave the default CO 2 emission factor for wood and wood residuals unchanged. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affi liation:**  Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** The County

supports the revision of the high heating value of landfill gas from 0.841x10 - 3 mmBTU/ scf to 0.485x10 - 3 mmBTU/ scf . We also support the addition of separate biogas and LFG categories. These revisions will make the calculations more representative of actual conditions. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 45 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** WM supports proposed changes to HHV for landfill gas and establishment of HHV and emission factor for "other biomass gases." The proposed changes more accuratel y reflect methane concentration of the two fuel ty pes. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. The re are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

45 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).136

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comme nt:**  Republic supports the technical correction that delineate s a HHV value for landfill gas from oth er biomass gases in Table C - 1. The landfill gas HHV proposed value of 0.485 x 10 - 3 mmBTU/scf is more repre sentative of field conditions. We appreciate thes e changes as the HHV will be more reflective for calculating emissions. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** In Subpart C

– General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources, EPA proposes to revise the high heating value of landfill gas from 0.841 x 10 - 3 mmBTU/scf to 0.485 x 10 - 3 mm BTU/scf; we support this change. We also support the addition of separate biogas and landfill gas categories. These revisions will make the calculations more representative of actual field conditi ons. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry I sland Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** DSWA supports the revision of the high heating value of landfill gas from 0.841 x 10 - 3 mmBTU/scf to 0.485 x 10 - 3 mmBTU/scf. This revision is consistent with comments that DSWA has previously

submitted to the Agency . We also support the addition of separate biogas and landfill gas categories. These revisions will make the calculations more representative of field conditions. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.137

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 46 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to update emission factors and heating values for a number of fuel ty pes. For the LPGs, since the HHVs are presented on the basis of million Btu per gallon, and these compounds are gases under standard conditions, the heating value must be presented using a stated temperature and pressure. For all LPG except ethylene, we are proposing estimates of HHV at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and saturation pressure. For ethylene, since it cannot be liquefied above 48.6°F, we have selecte d a value for HHV that is determined at 41°F (slightl y under the critical temperature) and the corresponding saturation pressure. The proposed rule changes and preamble do not discuss whether the changes for the emission factors and heating values apply t o reports starting in 2013, or if the values are to be retroactivel y applied to previous reports. APIopposes appl yi ng these revisions to previously submitted reports. Reporters should not have to resubmit reports to incorporate these changes for calendar ye ar 2010, 2011, or 2012 reporting. These revisions should only appl y going forward. APIdetermined that the proposed changes do not vary significantl y from values provided in the APICompendium. Therefore, API does not oppose the suggested revisions. How ever, API discourages EPA from making annual adjustments to these factors, as an y changes made to the factors in the rule requires companies to make changes to their internal reporting s ys tems and processes, which is not a trivial activity . This incurs cos ts and requires time for the reporting companies to implement and test these changes. **Response:** See “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” in Docket Id No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 for an explanation of the basis of changes to Table C - 1 and Table C - 2 emission factors and Table C - 1 heating values. EPA does not anticipate making future adjustments to these factors absent compelling technical reasons. See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s r esponse address ing retro active submittals.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 47 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** EPA is proposing a correction to the emission factor for coke because it appears that the emission factor currently in Table C - 1 was inadvertently listed as the emission factor for petroleum coke. EPA has also changed the name in Table C - 1 to "coal coke" t o differentiate this

46 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 47 The comments of the American Petr oleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).138

substance from "petroleum coke", which has a different HHV and EF. Petroleum coke is still listed in Table C - 1 with no revisions to the emission factor (102.41 kg CO 2 /MMBtu) or heating value (0.143 MMBtu/gallon). Coal coke is assigned an emission factor of 24.8 MMBtu/short ton, and a heating value of 113.67 kg CO 2 /MMBtu. APIsupports distinguishing between petroleum coke and coal coke. However, much like coal coke, petroleum coke is a solid and in industry it is measured in mass units (lbs or short tons). APIrequests that EPA provide a mass - based heating value for petroleum coke. In formation provided b y the U.S. Energy Information Administration states: "EIA adopted the thermal conversion factor of 6.024 MMBtu per barrel as reported i n Btu per short ton in the Bureau of Mines internal memorandum, Bureau of Mines Standard Average Heating Values of Various Fuels, Adopted January 3, 1950. ” The Bureau of Mines calculated this factor b y dividing 30.120 MMBtu per short ton, as given in the r eferenced Bureau of Mines internal memorandum, by

5.0 barrels per short ton, as given in the Bureau of Mines Form 6 - 1300 - M and successor E IA forms." [Reference E IA, Annual Energy Review 2011] For consistency with reporting to EIA, API requests the use of e ither the mass based heating value of 30.120 MMBtu per short ton, or the addition of a footnote providing the conversion factor of 5 bbl/short ton. **Response:** Please note that the default high heat value for petroleum coke is listed in Table C - 1 on both a volume (mmBtu/gallon) and a mass (mmBtu/short ton) basis. The default high heat value for petroleum coke on a mass basis is listed as 30 mmBtu/short ton under the Other Fuels - Solid heading. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerp t Number:**  6 **Comment:** EPA proposes to update the high heat value (HHV) for the “wood and wood residuals” category

of solid biomass fuels to be on a dry basis, or at a 0 percent moisture content, and provides an equation for reporters to convert the defaul t HHV to a wet basis as needed. AF&PA and AWC appreciate this clarification to this category of solid biomass fuel but request that EPA also provide the same information for the remaining categories of solid biomass fuel (agricultural b yp roducts, peat, and solid by products). While EPA fixed an area of confusion and potential error with one category of solid biomass fuel, it did not address the remaining categories; therefore, the potential of misapplying the HHVs given in Table C - 1 for these categories need lessly remains. Specifically , EPA should either convert the default HHVs given for all categories of solid biomass fuels to a dry basis or list the moisture content at which the default HHVs are given, and allow use of the correction equation currently

giv en in proposed footnote 6 to Table C - 1 to convert to a wet basis as needed.139

**Response:** Thank you for your comment supporting the proposed revision to the HHV for wood and wood residuals. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. We were able to revise the default HHV for wood and wood residuals to a dry basis because the moisture content of the HHV originally included in Table C - 1 was known (i.e., 12 percent moisture). However, the moisture content basis of the HHVs provided in Table C - 1 for agricultural by products, peat, and solid by products is not well defined. As explained in the anal ys is of the proposed changes to Table C - 1 found in the memorandum “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” (avail able in Docket ID No. EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934), the original Table C - 1 HHVs for agricultural b yp roducts, peat, and solid by products are based on data from the Energy Information Administration ( EIA ), Renewable Energy Annual 2009, Table 1.10 which aggregates “ as received” or wet basis values from multiple facilities. Because the HHVs for agricultural by products, peat, and solid by products represent an aggregate of multiple fuels with unspecified moisture contents from multiple facilities, we are unable to calcu late dry basis HHVs from the HHVs provided in Table C - 1 as we did for wood and wood residuals, and therefore, we are unable to implement the commenters’ suggestion at this time. Although we cannot implement the commenters’ suggestion at this time, EPA is interested in receiving additional data that would allow for refinement of the HHVs for agricultural b yproducts, peat, and solid byproducts in future technical amendments.

**Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Gover nment Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to change the emission factor for CO 2 from 53.02 to 53.06 kg CO 2 /mmbtu for Natural Gas (Table C - 1). GPA requests EPA’s assurance that these changes will be applied to future reporting and that EPA will not require past reports to be revised or resubmitted. **Response:** See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals.

**Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** The Proposed Rule would revise the high heating value (HHV) and CO 2 emission factor (EF) for natural gas combustion in Table C - 1. The heating value would be revised from 1028 to 10 26 Btu/scf and the EF would be revised from 53.02 to 53.06 kg CO 2 /MMBtu. For natural gas combustion calculations using Subpart C Tier 1 or Tier 2, both of these defaults are140

used

– i.e., the equation includes HHV x EF. The proposed revisions are minor for both default values and the calculation (HHV x EF) results in a trivial change in the calculated CO 2 emissions of approximately

0.1%. IN GAA reviewed the contractor memo to EPA that recommended revisions (docket document number EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0021), and INGAA questions the need for such immaterial revisions. For example, it appears the natural gas CO 2 EF revision is due to rounding associated with the number of significant figures used for the ratio of molecular weights of CO 2 and carbon (44/12 versus 44.01/12.01). EPA should reconsider the need to introduce such minor calculation revisions into the GHG MRR, and EPA should develop data quality objectives that establish a basis for creating such revisions. Since reporters have developed s ys tems and proc esses for developing reports, it is important for EPA to understand that an y change to the GHG MRR introduces burden for the reporter. Inconsequential revisions (e.g., changing an estimate b y 0.1%) should not be introduced unless there is a compelling technical reason. **Response:** See “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” in Docket Id No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 for an explanation of the basis of changes to Table C - 1 and Table C - 2 emission factors and Table C - 1 heating values. EPA does not anticipate making future adjustments to these fac tors absent compelling technical reasons. See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . **Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of Americ a (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** The implications for revising Subpart C, Table C - 1 properties that impact c ombustion emission calculations are not clear. Itis also unclear how EPA determines whether such revisions warrant a look back and update to emission values for previous annual reports. EPA needs to clearly

define and communicate criteria that define when a change in a calculated emission is material and warrants revisions to current or prior inventories. This proposed revision to natural gas default values in Table C - 1 identifies basic “s ys tems” issues that should be addressed, including: data quality obj ectives that define whether revisions are warranted when immaterial (e.g., 0.1%) differences are identified; the basis for deciding when revisions to standard properties or default values warrant a revision that would affect future reports; and, the basis for deciding when revisions warrant a recalculation of reported annual GHG emissions for previous y ears. Reviews and changes to calculation methods, equations, and constants should be conducted on a defined schedule to avoid frequent and unnecessary revisi ons to reporter s ys tems and associated inventories. INGAA recommends that Table C - 1 natural gas properties should not be revised because the implications are immaterial.141

**Response:** See “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07 072 TO 45” in Docket Id No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 for an explanation of the basis of changes to Table C - 1 and Table C - 2 emission factors and Table C - 1 heating values. EPA does not anticipate making future adjustments to these factors absent compelling techn ical reasons. See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . **Commenter Name:** Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 EPA should not require reporters to revise reports for Reporting Years 2010, 2011, or 2012 based on the relativel y minor changes to default heating values or emission factors that are propose d for natural gas in Subpart C. Some of the emission factor changes in Subpart C will result in less than a 0.1% change in CO 2 e emissions. **Response:** See Section I I I. BB of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 48 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** ACC supports the changes to Subpart C, including the changes to Table C - 1. However, ACC requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that the proposed revised default HHV and CO 2 emission factors for natural gas be used for reporting ye ars 2013 and forward, and not require facilities to revise emissions data from reporting ye ars 2010

– 2012. Such retroactive revisions would be time - consuming and expensive while resulting in minimal changes to reported emissions. **Response:** See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . **Commenter Name:** Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerp t Number:**  4 48 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106)142

**Comment:** The change in HHV to Subpart C, including the changes to Table C - l, should be done electronicall y as suggested previousl y. A programming modification would easily update emissions data universally without the need for responses from each individual facility and eliminate the time consuming reentry of data. This method would provide uniformity with a resulting higher degree of accuracy and consistency

across all reporting entities. Again, whenever these changes are automatically conduc ted, an e - GGRT generated email advising the DR, ADR and Agents is recommended. **Response:** See Section II I .B of the preamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . **Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Aff**

**iliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13 **Comment:** GPA further requests that Table C - 1 be divided into two tables; one table applicable for the 2010 - 2012 reports, and a s eparate table that is applicable for 2013 and bey ond. The current format does not make it clear which factors are applicable for the initial reporting period of 2010 - 2012, which leads to problems with future auditing. **Response:** See Section II I .B of the p reamble for EPA’s response addressing retroactive submittals . 

### 4.3 **Revisions to Table C -**  **2 Commenter Name:**  Pamela F. Faggert, Vice President and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Dominion Resources Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** EPA should revise the proposed FBC - Specific N 2 O emission factors to Reflect the Actual Emission Profile of the Units Subject to the Reporting Rule. The reporting rule currently does not co ntain an y emission factors that are specific to fluidized bed combustors (FBCs). Any covered facility

that bums coal is required to report its nitrous oxide ("N 2 O ") emissions based on a default emission factor of 0.0016 kg/mmBtu, regardless of what ty pe of coal or combustion technology is used. [Footnote: 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart C, Table C - 2]. EPA is proposing to determine that N 2 O emissions from FBCs burning coal and certain waste coal fuels are higher than those from other boiler designs and is proposi ng FBC specific default N 2 O emission factors for the combustion of four ty pes of coal (anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite) and two waste coal fuels (culm - waste anthracite) and gob - waste bituminous). [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,817 - 18; Table 1.]143

However, the N 2 O emission factors proposed for FBCs are based solel y on extrapolated laboratory - scale test data from a study using a ty

pe of FBC design that is rarely used in large scale electricit y generation. [Footnote: Calculations_derived_fro m_Fuel_Processing_Technology ,_Volume_34_edition_number_l c.pdf, Attachment to Docket I d. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0013].This study measured the conversion of nitrogen in coal to N 2 O in a laboratory - scale apparatus designed to simulate fluid bed combustion. However, the data from this study is not relevant to the conversion of nitrogen to N 2 O in the ty

pe of large - scale FBC s ys tems used for power generation for the following reasons [Footnote: See Cichanowicz Report/Memorandum prepared for the Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG), May

7, 2013, submitted into the docket as Atta chment A with UARG's comments.] Although the processing capacity (e.g., Btu/hour throughput) of the specific laboratory - scale test apparatus used in the laboratory study is not defined, th e capacit y of such equipment is ty pically three to four orders of magnitude less than that of full - scale commercial s ystems. As a result, the events within the fluid bed that determined the conversion of nitrogen to N 2 O in the study did not reflect the internal process conditions in the ty pes of larger - scale FBCs that are subject to the reporting rule. The laboratory - scale apparatus in the laboratory study employ ed a different ty

pe of FBC design than that ty

pically used in large - scale power generation. The test apparatus is described as a "bubbling fluid bed," in which the inert materials contained in the FBC do not leave the bed. In contrast, most large FBCs used for power generation use the "circulating fluid bed" design, in which alkaline bed materials are continuousl y withdrawn and replenished to maintain the available alkalinit y in the bed. As the laboratory study itself notes, both alkali and solid char particles play

a role in the conversion of nitrogen from coal to N 2 O in FBCs, which in turn affects their emissions of N 2 O . Therefore, the processes within these two types of FBC units produce N 2 O at different rates, with N 2 O ty pically lower from units of circulating bed design. By simply extrapolating the test data fr om the laboratory apparatus to develop emission factors for commercial - scale FBC units, EPA has overlooked the significant capacity and design differences affecting N 2 O emissions from these distinct FBC technologies. Although limited, available test data f rom two commercial - scale FCB units suggest that actual N 2 O emissions from large - scale FBCs can be much lower than EPA's proposed default emission factors. [Footnote: See Brown, R.A. et al., " N 2 O Emissions from Fluidized Bed Combustion," Proceedings of the 11th International Meeting on Fluidized Bed Combustion, March 1991 (Attachment B)]. Data from a 160 - MW unit burning bituminous emitted N20 at 20 - 70 ppm (at 3% O 2 ), while EPA's proposed default emission rate of 197 ppm for FBCs firing bituminous coal is ne arl y three times greater than the highest value recorded from this unit. EPA's proposed default emission rate of 93 ppm for FBCs firing subbituminous coal represents the upper limit of N 2 O emissions that was measured from a 100 - MW FBC unit firing subbitumi nous coal. The use of laboratory - scaled test data from a bubbling FBC to develop the proposed N 2 O emission factors for large - scale power generating FBCs results in proposed default emission factors that are arbitraril y high. Measurements from full - scale FB Cs indicate that the N 2 O emission rates from these units are actually much lower than the proposed default values. Therefore, the results from the laboratory study cannot form the basis of default emission factors144

for FBCs covered b y the MRR. I f EPA adopts a final rule promulgating FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors for the specified fuels, it should revise those factors to reflect the actual emission profile of the units that are subject to the reporting rule. **Response:** See section II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** The Proposed FBC - Specific N 2 O Emission Factors Are Arbitrary and Capricious Because They

Are Improperly

Extrapolated from Non - Analogous Data EPA’s proposed nitrous oxide (“N 2 O ”) emission factors for fluidized bed combustors (“FBCs”) are set arbitraril y high because the Agency has improperl y extrapolated laboratory scale test data from a t ype of FBC design that is rarel y used in large - scale electricity generation. Measurements from full - scale FBCs indicate that the N 2 O emission rates from these units are ac tuall y much lower than the proposed default values. The GHGRP does not currentl y contain an y emission factors that are specific to FBCs. Instead, any covered facility

that burns coal is required to report its N 2 O emissions based on a default emission fact or of 0.0016 kg N 2 O /mmBtu, regardless of what t ype of coal or combustion technology

is used. 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart C, Table C - 2. In response to a petition for rulemaking filed b y the Sierra Club, EPA has proposed to determine that N 2 O emissions from FBCs burning coal and certain waste coal fuels are higher than those from other boiler designs. As a result, EPA proposed FBC - specific default N 2 O emission factors for the combustion of four ty pes of coal

— anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite

— and two waste coal fuels, culm (waste anthracite) and gob (waste bituminous). 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,817 - 18. In response to a petition for rulemaking filed b y the Sierra Club, EPA has proposed to determine that N 2 O emissions from FBCs burning coal and certain waste coal fuels are higher than those from other boiler designs. As a result, EPA proposed FBC - specific default N 2 O emission factors for the combustion of four ty pes of coal

— anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite

— and two waste coal fuels, culm (waste anthracite) and gob (waste bituminous). 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,817 - 18. The proposed emission factors are listed in Table 1 below as provided by EPA in units of kg/mmBtu, along with conversions to more conventional units of lb/mmBtu and concentration (p pm, at 3% O 2 , wet basis). [See Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 for Table 1.] Values in units of lb/mmBtu and ppm were calculated b y UARG’s technical consultant based on the recommended emission factors listed in Exhibit 1 of EPA’s memorandum in su

pport of its proposed emission factors. [Footnote: EPA’s proposed emission factors have two significant figures. In order to assess the technical anal ys is underlying EPA’s proposal with more precision, the converted values calculated b y UARG’s technical co nsultant are based on the recommended emission factors presented in the RTI Memorandum, which have1 45

three significant figures.] J. Edward Cichanowicz, Observations: Fluid Bed Boiler Definition, N 2 O Emissions (May

16, 2013) (Attachment A) (hereafter “Cichano wicz Report”); see RTI International, Emission Factor Updates for Fluidized Bed Boilers and Other Revisions to Tables C - 1 and C - 2 of 40 CFR Part 98

– Summary (Jan. 23, 2013), EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0013 (hereafter “RTI Memorandum”). [See Docket Id. No EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 for Attachment A) The technical memorandum from EPA’s consultant that purportedly contains the Agency ’s anal ys is and development of the proposed emission factors does not provide a detailed description of the methodology used to derive those values. See RTI Memorandum. As a procedural matter, EPA must include any information that forms the basis for its proposed action in the docket for public comment, including its methodology . See CAA § 307(d)(3) (statement of proposed rule’s basis and purpose must include summary of “the factual data on which the proposed rule is based” and “the methodology used in obtaining the data and in analyzing the data”); id. § 307(d)(6)(C) (final rule “may not be based (in part or whole) on any information or data which has not been placed in the docket”); 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,806 (“The Administrator has determined that this action ... is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA”). Such notice of the scientific foundation for EPA’s proposed rule is a necessary part of notice - and comment rulemaking: without it, the public cannot provide EPA with informative, relevant comments that assist the Agency in addressing its stated purpose for the proposed ru le. If EPA has additional information supporting its proposed FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors, it must include that information in the docket and provide an opportunity for public comment on it. From an attachment to the RTI Memorandum, it appears that these values were calculated solely on the basis of the following 1993 laboratory study : M.A. Wojtowicz, et al., Combustion of Coal as a Source of N 2 O Emission, 34 FUEL PROCESSI NG TECH. 1 (1993), EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0029 (hereafter “Wojtowicz Study”). The Wojtowicz Study measured the conversion of nitrogen in coal to N 2 O in a laboratory - scale apparatus designed to simulate fluid bed combustion. EPA appears to have simply extrapolated the data from the Wojtowicz Study to calculate default emission factors f or N 2 O from various ty

pes of coal burned in FBCs. However, the data from this study

is not relevant to the conversion of nitrogen to N 2 O in the ty pe of large scale FBC s ys tems used for power generation. Therefore, it cannot form the basis of default emissi on factors for FBCs covered b y the Rule. **Response:** See section II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Lauren E. Freeman et al., Hunton & Williams, LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Utility Air Regulatory

Group (UARG) **Docume nt Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0075 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16 **Comment:** First, although the processing capacity (e.g., Btu/hour throughput) of the specific laboratory - scale test apparatus used in the Wojtowicz Study is not defined, the capac ity of such equipment is ty

picall y three to four orders of magnitude less than that of full - scale commercial sy stems. Id. In other words, the laboratory apparatus may

have been up to 1/10,000 the size of146

FBCs used for power generation. As a result, the eve nts within the fluid bed that determined the conversion of nitrogen to N 2 O in the study did not reflect the internal process conditions in the ty pes of FBCs that are subject to the GHGRP. Second, the laboratory - scale apparatus in the Wojtowicz Study emplo ye d a different t ype of FBC design than that t ypically used in large scale power generation. Id. The test apparatus is described as a “bubbling fluid bed,” in which the inert materials contained in the FBC do not leave the bed. Wojtowicz Study , Figure 17 at 45; see Cichanowicz Report at 3. In contrast, most large FBCs used for power generation use the “circulating fluid bed” design, in which “alkaline bed materials are continuously withdrawn and replenished to maintain the available alkalinity” in the bed. Cichanowicz Report at 3. As the Wojtowicz Study notes, both alkali and solid char particles play

a role in the conversion of nitrogen from coal to N 2 O in FBCs, which in turn affects their emissions of N 2 O . I d. Thus, as stated in the Wojtowicz Study , the pr ocesses within these two ty

pes of FBC units have been determined to produce N 2 O at different rates

— with N 2 O ty picall y lower from units of circulating bed design. Wojtowicz Study at 57. By simply extrapolating the test data from the laboratory apparatus to develop emission factors for commercial - scale FBC units, EPA has overlooked the dramatic capacity and design differences affecting N 2 O emissions from these distinct FBC technologies, see Cichanowicz Report at 3, and any final rule that does not correct the proposed emission factors to account for these differences would be arbitrary

and capricious. Indeed, as d iscussed in the Cichanowicz Report, available data shows that actual N 2 O emissions from large - scale commercial FBCs can be much lower than EPA’s proposed default emission factors, further demonstrating the speculative nature of the calculations derived fro m the Wojtowicz Study . Id. at 2. While data on N 2 O emissions from these units is somewhat limited, two FBC units have been the subject of thorough testing. See Richard A. Brown & Larry Muzio, N 2 O Emissions from Fluidized Bed Combustion (Mar. 1991) (present ed at the "11th International Meeting on Fluidized Bed Combustion”) (hereafter “Brown Study ”). The Brown Study measured N 2 O emissions at TVA’s 160 MW Shawnee fluid bed unit, which fired bituminous coal. The Shawnee unit emitted N 2 O at 20 - 70 ppm (at 3% O 2 ). EPA’s proposed default emission rate of 197 ppm for FBCs firing bituminous coal is nearl y three times greater than the highest value recorded from this unit. Colorado - Ute’s 100 MW Nucla station, which fired subbituminous coal, ty picall y emitted N 2 O at con centrations between 40 - 100 ppm (at 3% O 2 ), although data exceeding 150 ppm was recorded for tests conducted during a startup. Brown Stud y, Figures 2 & 4. EPA’s proposed default emission rate of 93 ppm for FBCs firing subbituminous coal represents the upper limit of N 2 O emissions during normal operation of these units. While UARG has been unable to find N 2 O emissions data from large - scale FBCs burning anthracite, lignite, or waste fuels, the drastic disparity between the actual N 2 O emissions and EPA’s propos ed default value for bituminous coal calls into doubt the proposed values for these other fuels. Further, the extreme magnitude of N 2 O concentration proposed for the low rank and two waste coals

— up to about 500 ppm

—is without recent precedent. The content in flue gas of an y form of oxygen and nitrogen

— N 2 O , nitrogen oxide (“NO”), or nitrogen dioxide (“NO 2 ”)

— at such levels has not been observed in new utility - scale combustion sy stems in decades.147

EPA’s use of laboratory - scale test data from a bubbling fluid bed FBC to develop N 2 O emission factors for large - scale power generating FBCs is fundamentally flawed and has led EPA to propose default emission factors that are arbitrarily high. If the Agency adopts a final rule promulgating FBC - specific N 2 O emission factors for the specified fuels, it must revise those factors to reflect the actual emission profile of the units that are subject to the GHGRP. **Response:** See section II.B.2 of the preamble for E PA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Darin Schroeder, Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Commenter Affiliation:** Clean Air Task Force (CATF) et al. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** In 2010, the Sierra Club, on behalf of Clean Air Task Force and many other groups, petitioned EPA to revise its emissions factors for nitrous oxide (N 2 O ) emissions from coal plants using fluidized bed boilers because the lower combustion temperatures in these plants produce substantial amounts of N 2 O and the GHG RR’s generic coal emissions factors do not account for this pollution. 49 We also requested that EPA develop distinct emissions factors for the waste coal ty pes commonl y burned in fluidized bed boilers. We will not repeat the details of the petition at length here; it is in the docket and we incorporate it by reference into these comments. In brief, the petition gathers a representative sample of several decades of work on FBC N 2 O emissions to demonstrate that these emissions are consistently

far higher than 0.0016 kg/mmBtu factor in Table C - 2 of the GHG RR. Compare Sierra Club Petition at 11 - 18 & n.35 (collecting references) and 40 C.F.R. Part 98, Subpart C, Table C - 2. We pointed out, for instance, that e ven EPA’s own AP - 42 emission factors for bituminous and subbituminous coals in FBCs ranged from 0.0673 - 0.092 kg/mmBtu

–tens of times larger than the GHG RR factor

– and that other recent literature supports similar high emissions estimates. We also observed that these factors very likel y vary b y coal type and that EPA should therefore develop coal - specific emissions factors, including the waste coals often burned b y FBCs. We are pleased, therefore, that EPA has responded to this petition by proposing to imple ment coal - ty pe - specific N 2 O emissions factors, distinguishing between FBCs and other coal boilers. See 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,849. We support EPA’s efforts. The new factors are based on technical work done by RTI International. EPA has included a memo in the d ocket from RTI , which confirms that FBCs emit N 2 O at elevated rates and which proposes emissions factors accordingl y. [ Footnote: See Memo from Stephen Boone and Kristine Pelt, RTIInternational, to Mike Hannan, U.S. EPA (Jan. 23, 2013), Docket ID No. EPA - H Q OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0013 (“RTIMemo”).] According to the memo, the proposed factors are based 49 The commenter submitted as an attachment the Petition of Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, Kentucky E nvironmental Foundation, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club to EPA (Oct. 28, 2010). See Docket Id. No EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0071 - A2.148

on a 1991 conference paper b y M.A. Wojtowicz et al. [Footnote: I d. at n.1 (citing M.A. Wojtowicz et al., “N 2 O Formation in the Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal,” in P roceedings of the 11 th International Conference on Fluidized Bed Combustors, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, E.J. Anthony (Editor))]. We have reviewed a 1993 peer - reviewed version of that paper, which also supports RTI ’s calculations, and agree that the paper provides a thorough and helpful overview of FBC chemistry

– indeed, we cited the paper in our petition. [Footnote: M.A. Wojtowicz et al., Combustion of coal as a source of N 2 O emission, 34 Fuel Processing Technology

1 - 71 (1993)(“Attachment 2”). ] RTIappears to have used a figure in the 1991 paper (which we believe was reproduced as Figure 17 of the 1993 paper), along with nitrogen content and heating value figures for various coal ty pes from Mark’s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, to develop the proposed factors. [Footnote: See RTIMemo, App. A.] The figure shows the percent of nitrogen converted to N2O for given coal ranks at a range of temperatures. [Footnote: See M.A. Wojtowicz et al., Combustion of coal as a source of N 2 O emission at 45.] RTIhas converted these relationships into proposed emissions factors. We appreciate RTI’s work, and agree that it correctly reflects the fact that FBCs have high N 2 O emissions. However, the RTIfigures appear to be based solel y on the M.A. Wojtowi cz et al. papers, which were derived from a laboratory - scale reactor. In recent y ears, significant additional empirical work has been done in the field, which should also inform EPA’s factor development (a significant portion of which is cited in our petit ion). In the technical documents for the final rule, we urge EPA to demonstrate that its proposed factors are consistent with this large body of work. This demonstration will further strengthen the rule and ensure accuracy in reporting. **Response:** See sect ion II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Docum ent Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** The methane and nitrous oxide default emission factors in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for biomass - fired boilers also are much higher than almost all of the reported emission rates from stack testing of boilers burning wood and bark conducted by NCASI , and from stack testing performed as part of EPA’s development of MACT standards for Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers and Process Heaters and standards for Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units where wood or wood residu e was being fired. The NCASI study

showed that wood - fired boilers on average emit less than half the nitrous oxide and less than one - sixth of the methane than indicated by the default emission factors for biomass fired boilers in the Greenhouse Gas Reporti ng Rule. Thus, the AF&PA and AWC petition for reconsideration demonstrated that the current Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule produces estimates of methane and nitrous oxide emissions149

from recovery

furnaces and wood - fired boilers that are substantially overst ated. Accordingl y, AF&PA and AWC support EPA’s proposal to revise those default emission factors (including creating a separate emission factor for boilers firing wood and wood residue), which will produce more accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emission s from the forest products industry and will help make those estimates more comparable to estimates of GHG emissions from the forest products sector being reported b y other countries. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2 012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** We note that NCASI , in the report that accompanied our petition for rulemaking, and in subsequent communications with EPA, provided information that suggests that emissions of nitrous oxide from wood co mbustion are higher for fluidized bed boilers, which are uncommon in the forest products industry , than for other boiler designs. The revised default nitrous oxide emission factor EPA is proposing for combustion of wood and wood residue (which does not dis tinguish among boiler t yp es) therefore may still overestimate emissions from traveling grate and other common biomass boiler designs. AF&PA and AWC understands EPA’s decision not to adopt a range of nitrous oxide emission factors for combustion of wood and wood residue, given the relatively limited stack test data presented to EPA. AF&PA and AWC may , however, come back to EPA at some point in the future if additional nitrous oxide stack test data for wood combustion becomes available and supports differenti ating fluidized bed boilers and developing different default emission factors for those boilers than for other boiler designs. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rul e as a result of this comment. As shown in the memorandum provided at proposal titled, Kraft Pulping Liquor and Woody Biomass Methane (CH 4 ) and Nitrous Oxide (N 2 O) Emission Factor Literature Review , fluidized bed boiler data comprised four of the ten test results used as the basis for the amended N 2 O emission factor for wood and wood residuals. These data were included to avoid underestimation of N 2 O emissions because some of the wood y biomass boilers reporting under the GHGRP are fluidized bed boilers. The EPA recognizes that fluidized bed boilers are less common than other boiler designs (e.g., traveling grate) for burning wood and wood residuals in the forest products industry . The EPA will consider additional test data should it become available in the future.

**Commenter Name:** Eldon L indt, Director of Audit ing, Environmental Policy & Services **Commenter Affiliation:** Xcel Energy , Inc.150

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Xcel Energy supports the proposal to modify CH 4 and N 2 O emission rates in Table C - 2 for solid biomass, and wood & wood residuals. We operate eight units at four plants which combust these fuels. Based on our experience and observations, we believe the proposed rates are appropriate changes. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 50 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Exce rpt Number:**  13 **Comment :**  EPA is proposing to add CH 4 and N 2 O emission factors for "fuel gas" to Table C - 2 to provide emission factors for facilities that do not report under Subpart X or Y, but that burn fuel gas. Fuel gas is defined as "gas generated at a petroleum refinery or petrochemical plant and that is combusted separately or in any combination with any

t ype of gas." The emission factors are the same as those for "Petroleum (all fuel ty pes in Table C - 1)": 3×10 - 3 for CH 4 and 6×10 - 4 for N 2 O. APIsupports this revision. **Response:** Thank you for your comment . There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 4.4 **Revision to MSW default biogenic fraction Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commente r Affiliation:**  Waste Management (WM) 51 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13 **Comment: EPA Should Base Any Revisions to the Default Factor for Biogenic**  **CO 2**  **Emissions from MSW**  **Combustion on Actual Biogenic**  **Fracti ons Reported by Industry**  EPA should not revise the default biogenic CO 2 emissions factor for MSW combustion based on the questionable CO 2 emission factor estimate derived in the " Review and Evaluation of 40

50 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 51 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).151

C.F.R. 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW 07072 TO 45 "(in Docket ID EPA_HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934). The anal ys is premises a change to a lower biogenic fraction based on the supposition that the composition of MSW has changed significantl y since the mid - 1990s when the current biogenic emission factor of 0.60 or 60 percent was developed. However, the Agency anal ys is offers no data to support that supposition. Furthermore, EPA is now in possession of far more robust data upon which to base an analy sis of the suitability of the existing biogenic emission factor use d for the GHGMRR . The Agency should use the actual biogenic CO 2 fractions reported b y all municipal waste combustors ( MWCs ) for the first three ye ars of the GHG reporting program (2010 - 2012). We understand that the Agency did not have this information avai lable to it until this y ear as reporting of the biogenic CO 2 emission fractions was deferred. However, this information is now available to EPA and provides a far more scientifically defensible basis for making a proposed change, or for validating the exis ting factor. WM recommends these data be used to evaluate, and if appropriate, revise the default biogenic CO 2 emission factor in 40 C.F.R. 98.33. WM’s 17 WTE facilities have collected and anal yzed over 238 quarterly CO 2 samples to determine the biogenic CO 2 fraction using ASTM Test Methods D7459 - 8 and D6866 - 08 . With national data for the entire fleet of MWC facilities, EPA should have a thousand or more biogenic CO 2 fraction results reported for the last three ye ars. These data will provide ample basis for the Agency

to evaluate the need to revise the biogenic fraction for MSW . WM Wheelabrator facilities’ annual average biogenic CO 2 fractions are provided in the tabl e below. These data verify

that average biogenic CO 2 fractions for MSW combustion are well above the 0.55 (55%) default value proposed b y EPA. Analysis of WM’s reported data and that of the other MWCs may

support an increased default emission factor above the current default value of 0.60 (60%). [See attachment to EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 for table titled " WMBiogenic CO 2 Fraction Summary " with information provided for 17 locations]. **Response:** See section II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to th is comment.

**Commenter Name:** Ted Michaels, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** Energy Recovery

Council (ERC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0084 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The EPA should revise the default biogenic CO 2 emission s factor to 0.62 (62%) for MSW combustion to reflect data collected over the first three ye ars of the EPA’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program and the current version of the D6866 standard in lieu of the now obsolete CO 2 emission factor estimate included in the document “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR 98 CO 2 Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” (in Docket ID EPA_HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934). Since reporting of the biogenic CO 2 emission factors were deferred until this year we152

under stand that EPA did not get the data in time to evaluate and incorporate that evaluation in these proposed rule revisions. However, the biogenic CO 2 factor data was reported in 2013 for all three ye ars (2010 - 2012) and this data should be used for evaluating and revising if necessary the default biogenic CO 2 emission factor in 40 CFR 98.33. The average biogenic content from the over 670 stack samples collected from 2010 through 2012 via ASTM D7459 - 08 for radiocarbon anal ys is by

ASTM D6866 - 08 from the 56 MWC f acilities operated b y Covanta Energy and Wheelabrator Technologies was 62.3% (Attachment 1). These 56 facilities represent approximately

80% of the total installed MWC processing capacit y in the United States. The average biogenic content of 62.3% from the 2010 - 12 GHG data base is based on the outdated ASTM standard D6866 - 08 that is currently referenced in 40 CFR 98.34 (d). ASTM D6866 - 08 was revised in 2010 (the first GHG reporting y ear) to incorporate a new correction factor that to account for excess radi oisotope C14 in the atmosphere from thermonuclear weapons testing. In 2008 (ASTM D6866 - 08) this correction factor was 0.93. In 2010 (ASTM D6866 - 10) this correction factor was revised to 0.95 to account for diminishing concentrations of atmospheric C14 asso ciated with historic thermonuclear testing. The correction factor of 0.95 remained constant in the 2011 and 2012 versions of the ASTM standard (D6866 - 11 & 12). However, future corrections will be necessary given the continuing decay of atmospheric C14 ass ociated with thermonuclear weapons testing to ensure that the radiocarbon test method accuratel y quantifies the biogenic based content of CO 2 samples from MSW combustion. To ensure accurate biogenic CO 2 fractions are reported in future GHG reporting ye ars, 40 CFR 98.34 (d) must at a minimum be revised to reference ASTM D6866 - 12 or the latest available version of the standard at the beginning of the GHG reporting ye ar. This would allow the incorporation of the updated atmospheric C14 correction factors, whic h reflect the measured change in atmospheric C14 overtime, to be automatically incorporated without a rule revision. Finally , all biogenic CO 2 fraction data in the GHG reporting database (2010 - 2012) should be retroactively

revised to reflect the thermonucl ear atmospheric C14 correction factor (0.95) in place at the time the stack samples were evaluated. The average reported bio - based CO 2 fraction from MSW combustion would increase from 62.3% to 63.6% using the latest version of ASTM D6866 - 12 and well above the default biogenic based CO 2 fraction of 55% being proposed for 40 CFR 98.33. The purpose of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is to broaden and improve the information upon which EPA relies to make informed decisions. ERC believes that EPA should not re ly on emission factors in lieu of actual data collected b y EPA, such as the various default emission factors used in calculating methane emissions from landfills. For example, the default emission factors for methane emissions conflict with data collected through studies by the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. EPA should use real data in lieu of defaults, as appropriate. **Response:** The comment regarding updating the ASTM method is outside the scope of the proposed amendments because it pertai ns to a section of the rule for which no changes were proposed.153

See section II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to the comment regarding the default biogenic CO 2 emission factor for MSW . **Commenter Name:** Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Energy Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** To ensure accurate quantification and reporting of GHG emissions, it is imperative that the EPA use the most recent data, methodologies and research available. As the EPA revises the Rule, we ask that the following changes be incorporated to ensure accurate reporting: The default biogenic content factor for MSW in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv) should be revised to refle ct the results of radiocarbon anal ys is reported to the EPA through the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (“GHGRP”). The calculation of the biogenic fraction of CO 2 emitted from the combustion of MSW should reference the most current version of the radiocarb on anal ys is standard, ASTM D6866. Older versions of the standard are no longer accurate. **Response:** The comment regarding updating the ASTM method is outside the scope of the proposed amendments because it pertains to a section of the rule for which no cha nges were proposed. See section II.B.2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to the comment regarding the default biogenic CO 2 emission factor for MSW . **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 52 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** We also strongl y recommend that EPA incorporate use of the latest version of the ASTM test method for GHG reporting. The rule references A STM Test Method D6866 - 08 in 40 C.F.R. 98.34 (d) for determining biogenic CO 2 fraction. This version is outdated b y two years. The ASTM D6866 method was revised in 2010 (the first GHG reporting year) to incorporate a new correction factor used to account fo r excess radioisotope C 14 in the atmosphere from thermo nuclear testing. In 2008, this correction factor was 0.93. In 2010, the correction factor was revised to 0.95 in ASTM D6866 - 10. Using the most up - to - date method, the actual biogenic CO 2 fractions for WM’s MWCs (and the national fleet) would be higher for all three reporting y ears

52 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).154

by 1% absolute as shown in the table below. To ensure accurate biogenic CO 2 fractions are reported in future GHG reporting ye ars, 40 C.F.R. 98.34 (d) should be revised to refe rence ASTM D6866 - 10 or "latest version." This would allow the latest improvements in radio - dating of CO 2 to determine biogenic CO 2 to be automatically incorporated without a requisite rule revision. **Response:** This comment is outside the scope of the prop osed amendments because it pertains to a section of the rule for which no changes were proposed.

**Commenter Name:** Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Energy Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** The proposed biogenic fraction of 0.55 does not reflect the data collected and reported through the GHGRP. Since reporting of the biogenic CO 2 emission factors were deferred until this y ear, we understand th at EPA did not get the data in time to evaluate and incorporate that evaluation in these proposed rule revisions. However, the biogenic CO 2 factor data was reported in 2013 for all three ye ars (2010 - 2012) and this data should be used for evaluating and rev ising, if necessary , the current default biogenic CO 2 emission factor in 40 CFR 98.33. Experience at Covanta’s facilities indicates that the proposed value of 0.55 is too low. The average biogenic fraction from the over 580 stack samples collected from 20 10 through 2012 via ASTM D7459 - 08 for radiocarbon analy sis by ASTM D6866 - 08 from the 39 facilities operated by Covanta Energy

was 62.8% (Attachment 1), significantly higher than the proposed value of 55% (0.55). [See Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 008 2 for Attachment 1.] These 39 facilities process roughly two - thirds of all of the MSW managed through energy recovery annually . The over 580 24 - hour samples represent a sample size of over 260,000 tons of municipal solid waste. In contrast, the EPA’s proposed factor was calculated based on EPA’s 2009 estimated waste composition which relies not on actual emissions data, but on an econom y - wide materials flow methodology and mass balance approach. The EPA has consistently

shown a preference for the use o f actual data, both in the GHGRP as well as in other programs, like the EPA Emission Factor database AP - 42. Actual data required under the GHGRP are now available and should be used to establish the default. **Response:** See section II.B.2 of the preamble fo r EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Energy Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5155

**Comment:** Currentl y, fac ilities are required to report the fraction of biogenic CO 2 emissions based on the outdated ASTM standard D6866 - 08 referenced in 40 CFR 98.34 (d). ASTM D6866 - 08 was revised in 2010 (the first GHG reporting y ear) to incorporate an updated correction factor accounting for excess radioisotope C14 remaining in the atmosphere as a result of thermonuclear weapons testing. In the 2008 version of ASTM D6866, this correction factor was 0.93. In 2010, (ASTM D6866 - 10) this correction factor was revised to 0.95 to acco unt for diminishing concentrations of atmospheric C14 associated with historic thermonuclear testing. The correction factor of 0.95 remained constant in the 2011 and 2012 versions of the ASTM standard (D6866 - 11 & 12). Ho wever, future corrections will be n ecessary to ensure that the radiocarbon test method accuratel y quantifies the biogenic based content of CO 2 samples from MSW combustion. To ensure accurate biogenic CO 2 fractions are reported in future GHG reporting ye ars, 40 CFR 98.34 (d) must at a minimum be revised to reference ASTM D6866 - 12 or the latest version of the standard available at the beginning of the GHG reporting ye ar. This would allow the incorporation of the updated atmospheric C14 correction factors, which reflect the measured change in atmospheric C14 over time, to be automatically incorporated without a rule revision. Finally , all existing biogenic CO 2 fraction data in the GHG reporting database (2010 - 2012) should be retroactively

revised to reflect the correction factor (0.95) in place at the time the stack samples were evaluated. Using the current consensus standard (ASTM D6866 - 12), the average reported bio - based CO 2 fraction from MSW combustion at Covanta’s facilities is actually 64.2%, instead of 62.8% as calculated using the obsolet e standard. The continued use of an outdated standard is inaccurate and should be corrected in these technical revisions to the Rule. **Response:** This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments because it pertains to a section of the rule for which no changes were proposed.

**Commenter Name:** Darden Hood, President **Commenter Affiliation:** Beta Anal yt ic Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0039 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** As President of Beta Anal yt ic, a leading laboratory providing radiocarbon dating anal ys is via ASTM D6866 and as a co - author and leading expert in C14 radiocarbon analy sis, I am intimately

familiar with the standard and its application. Irecommend that the EPA revise the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to reference the latest version of ASTM D6866 standard. Currently , the latest version of the standard is D6866 - 12. Use of the most recent version of ASTM - D6866 is both scientifically correct and consistent with ASTM preference in application of its St andards. Use of the revised standard will result in slightly higher biogenic fraction results. In the range of 60 - 70 % biogenic carbon, the application of the 0.95 factor of ASTM - D6866 - 12 vs the 0.93 factor of ASTM - D6866 - 08 will ty picall y increase the calc ulated result by 1% biogenic carbon. Application of the newest standard would also be consistent with use by the US Department of156

Agriculture (USDA) in its Biopreferred Program and Certified Biobased Label program and b y international agencies and stake ho lders obtaining biobased and biogenic carbon results. **Response:** This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments because it pertains to a section of the rule for which no changes were proposed. 

### 4.5 **Other comments on proposed Subpart C Technical C orrections**  **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 53 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to modify 98.36(c)(3) to allow reporting fuel consumption for common pipe, where the consumption is obtained from gas billing records, in units of therms or MMBtu. APIsupports the added flexibility provided by

this revision and the consi stency with other parts of the rule. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 5.0 **Revisions to Subpart E**  No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 6.0 **Revisions to Subpart H 6.1**  **Re visions to reporting requirements**  **Commenter Name:** Andrew T. O’Hare, Vice President, Government Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** Portland Cement Association (PCA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0061 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** B ecause cement manufacturers have a long history of tracking GHG emissions well in advance of EPA promulgation of the GHG mandatory reporting rule, PCA members support reporting requirements applicable and consistent with the cement manufacturing process. T o that end, EPA is proposing one revision to the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart H, pertaining to cement production, requiring that cement makers file reports on a facility - wide, as opposed to a kiln - specific, basis. The current Part 98, published on October 30, 2009, provides 53 The comments of the American Petroleum Inst itute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).157

that facilities subject to subpart H report the monthly cement production from each kiln at the facility for verification of reported emissions. In the preamble to the Technical Corrections, Clarifying, and Other Ame ndments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 66434, October 28, 2010), EPA stated its intent to change the cement production reporting requirements under 40 CFR 98.86 to require annual, facility - wide cement production instead of monthly , kiln - specific cement production (75 FR 66440). Reporting cement production on a kiln - specific basis is inconsistent with cement plant manufacturing practices, because kilns produce clinker (an intermediate product in cement manufacturi ng) and do not make cement. Although it was obviousl y the EPA’s intention to revise the rule accordingl y, inadvertently, this change was not reflected in the rule. This change is also consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 98.86(b)(3), which requires fa cilities without continuous emissions monitoring s ys tems (CEMS) to report annual cement production at the facility . Therefore, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.96(a)(2) to require reporting of facility - wide cement production. PCA supports and appreciate s EPA’s following through on its intent to modify

reporting requirements to reflect established manufacturing practices. **Response:** EPA thanks th e commenter for their support. This change will provide consistency in the reporting requirements for faciliti es using CEMS and not using CEMS. 

### 7.0 **Revisions to Subpart K** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart.



### 8.0 **Revisions to Subpart L 8.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements for RY2013 Commenter Name:**  Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 54 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** Under Subpart L, ACC strongl y supports EPA’s proposed extension for less detailed reporting requirements for fluorinated gas producers for reporting ye ar 2013. It is essential for EPA and producers to take all the time needed to consider various potential reporting options that would not diminish the protection of sensitive trade data. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

54 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).158

**Commenter Name:** Dana Schnobrich, Senior Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** 3M Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0113 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Under Subpart L, 3M also supports EPA's proposed extension for less detailed reporting requirements for fluorinated gas producers for reporting ye ar 2013. This time is essential for EPA and producers to consider various potential reporting options that would protect sensitive trad e data. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 9.0 **Revisions to Subpart N** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 10.0 **Revisions to Subpart O** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 11.0 **Revision s to Subpart P**  **11.1 Revisions to term definitions in Equations P**  **- 1, P**  **- 2, and P**  **- 3**  **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 55 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 18 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.163(b) to clarify that when the fuel and feedstock material balance approach is followed, the average carbon content and molecular weight for each month used in Equations P - 1, P - 2, or P - 3 may be based on anal ys es performed annually or anal ys es performed more frequentl y than monthly . If the carbon content or molecular weight measurements are performed annuall y, reporters would use the annual value as the monthly average. If the analy ses are performed more often than monthl y, then the reporter would use the arithmetic average of these values as the monthly average. Further, EPA is proposing to revise the term definitions in Equations P - 1, P - 2, and P - 3 to re move references to "one or more anal ys es " since multiple anal ys es in a month are not alway s required. APIhas no comment on this revision. 55 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).159

**Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 11.2 **Revisions to f**

**uel and feedstock analysis requirements Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 56 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 19 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.164(b)(3) and (b)(4) to allow annual determination of carbon content for feedstocks delivered by bulk transport. Previously annual carbon contents were only allowed for "liquid fuels" and "solid fuels" deliver s by bulk transport. APIsupports this revision. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Ameri can Petroleum Institute (API ) 57 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 20 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.164(b)(5) to reduce burden by adding flexibility to the fuel and feedstock anal ys is requirements , consistent with EPA ’ s original intent and subpart C (40 CFR 98.34(a)(6), 40 CFR 98.34(b)(4)), and subpart X (40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)( xiii )). The proposed change allows a facility to anal yz e fuels and feedstocks using chromatographic anal ys is, whether continuous or non - continuous. The revision also replaces "gas chromatograph" with "chromatograph". APIsupports the consistency and flexibility

associated with this revision. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

56 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 57 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).160

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 58 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** ACC supports the following proposed changes for Subp art P: clarifying the fuel and feedstock material balance approach; adding flexibility to the fuel and feedstock anal ys is; and moving recordkeeping requirements to §98.167(c) and (d). **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 11.3 **Revisions to reporting requirements Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (A PI ) 59 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 21 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.166(a)(2) and (a)(3) to remove the requirement to report h ydrogen and ammonia production for all units combined. The indiv idual unit production is already reported and can be summed to obtain the production for all units combined. APIsupports this revision. However, this will require changes to a reporting company ' s internal reporting s ys tem if the revision results in a change to EPA ' s xml schema. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 11.4 **Other comments on proposed subpart P Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 60 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 22 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to move recordkeeping requir ements currently included in 40 CFR 98.164 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements) to 40 CFR 98.167 (Records that must be retained). Specificall y, 40 CFR 98.164(c) and (d) will be moved to new paragraphs 40 CFR

58 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106). 59 The comments of the American P etroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 60 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).161

98.167(c) and (d). No changes are made to the regulatory text. It is just moved from 98.164 to 98.167. APIsupports this revision for the added clarification and consistency . **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 12.0 **Revisions to Subpart S** No c omments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 13.0 **Revisions to Subpart Q 13.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods Commenter Name:**  John L . Wittenborn and Joseph J. Green, Counsel, Kelley Dry e & Warren LLP **Commenter Affiliation:** Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0045 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** SMA is concerned that clarifications are needed in the proposed revisions to Subpart Q of the GHG reporting rule. Because natural gas combustion i s commonly used to help meet the energy requirements for melting scrap in an electric arc furnace ( EAF ), EPA is proposing to modify Equation Q - 5 . [ Inaddition, it appears that the closing bracket in Equation Q - 5 was not included (see 78 Fed. Reg . at 19,854). ],which is used to calculate CO 2 emissions from EAFs , by adding terms to account for the amount of gaseous fuel combusted and the carbon content of the gaseous fuel. SMA acknowledges that the products of natural gas combustion may contribute to car bon dioxide emissions from EAFs ; however, for many of our member facilities, fuel combustion emissions from EAFs are alread y calculated and reported under Subpart C. To avoid double - counting of CO 2 emissions, SMA suggests that EPA clarify that CO 2 emission s from fuel combustion in EAFs reported under Subpart Q are not required to be reported under Subpart C. Additionally , further clarification is needed regarding the reporting of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from natural gas combustion in EAFs under either Subpart C or Subpart Q. **Response:** For owners and operators of facilities subject to subpart Q of the GHGRP, emissions from electric arc furnaces (EAFs), including fuel combustion emissions, are to be reported under subpart Q using the methods outlined in 98.173(a) and (b). It should be no ted that when CEMS are used to monitor EAFs, the procedures of subpart C are used to calculate CO 2 , CH 4 and N 2 O emissions, and these emissions are reported under subpart Q. When the carbon mass balance method in 98.173(b)(1) or the site specific emission f actor method in 98.173(b)(2) are used, only CO 2 emissions are to be calculated, and those emissions are reported under subpart Q. In this action, EPA amended equation Q - 5 which is used to calculate CO 2 emissions from electric arc furnaces using the carbon mass balance method to account for instances where gaseous fuels are162

used for EAF’s. With this amendment, equation Q - 5 now accounts for CO 2 emissions from gaseous fuel which is analogous to the inclusion of terms for solid, liquid and gaseous fuels used in taconite indurating furnaces in equation Q - 1; gaseous fuels used in sinter processes in equation Q - 4; along with solid and gaseous fuels used in direct reduction furnaces in equation Q - 7. 

### 14.0 **Revisions to Subpart V** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 15.0 **Revisions to Subpart X 15.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** Dow supports the following changes to Subpart X and encourages EPA to make the requirements for very

small additive streams more flexible with respect to determining the carbon content. D ow supports the proposed changes including clarifying that operations that comply with §98.243(c) (material balance calculations) are not to report emissions from the combustion of petrochemical off

- gas in any

combustion unit. We agree with EPA’s assessment that the inclusion of the CO 2 emissions from the combustion unit would result in double counting the emissions since the carbon lost from the Subpart X material balance calculation is converted to CO 2 alread y. Dow also supports EPA’s change to §98.243(c )(3) that allows the regulated entity to obtain the carbon content of a feedstock stream that is measured b y an external customer. EPA should also consider some additional alternatives for determining the carbon content of minor additive streams that const itute less than 0.5% of the total feedstock flow on an annual basis. To avoid expensive analy

tical costs for these very

small input streams, the owner/operator should be able to use process knowledge to determine the carbon content of such additive streams or be able to use a default carbon content of 1.0 for these additive streams. Such a change would reduce the burden on reporters to obtain carbon content information for these very small additive streams. **Response:** We have decided not to take action at this time on the commenter's request for less burdensome alternatives for determining the carbon content of small feedstock streams because this request addresses an issue that is outside the scope of the current rulemaking. Although we proposed changes to provide additional flexibility in who is authorized to perform carbon content measurements, we did not propose amendments to the ty pes of streams for which such measurement is required when using the mass balance option in 98.243(c). However, EPA plans163

to consider options for determining carbon content of small feedstock streams in future rulemakings. EPA also thanks the commenter for their support of the proposed changes.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 61 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** ACC also supports the following proposed changes for Subpart X: clarifying that subject facilities are not to report emissions from the c ombustion of petrochemical off - gas in an y combustion unit; and clarifying the reporting requirements for reporters using the mass balance method. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commente r Name:**  Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 62 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** ACC also supports the following proposed changes for Subpart X : calculation methodology

in §98.243(b); allowing subpart X reporters to utilize the mass balance calculation method; [and] changes to the mass balance calculation method in §98.243(c)(5). **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment :**  OCC fully

supports the changes for Subpart X: clarifying that subject facilities are not to report emissions from the combustion of petrochemical off - gas in any

combustion unit; the calculation methodology

in §98.243(b); allowing subpart X reporters to utilize the mass balance

61 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106). 62 The comments of th e American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).164

calculation method; changes to the mass balance calculation method in §98.243(c)(S); and clarifying the reporting requirements for reporters using the mass balance method. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 15.2 **Revisions to monitoring requirements Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 00 44 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** EPA should clarify certain aspects of the newl y referenced QA/QC requirements for flares in 40 CFR 98.254 and should provide additional time for existing entities to comply . EPA has proposed to require that certa in flares associated with Subpart X facilities using §98.243(d) to meet the QA/QC requirements for flares in accordance with Subpart Y §98.254. First, EPA should clarify that these changes do not require additional instrumentation to be installed, and that in accordance with §§98.253(b)(1) through (b)(3) that the reporter can continue to use engineering records, compan y records, or similar estimates in cases where a volumetric flow rate meter and/or a carbon content measurement device is not installed on a flare header. Also, EPA should provide some additional time for reporters to add an y existing instrumentation to the GHG Monitoring Plan and into existing maintenance database s ys tems to ensure that they are calibrated in accordance with the rule. EPA sho uld establish a compliance date of no earlier than July 1, 2014 for these existing devices to meet the QA/QC requirements in Subpart Y. **Response:** We agree with the commenter that clarification of the language in the new § 98.244(c) is warranted. As stated in the preamble to the proposed amendments, our objective was to harmonize the flare gas monitoring requirements in subpart X with flare gas monitoring requirements in other subparts (e.g., subpart Y). Subpart X alread y requires compliance with the emissio n calculation methods for flares in § 98.253(b)(1) through (b)(3), but it lacks the QA/QC requirements that appl y i n subpart Y. Our intent with the proposed § 98.244(c) was to correct this oversight and only

require QA/QC of flare gas meters when they are us ed, as in subpart Y; reporters are still allowed to determine flare gas characteristics using engineering records and other information in accordance with § 98.253(b)(1) through (b)(3) if meters have not been installed. Since proposal we also realized that the reference to QA/QC procedures in subpart Y should be restricted to paragraphs (b) through (e) in 98.254 because those are the onl y paragraphs in § 98.254 that apply to flare gas meters. To clarify these points, we revised § 98.244(c) in the final amendme nts to specify that you must "conduct monitoring and QA/QC in accordance with § 98.254(b) through (e) for each flare gas flow meter, gas composition meter, and/or heating value monitor that you use to comply with § 98.253(b)(1) through (b)(3)". These final r evisions are included in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934).165

See section II.K .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to the comment regarding a compliance date for meeting the QA/QC requirements for existing fl are gas monitoring devices.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 63 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16 **Comment:** ACC also supports the following proposed changes for Subpart X: modifying the monitoring and qualit y assurance requirements for flares. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 15.3 **Revisions to missing data requirements Co**  **mmenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 64 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 17 **Comment:** ACC also supports the proposed changes [to] missing data procedures. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 15.4 **Other comments on proposed subpart X Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affi liation:**  American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** AFPM also supports the proposal’s changes to Subpart X. **Response:** Thank you for y our comment. There ar e no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

63 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106). 64 Id.166



### 15.5 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed Commenter Name:**  Frederick G. Fedri, Principal Environmental Specialist **Commenter Affiliation:** Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - H Q - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16 **Comment:** The EPA should review how the changes may affect data validation error generation within the e - GGRT s ys tem. OCC has submitted a letter to Michael S. Hannan, PE at the EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division - Greenhouse Gas Reporting Branch covering issues that generate data validation errors based on the use of IP CC factors in comparing reported GHG emissions to expected emissions based on those IPCC studies. In the interests of el iminating future data validation messages, OCC is raising the request to report VCM production in place of EDC production based on the anal ys is described in that correspondence, and in particular noting IPCC's observation that ...“The CO 2 emission factor that will be applied will depend upon whether activity data for EDC production or activity data for VCM production are available.” The IPCC report can be referenced at: http://www.ipcc nggip.iges.or.jo/public/2006gl/pdf/3_Volume3/V3_3_Ch3 Chemical Industry .pd f. **Response:** We appreciate the commenter's feedback regarding issues with the validation sy stem in the electronic reporting tool. We will be reevaluating the validation checks and messages prior to the reporting period for reporting ye ar 2013 data in an effort to correct any errors and streamline operation of the sy stem. The request to report VCM production instead of EDC production addresses an issue that is outside the scope of the current rulemaking because we did not propose amendments to the petrochemical production rate reporting requirements. However, EPA will consider the issue of reporting VCM production in lieu of EDC pr odu ction in future rulemakings. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 16.0 **Revisions to Subpart Y 16.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 65 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 23 **Comment:** EPA is proposing revisions to subpart Y to change the reference to Table C - 2 at 40 CFR 98.253(b)(2) and (b)(3) from "Petroleum Products" to "Fuel Gas" for calculation of CH 4 and N2O from combustion of fuel gas. EPA is also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.252(a) to remove the reference to the default emission factors for "Petroleum (All fuel ty pes in Table C - 1)"

65 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).167

in Table C - 2. Becaus e the emission factors for Petroleum Products and Fuel Gas are identical, this will not change the result of any emission calculation. APIhas no issue with this revision. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a resul t of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 66 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 25 **Comment:** EPA is pr oposing to include sour gas feed sent for off - site sulfur recovery

to the Flow Measurement requirements under 98.253(f)(2), to the Carbon Content requirements under 98.253(f)(3), and to the CO 2 emission calculations under 98.253(f)(4). These paragraphs currentl y appl y onl y to sour gas feed to the (onsite) sulfur recovery plant. This revision appears to harmonize requirements for onsite and offsite sulfur removal units. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 67 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 093 4 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 26 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.253(f)(4) and the terms " FSG " and " MFc " in Equation Y - 12 to clarify

the calculation methods for sulfur recovery plants to address both on site and off

- site sulfur recovery plants. EPA is also proposing changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.256(h) to clarify the reporting requirements for on - site and off - site units. The proposed revisions would clarify the requirements that should apply to on - site versus off - site sulfur recovery

plants. This revision appears to harmonize requirements for onsite and offsite sulfur removal units. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 66 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 67 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).168

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Mana ger, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 68 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 27 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to clarify 40 CFR 98.253(j) regarding when Equat ion Y - 19 must be used for calculation of CH 4 and CO 2 emissions. The proposed change clarifies that Equation Y - 19 must be used to calculate CH 4 emissions if the reporter elected to use the method in 40 CFR 98.253(i)(1), and may be used to calculate CO 2 and/o r CH 4 emissions, as applicable, if the reporter elects this method as an alternative to the methods in paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of 40 CFR 98.253. EPA is also proposing to clarify reporting requirements to 40 CFR 98.256(j) and (k) to specify

that when Equation Y - 19 is used for asphalt blowing operations or delay ed coking units, the facility

must report the relevant information required under 40 CFR 98.256(l)(5) rather than all of the reporting elements in 40 CFR 98.256(l). This revision appears to harmonize the reporting and calculation requirements for Equation Y 19. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 16.2 **Other comments on proposed subpart Y Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  Karin R itter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 69 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 24 **Comment:** Under 98.252(i), EPA is proposing to require non - merc hant hydrogen production process units to follow the calculation methodologies, monitoring, and QA/QC methods, missing data procedures, reporting requirements, and recordkeeping requirements of Subpart P. APIsupports this clarification. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

68 The comment s of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 69 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).169



### 17.0 **Revisions to Subpart Z 17.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements Commenter Name:**  William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** TFI Does Not Oppose the Proposed Subpart Z Revisions, But Seeks Confirmation of its Interpretation of “Annual Phosphoric Acid Production Capacit y” in Revised 40 C.F.R. §98.266(b) For Subpart Z, EPA proposes to revise the definition of CO 2 n ,i in 40 C.F.R. §98.263(b)(1)(ii) to make clear that the term means the CO 2 content in the phosphate rock, not the direct CO 2 emissions from the process. In addition, EPA proposes to delete some superfluous language from 40 C.F.R. §§98.264, 266, and 267. Also, EPA proposes to delete “permitted” in 40 C.F.R. §98.266(b) to address the situation where facilities may not have a perm itted capacity or, even if they do, they do not operate at the permitted capacity . TFI does not oppose these proposed revisions to Subpart Z. However, TFI seeks EPA confirmation of its understanding of the deletion of “permitted” in 40 C.F.R. §98.266(b), t o have the sentence read - [E ] ach annual report must contain the information specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section. * * * (b ) Annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons). * * * TFI interprets this requirement to mean that reporters must provide, for the relevant reporting ye ar, the actual annual phosphoric acid production for each wet process phosphoric acid process line, not the nameplate capacit y of the line. We reach this conclusion because EPA states in the 2013 GHGRP Revisions p reamble that the contemplated deletion of “permitted” “will provide a better characterization of the relationship between industry production and emissions.” If EPA is interested in correlating phosphoric acid production and CO 2 emissions, the most relevant data element is actual phosphoric acid production during the reporting ye ar, not the nameplate capacity of the process line. We seek EPA’s concurrence with our conclusion that the term “annual phosphoric acid production capacity” refers to the actual pho sphoric acid production from the phosphoric acid process line, and not the nameplate capacity of the line. TFI understands this to be the most accurate way to calculate CO 2 emissions from phosphoric fertilizer manufacturing.170

**Response:** EPA's intent is to c ollect data on production capacity of the facility . Through the verification process EPA has learned that not all facilities have a "permitted" production capacity . EPA's intent of this reporting element is to understand the operating capacity of the facil ity or process line may or may not be consistent with nameplate capacity . Note, EPA is not clarifying the existing element § 98.266(a) which requires reporting of the actual phosphoric acid production by origin of the phosphate rock. EPA agrees that phosph oric acid production, but also rock consumption are directly correlated with CO 2 emissions. 

### 18.0 **Revisions to Subpart AA 18.1**  **Revisions to Table AA -**  **1 or AA -**  **2 Commenter Name:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Ro bert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** For recovery furnaces, EPA had selected default emission factors that had been used by the Swedish EPA in 2004 and that were much higher than any other reported emission factors. NCASI was unable to uncover the basis for the emission factors used in that S wedish EPA report, the author of which is now deceased. Stack testing of recovery furnaces by NCASI confirmed that actual methane and nitrous oxide emissions are much lower than the default factors EPA had included in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. In fact, mean emission rates from the NCASI stack testing were more than an order of magnitude lower than the EPA emission factors, which in almost all instances were higher even than the highest of the range of stack test results. Thus, the AF&PA and AWC pet ition for reconsideration demonstrated that the current Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule produces estimates of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from recovery

furnaces and wood - fired boilers that are substantially overstated. Accordingl y, AF&PA and AWC supp ort EPA’s proposal to revise those default emission factors (including creating a separate emission factor for boilers firing wood and wood residue), which will produce more accurate estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from the forest products industry and will help make those estimates more comparable to estimates of GHG emissions from the forest products sector being reported b y other countries. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the final rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.N.1 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC)171

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** AF&PA’s and AWC’s petition for rulemaking also noted several way s in which the formatting of the tables used in Parts C and AA to present the default emission factors is potentially

confusing. We support EPA’s clarification of those tables in the proposed rule. As our petition for reconsideration noted, the tables in the current Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule have caused confusion even for EPA staff resp onding to questions from industry members, so clarifying the tables is an important change to aid compliance. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section II.N.1 of the preamble to the fin al rule for additional information. 

### 18.2 **Revisions to reporting requirements, annual pulp and/or paper production Commenter Name:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Af**

**filiation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** EPA proposes to require pulp and paper mills to report the annual mass of virgin pulp produced, b y kraft , soda, semichemical , or sulfite processes (not including an y recycled fiber) (proposed section 98.276(k)(1)), and also the annual mass of “paper products exiting the paper machine(s), prior to application of an y off - machine coatings” (proposed section 98.276(k)(2)). The preamble to the proposed rule indicates that this is a clarification of existing section 98.276(k), which requires reporting of “annual production of pulp and/or paper products produced (metric tons).” See 78 Fed. Reg . at 19,829. While AF&PA appreciates EPA’s attempt to clarify reporting requirements and make sure that information is reported consistently across mills, the proposed reporting requirement seeks information that is unnecessary for the purposes of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Specificall y, there is no need for mills to report anything other than pulp production. We agree with the statement in the preamble to the proposed rule that “ greenhouse gas emissions from pulp and paper operations reported under subpart AA are dependent on the amount of pulp produced” (78 Fed. Reg . at 19,823), although even that statement is an over - generalization. We therefore see some potential use for collec ting pulp production data. Production of pulp other than from chemical pulping of wood (e.g., groundwood , hydropulping recycled fiber) does not contribute to the processes for which GHG emissions are estimated under subpart AA. See 40 C.F.R. § 98.270(b) (l isting processes covered). Therefore, onl y production of chemical pulp should be reported for possible use in connection with the GHG emission estimates reported under subpart AA. Note that paper production also could not be used for normalizing, e.g., emi ssions from boilers or landfills at pulp and paper mills, because of the range of factors contributing to the mass of paper produced, as discussed here, as well as other confounding factors such as onsite generation of electricity vs. purchased electricit y and current172

emissions from landfills being greatl y influenced by historical production as well as past changes in wastewater treatment technology , etc. **Response:** See section II.N .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Pa

ul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Commen t:**  There is no apparent use, however, for data on the mass of “paper products exiting the paper machine(s),” which may be very different from the mass of virgin chemical pulp produced, and which does not relate to the processes for which estimated GHG e mi ssions are reported under subpart AA. For example, the total paper production number may include purchased pulp (but would not include pulp produced on - site and shipped to another mill), recycled fiber, clay

and other additives mixed in with the pulp befor e the paper machine, groundwood or thermo - mechanical pulp, on - machine coatings, etc. So not only does paper production not contribute to the GHG emissions reported under subpart AA (other than through upstream pulping, which is alread y accounted for), but it does not necessarily track virgin pulp production, either. EPA states in the preamble to the proposed rule that: “[r] eporting the total annual production of air - dried unbleached virgin pulp provides a common reporting basis for all ty pes of pulp mills regardless of production processes (e.g., bleaching, secondary fiber pulping, and paper making) that happen downstream of the virgin pulping process where the GHG emissions are generated.” 78 Fed. Reg . at 19,823. We agree, which is why the only production data appropriate for EPA to collect is the virgin chemical pulp production required in proposed section 98.276(k)(1). The requirement in proposed paragraph (k)(2) to report paper production is unnecessary and confusing and should be stricken from the final rule. AF&PA also cautions EPA that, while annual air - dried unbleached virgin pulp production may be an appropriate value to use for purposes of normalizing GHG emissions from the chemical recovery processes at pulp mills addressed in subpart AA, that valu e would not be appropriate for other purposes, such as normalizing total electricity use or total fossil fuel use by the mill. It should be obvious that operating a paper machine (as opposed to a pulp dryer at a market pulp mill), pulping recovered fiber, producing groundwood pulp, applying and drying coatings, etc. all have their own energy demands that are separate from the energy demands associated with producing the air - dried virgin chemical pulp that will be reported. **Response:** See section II.N .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.173



### 18.3 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed Commenter Name:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wo od Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** AF&PA requests that EPA make one other change to Subpart AA concerning the monitoring required to support GHG emissions estimates based on the default emission factors in the proposed rule. Pulp and paper mills are required to monitor the black liquor solids flow rate to a recovery

furnace, which is used to estimate and report GHG emissions from that recovery furnace. Under 40 C.F.R. § 98.275(b), for an y period when the black liquor solids flow monitor is unavailable, the mill has to estimate GHG emissions as if the black liquor solids flow was at the maximum potential firing rate o f the recovery furnace (or the maximum flow rate that the meter can measure). This often will result in an overstatement of GHG emissions. This procedure also is an unnecessary

burden with the potential to cause confusion, because this is different from th e way man y mills handle black liquor solids flow monitoring for compliance with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants applicable to pulp mills under 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart MM. Under section 63.866(c)(1) of those rules, mills are requ ired to keep records of the black liquor solids firing rate for each recovery furnace, and under section 63.868(b)(3)(iv), the mill must report when the black liquor solids firing rate during an y 24 - hour averaging period is going to be more than 10% above the level measured during the most recent performance test. Under sections 63.866(a)(1) and 63.6, mills are required to have a written plan that describes how, inter alia, malfunctions of monitoring equipment will be addressed. One AF&PA member, for exampl e, has developed procedures as part of its quality assurance/quality

control plans for its continuous monitoring s ys tems, under which the average range of black liquor solids firing rates collected during recent monitor operation would be used for a time p eriod when the monitor was down. That approach has been approved by the relevant air regulatory agencies and has been programmed into the mills’ data processing s ys tems. Mills use black liquor solids feed rate in connection with reporting for man y other purposes, including assessing compliance with NESHAPs and NSPS, estimating emissions for Toxics Release Inventory reporting, calculating emission fees in states that impose such fees, reporting for state emissions inventories, etc. Using the maximum black li quor solids feed rate for any period when the flow monitor is down, as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requires at 40 C.F.R. § 98.275(b), for calculating emissions of various pollutants for those other reporting purposes would inappropriatel y overstate e missions. On the other hand, having a data acquisition, analysis, and reporting program that uses one value for black liquor feed rate for GHG reporting purposes and another feed rate for all other purposes would be complicated and potentially confusing, b oth for mill personnel and for regulatory agencies. To avoid additional reporting burden, avoid confusion, and minimize the potential for inconsistent reports, the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule should be revised by substituting the following for the current subsection 98.275(b): “For missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, use the value used for reporting under 40 C.F.R. § 63.866.”174

**Response:** This comment is outside the scope of the proposed amendments bec ause it pertains to a section of the rule for which no changes were proposed. The EPA will consider revisions to the missing data requirements for spent liquor solids at a later date. 

### 19.0 **Revisions to Subpart BB** No comments were received on the proposed revisi ons to this subpart. 

### 20.0 **Revisions to Subpart DD**  **20.1 Revisions to accuracy and precision requirements for weighing cylinders**  **Commenter Name:** Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Co ntrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 Dow supports EPA’s proposed change to clarify that the accuracy

requirements for the scale are "2 pounds of true weight" versus the current requirement which is "2 pounds of the scale’s capacity ". **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 21.0 **Revisions to Subpart FF** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 22.0 **Revisions to Subpart HH 22.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods in Equation HH -**  **1 Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 70 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 21 **Comment:** In the preamble to the draft technical corrections, the EPA notes that the DOC variable is intended to be a function of the ye ar waste is placed in the landfill. As currentl y written, the DOC term is a function of the waste t ype, and is not a function of the disposal year.

70 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).175

The Agency

requests comment on the need to revise Equation HH - 1 and the definition of DOC to allow DOC to be a different value for different years that a waste is placed in the landfill. While it may

be possible to revise Equation HH - 1 to use a DOC which varies by y ear, we believe the practice wo uld be far too cumbersome to be practical. In theory , such a model would work in a manner similar to the current Waste Composition method, which has multiple DOC factors. The eight model results are then summed to determine total methane generation. In the ory , the same approach would work for multiple DOC factors, but the practice would become arduous. Each model for each DOC would have to be retained for all subsequent reporting ye ars. If only one DOC is used each y ear, a facility is still required to maintain 10 models after 10 y ears of reporting. If a facility

determines DOC for multiple streams of waste, the burden will only increase. In the case of landfills projecting closure decades in the future, the burden of maintaining potentially

hundreds of mode ls would be vast. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. In the preamble to the draft 2013 Revisions , we noted that, if DOC measurement techniques were included in subpart HH, then the DOC variable would need to be a function of the y ear waste is placed in the landfill. We received no comment regarding suitable DOC measurement methods for MSW. As such, we agree that DOC is only a function of the waste stream and that it is not a function of the disposal y ear. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry I sland Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** Presentl y, degradable organic carbon (DOC) is a function of the waste t ype rather than a function of the disposal y ear. EPA has requested comment regarding the need to revise equation HH - 1 to allow DOC to vary each ye ar. DSWA does see value in allowing DOC to vary ov er time; however we are concerned that revising HH - 1 to allow this variation may add complexity

and confusion when the rule is already very complex. The requirements are complex but manageable at present. We would caution against any increased complexity

i n the calculations. We would support adding this flexibility to the calculations if EPA can make it easily implemented for the regulated community . **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 21.

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 71

71 This comment was also submitted by Tetra Tech Bas (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2) and Solid Wa ste Association of North America (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1).176

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** We recommend against revising Equation HH - 1 to incorporat e a DOC that varies b y ye ar in which waste is placed. Incorporating this ty pe of change would be too cumbersome to be practical due to the multiple calculations that would need to be conducted. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A 1 , excerpt 21.

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** Republic does not recommend revising Equation HH - 1 to incorporate a DOC that varies b y ye ar in which waste is placed. Incorporating this ty pe of change would be unfeasible due to the multiple calculations that would need to be conducted. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 21. 

### 22.2 **Revisions to monitoring requirements Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 72 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  17 **Comment:** EPA’s proposal to change the frequency of monitoring from weekl y to monthly will reduce burden for reporters without any loss of data reliability

or accuracy , and properl y aligns the GHG reporting requirements with the federal and state operating performance standards for MSW landfills (Subpart WWW, 40 C.F.R. 60.756(a)). WM strongly

supports the Agency ’s proposal to require methane monitoring on a monthl y rather than a weekly

basis. The landfill sector provided EPA with 2011 r eporting year methane monitoring data for 395 landfills (296 active and 99 closed). EPA evaluated the data and concluded that shifting from weekl y to monthly measurement frequency would increase uncertaint y of reported methane recovery values for a single landfill by only 2.5 percent with no significant bias. The uncertainty for the nationwide total of reported methane recovery for the sector would increase only 0.1 percent. Thus, the Agency ’s anal ys is of the extensive database definitively

supports its pro posal to reduce the frequency of methane monitoring. The proposal 72 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).177

will greatly

reduce the cost and burden associated with reporting, while maintaining sufficiently reliable and accurate data. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commente r Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 73 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 18 **Comment:** As noted above, WM strongl y supports the Agency’ s proposal to require methane monitoring on a monthly

rather than weekl y basis. The proposed monitoring frequency will significantl y reduce the cost and burden for reporters while maintaining the same level of reporting accuracy

and reliability . However, w e recommend that the wording of §98.343(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) be modified to eliminate the stipulation that monthly measurements (of methane, temperature and pressure) be at least fourteen day s apart. This creates unnecessary complexity

to what should be a s imple requirement to monitor LFG each calendar month. First, EPA’s anal ys is of three y ears of data provided for 395 landfills showed that there is very little variability

in methane concentration across either weekl y or monthl y measurements. A requirement for a fourteen - day period between measurements is pointless. Second, qualified personnel properl y trained in instrument calibration, sample measurement, and documentation procedures must be used to collect the readings for QA purposes. The fourteen day l imitation significantly

and unnecessarily

complicates scheduling of required personnel, particularl y for control devices that operate intermittently (a common occurrence). Third, for destruction devices that operate onl y intermittently (a common occurrenc e), it may not be possible to take a monthly reading at least fourteen day s apart due to the operating schedule of the device. For example, if a device onl y operates for several days at the end of one month and the beginning of the next month, it would be impossible to acquire a reading for each month at least 14 day s apart. We therefore recommend removing the following phrase from §98.343(b)(2)(ii) and (iii): If only one measurement is made each calendar month, there must be at least fourteen days betwee n measurements. **Response:** See Section II.R .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

73 Id.178

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 74 **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** The County

supports the proposed change in the required sampling frequency of methane (temperature, pressure and water content when necessary) from weekl y to monthly. This revision wil l lessen the burden on the regulated community without lessening the accuracy of the data. The County

also believes it will result in more convenient tracking and cross checking of data b y allowing calculations to be performed easil y on monthly periods, wh ich is in keeping with a bulk of other required calculations for the landfill community . The County

is concerned that the proposal requires fourteen day s between measurements. The regulated communit y submitted data showing that there was no significant st atistical difference between weekl y and monthly data. Therefore there is no need to stagger data collection in this manner. It is important to consider that because some destruction devices do not operate on a continuous basis, it may

not alway s be possibl e for samples to be collected with fourteen day s between measurements. We therefore recommend removing the following phrase from 98.343(b)(2)(ii) and (iii): If only one measurement is made each calendar month, there must be at least fourteen days between m easurements. **Response:** See Section II.R .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** NSWMA supports EPA's proposal to require monthl y monitoring of methane generated at municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. The current reporting rules requi re "weekl y" monitoring of methane in landfill gas at MSW landfills, defining weekl y as measurements taken at least three day s apart. NSWMA's members have performed weekl y methane monitoring for the past three ye ars. Landfill sector members provided EPA with 2011 methane reporting data for approximately

395 landfills. EPA's evaluation of that data reveals the methane concentration of landfill gas (LEG) varies very little from month to month, or week to week, while the cost of weekl y monitoring is quite subst antial. Moving from a weekl y to monthly monitoring 74 This comment was also submitted by Dela ware Solid Waste Authority (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2), Tetra Tech BAS (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2), Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1), and Re public Services (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1).179

requirement will not adversel y affect environmental protection or the accuracy or reliability

of data reported to the EPA. The proposal will also be more consistent with the standard industry practice to m easure the methane concentration in collected LFG on a monthly basis, as well as with state and federal operating performance standards for MSW Landfills (40 C.F.R. 60.756(a)). The Agency 's anal ys is of the landfill methane database strongl y supports the pr oposal to reduce monitoring frequency from weekly

to monthly . However, NSWMA does not support EPA's proposal to require fourteen (14) day s between measurements. Industry

members submitted data showing that there was no significant statistical difference be tween weekly and monthl y methane concentration results. We therefore recommend removing the following phrase from §98.343(b)(2)(ii) and (iii): If only one measurement is made each calendar month, there must be at least fourteen days between measurements. **R esponse:**  See Section II.R .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment. 

### 22.3 **Revisions to oxidation fraction in Equations HH -**  **5 through HH -**  **8 Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Manag ement (WM) 75 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** WM commends the Agency for proposing technical corrections to Subpart HH that reflect the site - specific influences affecting emissions of methane at MSW landfills. EPA’s proposal to replace the default, methane oxidation fraction of 10 percent with a more refined determination using site - specific data, will improve the accuracy of landfill emissions estimates. The Agency ’s proposal to establish categor ical values for methane oxidation based on each site’s methane flux rate is well supported by the extensive peer - reviewed data provided by public and private organizations in the landfill sector. We appreciate EPA’s careful review of the technical literature and field studies to develop and propose values for methane oxidation in landfill cover that more correctl y reflect actual field measurements. This will allow for greater accuracy in estimating landfill emissions than will continued use of a national de fault. The EPA’s Proposal to Revise the Methane Oxidation Factor is Well Supported by Peer Reviewed Science : Numerous studies have been conducted worldwide and referenced in the scientific literature that address and document methane oxidation in cover s oils, as well as gas collection efficiency . In 2009, The Journal of Environmental Quality published a comprehensive literature review [Footnote: Chanton , J.P, D.K. Powelson , and R. Green. 2009. Methane Oxidation in L andfill Cover Soils, is a 10% Default Va lue Reasonable? Journal of Environmental Quality , 38:654 - 663.]. The paper references over 60 technical documents dating from 1960 to the present, with

75 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).180

the majority

of the papers being published in the 1990s and 2000s . Overall, based on review of 42 determi nations of the fraction of methane oxidized in a variet y of soil types and landfill covers, the mean fraction of methane oxidized across all studies was 36 percent with a standard error of 6 percent. For a subset of 15 studies conducted over an annual cy cl e, the fraction of methane oxidized ranged from 11 percent to 89 percent with a mean value of 35 percent + 6 percent, nearl y identical to the overall mean. In July 2007, the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions ( SW IC S ) released its first white paper titled Current MSW Industry Position and State

- of

- the

-Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency, Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills (White Paper). The public and private members of SWI CS shared the White Paper with EPA as it developed th e GHGMRR requirements for evaluating and reporting MSW landfill emissions. In January 2009, SWI CS updated the White Paper to incorporate additional studies noted above. Since the release of the 2009 White Paper, a number of studies have been published in peer reviewed literature, most notably an entire special issue of the journal Waste Management (2011) on L andfill Gas Emission and Mitigation sponsored by Consortium for Landfill Emissions Abatement Research (CLEAR). CL EAR is an International Waste Working Group ( IWWG ) Task Group, which focuses on landfill gas emission to the atmosphere. The group has members from 12 countries, across four continents. A number of papers in the special issue focus on the use of compost biocovers , bio - windows or permeable gas dispersion lay ers to treat and oxidize landfill gas in situ ( Huber - Humer et al., 2011; Pedersen et al., 2011; Scheutz et al., 2011; Pawlowska et al., 2011; Dever et al., 2011; and Jung et al., 2011). Additionally , several papers in the special issue, Ranc hor et al., (2011); Abichou et al., (2011) and Chanton et al., ( 2011b ), examined the response of the methane oxidizing microbial community to methane loading to the cover soil. Two key

papers, Bogner et al., (2011), and Spokas et al., (2011), describe rece nt work in California where field measurements of emission and oxidation were coupled with extensive modeling efforts. Chanton et al., ( 2011a) published the results of 37 seasonal sampling events at 20 landfills with intermediate covers over a four - ye ar pe riod. Abichou et al. ( 2011b ) examined the best approach towards describing central tendencies in oxidation data and reported that the results were generally

distributed normally

so that mean values could be used. In November 2012 SWICS, with the participation of Dr. Jeffrey Chanton of Florida State University

and Dr. Morton Barlaz of North Carolina State Universit y, finalized an addendum (2012 Addendum) to the Methane Oxidation section of the 2009 White Paper. The 2012 Addendum includes methane oxidation r esults from evaluations of 90 landfills as compared to the 47 published evaluations available in 2009. This 2012 Addendum also addresses the comments and questions EPA raised in its Response to Comments to the GHG MRR Final Rule issued October 20, 2009 (74 FR 56260): First, EPA questioned the decision to calculate oxidation values using the arithmetic means as opposed to the median values from the array of studies, because it appeared that the means might be biased high. A more thorough discussion of this issue and inclusion of more recent literature are included in the 2012 Addendum, and both median and mean values are provided. Second, EPA expressed some concern regarding the possible over - reliance on laboratory studies, which tend to yield higher oxidat ion fractions. Since release of the 2009 White Paper,181

governmental, academic and private researchers have made a significant number of additional field measurements, and these results are included in the addendum. Third, EPA noted that only five field mea surements for clay soils were available during development of the 2009 White Paper. Since then, significant effort has been made to measure methane oxidation at landfills with clay soils; the 2012 Addendum incorporates the results of 31 field studies. Fourth, the 2012 Addendum addresses the variation in methane oxidation with the methane emission rate. In reviewing and incorporating the results of these peer - reviewed studies of landfill methane oxidation, the 2012 Addendum updated the 2009 White Paper results as follows: 1. Clay cover: The number of studies in clay cover increased from five in 2009 to 31 in 2012. The mean fraction of methane oxidized increased from 18 percent to 30 percent, while the median fraction oxidized increased from 14 to 29 per cent. 2. Sandy soils cover: The number of studies in sandy soils doubled from eight to 16, with the mean oxidation value changing very little (55 to 54 percent) while the median value increased from 43 to 50 percent methane oxidized. 3. "Other" covers: T he number of studies in "other" cover soils increased by nine and both the mean and the median fraction oxidized values increased slightly . 4. The overall mean oxidation value across all of the studies increased from 35 to 38 percent while the overall med ian oxidation fraction increased from 31 to 33 percent. **Response:** Thank you for your comment. Based on a review of all comments received, we are finalizing the amendments regarding soil oxidation factors as proposed with the following exceptions. First, we are limiting the applicability of the new methane flux - dependent oxidation fractions to landfills that have a soil cover of at least 24 inches in depth for a majority of the landfill containing waste. Second, landfills that do not have a soil cover of at least 12 inches must use an oxidation factor of 0, since there is an inadequate soil lay er to effect oxidation of released methane. Finally , we will allow landfills to use the default oxidation fraction of 0.10 if they elect not to calculate the methane flux rate. See Section II.R .2 of the preamble for furth er explanation of these exceptions.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 76 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16

76 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).182

**Comment:** The SWI CS 2012 Addendum Definitively Supports a Significant Increase to the Current Default Value of Ten Percent . The 2012 Addendum concluded that the EPA default oxidation value of 10 percent underestimates t ypical methane oxidation and is not representative of expected methane oxidation at sites utilizing organic, clay , sand or other cover ty pes. EPA derived the default value from one field stud y performed at one poorl y maintained landfill with no gas co llection s ys tem, Czepiel et al [Footnote: Czepiel , P.M., B. Mosher , P.M . Crill , and R.C . Harriss . 1996. Quantifying the effect of oxidation on landfill methane emissions. J. Geophys . Res. 101:16711 - 16719 .]. Analy sis of the 90 studies highlighted in the 201 2 Addendum indicates that if a single value is considered for methane oxidation it should be between 33 and 38 percent. The 2012 Addendum also examined methane oxidation as a function of methane loading to the cover lay er of the landfill. Recent studies s how that the percent oxidation is an inverse function of the rate of emission (Stern et al., 2007; Rachor et al., 2011; Chanton et al., 2011a ,b). At lower emission rates, the methanotrophs in the soil cover can consume a larger portion of the methane delivered to them, potentially oxidizing 95 to 100 percent ( Humer and Lechner , 1999, 2001a , Huber - Humer 2008; Powelson et al., 2006, 2007; Kjeldsen et al., 1997). As flux rates increase, the pe rcent oxidation decreases and the methanotrophs can become overwhelmed with methane. Thus, as methane emission increases, percent oxidation decreases ( Powelson et al., 2006, 2007). A mathematical model of cover oxidation developed by Dr. Tarek Abichou of Florida State University

( Abichou et al., 2010), demonstrates that at lower methane fluxes, oxidation rates are equal to the methane loading to the soil cover. Oxidation keeps pace with flux, and the soil cover is able to oxidize all of the methane coming from below. At lower loading rates, methane oxidation is equal to 100 percent. As flux increases, the cover is not able to oxidize all of the incoming methane, and the percent oxidation falls off. Therefore, percent oxidation starts to decrease as the meth ane loading to the cover increases. This relationship is shown clearl y in the laboratory

column studies of Rachor et al., (2011). Field studies have also confirmed this relationship between methane flux and percent oxidation ( Chanton et al., 2011a ,b). At l ow rates of methane emission, the percent oxidation is near 100 percent. As emission rates increase, the percent oxidation decreases. This anal ys is serves to support the approach that EPA is proposing for determining a more accurate methane oxidation fract ion by calculating the methane flux rate for the landfill. In addition to the 2012 Addendum, the landfill sector provided data for 262 private and public landfills reporting under Subpart HH . The dataset allowed the Agency to evaluate several possible opt ions for determining more accurate methane oxidation fractions. The data conclusively

showed that the average oxidation fractions for different soil cover ty pes are all well above the default 10 percent value required by Subpart HH , and underpin the need f or a revised default value or more refined method for determining an oxidation fraction at a site. WM strongl y supports EPA’s proposal to allow reporters to determine methane oxidation by calculating the methane flux rate on a site - specific basis. **Response :**  EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , Excerpt 15.183

**Commenter Name:** Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Energy Corporation **Document Control Number:** E PA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** The Rule’s current defaults allow landfills to assume collection efficiencies of up to 95% and then appl y a soil oxidation factor of 10%. The EPA is now proposing to increase the soil oxidati on factor up to 35% in certain circumstances. In stark contrast, the U.S. EPA’s own Office of Research and Development, after a multi - site two - ye ar stud y of measured methane emissions from landfills found that “the data collected does not support the use of collection efficiency values of 90% or greater as has been published in other studies.” [Footnote: U.S. EPA (2012) Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste L andfills. http://www.epa. gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r12003.html] Instead, the recent EPA Report found total abatement efficiencies of 38 - 88%, including the effects of soil oxidation of methane in landfill cover soils. The effects of soil oxidation are inherently covered, because the EPA study looked at methane concentratio ns abo ve the landfill surface. This technique cannot distinguish between methane not emitted and methane oxidized in cover soils. Since the abatement efficiencies published in the EPA Report consider the effects of soil oxidation, higher assumed soil oxidation rates, as the EPA has proposed, would require lower collection efficiency

defaults in order to remain consistent with the EPA’s own work (Table 1) [See Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 for Table 1.] The EPA’s research has been further validated by a recent team of NOAA and university scientists. [Footnote: Peischl, P. et al. (2013) using light alkanes in the Los Angeles basin, California.http://onlinelibrary .wiley .com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50413/abstract] The team, looking for the sources of excess m ethane emissions in the L os Angeles basin validated the California Air Resources Board (CARB) inventory approach which relies on a default collection efficiency for active collection s ys tems of 75%. In particular, based on the measurements taken, emissions from the Puente Hills Landfill were estimated to be 34 Gg/y r, comparable to the 2008 CARB inventory value of 38.8 Gg/ yr. When the measured emissions of the Puente Hills landfill are compared against published data on landfill gas collection at the site, the overall abatement efficiency inclusive of the effects of soil oxidation is 74.7%, for a landfill with a final cover over 83% of the landfill surface. [Footnote: Shan et al. (2012) Estimation of L andfill Gas Emissions and Collection Sy stem Efficiency Usi ng Surface Flux Chamber Technology

– A Case Study

of Puente Hills L andfill, SWANA 35 th Annual Landfill Gas Sy mposium Proceedings.] Assuming the newl y proposed soil oxidation values of 10%, 25%, and 35%, the resultant collection efficiency at the Puente Hill s landfill is 73%, 69%, and 66% respectivel y. Again, when looking at the actual measured emissions of methane from a landfill, assumed higher soil oxidation rates must correspond with correspondingl y lower collection efficiencies. Given that new data are available, notabl y from the EPA and NOAA, we urge the EPA to revisit its landfill methane calculation. In particular, default collection efficiencies must be lowered to reflect the agency ’s own data, NOAA’s data and the higher assumed rates of soil oxidatio n.184

**Response:** We have reviewed the reports and articles referenced b y the commenters as well as the CARB landfill model inventory tool. With respect to the 2012 EPA landfill study , the EPA study generall y appears to support the landfill collection efficien cies in Subpart HH, although it is difficult to make definitive conclusions given only three sites were evaluated and the coverage of the landfill gas collection sy stem were not well - documented. The stud y l ooked at two sites with an intermediate cover. One of these sites averaged 70 and 77 percent recovery over two different seasons of testing, which agrees well with the default of 75 percent in Table HH - 3 to subpart HH. Given the measured surface flux, the 25% oxidation factor would likely appl y. Even when accounting for soil oxidation, the efficiency for this landfill's gas collection efficiency would be 69 percent, which still agrees well with the default 75 percent collection efficiency . The other site with an intermediate cover averaged 38 percent recov ery, however, the report notes that the landfill gas collection sy stem did not cover all areas of the landfill. Specifically , the west side and flat top areas of the landfill did not have an y gas collection wells at the time of the study (the site upgraded its gas collection sy stem a few months after the measurement study was completed). Assuming approximately half the landfill area was covered by the existing recovery s ys tem at the time of the testing, the gas collection efficiency estimated using the area weighting procedures outlined in Table HH - 3 to subpart HH would yield an overall gas collection efficiency

of 37.5 percent, again agreeing well with the measurement data. Even when using 25 percent oxidation factor (which would apply based on the measured flux rates), the subpart HH methodology would do a much better job at predicting the actual emissions from this landfill than when the CARB default assumption is used. The CARB model assumes that all landfills with gas collection sy stems achieve an overal l gas collection efficiency of 75 percent regardless of the coverage of the landfill gas collection sy stem. In the case of this landfill, the area weighted average gas collection efficiency used for subpart HH provides a much more realistic estimate of the overall collection efficiency for landfills that do not have a gas collection sy stem that covers all of the landfill. The third landfill in the study had a final cover and was projected to achieve 73 percent and 88 percent recovery

during two different s easons. If the landfill’s gas collection sy stem is sufficient to cover 100 percent of the landfill area, Table HH - 3 to subpart HH would suggest a default of 95 percent; if the coverage is less than 100 percent, then a lower recovery efficiency

would be cal culated using the area weighted procedures. While the report concluded that “The data collected does not support the use of collection efficiency values of 90 percent or greater as has been published in other studies,” the report notes that other studies h ave shown high collection efficiencies, and a study

of a single landfill is not sufficient to revise this default factor. Furthermore, it is unclear from the data presented whether the gas collection sy stem was sufficient to cover 100 percent of the landfi ll area. If only 85 to 90 percent of the landfill was "under active gas collection," then the subpart HH area - weighted method would accuratel y account for the gas collection efficiency for this landfill (even when accounting for the 25% soil oxidation fact or, which again appears to appl y). The report notes that there were days of very low emission fluxes and other day s of significantly higher fluxes. The investigators hy pothesized that the higher fluxes may have been due to a hot spot of emissions that may not have been included in the scan areas for the other day s. This hot spot could have been caused b y an area of the landfill that was "not under active gas collection," for which the subpart HH methodology would reduce the overall gas collection efficiency to much less than 90 percent. If the hot spot was caused b y a crack or fissure in the final cover, data for one landfill is not sufficient to conclude that all landfills with final covers have this ty pe of "failure." For day s when this hot -185

spot was not ob served, the gas collection efficiency was on the order of 95 percent. Thus, it is reasonable to project in light of other studies that have been conducted, that landfills with properl y designed and operated gas collection s ys tems and final cover s ys tems can achieve gas collection efficiencies of approximately 95 percent. Based on our review of the 2012 EPA study , we conclude that the results generall y appear to confirm the default gas collection efficiencies in subpart HH, while highlighting the importance of the area weighted approach in Table HH - 3 to reduce the overall gas collection sy stem efficiency for areas of the landfill that are not under active gas collection. It is unclear how different the emissions would be if the subpart HH method, with its ti ered gas collection efficiency

scale based on cover t ype and its area - weighting (to account for areas not under active gas collection as well as different cover type collection efficiencies), were used in place of the straight 75 percent collection efficie ncy used by CARB. As noted in the discussion above, there are instances where the subpart HH method would provide a much better estimate of the collection efficiency

(in cases of partial coverage of the gas collection sy stem) than the CARB method. For some landfills, it would provide a lower collection efficiency estimate; for some landfills, it would provide identical collection efficiency estimates; and for other landfills, it would produce a higher collection efficiency estimate. Over a large number of l andfills, it is expected that the two approaches would likely yield very

similar emission estimates. Overall, we do not see a significant difference between the subpart HH and CARB models used to estimate methane generation. Both models use the first orde r decay model with nearly identical default parameters. The %ANDOC value used in the CARB model is simply the product of DOC*DOC F in Equation HH - 1. While the CARB model has a range of compositional profiles that it uses for wastes (data that are generally not measurable b y landfill owners or operators), the overall %ANDOC value across wastes ranges from 7.5% to 11.6% in California and from 10.3% to 11.6% for other states depending on the time of disposal. The bulk waste DOC value and default DOC F value in s ubpart HH yield a %ANDOC value of 10%, which agrees well with the effective defaults used in the CARB model. The CARB model has similar defaults for time delay

and decay

rate (k - values). While subpart HH provides a tiered approach for gas collection effici encies and has proposed to use a tired approach for oxidation factors, these changes are most significant at the individual landfill level, and are expected to be less significant when aggregating the emissions across a significant number of landfills. Thu s, we consider the NOAA study that concludes that the CARB inventory is accurate across all landfills in the study

area also lends credibility to the modeling approach and default parameters used in subpart HH due to the vast similarities of these two inve ntory methods.

**Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  2 **Comment:** NSWMA supports replacing the current default methane oxidation value at MSW landfills with a determination based on site - specific data. The proposal to replace the default186

methane oxidation fraction of 10 percent with a more refined calculation, using site - specific data, will improve the accuracy of landfill emissions estimates. EPA's proposal is supported by recent studies that have demonstrated that the fraction of methane oxidized varies depending on soil ty pe and landfill cover. See, e.g., Chanton, J.P., Methane Oxidation in Landfill Cover Soils, is a 10% Default Value Reasonable? Journal of Environmental Quality , 38:654 - 663. In its comments on this proposed tiered methan e oxidation factor, Waste Management (WM) refers to a white paper issued b y the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWI CS), a 2011 issue of Waste Management journal devoted to landfill gas emission issues, a November 2012 addendum to SWI CS's white paper, and other studies, which support and provide a reasonable basis for EPA's proposed revision. NSWMA incorporates by reference WM's comments in support of replacing the current default methane oxidation factor with the tiered approach proposed by EPA. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , Excerpt 15.

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13 **Comment:** Republic supports the methane oxidation revisions as proposed in Table HH - 4. The proposed methane oxidation fraction is determined based on a site - specific methane flux “bin.” The “binned” approach takes into account new research in the area of methane oxidation and will improve the accuracy of landfill emission estimates . Republic values EPA’s commitment to assess available data to imp rove soil oxidation estimates by reviewing test data no t previousl y avai lable and/or anal yz ed when the GHGRP rule was finalized in 2009. The previous data used to determine the default oxidation factor of 10% was outdated and was developed from a sing le study at one landfill with no gas migration controls and areas of expo sed waste (Czepiel et. al). It was appropriate for EPA to recognize additional data and incorporate such into the technical correction to provide greater accuracy . **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1, Excerpt 15.

**Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Co mment Excerpt Number:**  10 **Comment:** We strongl y support revision to the methane oxidation factor that will use site specific data to better estimate the landfill cover oxidation. A significant number of scientific studies have been performed in support of this revision.187

**Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1, Excerpt 15.

**Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry I sland Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affiliation:** Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** DSWA is pleased that EPA has proposed a revision to the methane oxidation factor that will use site specific data to better estimate the oxidation pre sent. DSWA has previously submitted comments to EPA requesting that the methane oxidation factor be revised to reflect research that has shown the 10% default to be a poor representation of field conditions (Czepiel et. al1). The 10% factor was developed f rom a single study

at a landfill with no gas migration controls and areas of exposed waste. DSWA appreciates EPA’s commitment to investigating the available research, including a variet y of published research and the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Change Solutions (SWI CS) white papers, and willingness to acknowledge the need for a revision of this factor. DSWA supports the suggested “binned” approach that has been proposed although we believe that methane oxidation is ty picall y higher than the binned appr oach will reflect. We encourage EPA to remain open to new research findings and pursue revisions to the rule as needed to make the reported values as accurate as possible. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - H Q OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1, Excerpt 15.

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 77 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** The County

is pleased that the EPA has proposed a revision to the methane oxidation factor that will use site specific data to better estimate the oxidation present. The 10% factor was developed from a single stud y at a landfill with no gas migration controls and areas of exposed waste. It was also outdated and not reflective of the extensive new research in the area of methane oxidation. The County

appreciates EPA's commitment to investigating the available research, including various published r esearch and the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Change Solutions (SWI CS) white papers, and willingness to acknowledge the need for a revision of this factor. The County supports the suggested "binned" approach that has been proposed.

77 This comment was also submitted by Tetra Tech Bas (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2).188

**Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1, Excerpt 15.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 12 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** The current rule sets a default value for methane oxidation through the landfill cover in all cases at 10% of modeled estimates of gas generated, but not captured in the active gas collection sy stem. [Footn ote: 40 CFR §98.346 (Eq. HH - 5).] The proposed rule makes 10% the lower bound value for assumed oxid ation, and increases that value to 25% if estimated methane fluxes through the cover are “moderate” (i.e. 10 to 70 grams/m2/day), and 35% if those fluxes are estimated to be “low” (i.e. less than 10 grams/m2/day). [Footnote: 40 CFR §98.346 (Table HH - 4).] All of this is wrong. The propos ed rule’s contemplation bears no relation to the known way s that landfills work, and do not work. In fact, as detailed below, landfills with so - called oxidizing covers release on a net basis substantially (e.g., greater GHG emissions than landfills designe d with conforming composite covers (i.e. 60 mill HDPE and not less than 2 feet of compacted soil with permeability

of <10 - 7 cm/sec). [Footnote: 40 CFR §258.60(a).] No oxidation with composite covers. As the notice partiall y recognizes [Footnote: 78 FED. RE G. 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19825], and as was clearl y established from the first published study on oxidation

– although ignored in much of the presentment by the landfill industry

– oxidation only occurs in landfill covers that are comprised onl y of soil ( with the necessary depth, porosity , temperature and microbes), and not through composite covers that include a low permeable geomembrane. At a landfill with a composite cover, gas only escapes through the geomembrane via cracks and fissures in high fluxes that exceed the capacit y of microbes to oxidize, or through alternative routes such as via the leachate collection sy stem where no oxidation occurs. [Footnote: P. M. Czepiel, “Quantifying the effect of oxidation on landfill methane emissions,” Journal of G eophy sical Research (July , 20, 1996)., at p. 16,720.] **No effective gas collection without geomembrane seal.** Critically , however, the drafter’s of the proposed rule do not appear to understand that absent an effective seal, which only that geomembrane can p rovide, the vacuum - based gas collection sy stems are only marginall y functional. For without an effective seal on top, efforts to draw out the gas surrounding the collection pipes with the negative pressures created by the vacuum based sy stem will also pull air from the surface. [Footnote: Debra Reinhart, First Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model Parameters for Wet Landfills (EPA - 600/R - 05/072)(June 2005), at p. 3 - 2; Susan Thornloe (EPA/NRMRL ), Innovative Air Monitoring at Landfills Using Optical Remote Sensin g with Radial Plume Mapping (February 22, 2007), at 4; and AP - 42 (2008), at p. 75] When oxygen infiltrates the waste mass from the surface at levels more than 5% (but less than 20%) in the landfill gas, the rules require the operator to damp down the sy st em until oxygen levels recede189

below that 5% limit in order to avoid explosive conditions that can start an underground landfill fire. [Footnote: 40 CFR §60.753(c).] That is to say , in order to have an effective oxidizing cover, the landfill must sacrifice significant collection capacity

in the active gas s ys tem. How significant? The available field data using vertical radial plume mapping suggests almost a 300% difference. A recent study by employ ees of Waste Management at order to have an effective oxidizi ng cover, the landfill must sacrifice significant collection capacity in the active gas s ys tem. How significant? The available field data using vertical radial plume mapping the facilities it selected (and, which, therefore, one may assume reflect the best case) shows that the average methane flux at landfills with a relativel y impermeable and carefully maintained geomembrane was 0.1 g CH 4 /m 2 /day on average, while landfills with final covers akin to oxidizing covers, but no geomembrane, were 26.61 g CH 4 /m 2 /day on average, 266 times higher, as shown in the FIGURE from the study replicated below. [Footnote: Douglas Goldsmith, “Methane emissions from 20 landfill across the United States using vertical radial plume mapping,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 62:183 - 197, at p. 195 FIGURE 12 (2012)(Goldsmith Study ).] Notwithstanding oxidation’s enormous deficit in the real world, in the artificial universe of flawed modeling Equation HH - 5 would grossl y distort the actual situation by pretending ox idizing covers were more effective. The only technicall y accurate support for oxidizing or bio - covers is for closed sites, ty picall y in the undeveloped world, where the installation of active gas collection is not feasible. [ See Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 for FIGURE] Parentheticall y, these results, it should be noted, also make a mockery of the SWI CS collection efficiency claims that industry

submitted and, without notice or opportunity for comment by anyone else, EPA adopted. [Fo otnote: 40 CFR §98.346 (Table HH - 3).] It is not credible for EPA to continue to maintain that the use of a soil - onl y intermediate cover onl y loses 21% in collection efficiency (i.e. from 95% to 75%) when the methane flux increases by 266×? We respectfull y request that the issue of default gas collection efficiencies as a function of different landfill conditions be opened up for public comment, as it should have, but unlawfully was not, in the original rule promulgation in 2009. **Response:** First, we agree that landfills that do not have a soil cover (i.e., only a geomembrane cover) will not have soil oxidation. We have clarified in Table HH - 4 that the proposed oxidation factors appl y to landfills that have a minimum of 24 inch es soil cover. Owners or operato rs of landfills that have a geomembrane cover with no soil cover or a soil cover less than 12 inches in depth the must use OX = 0. See Section II.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule for additional information. With respect to the comment that there is no effective gas collection s ys tem without a geomembrane seal, we do not believe this conclusion can be reached based on the information presented in the cited study (Goldsmith, et al., "Methane emissions from 20 landfill across the United States using verti cal radial plume mapping,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 62:183 - 197). The article provides no real information about the landfills beyond the average temperature, precipitation rate, and cover ty pe . There is no indication regarding th e age of the landfills, the waste depth, or the presence (or coverage) of landfill gas collection sy stems,190

all of which could significantly impact the methane flux from the landfills studied. In fact, the only landfill that was described at all was the "cl osed, sy nthetically

capped landfill covered with soil and vegetation with a gas collection s ys tem..." The low methane flux from this landfill can be attributed to the high collection efficiency of the gas collection s ys tem as expected from the default coll ection efficiencies in Table HH - 3 and the expected higher oxidation factor expected for a soil covered landfill with low methane flux rates. Also, this landfill is closed. The timing of the closure is not specified, but methane flux rates are expected to d ecline after landfill closures. The studies primary

focus was on validating EPA OTM - 10 for use on landfills, and grouping of landfills based on cover type and climate t ype indicated that " . ..climate plays an important role in landfill methane emissions, as does cover ty pe." The observations in the Goldsmith study appear to confirm the default gas collection sy stem efficiencies (if these landfills had gas collection sy stems) and the tiered decay rate defaults based on precipitation rates included in subpart HH. We see no evidence from the Goldsmith study to indicate that the proposed oxidation factors are not appropriate.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Numbe r:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** The hearing notice and supporting documents states that the methodological support for the proposed rule is contained in a 2012 Addendum to an earlier report by a waste industry group, Soli d Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (SWI CS)[Footnote: SWICS, Current MSW Industry Position and State - of

- the - Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency , Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in L andfills (2008).], which has not been provided in the rule making source file. The critique that follows is predicated on the assumption that the Addendum follows the work of Chanton. [Footnote: Jeffrey Chanton, “Landfill Methane Oxidation Across Climate Ty pes in the U.S.,” Env. Sci. & Tech. 45:313 - 319 (2011)(Cant on Study).] Of paramount concern, of course, continues to be the controlling fact that the entire oxidation case ignores the reality

that the minor gains claimed are dwarfed by the enormous increase in gas that escapes since gas collection is ineffectual w ithout a geomembrane, as shown by Waste Management’s own study referred to earlier. [Footnote: Goldsmith Study .] The gains are relativel y minor because even 35% oxidation only applies to the 5% or 25% of the gas generation that is not captured. The single most effective way to reduce fugitive emissions has nothing to do with oxidation, but with the installation of a composite cover, including a geomembrane, which defeats oxidation. Also, there is the problem of relying upon hothouse tests of a strategy

that , its proponents concede, depends upon careful control of cover porosit y, microbes and temperature, when nothing has been put forward to show that these ideal conditions will be achieved in the real world. Unless, that is, global warming is suggested will eliminate the problem of frigid winter conditions in temperate and continental climate zones. But, putting all of that aside, the standard industry methodology

for measuring oxidation, in those hothouse conditions that ignore those far larger losses, is al so flawed. Canton estimated oxidation by

comparing the methane concentration in the gas collected in the pipes below the191

surface to that in the flux chambers at the surface. But, Canton's landfill sample was weighted to sites that recover energy . [Footnote : Canton Study , at pp. 312 to 315.] Landfill - gas - to - energy (LFGTE) operators actively “tune” the collection sy stem to boost Btu values to commerciall y exploitable levels by

clustering the wells at the site’s core, by dampening negative pressures when too much ox ygen is drawn in and b y rotating fields off to recover moisture. [Footnote: Debra Reinhart and M orton Barlaz, L andfill Gas Management: A Roadmap for EREF Directed Research (N.C. St. University , 2010), at p. 5.] Consequently , the methane in those pipe s is artificially

augmented to maximize the gas’s value to LFGTE in a way that will not be observed in an equall y distributed array of flux boxes across the entire surface. That inflated denominator boosts the delta values that Canton observed due to facto rs unrelated to oxidation. **Response:** As noted in our response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107, excerpt 7, one cannot conclude from the Goldsmith study that landfill gas collection is ineffectual without a geomembrane cover. Subpart HH includes a tier ed approach for landfill gas collection efficiencies that help to account for different collection efficiencies for different cover types. The fact that the oxidation fraction only impacts a potentially

small portion of the generated landfill gas when effe ctive landfill gas collection sy stems are used has little bearing to the appropriateness of the proposed oxidation fractions. With respect to the methodology used to assess the oxidation fraction, first, we reject the categorization that the studies were done under "hothouse conditions." Many of the studies were performed across different time periods to determine an average oxidation fraction; several studies conducted during cold temperatures yi elded oxidation fractions significantly greater than the pr evious default of 0.10. It appears the discussion regarding LFGTE operators onl y serves to contradict the commenter's assertion that landfill gas collection is ineffectual without a geomembrane cover. Nevertheless, it is precisel y the methane generated within the landfill, well below the surface, that need s to be measured and a properl y tuned gas collection sy stem appears to be precisel y what is needed to make the required internal landfill gas methane measurement. We would have preferred to have more "full - plume" tests, which would better characterize the oxidation fraction over the entire landfill area, but the surface and flux chamber measurements are not biased provided the surface locations are randomly selected and a sufficient number of measurements are made. We agree that the oxidation study data are heavil y weighted to landfills with gas collection sy stems, which is why we do not support the average oxidation fractions by soil ty pe presented in the summary table of the SWI CS addendum. We note that al l but one of the average oxidation fractions by soil ty pe presented in the summary table of the SWI CS addendum are greater than the 0.35 oxidation fraction proposed for landfills with "low flux rates" and all of them are higher than the 0.25 oxidation frac tion proposed for landf ills with "medium flux rates." By

binning the oxidation data based on the methane flux rate (prior to any oxidation), we avoid the obvious bias in the average oxidation fractions as recommended in the SWI CS addendum caused b y the pre ponderance of studies conducted at landfills with gas collection sy stems. We see no reason to revise the proposed oxidation fractions binned by methane flux rates based on these comments, although we agree that the use of the binned oxidation fractions sho uld be limited to landfills with final soil covers over most of the landfill area that contains waste. See Section II.R.2 of the preamble to the final rule regarding the use of site - specific oxidation factors in the final rule.192

**Commenter Name:** Peter Ande rson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** EPA states that the degree of oxidation that can be used to calculate estimate s of GHG emissions varies among 10%, 25% and 35%, as a function of the extent of the methane flux through the landfill cover. [Footnote: 78 Fed. Reg., 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19825, and proposed 40 CFR§98.346 (Table HH - 4).] In order to determine methane fluxes, calculations are specified, not field analy sis. Those calculations rel y upon the first order decay (FOD) model. [Footnote: Proposed 40 CFR §98.346 (Table HH - 4, footnote a, and Eq. HH - 6, Eq. HH - 7 and Eq. HH - 8).] For the reasons detailed elsewhere in th is Comment, the model, as it is currently employ ed without a variable value for k to reflect different conditions, is not accurate. Because an y gains from oxidation are dwarfed b y the losses attendant upon a permeable cover, the quest to adjust for differe nt moisture levels, and k values in FOD should be the focus instead. This is what we propose to correct for the fundamental flaws in the particular design of the FOD model currentl y used for MSW landfills. **Response:** Direct methane flux measurements from l andfills using EPA OTM - 10, for example, is not practical because it is a relativel y expensive test method and it can only be performed under specific condition s for selected time intervals. Therefore, we proposed to use the methane flux estimated from eith er the FOD model or the measured landfill gas recovery rates, depending on the equation for which OX will be used. We note that the model does have a variable value of k based on precipitation rates. We find no reason to revise the proposed oxidation fractions binned by methane flux rates based on these comments. 

### 22.4 **Revisions to other calculations methods in Equations HH -**  **6 through HH -**  **8 Commenter Name:**  Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) **Doc um**  **ent Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 19 **Comment:** The Agency

should Remove References to "Back - up Flare or Similar Device" from the Definition of f Dest, n . The proposed revised definition of f Dest,n for Equations HH - 6 and HH - 8 includes a special provision when gas is destroy ed in a "back - up flare (or similar device)." This distinction is an artifact of the original rule and is no longer necessary because the proposed revisions to HH - 6 and HH - 8 properl y account for multiple control devices regardless of the amount of time any given control device operates during the ye ar, or whether it is considered a primary or backup device. WM recommends simply deleting "is destroyed in a back

- up flare (or similar device) or if th e gas is" from the definition of f Dest,n .193

**Response:** We agree with the commenter. Because Equations HH - 6 and HH - 8 have been generalized to directl y account for on - site back - up destruction devices, the default of f Dest = 1 is no longer necessary

for back - up flares in the definition of f Dest,n . The phrase requested to be deleted has been removed from the definition of f Dest,n in today ’s final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Jami Aggers, R.E.H.S., M.A., Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Stanislaus County , CA., Environmental Resources Department 78 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** The County

supports the revision of equations HH - 6 and HH - 8 into summations to accuratel y reflect the use of multiple destruction devices. We also suggest that the removal of reference to "backup device" and elimination of the use of f Dest,n for backup devices will eliminate additional confusion. **Response:** See re sponse to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 19.

**Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  11 **Comment:** References to "back - up" flare or "similar device" from the definition of f Dest,n should be removed. This would simplify calculations since reporters would not need to designate back up devices. **Response:** See response to comme nt EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 19.

**Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** Republic supports the revision of equations HH - 6 and HH - 8 to accuratel y reflect the use of multiple destruction devices. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

78 This comment was also submitted by Tetra Tech Bas (Do cket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2).194

**Commenter Name:** Angela D. Marconi, Cherry I sland Landfill Gas Manager **Commenter Affili ation:**  Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0077 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** DSWA supports the revision of equations HH - 6 and HH - 8 into summations to accuratel y reflect the use of multiple destru ction devices. These changes are consistent with previously

issued FAQ #389. We also suggest that EPA consider complete removal of all references to “backup device” to further simplify the calculations. Many

facilities are equipped with multiple destructio n devices including multiple “backup” flares and beneficial use projects that destroy

landfill gas in offsite processes. Eliminating the special case for backup devices will reduce confusion b y eliminating the need to determine which device should be consi dered to be the backup. There are cases when backup flares may operate for more hours (or destroy more landfill gas) than the beneficial use project however it stands to reason that the beneficial use project would alway s be considered the “primary” projec t because it operates with preference over flaring. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support . See response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , excerpt 19. 

### 22.5 **Other comments on proposed subpart HH Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  Anon ym ous public comment **Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0037 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** Footnote “ a ” to Table HH - 4 states that the methane flux rate is the mass flow rate of methane per unit area at the bottom of the surface soil prior to any oxidation. What if there is no soil cover (i.e., onl y a s ynthetic cover is used)? Shouldn't the oxidation fraction in that case be 0? **Response:** We agree with the commenter . We have clarified in Table HH - 4 that the proposed oxidation factors apply

to landfills that have a minimum of 24 inches soil cover. For landfills that use a geomembrane cover with no soil cover or a soil cover less than 12 inches in depth, the owner or operators must use OX = 0.

**Commenter Name:** Anony mous public comment **Commenter Affiliation: Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0037 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1195

**Comment:** The proposed amendments to su bpart HH include the addition of Table HH - 4 with oxidation fractions. There is a ty po in the header of the second column; should be oxidation fraction, not oxidation raction . **Response:** Thank yo u for y our comment. The t yp ographical error has been correcte d in these final amendments. 

### 22.6 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed Commenter Name:**  Michael E. Van Brunt, Director, Sustainability **Commenter Affiliation:** Covanta Energy Corporation **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Num ber:**  7 **Comment:** To ensure more complete GHG reporting, biogenic CO 2 emissions resulting from the combustion of landfill gas in a flare must be included in the reporting program. Since landfill operators are alread y required to report the total volumetric flow of landfill gas collected for destruction for the reporting ye ar in accordance with 40 CFFR 98.346(i)(1), the reporting of biogenic CO 2 emissions from the combustion of landfill gas does not impose an additional burden on landfill operators, but it does resu lt in more complete reporting. Reporting of biogenic emission s associated with the combustion of landfill gas combusted for energy recovery in an engine or turbine is already mandatory . It is then reasonable to require the reporting of biogenic CO 2 emissions from the combustion of landfill gas with no beneficial use . **Response:** This comment raises an issue that was not opened in the proposed amendments , and therefore, is out of scope for this final rule . **Commenter Name:** Donna M. Christensen, **Commenter Affiliation:** House of Representatives **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0048 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** While the EPA is proposing several changes to its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (the Rule), we ask that it also revisit the calculation of methane emissions from landfills. New information has become available regarding methane emissions from municipal solid waste landfills which indicates that the agency 's current approach could be at risk of significantly underestimating landfill methane emissions. In 2012, U.S. EPA's own Office of Resear ch and Development released a report titled Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills after a multi - site two - year study of methane emissions using state - of - the - art measurement technology . Last month, the Journal of G eoph ys ical Research: Atmospheres released a study by a team of NOAA and university

scientists which presented landfill methane emissions based on direct measurement of methane and other gases in the Las Angeles basin. The study validated an196

approach taken by

the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to calculate landfill methane emissions, an approach significantly different than the one used in the Rule. An accurate accounting of GHG emissions is vital, particularl y for methane. Methane is a potent greenho use gas. In 2009, NASA Goddard Institute and Columbia University scientists estimated methane to be 34 times stronger than CO 2 over 100 y ears. Over shorter time period (i.e. 20 - ye ars), increasingl y the focus of United Nations Environmental Programme and U. S. State Department efforts, methane is over 70 times more potent than CO 2 . In light of methane's potency , we applaud the U.S. EPA's proposal to update the Rule with the most recent methane global warming potential from the latest Intergovernmental Panel o n Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report. This action is an important step in the right direction. However, we urge the EPA to revisit the calculation of landfill methane emissions, considering the latest published research, including that of its own rese archers. Failure to use the latest and best science impedes the ability of Congress to take the appropriate policy steps to most effectivel y reduce GHG emissions. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 , Excerpt 6 in Section 22.3 of this document . **Commenter Name:** Robert E. Cleaves, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) **Commenter Affiliation:** Biomass Power Association (BPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0055 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The value o f biomass to electricity rests, in part, on the environmental benefits we create b y avoiding GHG emissions through energy conversion. If EPA fails to properl y account for landfill emissions, it also fails to fully evaluate the environmental "externality " o f not rel yi ng upon biomass to electricity and underestimates the environmental harm of landfilling over energy conversion through combustion. In 2012, U.S. EPA's own Office of Research and Development released a report titled Quantif y ing Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills after a multi - site two - year study of methane emissions using state - of - the - art measurement technology . Last month, the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres released a study by a team of NOAA and un iversity

scientists which presented landfill methane emissions based on direct measurement of methane and other gases in the Las Angeles basin. The study validated an approach taken b y the California Air Resources Board (CARE) to calculate landfill methane emissions, an approach significantly different than the one used in the Rule. To reiterate, an accurate accounting of GHG emissions is important, particularly for methane. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, the release of which is avoided through energy conversion in biomass boilers. EPA's consideration of this issue is particularl y timel y given the Agency 's current rulemaking with respect to the regulation of biogenic emissions. The carbon lifecy cle anal ys is of biomass combustion necessaril y includes avo ided GHG emissions that would197

otherwise occur if the material were landfilled. If the Agency fails to understand the magnitude of those emissions, it will also fail to properl y evaluate the benefit of biogenic energy . **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2 , Excerpt 6 in Section 22.3 of this document . **Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 79 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 20 **Comment:** The Agency

Should Clarify

the Rule with a Technical Correction to the Bulk MSW DOC Value in Table HH - 1 . Earlier this year, EPA released a helpful Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) and response that clarified reporter’s a

bility to use a more precise approach for choosing appropriate DOC value for various t ypes of waste streams disposed at the facility in addition to bulk MSW (FAQ 744). The Agency

clarified that sites that receive separate inert waste shipments, may use the appropriate DOC value for those waste streams listed in Table HH - 1 under the "Waste composition option." At the same time, reporters may select the appropriate DOC value for bulk waste (0.2) found under the "Bulk waste option" section of Table HH - 1 for sh ipments of bulk MSW . We agree with the interpretation presented b y this FAQ and request that the EPA formalize this FAQ response b y adding the bulk waste DOC value of 0.2 to the list of various wastes under the "Waste composition option" section of the Ta ble HH - 1 . **Response:** This provision is alread y explicitly provided for in §98.343(a)(2) and we do not see the need to include the bulk MSW parameters under the “Waste composition option” section of Table HH - 1 . Furthermore, this comment concerns an issue th at was not opened by the proposed amendments and is out of the scope of this final rule.

**Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) 80 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13

79 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1). 80 This comment was also submitted by Stanislaus County, CA., Envi ronmental Resources Department (Docket Id. No EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038) and Tetra Tech Bas (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2).198

**Comment:** EPA should clarify the GHG MRR with a technical correction to the bulk MSW DOC value in Table HH - 1, consistent with a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ 744) response. This response clarified that site s that received separate inert waste shipments may use appropriate DOC values for those waste streams listed in Table HH - 1 under the "Waste composition option." The response further suggests that reporters may also select the appropriate DOC value for bulk waste (0.2) found under the "Bulk waste option" section of Table HH - 1 for shipments of bulk MSW. This value should formally be added to Table HH - 1. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , Excerpt 20.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** We state our objection to the process followed here by EPA. There has been a consistent pattern that this case illuminates in the agency ’s regulation of MSW landfills for how it selects issues to elevate for a decision. It concurs in major industry requests, and ignores more substantive citizen or other industry requests (or places them on a circuitous track with an uncertain destination). EPA relies exclusively

on the landfill industry ’s submittals, instead of independently evaluating the issue based upon a full spectrum of considerations, and without involving other stakeholders, including waste - to - energy , conversion technology, anaerobic digestion, recy cling, composting, as well as citizens. In some cases, such as the tiered gas capture rate by cover t ype, this was done completel y outside the public review process, with out notice and without any opportunity

for any one else to comment before the final decision was made, even to the extent of denying rehearing to provide an after - the - fact opportunity for comment. [Footnote: 40 CFR §98.346 (Table HH - 3).] [Footnote: In the M atter of Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases

–Final Rule for 40 EPA - HQ - OAR 2008 - 0508 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 98, 1033, 1039, 1042, 1045, 1048, 1051, 1054, 1065, Petition for Reconsideration (December 29, 2009).] At other times, such as here with r egard to oxidation, the industry requested changes are developed and completed in final draft form in sole reliance on the industry’s submittals without any public involvement, the opportunity for which is only

provided after the agency has committed to th e approach. In either case, the process reflects a disturbing case of regulator capture that would appear to be fundamentally inconsistent with an agency ’s capacit y to rely on sound science or achieve the climate objectives that have been announced by the Administration. [Footnote: President Obama 2013 State of the Union message to Congress]. Surprisingl y, based upon personal experience, there were significantly more and extensive efforts to involve the public on an equal footing to the industry under the B ush Administration than there have been under this Administration.199

**Response:** We thank you for y our comment. We make every attempt to involve stakeholders throughout the regulatory development process. When industry representatives requested monthly rather than weekly

monitoring for methane concentrations, we made a detailed data request to the industry

representatives to provide the weekl y measurement data for all landfills with gas collection sy stems required to be collected under subpart HH (but for whic h reporting was deferred). Thus, while industry provided the data, the data, including the test methods, had to be collected based on the procedures specified by EPA. Once received, the Agency conducted their own independent analy sis of the data, which was different than the data anal ys es originall y used by industry representatives when recommending monthly monitoring. Similarly , we conducted an independent analy sis of the test methods used to determine the oxidation fraction. Based on our analy sis, the fra ctional isotope methodology provides an accurate method by which to determine the oxidation fraction. We received comments during the original April 2009 proposal that the oxidation fraction of 0.10 was too low. We rejected laboratory studies and indicated that the field studies, while varied, did not support a higher oxidation fraction, but that we would re - evaluate the default oxidation fraction when more field study data were available. Once additional field data were available, we conducted our own independent review and anal ys is of the data. We rejected the "average oxidation fraction by soil ty pe" approach because most of the landfills studied had gas collection sy stems and, subsequentl y, lower methane flux rates than t ypical landfills without a gas co llection sy stem. We specificall y propose d the binned oxidation approach to solicit input from the public. The Agency is not "committed to the approach" and could, based on comments and data submitted by the public, elect to finalize a different approach, a s was the case of a tiered gas collection efficiency where public comment clearl y indicated that a fixed 75 percent gas collection efficiency regardless of cover typ e or coverage of the gas collection sy stem was clearly not the best approach for estimating landfill specific emissions. We are happ y to evaluate and respond to an y and all public comments.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 201 2 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** On September 24, 2010, CCWIinformed EPA of a significant technical error in Subpart HH of the GHG Reporting Rule, which had been published in 2009. We pointed out that the rule’s default value for the annu al decay rate (“k”), which is used in modeling emissions from landfills that recirculate leachate, was incorrect. [Footnote: E - mail from Peter Anderson (CCWI) to Paul Gunning (EPA), re GHG Report Rule Subpart HH, dated September 24, 2010.] As background to understand these issues, the phrase “recirculating landfills” is a landfill that, except for one technique, engages in strategies to increase moisture as a means of accelerating decomposition. In addition to circulating leachate over and over, recirculati ng landfills delay installation of the final composite cover so that precipitation can continue to infiltrate the wastes long after the cell reaches final grade, as well as re - grade the covers of adjoining cells to capture their runoff. Recirculating landf ills do not, however, add outside liquids. Landfills that do are known as “bioreactors,”[Footnote: Debra Reinhart, L andfill Bioreactor Design & Operation200

(Lewis Publishers, 1998).] and require special research permits. [Footnote: 40 CFR §258.28 prohibits a dding outside liquids to M SW landfills, which is the regulatory impediment to widespread adoption of bioreactors, which do add outside liquids in addition to recirculate leachate. 40 CFR 258.4 authorizes exceptions from that prohibition for bioreactor lan dfills that comply with various research requirements.] The key point is that, on the one hand, recirculating landfills are distinct from bioreactors, and, on the other, they

generate currently

substantiall y more landfill gas than dry tomb landfills. This is because a precondition for anaerobic decomposition, of which gas generation is a by product, is moisture levels in excess of 60%. Incoming wastes only contain, on average, 20% to 25% moisture. [Footnote: George Tchobanoglous, Integrated Solid Waste Manag ement: Engineering Prin ciples and Management I ssues (M cGraw - Hill, 1993), at p. 393. Others suggest that optimal range lies between 40% - 70%. Debra Reinhart, Landfill Bioreactor Design & Operation (Lewis Publishers, 1998), at p. 140.] Others have done rese arch suggesting full methane conversion does not proceed until moisture reaches 60% - 70%. G. J. Farquhar, "Gas Production During Refuse Decomposition." 2 Water, Air and Soil Pollution 9, at pp. 483 - 495 (1973). See, also, 67 FED. REG. 346462 (May 23, 2002). Due to the heterogeneit y of wastes buried in landfills, good field data is hard to find that quantifies how much additional moisture is found in recirculating vs. dry tomb landfills. However, subsidence, which is a reasonable proxy , has been found to be m ore than twice as much in recirculating landfills compared to dry tomb landfills. [Footnote: Debra Reinhart, “The Impact of Leachate Recirculation on MSW Landfill Operating Characteristics,” 14 Waste Mgt & Res. 337 (1996), at 344.] The decay

rate that the rule provides for recirculating landfills is k=0.057. [Footnote: 40 CFR §98.346 (Table HH - 1).] There are two fatal problems with using a k value that low. First, the rule indicates that k=0.057 is also to be used for dry tomb landfills in areas with 40 inc hes or more of annual precipitation, but was not calculated to be, and was never intended to reflect, the significantl y greater moisture levels inside landfills that recirculate leachate, and, in consequence, experience twice the subsidence and presumabl y twice the gas generation. [Footnote: EPA’s source of the k=0.057 value is Solid Waste Association of North America, “Comparison of Models for Predicting Landfill Methane Recovery ,” Publication No. GR - LG 0075 (1998), whose scope was limited to dry tomb land fills.] **Response:** This comment addresses sections of the rule that were not opened by the proposed amendments and are out of the scope of this final rule . While we will consider these comments, any revisions to the decay

rate values used in subpart HH , if deemed appropriate, will have to be made in a separate rulemaking to allow for public notice and comment.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11201

**Comment:** The agency ’s own hornbook for input values to the first order decay model, AP - 42, specificall y states that the k value for landfills that recirculate leachate, which it abbreviates as “wet landfil ls,” is 0.3, or 5.3× greater. [Footnote: EPA, Background Information Document for Updating AP42 Section 2.4 for Estimating Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste L andfills (2008)(AP - 42 Background), at p. 5. See, also, Reinhart, First Order Kinetic Gas Gener ation Model Parameters for Wet Landfills (EPA - 600/R - 05/072)(June 2005).] Elsewhere, EPA has emphasized the critical importance of maintaining consistency among other offices in the agency , such as with the GHG Inventory . [Footnote: 78 FED REG. 63 (April 2, 2013), at 19808.] It is odd that EPA is indifferent to such a very large inconsistency

here in regard to its own rule book, AP - 42. Unlike most other sources of GHGs, emissions from MSW landfills are indirect sources that are not measured. Instead emission s are estimated with an equation, called the first order decay (FOD) model, one of whose key input variables is the value for k. Current gas generation calculated with the model are 3.1× greater for k=0.3 than for k=.057, when using L =100 m3/MT, for total gas potential. The internal email traffic among EPA staff that we received in response to our Free dom of In formation Act requests indicate that, first, nothing was done to correct this fundamentally incorrect value, which understates emissions in recircul ating landfills by three times. [Footnote: E - mail from Dana Hyland (EPA) to Peter Anderson (CCWI), re: EPA - HQ - 2013 - 005296, dated April 29, 2013.] Then, an effort was begun to conduct a survey of bioreactor landfills, even though, the issue was how estimate GHG emissions from leachate recirculating landfill, which do not add outside liquids, and had nothing to do with bioreactors. For there are very few bioreactors due to the increased regulatory requirements, the marginal gain in accelerating decomposition and the greater risks to site stability with elevated moisture levels. [Footnote: 40 CFR §258.4; Morton Barlaz, “Performance of North American Bioreactor Landfills. II. Chemical and Biological Characteristics,” J. Env. Eng. (August 2010); and R. C. Bachus, “Bioreactor Landfill Stability : Key Considerations,” MSW Management (September/October 2004), at p. 82.] On the other hand, the increasingl y predominant practice among large landfills today is leachate recirculation. [Footnote: EPA, Mandatory Greenhouse G as Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume No.: 36, Subpart HH

— Landfills (2009), at p. 72.] Finally , the agency spent months discussing whether “wet landfills” in AP - 42 only applied to bioreactors. AP - 42 made clear that the recommended k=0.3 value was for wet landfills, which included primarily leachate recirculating landfills as well as bioreactors: “Due to the increase in the use of leachate recirculation, a gas production rate to characterize emissions from wet landfills has been added .” [Footnote: AP - 42 Background, at p. iii.] “There has been an increase in the occurrence of landfills that recirculate leachate to accelerate waste decomposition. An additional ‘k’ was added for use in the first - order equation to account for the increas e in gas production from wet landfills. This was derived from a study

that evaluated data from 29 wet landfills (Reinhart, 2005). For the202

purpose of AP - 42, wet landfills are defined as landfills which add large amounts of liquid to the waste from recycled landfill leachate, condensate from LFG collection, and other sources of water such as treated wastewater.” [Footnote: AP - 42 Background, at p. 2.] Finally , EPA temporized because of a concern that the AP - 42 value might be too high for recirculating landfill s because it included some consideration of bioreactor landfills. But, one of the studies that EPA relied upon specificall y found that bioreactors do not generate appreciabl y more gas than leachate recirculating landfill without outside liquids: “There is no indication that gas collection increases appreciably when the water content reaches 40%.” [Footnote: Morton Barlaz, “Performance of North American Bioreactor Landfills. II, Chemical and Biological Characteristics,” J. Env. Eng. (August 2010), at p. 839, included as part of EPA Response to CCWIFOIA Request (October 25, 2012).] EPA defines bioreactors as landfills with more than that 40% moisture level. [Footnote: EPA, Example Moisture Mass Balance Calculations for Bioreactor Landfills (EPA - 456/R - 03 - 007, December 2003), at p. 2.] We are not oblivious to the fact that EPA may be recalcitrant to using the correct value for k because tripling reported emissions from recirculating landfills would make manifest the carefully worded warnings from the agency ’s own research division, and which even Waste Management’s own Goldsmith Study confirms. That is, functional gas capture cannot be achieved at these facilities: “Alternative covers or porous materials are used to promote infiltration which results in larger loss of fugitive emissions.” [Footnote: Susan Thornloe (EPA/NRMRL), “Innovative Air Monitoring at Landfills Using Optical Rem ote Sensing with Radial Plume M apping” (February 22, 2007), at 4.] Indeed, the same conclusion follows for landfills with LFGTE, be cause sites that recover energy also recirculate leachate in order to boost the otherwise low Btu value of landfill gas. **Response:** First, we note that the k value of 0.3 appears in a DRAFT version of AP - 42 and this k value cannot be considered “EPA’s own hornbook” value until such time as the AP - 42 chapter is finalized. Second, the k values used in the GHGRP are consistent with the values developed for the U.S. Emissions Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks and consistent with k values reco mmended for bulk MSW in the 2006 IP CC Guidelines. There appears to be some confusion with the semantics of “wet landfill.” The term wet landfill i s not used in subpart HH . Subpart HH defines three climactic conditions based on precipitation and recirculati on rates. While some may

refer to landfills in moist climates as wet landfills, there is a distinction between what is considered a wet landfill as described in the draft AP - 42 section and a landfill in a “wet climactic region” as indicated b y greater than 40 inches of precipitation. Finally , we not e that this comment addresses sections of the rule that were not opened b y the proposed amendments and are out of the scope of this final rule . While we will consider these comments, any revisions to the decay

rate values used in subpart HH , if deemed appropriate, will have to be made in a separate amendatory package to allow for public notice and comment.203

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** Again, and as noted earlier here and in regard to the original rule, there are no actual measurements of GHG emissions from landfills. Instead, modeling is used in the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Emissions in order to estimate what those emissions from MSW landfills are assumed to be. That is, the first order decay model, which has no validity in relation to landfills unless it adjusted to provide for a variable, instead of a fixed, value for k. Of note, more recentl y, even one of the strongest advocates of FOD modeling, Dr. Jean Bogner, has repudiated the exercise. [Footnote: Jean Bogner, California Landfill Methane Inventory Mo del Users Guide, at p. 2.] As part of our comments on the original rule, we made that same point, and incorporate them here as if set forth in full. [Footnote: EPA, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume No.: 36, Subpart HH

— Landfills (2009), at p. 65.] [Original rule comments are available at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=EPA - HQ - OAR - 2008 - 0508 - 0331;fp=true;ns=true] In response to those comments, EPA stated that: (1) “[S]tatistical anal y sis of the data available from landfills with gas collection sy stems where methane composition and flow were measured provide a strong basis for the use of the first order decay

model and the proposed input parameters.” (2) “While the commenter criticizes the use of the first order decay model, the commenter does not provide an y workable alternative.” [Footnote: I d., at p. 72. The response also stated that “the commenter appears focused on landfills that have geomembrane covers. While the degradation aspect s for "dry tomb" waste disposal may

be very different from those with soil or clay covers, we do not anticipate that these landfills will be in the majority . We do request information on soil cover ty pe and leachate recirculation in the final rule to bette r understand the prevalence of these practices." Id., at p. 72. CCWIconcurs that recirculating landfills are becoming dominant on a waste - weighted basis, and, to the contrary , is focused on them, not dry tomb landfills, where the predominant fraction of G HG’s are coming from. I d. There was and is not confusion on CCWI’s part.] In fact, the FOD model cannot be statistically validated for MSW landfills, and there are workable adjustments to correct for the flaws in the current form of the FOD model were EPA to provide the same commitment to this vital task as it has to the industry ’s peripheral oxidation matter.204

Attempts to statistically

support FOD models was based upon a putative statistical test that used regression equations of a sample that purported to show its predictions were a good fit. The regression ana ly sis prepared for EPA b y Peer was intended to validate the FOD model’s applicability

to the approximately

2,000 MSW landfills in the United States, but it failed to do so. [Footnote: R. L . Peer, et a l., “A comparison of methods for estimating global methane emissions from landfills,” 26 CHEMOSPHERE 387 (1993).] The Peer study used too small a sample of only

21 landfills, or only

1% of the population, which is too few degrees of freedom for statistical significance. Also, none of those selected for the sample were chosen randomly , which removes the normal distribution essential for regression equations to estimate a population. Furthermore, not only

was the selection process not random, it was also chos en with a specific bias that has the effect of significantl y skewing results to appear to show high capture rates. This was done b y limiting the sample to landfills with energy recovery . These facilities ty picall y recirculate leachate, which accelerates de composition and gas generation, in order to boost the profitability

of electricit y sales. [Footnote: Debra Reinhart, First Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model Parameters for Wet Landfills (EPA - 600/R - 05/072)(June 2005), at p. 2 - 2.] That has been shown to inc rease near term gas generation very significantly , while onl y m oderatel y increasing the volume of gas captured. [Footnote: Contrast: Pat Sullivan and Alexander Stege, “An Evaluation of Air and Greenhouse Gas Emissions and M ethane - Recovery Potential from B ioreactor Landfills,” MSW Management (Sept 2000), at p. 78, states that bioreactor landfills increase near term gas capture per ton of waste - in - place b y 76%; with 67 FED REG 36463 and 36465 (May

22, 2002): bioreactors increase gas generation in the near te rm by 2 to 10×.] Since the model is blind to the fact that gas generation was augmented, the uptick in gas collected makes it seem appear that capture rates have significantl y improved, even though they most probably

have significantly

declined. Moreover, in addition to all those limitations, circular reasoning was used in performing the model’s attempt at a statistical validation. In an attempt to assess the reasonableness of the model’s estimates of Gas Generation, Eq. (1) is used to provide a putative in dependent estimate: Gas Captured = Gas Generated x Gas Capture Rate (1) Solving Eq. (1) for Gas Generated is Eq. (2): Gas Generated = Gas Captured/Gas Capture Rate (2) But, since onl y one of the two independent variables is known, this exercise rests on a house of cards. For the Gas Capture Rate is also unknown and an unsupported guesstimate is used, defeating the attempt to provide a solid foundation for the calculation. Thus, to solve the equation for Gas Generation, the study just assumed that Gas Capture Rate was 75% at all times during a landfill’s life. Recalling that one of the purposes of the entire exercise was to establish a factual basis for assuming 75% capture rates in the first place, this led to a circular exercise with no statistical va lue. As a tautological statement, it establishes nothing about Gas Capture Rates any more than it does about Gas Generation.205

Finally , in view of the fact that moisture, which is a limiting condition for decomposition landfill decay behavior obviously

reflec ts complex interactions, which are especially difficult to model in a heterogeneous waste mass that goes through multiple phases some of which when prerequisite moisture levels are absent. The reason given to justify the paucity

of other explanatory

variab les in the model to explain that complex environment, such as critical internal moisture levels, is that the excluded variables had statistically insignificant estimated coefficients in earlier versions of the regressions. But, the problem of statistically insignificant coefficient estimates arises for many reasons other than the claimed lack of importance. One of the reasons for insignificant coefficients is a small sample size that leads to limited degrees of freedom, which is evident in the study . Other problems include poorl y formulated equations, data measurement errors, and inappropriate error term distribution specifications and related estimation procedures. Each of these problems exist. This points towards an unreliable and questionable estimation p rocess known as data mining or fishing, and not to the lack of importance of things, such as moisture, needed for a valid model. With these fishing procedures, various fuller models are formulated and discarded, not because they are not well formed or incl ude inappropriate variables, but because the anal ys ts did not want to confront the substantial complexities or consequences that more complete modeling would entail. The exclusion of variables merel y on the basis of low levels of estimated coefficient significance is not statistically

justified, as shown by

the irrational scattergun outputs it produces. For, if the excluded data are truly

relevant, their exclusion leads to estimation bias and unreliable results. Coefficient significance is not an approp riate means for deleting vari ables from a regression model. Appropriate tests exist for testing overall significance of a set of variables

– e.g. m aximum likelihood ratio tests. The Peer paper does not show that these forms of significance testing were per formed. Due to all of the deficiencies discussed above, the results of the regression anal ys es cannot be relied upon to provide credible annual methane production quantities, anymore than the putative validation of the FOD model can corrobor ate that the mo del conforms to statistical norms. In addition to all of the problems discussed above, the low levels of R2s in the Peer study (one measure of the explanatory power of estimated regression equations) do not support a conclusion that the regression anal ys es provide reliable results. **Response:** See our response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107, Excerpt 13.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13 **Comment:** For those who find statistical discussions obscure, the uselessness of the current state of FOD modeling for the estimation of landfill emissions, there is a more straightforward206

proof. That is the number of studies that have tested the model by noting the gas captured at a large sample of landfills, calculating the gas capture rate using the following equation. Capture Rate = Gas Generated/Gas Captured (3) A published paper that performed a random ve rification of related modeling of California landfills found a dispersion of 25 major landfills of predicted compared to actual values for gas collection efficiency , which ranged from 7% to 100%, which suggests an R2 value of onl y 0.7. [Footnote: Nickolas Themelis, “Methane generation in landfills,” Renewable Energy 32 (2007), 1243, at 1250.] A more recent unpublished survey of 30 California landfills by the California Air Resources Board, reproduced in TABLE 1 below, found implied gas collection efficienc y from gas generation estimated with first order equations ranged from 6% to 225% captured, which is an exceedingl y impressive engineering feat. [Footnote: California Air Resources Board, Staff Spreadsheet Titled Landfill Survey Data Public (2010).] **TABLE 1**  **California Integrated Waste Management Board Implied Gas Capture Rate at 46 Landfills When Comparing Gas Captured with Estimates of Gas Generated from First Order Decay**  **Model Landfill Survey Response Data**  **Survey** CH 4 **Captured/Model** CH 4 **Generation(%) Landfill**  **2006WIP**

**(%) Avg.**  **CH 4** 

**(%) 2000**  **2001 2002**  **2003 2004**  **2005 2006**  1 9.4% 35% 109% 120% 107% 108% 112% 140% 140% 2 3.7% 46% 87% 108% 114% 109% 107% 135% 130% 3 3.2% 52% 61% 63% 73% 68% 52% 51% 83% 4 3.0% 39% 63% 73% 66% 79% 76% 90% 87% 5 2.7% 36% 91% 91% 91% 91% 84% 98% 92% 6 2.3% 34% 121% 121% 121% 121% 121% 121% 121% 7 2.2% 42% 99% 105% 109% 111% 105% 107% 104% 8 2.2% 14% 6% 5% 4% 6% 5% 6% 6% 9 1.9% 16% 66% 65% 65% 57% 59% 76% 76% 10 1.8% 25% 125% 113% 100% 97% 112% 124% 124% 11 1.8% 50% 64% 69% 71% 69% 66% 63% 63% 12 1.8% 42% 127% 127% 127% 127% 127% 146% 117% 13 1.4% 32% 121% 137% 128% 123% 119% 126% 126% 14 1.3% 49% 124% 119% 105% 102% 102% 76% 72% 15 1.3% 50% 59% 51% 41% 54% 54% 54% 54% 16 1.3% 43% 351% 261% 231% 226% 172% 166% 165% 17 1.2% 40% 45% 45% 45% 45% 53% 46% 44% 18 1.1% 39% 118% 118% 118% 118% 133% 118% 109% 19 1.1% 47% 78% 54% 96% 103% 90% 90% 116% 20 1.1% 44% 64% 63% 65% 40% 51% 39% 37%207 **TABLE 1**  **California Integrated Waste Management Board Implied Gas Capture Rate at 46 Landfills When Comparing Gas Captured with Estimates of Gas Generated from First Order Decay**  **Model Landfill Survey Response Data**  **Survey** CH 4 **Captured/Model** CH 4 **Generation(%) Landfill**  **2006WIP**

**(%) Avg.**  **CH 4** 

**(%) 2000**  **2001 2002**  **2003 2004**  **2005 2006**  21 0.8% 51% 89% 90% 103% 82% 81% 83% 108% 22 0.7% 50% 74% 73% 76% 88% 75% 94% 121% 23 0.6% 48% 152% 180% 140% 109% 104% 96% 91% 24 0.5% 48% 28% 35% 42% 50% 62% 70% 64% 25 0.4% 59% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 57% 26 0.4% 29% 22% 22% 20% 21% 21% 25% 21% 27 0.4% 48% 23% 23% 23% 23% 15% 21% 34% 28 0.3% 38% 20% 26% 23% 21% 19% 14% 16% 29 0.3% 40% 111% 111% 116% 102% 114% 99% 98% 30 0.3% 43% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104% 93% 114% 31 0.3% 37% 29% 29% 29% 30% 33% 28% 25% 32 0.2% 42% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 28% 34% 33 0.2% 41% 22% 22% 19% 20% 21% 24% 30% 34 0.2% 48% 103% 85% 80% 91% 124% 123% 135% 35 0.2% 17% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 36 0.1% 48% 78% 78% 78% 102% 74% 66% 79% 37 0.1% 32% 35% 40% 38% 54% 62% 62% 50% 38 0.1% 33% 38% 17% 20% 16% 17% 27% 23% 39 0.1% 38% 257% 257% 341% 234% 234% 216% 257% 40 0.1% 37% 44% 38% 33% 18% 33% 33% 33% 41 0.0% 45% 76% 76% 76% 85% 78% 65% 76% 42 0.0% 37% 69% 66% 63% 59% 56% 52% 49% 43 0.0% 30% 46% 41% 37% 32% 27% 23% 19% 44 0.0% 27% 165% 161% 157% 138% 137% 138% 126% 45 0.0% 31% 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% 22% 47% 46 0.0% 30% 18% 17% 14% 14% 14% 14% 10% Similarly , Wisconsin did a comparison of actual gas collected to estimate gas generation in the State’s landfills and found the same exceedingl y wide and irrational outputs for imputed collection efficiency

found in California’s study . [Footnote: On - line at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Landfills/emissions.html.] **Response:** We recognize that there are man y the uncertainties in the FOD model, particularl y the use of a nationwide average DOC value, to estimate methane generation rates for specific landfills. Differences in waste compositions from landfill to landfill are expected to cause208

differences in the methane generation rates on the or der of those seen here. This is precisely why subpart HH requires both a forward calculation of methane generation using Equation HH - 1 and HH - 5 and a backward calculation method (Equation HH - 7 ). We continue to maintain that the FOD model is reasonably accurate and that it is used and accepted worldwide for developing methane emission estimates for landfills. As noted in our response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0934 - 0082 - A2, Excerpt 6 in Section 22.3 of this document , the NO A A study using atmospheric measurements of methane concentrations indicated that the California emissions inventory for landfills, which is based on the use of the FOD model, was accurate. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Peter Anderson, Executive Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Center for a Competitive Waste Industry **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 934 - 0107 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** The fact that the current FOD model has critical flaws that preclude its applicability to MSW landfills does not mean that there are no workable alternatives. Correcting for those errors first requires develop ing reasonable estimates for the value of k under the different conditions of a landfills life when operated as a dry or a wet facility . Second, the model needs to be run in each ye ar with the correct k value for the conditions that exist in that ye ar (ope n/closed, t ype of cover, recirculation, local precipitation, etc.). Thus, when EPA copied the SWI CS cover - based capture rates, in addition to using made up values, it ignored the key fact. While it is true that gas collection is substantially higher after a geomembrane is installed, gas generation quickly

tapers off at that time. Most gas is generated before and afterwards when there is no effective cover and gas capture is, according to the industry ’s own study , 300% worse. CCWIwould welcome discussions w ith EPA to bring together a small team to accomplish the changes in the model to account for this “Double Dutch” jump ropes effect. EPA has done as much for the waste industry , as in the case of oxidation factors, and it could do the same for others without their sort of financial interest in the outcome that distorts the results. In passing, optical scanning does provide useful comparative information about emissions among different landfill conditions. However, it is not yetuseful for estimating landfill GHG emissions. In terms of its essential construct, and as discussed earlier, more than half of the degradable carbon remains in dry

tomb landfills, and probably also close to that with recirculating landfills, when the site is closed. [Footnote: P. M. Cz epiel, “Quantifying the effect of oxidation on landfill methane emissions,” Journal of Geoph ys ical Research (July , 20, 1996)., at p. 16,720.] That carbon can be expected to decompose, and generate gas that will be released, following the 30 ye ar post closure period and the financial assurances are exhausted [Footnote: 40 CFR Part 258, Subparts F and G.] None of that is measured b y optical scanning’s basic construct. The methodology

also has other technical problems that make its results at this time still t oo subjective and variable to be reliable for current emissions, notwithstanding EPA’s attempt in209

2006, referred to as OTM - 10, to standardize optical scanning. [Footnote: EPA, Optical Remote Sensing for Emission Characterization from Non - Point Sources (200 6) (OTM - 10).] For example: Upwind. Chief among the problems that eludes precise measurement of methane concentrations in the scanned vertical plane is the fact that gases in the atmosphere upwind of that plane mix with it. I f those upwind gases that cross the plane are not accounted for and subtracted from the observed fluxes in that plane, the results will be erroneous. To distinguish the two requires first defining the boundaries of the contributing area, which defies clear delineation, and choosing from among the two published models to measure the upwind contribution, which are predicated on general regression equations derived from controlled releases of tracer gases or from computer simulations. The fact that the two produce different results raises a question about the validity of one or both of the estimation methodologies. Also, to different degrees, both models are predicated upon a simplified assumption of contributory winds crossing a flat surface, which usuall y does not describe the more complex and irregular landfill terrain being scanned in most cases. Weather variability . Unless observations are limited to day s when there is no wind, which would be a costl y constraint and logistical nightmare, shifting wind speed and direction, a near constant at the top of many landfills hundreds of feet above grade, make conducting reliable observations considerabl y more challenging and subjective, even with a four plane configuration of the optical scanners. Impromptu adjustments. In the field, with landfill s’ vast expanses, irregular terrain, high reaches and shifting winds, there is no single uniform protocol to manage all contingencies that confront the researcher, and he or she is required to make an y number of subjective adjustments and compromises not s et forth in OTM - 10 in order to complete the necessary

tasks. In consistent parameters. As previously noted, some researchers choose, or more likely are required b y their host, to ignore the working face, while some, but not others, maintain that side slope measurements cannot be done. Yet, the working face is where most of the gas escapes from before closure, and afterwards, more is released off the side slopes. After the site is covered, there is a strong bias to horizontal gas migration due to daily cover and packing and the way horizontal fissures propagate with compaction. If neither the working face nor side slopes are included, the results will fail to account for the vast majority

of emissions. Weak analogy . The computational algorithms, multiple regre ssions and procedures in OTM - 10 were actually

developed for hog lagoons, which are significantly smaller facilities than landfills on flat terrain at ground level. [Footnote: R. D. Shores, et al., “Plane - integrated open - path Fourier transform infrared spec trometry methodology

for anaerobic swine lagoon emission measurements,” Appl. Eng. Agric. 21:487

–492 (2005).] Simply scaling up from those lagoons to massive landfills extending over hundreds of acres and reaching 300 or more feet above grade, with irregu lar features and the complex wind patterns discussed above is, by itself, a reach, confounded further by the fact that so210

much of the actual study

details wind up having to be fleshed out ad hoc on site without serious validation. [Footnote: The Goldsmith study concluded: “However, the fact that only 31% of the data collected fulfilled the quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) requirements for qualifying data is a concern. The method is at times not easy to appl y to the complex topograph y of a landfill and there are areas of landfills that are not accessible to the technique.” Id., at 196 (emphasis added).] **Response:** We thank you for y our comment. We agree that it is not practical to require the use of EPA OTM - 10 as a means to determine landfill emissi ons at this time, which is why we rel y on the FOD model and landfill gas collection s ys tem measurements. We welcome comments and suggestions that would improve subpart HH’s emission estimates. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 23.0 **Revisions to Subpart II** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 24.0 **Revisions to Subpart LL** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 25.0 **Revisions to Subpart MM 25.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods Commenter Nam**  **e:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 81 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 28 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to clarify the equation term for "Product i " at 40 CFR 98.393(a)(2) to exclude those products that entered the refinery but are not reported under 40 CFR 98.396(a)(2). Minor editorial change since paragraph (1) was removed. **Response:** Yes, this is a minor editorial change. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

81 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).211



### 25.2 **Revisions to equipment calibration requirements Commenter Name:**  David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** EPA proposes to incorporate into Subpart MM a provision similar to the equipment calibration provision in Subpart A where a calibration may be postponed for units and proce sses that operate continuously with infrequent outages. AFPM supports this harmonizing change to make the equipment calibration provisions for petroleum product suppliers consistent with the calibration requirements for other sectors and the flexibility it provides Subpart MM reporters. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 25.3 **Revisions to reporting requirements Commenter Name:**  Marla Beny shek, Director, Fuels Regulatory I ssues **Commenter Affiliation:** Phillips 66 Research Center **Document Cont rol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** We are very

appreciative of the proposed change that eliminates the detailed crude reporting requirements. The existing reporting requirement is burdensome. Some of our refineri es have had to institute additional sampling and testing to be able to provide the crude reporting information in the required manner. For all refineries additional time and effort is required to match crude names with EIA codes and ensure the batch inform ation is complete and accurate. We have consistently voiced our objection to any requirement for crude reporting in this regulation. Although the proposal does eliminate the most burdensome portion of the required crude reporting, we again request that EPA completel y eliminate any crude oil reporting requirement rather than just change it to reporting of annual quantit y. **Response:** EPA collects data on the volume of crude oil to conduct a mass balance assessment of all feedstocks, onsite emissions, and out going products at a refinery to assist with quality assurance and verification of data reported under subpart MM. Therefore, the EPA will not be completely

eliminating crude oil reporting in this rulemaking.

**Commenter Name:** Marla Beny shek, Director, Fuels Regulatory I ssues **Commenter Affiliation:** Phillips 66 Research Center **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2212

**Comment:** Reporting Product Volumes by Measurement Method. EPA is prop osing to eliminate the required reporting b y measurement method. Phillips 66 strongl y supports this change as it will simplify the reporting requirements. Reporting Measurement Methods. Although the Agency has proposed to eliminate reporting of product vo lumes by

measurement methods, there still remains a requirement to report a list of methods used to measure the annual product quantities reported. Phillips 66 believes that this reporting requirement should also be eliminated as it is tangential to the GHG emissions data and information that EPA is seeking. **Response:** Please see Section II.T .2 in the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affilia tion:**  American Petroleum Institute (API ) 82 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 32 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to remove the requirements of 40 CFR 98.396(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(13), (b)(1), and (c)(1) for each facility, importer, and exporter to report the annual quantit y of each petroleum product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. Reporters would continue to report the annual quantities of each petroleum product or natural gas liquid in metric tons or barrels at 40 CFR 98.396(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and (c)(2). EPA is also retaining the requirement to report a complete list of methods used to measure the annual quantities reported for each product or natural gas liquid. APIsuppo rts the simplification associated with this revision. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 83 **Document Co ntrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 33 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to eliminate the reporting requirement for individual batches of crude oil feedstocks. The reporting requirements for crude oil at 40 CFR 98.396(a)(20) are p roposed to be changed to require onl y the annual quantity of crude oil. EPA is also proposing to

82 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 83 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).213

eliminate the requirement to measure the API gravity and the sulfur content of each batch of crude oil at 40 CFR 98.394(d). EPA is also proposing to remove the requirement at 40 CFR 98.394(a)(1) that a standard method b y a consensus - based standards organization be used to measure crude oil on site at a refinery , if such a method exists. Other associated changes to the rule to harmonize with this change include r emoving the definition of "batch," removing the procedures for estimating missing data for determination of APIgravit y and sulfur content at 40 CFR 98.395(c), and the recordkeeping requirement for crude oil quantities at 40 CFR 98.397(b). Reporters would still be required to maintain all the records required to support information contained in the reports as specified at 40 CFR 98.397(a). APIhad commented during the initial rule dev elopments in 2009 that refiners should not be required to provide data for each batch of crude used at the refinery . The data are not used to calculate GHG emissions from products under Subpart MM, and could not be used to determine carbon emissions from the refinery , and should therefore not be required. Additionally , the infor mation is publically

available through EIA form 814. APIstrongl y supports these revisions. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** EPA proposes to eliminate several crude oil reporting requirements in Subpart MM for petroleum refineries. This includes eliminating the requirement to report EIA crude stream code and crude stream name, APIgravit y, and sulfur content of each crude oil that enters the refinery . Other associated changes to Subpart MM to harmonize with these eliminations including removing the provi sions around API gravity and sulfur content measurement and removing the requirement that a standard method by a consensus - based standards organization be used to measure crude oil on site at a refinery . EPA explains that refineries would no longer report crude oil by

batch, but would still report the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery . AFPM supports the changes to crude oil reporting as proposed. Crude oil names, API gravity and sulfur content are not used in calculating GHG emissions an d are publicly availability

via the Energy

Information Administration. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufa cturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6214

**Comment:** EPA proposes to remove the requirement for Subpart MM reporters to report the annual quantities of each petroleum product or natural gas liquids (NGL ) on the basis of the measurement method used. EPA further explains that reporters would continue to report the annual quantities of each petroleum product or NGL and a complete list of the methods used to measure the annual quantities for each product or NGL. AFPM supports this change as it reduces the reporting burden without affecting the accuracy of the emissions associated with the use of the petroleum products and NGL s nor impacts validation of the reported emissions. **Response:** EPA thanks the comment er for their support. 

### 25.4 **Definitions: NGL and bulk NGL Commenter Name:**  David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** EPA proposes to include definitions of natural gas liquids (NGL) and bulk NGLs for Subpart MM. The definitions identify the difference between an undifferentiated or bulk NGL stream and an individual differentiated NGL stream, generall y ethane, propane, butanes, or pentanes - plus (natural gasoline), that must be reported individually . AFPM supports the inclusion of these definitions, as it removes the ambiguity around NGL reporting. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 84 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 34 **Comment:** EPA is pr oposing to include the definitions of natural gas liquids (NGL) and bulk NGL s in the subpart MM definitions at 40 CFR 98.397 to clarify the distinction between NGL and bulk NGL for reporting purposes under subpart MM. "Bulk NGLs for purposes of reporting u nder this subpart means mixtures of NGLs that are sold or delivered as undifferentiated product." "Natural gas liquids (NGLs)" for purposes of reporting under subpart MM means hydrocarbons that are separated from natural gas as liquids through the process of absorption, condensation, adsorption, or other methods, and are sold or delivered as differentiated product. Generally, such liquids consist of ethane, propane, butanes, or pentanes plus."

84 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).215

Those subject to subpart MM are required to report NGL s as the individual differentiated product and are not required to conduct testing to determine additional components (i.e., impurities) that are contained within the differentiated product. For a mixture, the individual components should be reported. For example, if a refinery receives a known mixture of propane and ethane, the refiner must report the quantities of propane and ethane individually . Undifferentiated NGLs would be reported as bulk NGL s for subpart MM. We are also proposing to clarify the reporting re quirements for bulk NGL s and NGLs. NGLs should be reported either as differentiated NGLs or as bulk NGLs. The requirement at 40 CFR 98.396(a)(22) is proposed to be modified to specify that NGL s reported in 40 CFR 98.396(a)(2) should not be reported again i n 40 CFR 98.396(a)(22). APIsupports these definitions for Subpart MM purposes. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 25.5 **Revisions to Table MM -**  **1 Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation :**  American Petroleum Institute (API ) 85 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 35 **Comment:** EPA is proposing to revise the default density and emission factors in Table MM - 1 for propane, prop yl ene, ethane, ethylene, isobutane, isobutylene, butane, and butylene. Because these compounds are gases under standard conditions, the default densit y metric must be presented using a stated temperature and pressure. For all compounds except ethylene, EPA is proposing estimates o f density and calculated emission factors at 60 degrees F and saturation pressure, the standard temperature and pressure conditions used by industry . For ethylene, because it cannot be liquefied above 48.6°F, we have selected as a basis for the values of d ensity and emission factor conditions at 41°F (slightly under the critical temperature) and the corresponding saturation pressure. The current and proposed values for default density and emission factors are included in the following. APIsupports the prop osed revisions as they are more in line with values reported in API's Compendium. The proposed rule changes and preamble do not discuss whether the changes for the emission factors and density

values apply

to reports starting in 2013, or if the values are to be retroactivel y applied to previous reports. APIopposes appl yi ng these revisions to previously submitted reports. Reporters should not have to resubmit reports to incorporate these changes for calendar ye ar 2010, 2011, or 2012 reporting. These revisi ons should only appl y going forward. EPA should restrain from frequent revisions to default factors, as an y changes made to the factors in the rule requires companies to make changes to their internal reporting s ys tems and

85 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).216

processes to align with the revi sed factors in the rule and subsequent changes to the reporting forms and XML schema. These are not trivial activities. This incurs costs and requires time for the reporting companies to implement and test these changes. **Response:** EPA agrees with the comm enter that reporters would not need to resubmit their annual reports on account of the revisions to Table MM - 1 that are being finalized in this rule. 

### 25.6 **Other comments on proposed subpart MM Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 86 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 29 **Comment:** EPA is proposing the following revision to 98.394(a)(1): "The quantity of p etroleum products, natural gas liquids, and biomass, as well as the quantity of crude oil measured on site at a refinery, shall be determined as follows:" APIsupports this revision. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 87 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 30 **Comment:** EPA is proposing the following revision to 9 8.394(a)(3): "The annual quantity of crude oil not measured on site at a refinery received shall be determined according to one of the following methods. You may use an appropriate standard method published by a consensus

based standards organization or you may use an industry standard practice." APIsupports this revision. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

86 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 87 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).217

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 88 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  31 **Comment:** EPA is proposing harmonizing changes to 40 CFR 98.394(b) to make the equipment calibration requirements for petroleum products suppliers consistent with other Part 98 calibration requirements. The requirements for equipment calibratio n in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A (General Provisions) allow for postponement of calibrations for units and processes that operate continuously

with infrequent outages. EPA is proposing similar provisions be incorporated into the subpart MM equipment calibrat ion requirements. The proposed changes would also provide flexibility for reporters meeting the equipment calibration requirements. The added regulatory

language is: 98.394(b)(3) "For units and processes that operate continuously with infrequent outages, it may not be possible to complete the calibration of a flow meter or other measurement device without disrupting normal process operation. In such cases, the owner or operator may postpone the calibration until the next scheduled maintenance outage. The b est available information from company records may be used in the interim. Such postponements shall be documented in the monitoring plan that is required under §98.3(g)(5)." APIsupports the added flexibility associated with this revision. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 25.7 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed related to reporting and recordkeeping requirements**  **Commenter Name:** Marla Beny shek, Director, Fuels Regulatory I ssues **Commenter Affiliation:** Phillips 66 Research Center **Documen t Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Changes should be made to eliminate reporting of products that will not be combusted . Currentl y, the regulation requires refineries to calculate emissions that would occur if a product stream is combusted. There are several streams that should be exempted from the calculations because they will not be combusted. An example is lubricating oils. A more specific example is packaged lube oils (e.g. quart bottles) that are expor ted. Another example is asphalt. This issue was commented on in the original proposed rulemaking b y the American Petroleum Institute (API) and others. We urge the EPA to exempt these ty pes of product streams from reporting. This would result in further rep orting streamlining and simplification.

88 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).218

**Response:** Comprehensive upstream data will provide EPA with a full accounting of the emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of all petroleum products and natural gas liquids introduce d into the economy . Furthermore, comprehensive facility - level data can help us conduct a more robust mass balance assessment for data verification purposes. While we recognize that carbon in some petroleum products, such as asphalt, can remain un oxidized for long periods, petroleum product suppliers cannot alway s know with certaint y whether or not the carbon in their products will be released into the atmosphere. Even asphalt can be burned as fuel or incinerated as waste. In the Inventory of U . S . Greenhou se Gas Emissions and Sinks, EPA notes several areas of uncertaint y surrounding the fate of carbon in petroleum products including those for which the Inventory assumes a 100 percent storage factor for the purposes of the national inventory (e.g., asphalt r oofing, asphalt cement, and asphalt paving materials). Therefore, streams will not be exempted from the calculations because they will not be combusted.

**Commenter Name:** Marla Beny shek, Director, Fuels Regulatory I ssues **Commenter Affiliation:** Phillips 66 Research Center **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** We would like to thank EPA for recognizing the need to modify and simplify Subpart MM. The proposed changes will make the reporting requirements le ss burdensome. However, we would like to see a few additional changes including complete elimination of any crude reporting requirements, elimination of required reporting of measurement methods, and exemption of some product streams from reporting. **Respon se:**  See responses to EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0046 - A1, Excerpts 1, 2, and 3. 

### 26.0 **Revisions to Subpart NN 26.1**  **Revisions to definition of LDC Commenter Name:**  Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 89 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** We support the proposal to align the definition of LDC in Subpart NN with the definition in Subpart W to clarify that a gas utility’s operations in each state are c onsidered a separate LDC. This change will help reduce confusion in our member’s annual reporting process. We also support the revision to clarify that interstate and intrastate pipelines delivering natural gas either directly

to large industrial users or farm taps upstream of the inlet to an LDC’s 89 The comments by American Gas Association (AGA) were also supported by Xcel Energy, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1).219

distribution sy stem are not included in the definition of an LDC. This clarifyingrevision makes sense, because these deliveries are not part of an LDC’s distribution sy stem. It also helps align Subpart NN with S ubpart W. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 26.2 **Revisions to Equations NN -**  **5 and NN -**  **6 Commenter Name:**  Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 90 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA also proposes to allow flexibility to use different emission factors (rather than just the current single emission factor) for different natural gas streams in Equation NN - 5, in response to comments that the multiple streams of natural gas may have different characteristics, such as High Heating Value (HHV). See preamble at page 19827. AGA supports this revision. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 26.3 **Revisions to reporting re quirements for large customer meters**  **Commenter Name:** Pamela Lacey , Senior Managing Counsel, Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** American Gas Association (AGA) 91 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0080 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** EPA explains in the preamble that it is proposing to revise 40 C.F.R. 98.406(b)(7) so that instead of requiring LDCs to report annual volume of natural gas delivered to “ each meter registering supply

equal or greater than 460,000 thousand cubic feet (Mscf) during the calendar ye ar,” in future LDCs would be required to report natural gas deliveries “ per customer rather than per meter” if the LDC “ knows ” that a series of meters “ serves one particular customer ” that receives more that the reporting threshold of 4 60,000 Mscf. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19827. In the proposed regulatory

text at 98.403(b)(2), EPA uses slightly different language, but with the same ambiguit y. The revised text would require LDCs to report the “[t]otal annual volume of natural gas supplied to this end user , if known , otherwise, the annual volume supplied to this meter (Mscf per year).” 78 Fed. Reg. at 19871 (definition of “Fuel” in Equation NN - 4; see also preceding definition of CO 2 k

– requiring reporting of annual CO 2 mass emissions per “end u ser” rather than per meter). AGA appreciates EPA’s motivation for the change, to significantly minimize double counting emissions that large customers directl y report to EPA under Subparts C and D with the emissions estimated for those large customers and reported by fuel suppliers un der Subpart NN. We share

90 The comments by American Gas Association (AGA) were also supported by Xcel Energy, Inc. (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1). 91 Id.220

yo ur goal of developing a more accurate estimate and inventory of greenhouse gas emissions. However, our members are concerned that the proposed revision would be inconsistent with the way that customers are often billed, and the p roposal does not make it clear how they could ensure compliance. First, how deepl y into corporate records would an LDC would have to dig in order to back up an assertion that the LDC does not “know” whether a series of meters serves one large customer? Sec ond, we assume you mean to require reporting where a series of meters serving a customer at one location provide a total throughput exceeding the annual 460,000 Mscf reporting threshold, but this is not clear either in the proposed revised rule section 98. 403(b)(2) or in the preamble explanation. On the other hand, y our proposed sections 98.404(a)(7) and 98.406(b)(7) are clearer because they

refer to the end user’s “facility .” In 98.406(b)(7), the proposal calls for reporting gas delivered b y the LDC to eac h “end user facility” in excess of the threshold. It would be helpful to use this “end user facility” term consistently in the rule and preamble. Our two concerns are related. Quite often, large corporations with multiple facilities at different locations across a state will receive one gas utility bill for their multiple facilities and meters, and it is not clear which meter aligns with which facility . Are there a series of meters serving “one customer”? Yes. But are one or more meters located at the same address or facility ? I t may not be possible to determine the answer based on readily available records, but perhaps one could answer that question with deeper investigations and calling the customers or facilities. To avoid confusion and potentially burden some investigations into corporate records, AGA urges EPA to clarify

that the reporting obligation applies where the LDC knows based on readil y available information that multiple meters serve one end user facilit y. Our members note that in some cases, mor e than one meter serving a large end user facility may not be in a “series” but instead will be located side - by - side or parallel to one another. We suggest a clarification that would cover either a series or “group” of meters, or simply strike the word “se ries.” In addition, we are concerned about the potential burden of reporting fuel usage from facilities with a few large meters but many smaller meters. For example, consider a university that is a large end user primaril y due to its natural gas - fired, combustion turbine - based cogeneration sy stem. However, the university may also have hundreds of small meters supplying natural gas to individual buildings within the campus, such as classrooms and residence halls. While the total impact from the collection of small meters would be insignificant compared to the cogeneration sy stem, the data collection process for these meters would be a significant burden for the LDC. To address this concern, AGA urges EPA to proposes that only meters with a fuel usage of 50,00 0 Mscf or greater be included in the large end user’s total natural gas usage. **Response:** For the response to the commenter's concerns regarding the difficulty of identifying large end - user facilities supplied by multiple meters, problems of assigning meters to facilities where companies own more than one facilit y within the state, addition of a 50,000 Mscf threshold for reporting of individual meters, and the level of research LDCs are required to undertake, please see S ection II. U .2 of the preamble to the final rule.221

The phrase "series of meters" used in the preamble to the proposed amendments means either a group of meters in sequence, or a group of meters arranged side - by - side or in parallel that provide natural gas to a single large end - user facility . **Commenter Name:** Eldon L indt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services **Commenter Affiliation:** Xcel Energy , Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** Under §98.40 3(b)(2)(i), EPA proposes to require reporting b y customer if the LDC has knowledge that a series of meter serves a customer. Specifically , the regulation reads that LDCs should report the "total annual volume of natural gas supplied to this end - user, if kn own, otherwise, the annual volume supplied to this meter (Mscf per ye ar)." The term "if known" presents some ambiguity . For example, as a courtesy to our customers, one bill is often sent to a compan y’s main office reflecting gas usage for many facilities. In this case, the usage from one individual facility

is not readily

known. Xcel Energy

requests clarification on the clause "if known". **Response:** For the response to this comment, please see Section II.U .2 in the preamble to the final rule. 

### 26.4 **Revisions to reporting requirements**  **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 92 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 36 **Comment:** EPA ha s learned that o - grade as well as y - grade bulk NGLs are fractionated by facilities subject to subpart NN . Additionally , the EPA has learned that some fractionators strip out only a portion of the bulk NGL stream and supply the remaining bulk NGL downstream to other fractionators , where it is separated into its constituent products. Therefore, the EPA is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4) to add new reporting elements that require reporting of the quantity

of o - grade, y - grade, and other t y pes of bulk NGLs received, and the quantity not fractionated, but supplied downstream. APIhas no issues with these revisions. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

92 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ) .222



### 26.5 **Revisions to Table NN -**  **1 or NN -**  **2 Commenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, R egulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 93 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 37 **Comment:** EPA is proposing changes to the HHV and emission factors in Table NN - 1 and NN 2 . EPA is proposing to revise the default HHV and emission factors for the individual components of liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including propane, ethane, isobutane , and butane. These values for Table NN - 1 and NN - 2 are based on the same HHV , densi ty and carbon share used for the HHV and emission factors in Table C - 1 and MM - 1. Since these compounds are gases under standard conditions, the default emission factors in Table NN - 1 and NN - 2 (kg CO 2 per MMBtu or MT CO 2 per barrel) and HHV in Table NN - 1 ( M MBtu per barrel) must be presented using a density at a stated temperature and pressure. For all these LP Gs , we are proposing calculated values of HHV and emission factors using the density of the liquid at 60°F and saturation pressure, standard temperatur e and pressure conditions used by industry . The current and proposed default HHV and emission factors are shown in the following tables. APIsupports the proposed revisions as they are more in line with values reported in API's Compendium. The proposed r

ule changes and preamble do not discuss whether the changes for the emission factors and density

values apply

to reports starting in 2013, or if the values are to be retroactivel y applied to previous reports. APIopposes appl yi ng these revisions to previou sly submitted reports. Reporters should not have to resubmit reports to incorporate these changes for 2010, 2011, or 2012 reporting. These revisions should only appl y going forward. EPA should restrain from frequent revisions to default factors, as an y ch anges made to the factors in the rule requires companies to make changes to their internal reporting s ys tems and processes to align with the revised factors in the rule and subsequent changes to the reporting forms and XML schema. These are not trivial act ivities. This incurs costs and requires time for the reporting companies to implement and test these changes **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support for the revisions to the default HHV and emission factors in Tables NN - 1 and NN - 2. EPA is no t requiring reporters to revise their RY2010 through RY2012 reports to incorporate the revised default emission factors. For additional information regarding retroactive submitt als of prior y ear reports, please see Section II I . B of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA)

93 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).223

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** GPA agrees with the need to clarify Subpart NN reporting requirements and supports EPA’s proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4) and Table 7. GPA requests EPA’s assurance that these changes will be applied to future reporting requirements and that EPA will not require past reports to be revised or resubmitted. **Response:** Thank you for your support for the revisions to 40 CFR 98.406(a)(4). For the response to the comments on revising past reports and the revisions to Table NN - 1 of the rule (shown in Table 7 of the proposal preamble), please see the response to comment EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2, excerpt 37. 

### 26.6 **Other comments on proposed subpart NN Technical Corrections Commenter Name:**  Eldon L indt, Director of Auditing, Environmental Policy & Services **Comment er Affiliation:**  Xcel Energy , Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0074 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Xcel Energy requests clarification on the definition of an end - user as related to a series of customer meters. Under §98.406(b)(1 3), end - user relates to residential, commercial, industrial and electricit y generating facilities under EIA Form 176. Xcel Energy recommends further defining an end - user under Equation NN - 4 to constitute gas service at a single service address. **Response:** For the response to this comment, please see Section II.U .2 of the preamble to the final rule. 

### 27.0 **Revisions to Subpart PP** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 28.0 **Revisions to Subpart QQ 28.1**  **Revisions to reporting requirements (i.e., d ates of import/export)**  **Commenter Name:** Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** Dow supports EPA’s proposed change to remove the requirement to report the dates on which closed - cell foams were imported or exported (40 CFR 98.436(a)(5),(a)(6)(iv), and224

98.436(b)(5)). We agree with EPA’s rationale that this level of specificit y is not ne eded to verify the amounts of closed - cell foams imported and exported. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Frederick Sciance **Commenter Affiliation:** General Motors LL C **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 006 2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** General Motors supports the proposal to eliminate the requirement to report the specific dates of import or export of pre - charged equipment or closed cell foams [ 40 CFR 98.436(a)(5) and 40 CFR 98.436 (b)(5)]. Automobi le air conditioner s ys tems are charged with refrigerant at the automobile assembly plant, and it would be very inefficient to attempt to charge them at a later point in the distribution chain... Gathering and reporting these dates of import and export of v arious products under Subpart QQ of the EPA greenhouse gas reporting rule has been a very time consuming and difficult task over the past two y ears. Yet reporting of the specific dates adds no value, since the total quantities of vehicles, refrigerant and foam are the relevant information that is of interest. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Jennifer Cleary , Director, Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) **Documen t Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0076 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** For Subpart QQ, EPA proposed to revise the reportin g requirements for 40 CFR 98.436(a)(6)(iii) and (b)(6)(iii) to match the reported data eleme nt to the units required to be reported. Specificall y, EPA proposed to change from “mass in CO 2 e ” to “density in CO 2 e .” The units specified for the data elements in the current subpart QQ are kg CO 2 e/cubic foot, and EPA did not change that in its proposal. AHAM does not oppose the proposed revision to match the reported data element to the units required to be reported. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Jennifer Cleary , Director, Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM)225

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0076 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA also proposed to remove the following reporting requirements to alleviate burden on reporters: 40 CFR. 98.436(a)(5), (a)(6)(iv), (b)(5), and (b)(6)(iv). Those provisions require reporters to supply the dates on which pre - charged equipment or closed - cel l foams were imported or exported. AHAM strongl y supports removal of these reporting requirements. AHAM agrees that tracking and reporting each shipment by date is burdensome. In addition, because EPA did not determine the date of import/export data to be confidential, as we commented before, it could allow competitors to more easil y link import and export data to related customs data. Accordingl y, we support EPA’s prop osal to remove these reporting requirements. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for the ir support.

**Commenter Name:** Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship **Commenter Affiliation:** GE Appliances **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0054 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** I am writing in support of the Associati on of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and in particular the revisions related to Subpart QQ impacting the reporting for pre - charged appliance products. L ike AHAM, GE Appliances underscores the importance of EPA's proposal to remove the requirements for reporters to supply the dates on which pre - charged equipment or closed cell forms were imported and exported. In addition to this requirement being very burdensome, it is potential ly

inconsistent with how import and exports are tracked, and therefore leads to ambiguit y in the reporting of these dates. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** Am erican Chemistry Council (ACC) 94 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 22 **Comment:** ACC is encouraged b y EPA’s proposed removal of the reporting requirements under Subpart QQ in 40 CFR 98.436(a)(5), (a)(6)(iv), (b)( 5), and (b)(6)(iv), requiring the reporting of import and export dates for pre - charged equipment or closed - cell foams. These proposed

94 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 093 4 - 0106).226

changes will alleviate an unnecessary burden on reporters by

helping to streamline the reporting process. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 28.2 **Comments on Rule issues not proposed Commenter Name:**  Kelley Kline, Counsel, Regulatory & Product Stewardship **Commenter Affiliation:** GE Appliances **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0054 - A2 **Comment Excerp t Number:**  2 **Comment:** We would strongl y urge EPA to consider adopting AHAM's suggestions of explicitly allowing conservative reporting of charge amounts, adopting a de minimis threshold for reporting amendments, and explicitly exempting components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeration and/or insulation. By adopting these changes, EPA will significantl y address the burden associated with these reporting requirements for manufacturers, and make the reporting much more straightforward and less subject to error. **Response:** EPA appreciates this comment ; however it is bey ond the scope of the proposed rule.

**Commenter Name:** Jennifer Cleary , Director, Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0076 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** AHAM respectfully requests that EPA consider allowing reporters to have some modest amount of discretion in revising reports when the revision would be a de minimus representation of the data. For example, currentl y it seems that if exports in one calendar ye ar are returned during the next calendar y ear, a reporter would need to revise a report to show this as a “change.” In realit y, however, it is not a change. EPA should consider some so rt of threshold below which no re vised report is required. EPA also could permit conservative reporting such that a reporter might not revise a report in the sort of situation identified above. In addition, AHA M urges EPA to recognize this de minimus concept and allow companies discretion to report conservatively in certain instances. For instance, if the charge of the fluorinated gas changes in an engineering revision of a model y ear, a company should be able t o use that conservative (higher) charge volume in reporting for all derivatives of that basic model during the ye ar. EPA should further consider specifically excluding components that may contain a fluorinated gas not utilized for a purpose of refrigeratio n and/or insulation. Examples include mechanical thermostats, drain valves and cold control sensors. The miniscule, if any, contribution to total CO 2 equivalent of these t yp es of data do not justify the significant burden and potential sources of error introduced b y requiring this level of detail in the reporting. Further, in instances where the identity of a fluorinated gas cannot be determined from a supplier due to proprietary

reasons, it may

be useful to allow reporting of just the CO 2 equivalent of the gas in227

certain instances, to facilitate reporting and avoid the ambiguit y around the certification of inability to obtain the data from suppliers. **Response:** EPA appreciates this comment ; however it is bey ond the scope of the proposed rule. 

### 29.0 **Revisions to Subpart RR** No comments were received on the proposed revisions to this subpart. 

### 30.0 **Revisions to Subpart SS** No comments were received on the proposed re visions to this subpart. 

### 31.0 **Revisions to Subpart TT 31.1**  **Revisions to calculation methods Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** EPA should further simplify the requirements regarding the oxidation factors for reporting CH 4 emissions from industrial landfills. EPA should consider another option for the use of o xid ation factors for reporting CH 4 emissions under Subpart TT . In order to streamline the calculations and to use a consistent basis from y ear to y ear, EPA should allow the reporter an option to continue to use an oxidation factor of 0.1. This option would le ad to conservative emission estimates from industrial landfills since 90% of the CH 4 that is generated will be emitted. In addition, for our industrial facilities these emissions are minor compared to those from other Subparts so we encourage EPA to provid e a streamlined approach to estimating emissions from Subpart TT landfills vs. requiring the use of additional flux calculations and the use of factors on Table HH - 4 . However, if EPA opts not to allow this option, then EPA should copy Table HH - 4 and the as sociated equations into Subpart TT so that all required calculations and factors are included in Subpart TT of the rule. **Response:** We agree that it is reasonable to allow landfill owners or operators an option to simply retain the use of the 10% default oxidation factor without the need to do additional flux calculations, and this appears to be reasonable for both MSW and industrial w aste landfills, with the ex ception of the following case. Landfills that do not have a soil cover of at least 12 inches in depth are not likel y to have significant soil oxidation; these landfills are required to use an oxidation factor of 0% in today ’s fin al rule. See also our response s to comment s EPA - HQ - OAR -228

2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 , Excerpt 15 and EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0037, Excerpt 2 in Section s 22.3 and 22.5, respectively , of this document . We did not copy the table into Subpart TT as landfills with gas collect ion sy stems are alread y required to refer to Subpart HH . We did, however, clarify

that G CH4 is determined using Equation HH - 1 or Equation TT - 1 , as applicable.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 12 **Comment:** One related aspect of the use of the DOC in estimating landfill emissi ons pursuant to Subpart TT deserves clarification: The original Subpart TT regulations allowed facilities to develop a DOC for use when estimating emissions from historic waste deposits. It appeared, however, that once such a DOC was developed, the same DO C was required to be used for these historic deposits in all future reports under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, even if better information became available. See 40 CFR. §98.463(a)(3), particularl y the passage: “The historical values for DOC or DOCx mu st be developed only for the first annual report required for the industrial waste landfill; and used for all subsequent annual reports (e.g., if DOC for ye ar x = 1990 was determined to be 0.15 in the first reporting ye ar, you must use 0.15 for the 1990 DO C value for all subsequent annual reports).” This was not reasonable at the time, especiall y since facilities had relatively little time to develop such historical DOCs, following EPA’s protocol, for the first required reporting of landfill methane emissio ns under a new reporting scheme and procedures. Making those initial determinations unchangeable would make even less sense now, when EPA is itself revising DOCs applicable to various wastes landfilled in the forest products industry . An interpretation that the historical DOC that the facility first chose is fixed for all time appears to be at odds with 40 C.F.R. § 98.3(h), which requires a facility to submit a revised report if the facility becomes aware of a substantive error in the prior report

— which pre sumabl y could include an error in the DOC applied to historical deposits in the landfill. In fact, in response to a question last fall, the EPA e - GGRT Help Desk indicated that a facility could recalculate and resubmit an annual GHG report if it determined that there is a more accurate method for estimating emissions, which could include a more accurate DOC than what was used in the past. **Response:** See Section II.Z .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice Presi dent, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 13229

**Comment:** We note also that EPA has proposed to change the regulations to recognize that it is appropriate to use a new DOC for historicall y managed wastes derived using the 60 - day anaerobic digestion test. See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,830. The same considerations should lead to a sim ilar approach when a new DOC is derived using the volatile solids content measurement approach. Accordingly , AF&PA and AWC ask that EPA clarify that a revised, more accurate DOC may

be used to characterize emissions from waste deposited in the past, either by modifying 40 CFR §98.463(a)(3) or, at a minimum, by publishing in the preamble to the final rule an explanation that 40 CFR. §98.3(h) allows a facility to use a new, more accurate DOC to represent previousl y landfilled waste. **Response:** See Section II. Z .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Con trol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 14 **Comment:** AF&PA and AWC also want to point out one apparent oversight in the way EPA proposes to revise Subpart TT to provide for adjustment of methane emission rates to account for sur face oxidation of methane, using formulas EPA has developed for municipal waste landfills (rather than using an assumption of 10% oxidation as required in current 40 C.F.R. § 98.463(b)(1)). We support this apparent improvement in methane emission estimatio n. We are concerned, however, that Table H - 4, to which the proposed revised section 98.463(b)(1) in Subpart TT would refer, provides alternative methane oxidation fractions for different ranges of methane flux rates, but the equation that would be used to determine methane flux rate includes a variable, G CH4 , which is defined in terms of modeled methane emissions from equations in Subpart HH, for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, rather than Equation TT - 1, which is used to calculate G CH4 for Industrial Landf ills pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 98.463(a)(1). See 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,867 - 68 and 19,876. EPA should add Equation TT - 1 to the reference to Equations HH - 1, HH 4, and HH - 6 in the definition of G CH4 in proposed Table HH - 4. **Response:** We agree. We have revised the definition of the footnote for G CH4 to read: “Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH

– 1 of this subpart or Equation TT - 1 of subpart TT of this part, as applicable, except for application with Equation HH - 6 of this subpart (metri c tons CH 4 ). For application with Equation HH - 6 of this subpart, the greater of the modeled methane generation rate in reporting ye ar from Equation HH

– 1 of this subpart or Equation TT - 1 of this part, as applicable, and the quantity of recovered CH 4 from Equation HH

– 4 of this subpart (metric tons CH 4 ) ."23 0

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 95 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 18 **Comment:** ACC supports the proposed changes for Subpart TT, including revisions to terms used in equations TT - 1 and TT - 7 to determine waste stream - specific degradable organic carbon (DOC) for facilities’ biodegradation tests. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 96 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 21 **Comment:** ACC requests that EPA clarify in the final rule that the proposed revised oxidation factor approach for calculating CH 4 emissions be used for reporting years 2013 and forward, and not require facilities to revise emissions data from reporting y ears 2010

– 2012. Such retroactive revisions would be time - consuming and expensive while resulting in minimal changes to reported emissions. **Response:** We agree. The calculation of the oxidation factor onl y impa cts the current reporting ye ar. Landfill owners or operat ors will not be required to determine methane fluxes for previous annual reports and revise those reports if a different oxidation factor applies. We have revised Table HH - 3 to clarify

that an oxidation factor of 0.1 must be used for reports prior to RY201 3 and that the new oxidation factors can onl y be used starting with the RY2013 and later annual reports. 

### 31.2 **Revisions to Table TT -**  **1 Commenter Name:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, P resident, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** Although the changes EPA has proposed to the default DOC table, Table TT - 1, will improve the accuracy of estimated GHG emissions from pulp and paper mill landfills, they do not go far enough. EPA has proposed a new DOC for “industrial sludge” that would apply to industrial sludges landfilled by pulp and paper mills and wood products facilities. That value is

95 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106). 96 Id.231

less than half of the current default DOC value for all non - exempt pulp and paper industry waste. It also is consistent with the IPCC default DOC for industrial sludge. AF&PA and AWC therefore support that new waste classification and default DOC. AF&PA is concerned, however, that applying a default DOC of 0.20 (wet basis) for all other waste from pulp and paper mills substantially

overestimates methane emissions from landfills accepting such waste. A substantial portion of the other waste generated b y m an y chemical pulp mills is (a) residuals from the pulping chemical recovery process and (b) ash from boilers fired with wood or wood residue. These waste streams are predominantly inorganic materials with essentially no DOC and potential for methane generation. Boiler ash is the residual, largel y mineral, material remaining after efficient combustion of wood and wood residue or other fuels. The pulping chemical recovery portion of a pulp mill generates “causticizing wastes” that are comprised of inorganic c hemicals such as calcium and sodium carbonate and sulfates that would not be expected to decompose or to otherwise release methane in landfill environments. Because of the processes involved, however, there may be small amounts of organic carbon carried ov er from the pulping process or remaining as uncombusted fuel in ash, which would prevent the waste from meeting the definition of “Inert Waste,” for which Table TT - 1 assigns a DOC of zero (i.e., the volatile solids concentration may be somewhat higher than 0.5 weight percent (on a dry

basis)). If they

are lumped in with “Pulp and Paper (other than sludge),” however, they

will be assigned a DOC of 0.20 that will result in greatly overstating the potential of these wastes to generate methane in the landfill. **Response:** See Section II.Z .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 10 **Comment:** AF&PA and NCASIhave submitted information to EPA, including NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 793, which accompanied an October 3, 2011 letter from Dr. B rad Upton of NCASIto Rachel Schmeltz of EPA, showing that the essentiall y inert boiler ash and chemical recovery s ys tem causticizing wastes made up 31% and 17% (on a dry basis), respectivel y, of the total by weight of materials deposited in pulp and paper mill landfills in 1995 (based on an industry survey). Using an inappropriatel y high DOC for these waste streams therefore will result in a substantial overestimation of methane emissions from such landfills. **Response:** See Section II.Z .2 of the preamble t o the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment . **Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President,232

**Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Contr ol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** One AF&PA member conducted DOC tests, using the volatile solids method, on samples of various waste streams at a number of their mills in the first quarter of 2013. Those data c onfirm that wood - fired boiler ash and causticizing wastes have very low DOCs , although they may have volatile solids concentrations higher than the 0.5 weight percent (on a dry basis) threshold for excluding wastes from GHG landfill emission calculations a s inert, under 40 C.F.R. § 98.460(c)(2)( xii ) and Table TT - 1 . The DOCs for boiler ash ranged from 0.049 to 0.11, and the DOCs for causticizing wastes (lime mud, lime slaker grits, green liquor clarifier dregs) ranged from 0.0023 to 0.056. Three out of four ash samples had DOCs below 0.07. While these are only results from an initial round of testing and may not represent the full range of DOCs , these data provide additional indications that the boiler ash and causticizing area waste streams at a pulp and pap er mill have a DOC (and therefore a potential for methane emissions in the landfill) far lower than the 0.2 DOC EPA proposes to apply

to all mill wastes other than "industrial sludge." The approach to DOCs that EPA has proposed for landfills at pulp and paper mills therefore would continue to overstate substantially

the GHG emissions from those landfills. The same is true of including ash from wood - fired boilers in with other wastes in the "Wood and Wood Product (other than sludge)" category , for which Tabl e TT - 1 applies a default DOC of 0.43. AF&PA sees two potential resolutions to this inaccuracy : (1) EPA could create separate categories of wastes that would include these largel y inorganic waste streams and assign a DOC of 0.09 or less. The categories coul d be defined as: “solid and semi - solid wastes from the chemical recovery process at chemical pulp mills” and “ash from combustion of wood and wood residue at pulp and paper mills and wood and wood products facilities” (or perhaps the two could be combined into a single waste category); or (2) EPA could clarify that the term “industrial sludge” (which is undefined in the proposed rule) is intended to encompass materials that meet the common, dictionary

meaning of “sludge” (e.g., “thick, soft, wet mud or a si milar viscous mixture of liquid and solid components, especiall y the product of an industrial or refining process"), as well as the meaning EPA often gives to “sludge,” i.e. residue removed from wastewater treatment or air pollution control equipment. This would then allow mills to apply the “industrial sludge” DOC to the high - inorganic - content wastes from the pulping chemical recovery process, such as lime mud and green liquor clarifier dregs, as well as to h igh inorganic - content ash removed from air pollution control equipment on wood - fired boilers. While the default DOC of 0.09 that EPA proposes for Industrial Sludge still would result in overstatement of emissions from the essentially

inert ash and causticizing wastes, it would be much more accurate than using a DOC of 0.20. Regardless of the approach EPA chooses, it is essential to recognize that the potential methane emissions from these wastes would be greatly overstated by

using the 0.20 DOC proposed for “Pulp and Paper (oth er than sludge)” wastes. **Response:** See Section II.Z .2 of the preamble for EPA’s response to this comment.233

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 97 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 20 12 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 20 **Comment:** ACC also supports the proposed revisions to Table TT - 1 to improve the accuracy of default DOC and industrial sludge values. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 20 **C omment:**  AF&PA and AWC also ask that application of the proposed revised DOCs for industrial landfills be optional for the 2013 reporting ye ar. EPA is proposing to use different default DOCs for landfills associated with pulp and paper mills depending on whether waste is considered “Industrial Sludge” or “Pulp and Paper (other than sludge).” Likewise, landfills associated with wood products facilities would use one DOC for “Industrial Sludge” and another for “Wood or Wood Product (other than sludge).” 78 Fe d. Reg. at 19,877. Since there is no such distinction in the current Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, see 40 C.F.R. Part 68 Subpart TT Table T - 1, facilities in those industrial sectors may not have been collecting data on solid waste sent to the landfill bro ken down according to those classifications. Facilities should have the option to use the existing calculation method for the 2013 reporting ye ar and use the revised DOCs in the proposed rule beginning with the 2014 reporting year. **Response:** Subpart TT re quires that the current year waste quantities be determined separatel y for each waste stream that is disposed of in the landfill as specified in §98.463(a)(2)(i). Given the definition of “ waste stream ” , we expect that all industrial waste landfill owner or operator would have all of the data needed to implement the new default DOC values for wastewater sludges . The landfill owner or operator would simply need to classify

the waste stream - specific quantities that should alread y be collected as either an “industrial sludge” waste stream or an “other than sludge” waste stream. As such, we do not believe that it is n ecessary to wait to implement the additional DOC values in Table TT - 1 .

97 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporati on (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).234



### 31.3 **Revisions to reporting requirements Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Nu mber:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** EPA should consider removing the requirement to report information on inert waste streams since they

do not contribute to the facility ’s CH 4 generation. Dow is also concerned with o ne other aspect of EPA’s proposal that affirms that the owner/operator must report the volume of inert wastes under Subpart TT even though this information is not used to determine methane generation rates or emissions. In order to further reduce the burde n on reporting sites, EPA should revise the rule to eliminate the requirement to report volumes and details on inert wastes. **Response:** In order to assess the impacts of certain policy decisions, it is often necessary to assess the active life of a landfil l and the number of new landfills that may be permitted over a given time period. These projections are generall y made using landfill capacity data annual waste disposal rates. If the waste quantity data for inerts are not collected, then these projections would be inaccurate. Thus, even though they do not directly

contribute to GHG emissions, these data are needed to accuratel y assess policy options that may

be considered regarding landfill GHG emissions. Therefore, we are not revising subpart TT to elimin ate this reporting requirement.

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 98 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 19 **Comment:** ACC supports EPA’s p roposal to provide further clarification and reduce duplicative reporting requirements through revisions to 40 CFR 98.466(c) and equations TT - 4a and 4b. **Response:** Thank you for your support. 

### 32.0 **Revisions to Subpart UU** No comments were received on the propose d revisions to this subpart.

98 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).235



### 33.0 **Revisions to Other Subparts**  **33.1 Comments on Rule**  **issues not proposed for subpart G**  **Commenter Name:** William C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** TFI has long been an advocate for ensuring consistency between the GHGRP and the Inventory . This is particularly true with how the Agency handles the reporting of CO 2 bound in urea produced b y ammonia manufacturing units under Subpart G of the GHGRP and the Inventory . TFI continues to be concerned with the requirement to report CO 2 bound in urea produced b y ammonia manufacturing units under Subpart G of the GHGRP as a GHG "emission." The CO 2 bound in urea is not an "emission" b y an y common - sense understanding of that word. Further, the requirement to report CO 2 bound in urea under Subpart G is (1) inconsistent with EPA’s statements in the preamble of the GHGRP, (2) internall y inconsis tent with the regulatory

language itself, (3) contrary to EPA’s approach for other source categories in the GHGRP, and (4) contrary to EPA’s methodology

in the Inventory . EPA states in the preamble to the final GHGRP, and reiterates in Subpart G, that amm onia manufacturing facilities must report only : (1) process emissions; (2) emissions from stationary combustion units; and (3) CO 2 collected and transferred off - site or sequestered, under Subpart PP of the GHGRP. CO 2 bound in urea does not fit into any of these three categories. Additionally , the general policy

of the GHGRP, as expressed in 40 C.F.R. § 98.1, is to gather GHG data from "certain facilities that directly emit GHGs as well as for certain fossil fuel suppliers and industrial GHG suppliers." The policy therefore is to gather data on "direct emissions," which from a common sense perspective means releases to the atmosphere. The requirement to report CO 2 bound in urea, and not "emitted," is thus inconsistent with EPA’s statements in the preamble and with other provisions of Subpart G. Importantly , other source categories regulated under the GHGRP are able to account for carbon bound in products (and thus not "emitted"), and report only net emissions, or report carbon bound in products as data distin ct from emissions reporting. For example, Subpart X, setting forth reporting requirements for the petrochemical production source category , allows for accounting of "net annual carbon input or output," which includes offsets and excludes carbon not emitted from the facility . Additionally , Subpart P, which sets forth reporting requirements for the h ydrogen production source category , is structured in a manner similar to Subpart G, in that hy drogen production facilities are required to report only the same three categories as ammonia production facilities, as noted above. EPA states in the preamble to the GHGRP that several commenters on Subpart P pointed out the need for a calculation methodology to account for feedstock carbon that does not exit the hydrogen production facility as CO 2 , but rather in the form of other products or co products containing carbon. EPA responded to these comments by stating that it "generall y concurs with the need to account for carbon other than CO 2 that exits the facility . EPA236

co nsidered several options for reporting such carbon and chose to have facilities report CO 2 and ‘carbon other than CO 2 ’ as separate data reporting elements." Given the similarities in the ty pes of emissions reported under Subparts G and P, and the analogous nature of the CO 2 bound in urea shipped from ammonia manufacturing facilities and "carbon other than CO 2 " shipped from h ydrogen production facilities, TFI is confused wh y it is required to report CO 2 bound in urea as an emission under Subpart G. Further, TFI questions why sources in Subpart X are able to reduce their carbon reporting for carbon in products, while sources in Subpart G are not able to reduce their CO 2 reporting for CO 2 in urea. Based on our review of the GHGRP preamble and Response to Comments document, TFI is unable to ascertain the rationale for this disparate treatment of source categories. EPA’s requirement in the GHGRP to report CO 2 bound in urea is also inconsiste nt with EPA’s approach in the Inventory. In the Inventory , EPA does not attribute CO 2 bound to urea to the ammonia manufacturing sector because the CO 2 is not emitted by this sector; it is used to produce a product. As noted by EPA in its most recent draft Inventory : Only the CO2 emitted directly to the atmosphere from the synthetic ammonia production process are accounted for in determining emissions from ammonia production . The CO 2 that is captured during the ammonia production process and used to produc e urea does not contribute to the CO 2 emission estimates for ammonia production presented in this section. Instead, CO 2 emissions resulting from the consumption of urea are attributed to the urea consumption or urea application source category

(under the a ssumption that the C stored in the urea during its manufacture is released into the environment during its consumption or application). Emissions of CO 2 are accounted for in the Cropland Remaining Cropland section of the Land U se, Land - use Change, and Fore stry

chapter. Emissions of CO 2 resulting from non - agricultural applications of urea (e.g., use as a feedstock in chemical production processes) are accounted for in the Urea Consumption for Non - Agricultural Purposes section of the Industrial Process chapte r. EPA should apply

this same common sense approach in its GHGRP for the ammonia manufacturing source category . EPA’s settlement agreement with TFI involving our challenge to the GHGRP requires EPA, which it does, to include the following language in both Subpart G and EPA’s publicly available GHGRP data: " CO 2 process emission reported under this subpart may include CO 2 that is later consumed on - site for urea production, and therefore is not released to the ambient air from the ammonia manufacturing proces s unit." While this is helpful to contextualize the data, releasing data collected under the GHGRP and the Inventory will confuse the public due to the differing methodologies emplo yedand the GHGRP data will lead the public to incorrectl y conclude that th e ammonia manufacturing sector has much larger CO 2 emissions to the atmosphere than is the case. In addition, we are concerned that an y Climate Change legislation may mandate use of the GHGRP data and not allow EPA to properl y reduce the CO 2 emissions repo rted by ammonia manufacturers to reflect only actual emissions to the atmosphere. As such, to achieve its stated desire for GHGRP and Inventory consistency, EPA should revise Subpart G and onl y require the reporting of CO 2 emitted directly to the atmospher e from the sy nthetic ammonia production process.237

**Response:** See Section II. BB.2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment. 

### 34.0 **Schedule for Implementation 34.1**  **Proposed schedule for ex isting reporters**  **Commenter Name:** David Friedman, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0060 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** AFPM supports EPA’s proposal that R eporting Year 2013 (data reported b y M arch 31, 2014) should serve as the effective date of the amendments for existing reporting facilities. While AFPM appreciates efforts to ensure adequate time to prepare for changes, we strongl y urge EPA to finalize the se provisions prior to December 31, 2013. This will ensure that facilities are given enough time to come into compliance with these provisions, and for EPA to ensure that the e - GGRT reporting s ystem is modified in a timely manner to ensure accurate facility data reporting incorporating the reporting revisions. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

**Commenter Name:** David I saacs, Vice President, Government Affairs **Commenter Affili ation:**  Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 99 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0078 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** Changes to the GWPs will directly affect compliance under both the reporting rule and the tailoring rule. The prop osed changes t o the GWPs will be particularly important for our sector, increasing the CO 2 e equivalence of fab GHG emissions by 10 - 20%. Adverse impacts can be avoided through managing the transition from one set of GWPs to the next. Most of the issues can be addressed if the affected parties are give n time to transition from using the current GWPs to using the new ones. SIA recommends that the effective date for the revised and new GWPs be 12 months after the new values are set in a final rule. If EPA feels that the new GWPs need to be implemented more quickly for reporting, it is still imperat ive that their effective date under the tailoring rule be one ye ar from their date of publication. Later in these comments, we outline the ty

pes of issues that will arise and how a one ye ar transition to the new GWPs will allow for an orderl y and non - punit ive regulatory transition. This one y ear transition will address most of the compli ance problems that the new GWPs create. Without this transition, GHG 99 The comments of the Semiconductor Industry Association were also supported by Texas Instruments Incorporated (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0063 - A1) and Intel Corporation (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0090 - A2).238

reporting, GHG permi tting and the related projects at manufacturing facilities will be disrupted unneces sarily . Keep in mind that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was issued in 2007. We have been using “out of date” GWPs for six y ears. Deferring the update as it applies to permitting and reporting for one year is very reasonable wh en the alternative is to create coincident comp liance problems arising solel y out of the way that GHGs are weighted to determine emissions on a CO 2 e basis. The nature of the regulatory compliance problems that the GWPs change can create and the best way s to manage them are presented i n the remainder of this comment. The first issue is the timing of the implementation of the new GWPs under the reporting rule. SIA agrees that the new GWPs should be applied at the start of a calendar ye ar so that we do not have mixed GWPs in a single repo rt. It will not be appropriate to apply the new GWPs to 2013 emissions, given that this rulemaking may change who must report and this rule may change the gases that must be reported. Therefore, given the current timeframe f or final act ion on this rule, th e new GWPs should be used for reporting of 2014 emissions (in earl y 2015). **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:**  Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** EPA should delay adoption of the IPCC AR4 factors to allow for a phase in period. EPA has indicated that the GHGRP data is used to “inform” and “complement” the Inventory . As such, there is no urgency to adopt the AR4 factors. EPA proposes requiring existing reporters to begin using the updated GWP values in Table A - 1 starting with CY2013 reporting, due b y March 31, 2014 (78 FR 19,832). GPA urges EPA to delay adoption of the updated GWPs until calendar year 2017 in order to provide businesses and industries sufficient time to understand the new factors and build them into their individual reporting, and more importantly p ermitting, programs. This implementation schedule would allow adequate time to coordinate the GHGRR with the NSR and Title V programs in an orderl y wa y through a formal rulemaking process. It would allow operators the time needed to evaluate how this chang e impacts projects that are underway and those that are planned. Given the significant lead time and complexity involved with PSD permits, businesses need adequate time to determine, based on this new methane GWP, if certain projects are still even viable. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Grover Campbell, Director, Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Gas Processors Association (GPA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0069 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16239

**Comment:** If the Part 98 GWP revisions are incorporated into the NSR and Title V programs, GPA urges the EPA to postpone application of the new factors to these programs until 2017. The regulated communit y requires this amount of lead time to incorporate the new GWPs into its business decisions. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , Ame rican Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 18 **Comment:** For man y of the same reasons discussed in the previous section of these comments, AF&PA and AWC urge EPA to be certain that there is adequate time between the promulgation of the proposed revisions (indeed, an y revisions) to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and the deadline for filin g reports. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA asserts that it will present little problem for facilities to incorporate the changes in the proposed rule, if adopted before the end of 2013 as EPA plans, into their emissions estimates for 2013, which must be filed by March 31, 2014. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19,832 - 33. AF&PA strongl y disagrees and objects. Companies and facilities will have to reprogram their data acquisition, analy sis, and reporting s ys tems to incorporate not onl y revised GWPs but also revised emission factors (such as those proposed for recovery furnaces and biomass boilers, and others in Tables C - 1 and C - 2), revised emission estimation methods (such as the proposed revised and differentiated DOCs for landfills at pulp and paper mills and wood products facilities), and revised reporting requirements (such as revised reporting of production under proposed changes to subpart AA). In addition, some companies have implemented sy stems where estimated GHG emissions are calculated throughout the ye ar, so they will have to go back and revise those calculations, rather than just applying a new factor in calculations to be performed in the first quarter of 2014. At a minimum, the final rule should defer the reporting deadline for 2013 emissions until at le ast six months after the final revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is published in the Federal Register. For the initial, 2010 emission reports, EPA deferred the reporting deadline to September 30, in recognition of the burden imposed by recentl y released reporting requirements. There are similar justifications in this case. Also, in no event should reporting be required less than three months after EPA finalizes the XMLfor uploading the report electronicall y. (In some past y ears, the XML has no t been finalized until shortly before the reporting deadline, imposing a major burden on companies’ data management and information technology experts.) **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.240

**C ommenter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 100 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16 **Comment:** API is also concerned about th e time required to implement these changes into existing reporting s ys tems, particularl y with respect to making changes to internal reporting sy stems to align with EPA's final xml schema or reporting forms. Based on previous reporting ye ars, EPA seems to b e in the habit of only providing 2 months or less for companies to make revisions to their internal reporting s ys tems and is not providing sufficient documentation of the changes made to the XML schema. As a result, reporting companies are facing significa nt challenges to meeting the reporting deadlines. A minimum of three months is required between the time EPA releases a change to the reporting forms or XMLschema and the report due date for companies to implement the changes into their reporting s ys tems. This is not a trivial task. It requires significant company or contractor resources to make the changes to internal reporting sy stem and to adequatel y test the changes prior to submitting to EPA. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the fina l rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 101 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** EPA Should Adopt a Policy of Completing the Necessary Updates to e - GGRT and the xml Schema at Least 60 Day s Prior to the Annual Reporting Due Date. EPA has proposed a number of changes to various subparts of the GHG reporting rule, which will require EPA to finalize the rule amendments and subsequently update the reporting tools (e GGRT, xml schema ) to reflect the changes. Given the significant number of large and complex facilities of ACC members, we respectfull y request that EPA provide at least 60 days between th e time e - GGRT and the updated xml schema are made available and the submission deadline for the annual report. Also, if e - GGRT and/or the xml schema are not ready for data entry

by February 1st of a given year, ACC requests that the report submittal date b e adjusted to equal the date that is 60 day s after both e - GGRT and the xml schema are available for data entry for a given reporting ye ar. This period would grant members with complex reporting requirements adequate time to revise their internal reporting sy stems as needed to align with EPA’s updated reporting tools and complete the necessary quality checks prior to submitting their reports.

100 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ). 101 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).241

Allowing this reasonable amount of time would help improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the reporting program as a whole. **Response:** See Section I I I. A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 102 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** It is also important for EPA to ensure that the e - GGRT reporting s ys tem is modified in a timely

manner so as to not shorten the window for facility data reporting. Moreover, facilities need sufficient time to make the necessary revisions to their internal reporting s ys tems to align with EPA’s modified xml schema or e - GGRT report format. **Response:** See Section I I I. A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Comme nter Name:**  Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 103 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** Use of the AR4 GWP values is a requirement for IPCC reporting starting with the calendar year 2013 report (which would be published in 2015. EPA is proposing that existing GHGRP reporters begin using the updated GWPs in Tables A - 1 for their reporting ye ar 2013 annual reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2014. As stated above, this is consistent with IPCC reporting requirements which is the driver for the annual national inventory prepared b y EPA. API supports using the AR4 GWP values starting with the 2013 reporting year provided EPA makes the necessary changes to the e - GGRT s ys tem and the XML schema in a timely manner. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule.

102 Id. 103 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).242

**Commenter Name:** L isa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Commen t Excerpt Number:**  14 **Comment:** Assuming that the amendments are finalized in 2013, I NGAA agrees that it is feasible for existing reporters in the transmission and storage (T&S) segments to use updated GWPs for the 2013 report due in March 2014. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. 

### 34.2 **Proposed schedule and BAMM for new reporters Commenter Name:**  Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Under §93.3(l)(1), new reporters are allowed to use BAM M for the first three months of 2014, and §93.3(l)(2) allows reporters to request BAMM bey ond March 31, 2014. However, §93.3(l)(2)(iii) indicates that BAMM under this subsection will not be approved beyond December 31, 2014. In addition, the criteria in §9 3.3(l)(2)(ii) associated with a BAMM request are modeled after previous Subpart A sections and focus on the inability to install a monitor, thus failing to address other viable reasons for BAMM. For example, §93.236(f)(8) of Subpart W identifies other issu es, such as safet y, that may warrant the use of BAMM. Several BAMM related issues should be addressed in the Proposed Rule: • §93.3(l) should provide additional flexibility for use of BAMM; • EPA should ensure that BAMM is accessible bey ond 2014; • EPA should ensure that §93.3(l) criteria do not conflict with or supersede Subpart W BAMM provisions; and, • If BAMM provisions in both Subpart A and Subpart W apply , EPA should clarify and harmonize requirements and schedules under the two subparts, especia lly for the first and second reporting years for new reporters. As EPA is aware, INGAA members subject to Subpart W reporting have relied on Subpart W BAMM provisions to remedy unique or unusual circumstances and rule implementation complications during the initial reporting ye ars. For example, BAMM has been used to ad dress safet y issues associated with select compressor vent measurements, and has provided a means to243

address rule interpretation gaps, measurement method flexibility , and technical deficiencies as Subpart W has undergone numerous revisions since it was ado pted in November 2010. Subpart W revisions to date have not addressed substantive remaining issues

– e.g., associated with compressor vent measurement, and associated emission calculations and data roll - up. While the BAMM section of Subpart W notes that, “EPA does not anticipate a need for best available monitoring methods beyond 2011,” EPA has accepted that Subpart W BAMM has been necessary in subsequent y ears. Similar to the experience with Subpart W

– and EPA’s preconceived notion that BAMM would not be needed after 2011

– the §93.3(l)(2) limitation on BAMM bey ond 2014 could prove to be short - sighted as new facilities address reporting challenges (e.g., safe access for measurements) for the first time. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 104 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:**  4 **Comment:** EPA is proposing that new reporters who would be required to report under Part 98 as a result of the proposed changes to Table A - 1 would begin collecting data on January 1, 2014 for the 2014 reporting ye ar. New reporters would be requi red to submit their first reports, covering the 2014 reporting ye ar, on March 31, 2015. The intended schedule (including publication of an y final rule by the end of 2013) would allow time for new reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate monitoring equi pment for the 2014 reporting y ear. EPA is also proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.3(l) to subpart A to allow new reporters who would be required to report as a result of the proposed new or revised GWPs to have the option of using BAMM from January 1, 20 14 to March 31, 2014 for any parameter that cannot reasonably be measured according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements of a relevant subpart. Reporters would also have the opportunit y to request an extension for the use of BAMM beyond March 31, 2014; those owners or operators must submit a request to the Administrator by 60 day s after the effective date of the final rule. The EPA anticipates granting approval for BAMM no later than December 31, 2014. Any new reporter under any

applicable Subpart, esp ecially new reporters for Subpart W due to the complexity

of Subpart W, should have the option to use BAMM from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 without having to request BAMM coverage. BAMM is needed for this time period to provide newl y affected faciliti es sufficient time to come into compliance with the GHGRP requirements, for example to install monitoring devices or to bring existing monitoring devices into compliance.

104 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).244

**Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment . **Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** It is not clear how BAMM criteria in §93.3(l)(2) comport with Subpart W BAMM. EPA should not limit BAMM to a single ye ar, and should clarify the BAMM process under the Proposed Rule versus BAMM access under Subpart W. This clarification should address BAMM request criteria, ongoing requests beyond the initial reporting y ear, and the schedule for BAMM submittals. The proposed BAMM provisions in §93.3(l) could be interpreted as more li miting than BAMM provisions in Subpart W, and could be viewed as a limitation on newly affected facilities. In addition, schedules and documentation required are unclear for the two separate BAMM sections. For example, as explained by EPA in its Subpart W BAMM Fact Sheet, the process includes an option to submit a “notice of intent” by the BAMM deadline and the opportunity

to submit BAMM requests after the deadline if unforeseen situations arise. The May 1, 2013 Subpart W revision to the BAMM request deadli ne [78 FR 28392 - 28396] is further evidence that BAMM access beyond the initial reporting y ear is imperative. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comme nt:**  INGAA has strongl y advocated for BAMM access since Subpart W was proposed, because T&S sources require annual measurement and survey s. Other EPA regulations (e.g., NSPS, NESHAP, etc.) provide mechanisms to pursue alternatives (e.g., alternative method s, alternative standards, alternative monitoring), t ypi cally in the General Provisions. However, the GHG MRR does not provide such flexibility other than through use of BAMM. Thus, especiall y where measurement is mandatory , access to BAMM is a necessit y. A substantive record of IN GAA comments and communications with EPA further expounds this issue. It is possible that §93.3(l)(2) is intended to fill a gap related to new reporters and not compromise any Subpart W provisions. However, first y ear schedules and the possibility of “late” BAMM requests (according to Subpart W criteria) could still be an issue in this case, and clarification is needed. EPA should ensure flexibility for reporters to use BAMM when warranted and clarify245

applicability , BAMM accessibili ty , and schedules for §93.3(l)(2) versus §93.236(f) BAMM requests. Clarifications or harmonization are especially important for the first y ear (2014 reporting year) and second year (2015 reporting ye ar) for new reporters. **Response:** See Section II I . A .2 of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Lisa Beal, Vice President, Environment and Construction Policy , Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) **Commenter Affiliation:** Interstate Natural Gas Associ ation of America (INGAA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5 **Comment:** EPA plans to publish a final rule that implements GWP revisions in 2013, and concluded it is feasible for existing reporters to implement the proposed GWP revisions for the 2013 reporting year (March 31, 2014 reporting deadline). EPA also understands that revisions that increase a GHG’s GWP will result in a new reporting requirement for some facilities that are currentl y below the 25,000 metric tons CO 2 e reporting threshold, but would exceed the threshold due to the proposed increase in GWP (e.g., methane GWP for T&S facilities). These newl y affected facilities, which are referred to as “new reporters” in the preamble, would not be required to develop a 2013 inventory

– i.e., onl y future reporting is required. The Proposed Rule would apply

to new reporters on January 1, 2014, with an initial report deadline of March 31, 2015 for the 2014 reporting ye ar. INGAA agrees that GWP revisions will resu lt in some newly subject facilities

– e.g., due to the 19% increase in methane GWP. INGAA supports EPA’s decision to not require reporting for new reporters for the 2013 reporting year. As noted in the preamble, it is not feasible for these facilities to c ollect data, complete measurements, and develop a report for reporting ye ar 2013. Due to implementation logistics for data gathering and facility measurements, it is imperative that newl y subject facilities not be subject to 2013 reporting. INGAA also supp orts the provision that allows new reporters to use best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for the first three months of 2014. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the reporting schedule for new reporters who become subject to Part 9 8 for the first time due to the revisions to Table A - 1 of subpart A. EPA is finaliz ing these provisions prior to December 31, 2013 in order to ensure new reporters have enough time to come into compliance with the applicable Part 98 provisions. The BAMM pr ovisions in § 98.3(l) will allow additional flexibility for those new reporters who need additional time to install new monitoring equipment or calibrate existing monitoring devices. There are no changes to the rule as a result of this comment. See Section III.A of the preamble to the final rule for additional information.246

**Commenter Name:** Lo rraine Krupa Gershman, Director **Commenter Affiliation:** American Chemistry Council (ACC) 105 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0070 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** We support the provisions in §98.3(k)(2) for facilities newl y subject to reporting requirements due to the revised global warming potentials (GWPs) to begin collecting data on January 1, 2014 and then apply

for an extension of the use of Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) bey ond March 31, 2014, if additional time is needed for monitoring s ys tems to be installed. We appreciate EPA providing reasonable time to ensure proper data collection. However, we strongl y urge EPA to finalize these p rovisions prior to December 31, 2013 in order to ensure that facilities have enough time to come into compliance with these provisions. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1, Excerpt 5.

**Commenter Name:** Pamela F. Faggert, Vice Pr esident and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Dominion Resources Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0073 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** We Support EPA's Plan to Defer Reporting to the 2014 Reporting Year for Facilities that Bec ome Subject to Reporting Due to GWP Increases **.** Presuming the proposed revisions to the MRR are finalized, reporting entities would apply the updated GWPs for calculating emissions for the 2013 annual reports due in March 2014. Facilities that become newly subject to reporting due solel y to the GWP increase would not be required to submit a 2013 report under EPA's proposal. These facilities would initiate data collection January 1, 2014 and be allowed use of best available monitoring methods (BAMM) for three months. We support this proposed approach. Due to implementation logistics for data gathering and facility measurements, it is imperative that newl y subject facilities not be required to submit a 2013 reporting. **Response:** See response to comment EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0059 - A1, Excerpt 5.

105 The comments of the American Chemistry Council were also supported by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC) (EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0106).247



### 35.0 **Confidentiality Determinations and Data Category Assignments For New**  **or Substantially Revised Data Elements 35.1**  **Approach to CBI determinations and data category assignments for new or revised data elements**  **Commenter Name:** Will iam C. Herz, Vice President, Scientific Programs **Commenter Affiliation:** The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0036 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 11 **Comment:** EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR §98.266(f)(8) to add a require ment to report the number of times missing data procedures were used to estimate the CO 2 content of the phosphate rock. According to EPA, this requirement, like the one currently contained in (f)(8), will be eligible for a confidentiality claim and that su ch a claim will be evaluated on a case - by - case basis. TFI supports EPA’s position that reporters may claim this data element as confidential. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

### 36.0 **Impact of the Proposed Rule 36.1**  **Comments regarding impacts/burd en of new**  **or revised GWPs in Table A**  **- 1**  **Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 9 **Comment:** The Proposed Rule does not calculate the complete cost of amending Table A - 1. The proposal merel y estimates the costs that would be incurred b y new reporters, i.e. facilities that become subject to the Reporting Rule due to the amended GWP values. 78 Fed. Reg. at 19839 - 41. The EPA should also calculate the costs incurred b y facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values, and solicit public comment on the new cost calculations. The costs of performing a PSD review and obta ining a Title V permit are substantial. The process of obtaining a s ynthetic minor permit are lower but not insignificant. In addition, some projects will be delay ed or modified because of the requirement to obtain a permit before commencing construction. These costs are especiall y significant in cases where a compan y planned and designed a project with the expectation that the facility would be a minor source for purposes of PSD, but must now conduct a PSD review because the facility is a major source unde r the new GWP values. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.248

**Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Document Co ntrol Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The proposed change to the Reporting Rule would, on paper, raise the CO 2 e emissions of all facilities that emit methane. Some minor source facilities would become major source s for purposes of PSD and/or Title V. The owners or operators of these facilities would have to obtain Title V, and potentially PSD permits. The expansion of the universe of sources subject to permitting requirements and/or regulation as a major source is the most significant impact of the Proposed Rule. The applicabilit y of PSD permitting requirements to additional sources will delay

projects, increase costs, and restrict economic activity . These added burdens are unwarranted, particularly in light of the fact that these added burdens are not a response to any increase in emissions. **Response:** EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Impacts Analy sis for the GHG reporting rule must include the costs incurred b y facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values. See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment . **Commenter Name:** James C. Moore, Manager, Health, Safet y, and Environment **Commenter Affiliation:** QEP Field Services Company **Docum ent Control Number:**  EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0066 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 **Comment:** Given that the substantive impact of the Proposed Rule is to push additional sources above GHG major source thresholds, EPA should fully evaluate that impact. It is not sufficient for EPA to state that the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards “will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 19809.Guidance is no substitute for an effective rulemaking. Such “issues and concerns” must be addressed through public comment before promulgation of the final rule. **Response:** EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Impacts Analy sis for the GHG reporting rule must include the costs incurred b y facilities that become major sources of GHGs as a result of the amended GWP values. See Section s II.A.2.c and V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA’s response to this comment . **Commenter Name:** Mike Roddy , Director of Environmental Affa irs **Commenter Affiliation:** Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc.249

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0042 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 3 **Comment:** If EPA's primary concern is consistency between GHGRP and Inventory reporting, that could be achieve d by simply converting GHGRP data exactly as EPA is proposing to do for historically

reported 2010 - 2012 GHG emissions. This would achieve the consistency EPA seeks between GHGRP and Inventory data without creating undue uncertaint y and other impacts within other regulatory

programs. Finally , if EPA is determined to make these revisions, it must first provide some meaningful anal ys is of the impacts on these changes on regulators and industry under other affected regulatory programs, instead of simply punting on the issue. See, e.g., 78 Fed. Reg. at 19809 ("To the extent that [GWP revisions] . . . raise[] permitting implementation questions or concerns, EPA's regional offices and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manage the PSD and title V programs, will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns."). **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, we are finalizing the amendments to Table A - 1 as descri bed in Section II.A.1 of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding EPA’s use and periodic updating of GWPs, see Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule. Regarding the impacts of the proposed changes to Table A - 1 on other affected regulatory

prog rams, see Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule.

**Commenter Name:** Kerry Kelly , Director, Federal Public & Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Waste Management (WM) 106 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0041 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Numb er:**  22 **Comment:** EPA’s technical corrections recognize that two of the 42 subparts (Subparts W and HH), would bear the greatest adverse impact by the change in GWP. A detailed anal ys is of the cost and economic impacts is included in EPA’s Impacts Anal ys is (docket ID No. EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0022). As described below, WM’s review of the Impacts Analy sis indicates that EPA significantl y underestimated both the number of newl y subject Subpart HH MSW Landfills and the added costs of compliance imposed by these changes on both new and existing reporters. First, the Impacts Anal ys is concludes that no closed landfills would be newly impacted by

the change in GWP and therefore, no closed landfills are included in the cost impact anal ys is. It is unclear how EPA rea ched this conclusion. Based on a review of our MSW landfills, WM identified several closed landfills with methane generations between 21,000 and 24,999 metric tons/y ear CO 2 e that could exceed the threshold due to the proposed revision of the GWP for methan e. Although emissions from these landfills are very low and will steadily

decline, they would be pulled into the GHG MRR and required to report for at least three to five y ears. In

106 The comments submitted by Waste Management were also supported by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (E PA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0056 - A1).250

addition, because they

are closed, they

do not generate revenue to offset n ew compliance costs, and would thus face a significant impact. This situation is also likely to arise for small municipalities that own closed facilities. Second, we find that EPA has underestimated the cost of complying with the reporting requirements un der Subpart HH. Table 11 of the Technical Corrections and Tables 4 - 1 and 6 - 16 of the Impacts Analy sis state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial y ear of reporting and $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent y ears of reporting, in 2011 US Dollars. Based on WM’s three years of reporting experience, the actual annual costs to comply with the monitoring recordkeeping and reporting requirements are four to five times higher than EPA estimates. WM submitted data on ongoing reporting costs to EPA on October 1, 2012. These data showed that the annual cost per landfill for subsequent ye ars of reporting was $11,412. This cost estimate does not include the cost of responding to EPA question s raised on facility reports that by

rule require a facility

to respond within 45 day s, and if applicable, make corrections and re - submit reports. This cost can be significant depending on the nature of the EPA inquiry . EPA also did not account for this as part of its Impact Anal ys is. In our previous submission to EPA, we also noted that WM’s costs per site is likely

to be lower than for smaller companies or even municipalities because as a large compan y, we are able to take advantage of economies of scale in purchasing services and equipment. Third, EPA failed to recognize that revised GWPs will delay the date by

which low - emitting MSW landfills can exit the reporting program. Subpart A of the GHG MRR includes provisions for facilities to exit the reportin g program once actual emissions fall below the 25,000 CO 2 e threshold for five consecutive y ears (see 40 C.F.R. 98.2(i)). The Impacts Analy sis estimates methane generation at a closed landfill decreases 18% in 5 y ears, or 3.6% annually . However, an increase in GWP from 21 to 25 will increase modeled emissions by 20% and will therefore delay exit from the reporting program obligations b y more than 5 ye ars. Most closed landfills that report under the GHG MRR, y et are near the exit threshold, are required to es timate actual emissions based on methane generation (Equation HH - 5). This is the case because the landfills cannot operate active gas collection and control s ystems without augmenting the s ys tem with fossil fuel (e.g., propane) because they produce such a low quantit y of methane. These older, closed landfills, which are actuall y experiencing decreasing emissions, will be adversel y affected by the GWP value change and will be trapped in the program for a significantly longer time. Both the technical correct ions package and the Impacts Anal ys is conclude that the change in GWP will not affect the cost of monitoring and recordkeeping and would not materially affect the cost for calculating emissions. This is incorrect. Such delay does have a direct financial impact for these facilities. Closed landfills do not generate revenue, yet these facilities will incur additional annual compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs solely due to the change in GWP. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment.251

**Commenter Name:** John Skinner, Executive Director and CEO **Commenter Affiliation:** Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0067 - A1 **Comment Excerpt N umber:**  6 **Comment:** EPA concluded in its analy sis that no closed landfills would be newl y impacted b y the change in GWP and therefore, not included in the cost anal ys is. Data we have received from industry representatives clearl y show that there are many c losed sites with methane generation between 21,000 and 24,999 metric tons/y ear CO 2 e that could exceed the threshold due to the proposed GWP revision. In addition, EPA failed to recognize that revised GWPs will delay the date b y which low - emitting MSW landf ills can exit the reporting program. Bringing new closed landfills into reporting and causing delay exiting the program will have a direct financial impact for facilities, many

of which are small municipalities. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble t o the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** David Biderman, General Counsel, Vice President (VP), Government Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA) 107 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - O AR - 2012 - 0934 - 0053 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** EPA significantly underestimates the number of newl y subject Subpart HH municipal solid waste (MSW) Landfills, as well as the compliance costs for both new and existing reporters, associated with th e increase in the GWP for methane. EPA's Impacts Anal ys is fails to recognize that Subpart A of the Reporting Rule includes provisions for facilities to exit the reporting program once actual emissions fall below the 25,000 CO 2 e threshold for five consecuti ve ye ars (see 40 CFR 98.2(i)). As proposed, the GHG MRR revisions pose a direct financial impact on existing and new reporters. Table 11 of the technical corrections and Tables 4 - 1 and 6 - 16 of the Impacts Anal ys is state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial y ear of reporting, and $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent y ears of reporting, in 2011 US Dollars. Based on our members' reporting experience, the actual annual costs to comply

with the monitoring recor dkeeping and reporting requirements are four to five times higher than EPA estimates. An increase in GWP from 21 to 25 will increase modeled emissions by

nearly 20% and will therefore delay exit from the reporting program obligations b y more than 5 years f

or many low - emitting, primarily

closed, landfills. Closed landfills do not generate revenue, yet these facilities will incur additional annual compliance monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting costs solel y due to the change in GWP. EPA's Impacts Anal ys is

107 This comment was also submitted by Stanislaus County, CA., Environmental Resources Department (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0038) and Tetra Tech Bas (Docket Id. No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0086 - A2).252

incorrectly

assumed there would be no material financial impact to landfills, particularl y closed landfills. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air C ompliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 6 **Comment:** Republic is concerned that the data source and estimation approach used for impact anal ys is has underesti mated the number of landfills that will become subject to Subpart HH. The Impact Anal ys is relies on the 2006 LMOP database information, of which the report recognizes does not include small MSW landfills, to determine the number of additional affected MSW landfills [docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0022]. The small MSW landfills are at the greatest risk of becoming subject to the rule and would encompass numerous small closed landfills that are most likely not a part of the 2006 LMOP database. The relianc e of such data to conclude there is no impact to closed landfills inaccurately represents the economic and regulatory

impact to the MSW landfill sector. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Comme nter Name:**  Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Services, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 7 **Comment:** The Impact Analy sis does not recognize the increase cost to M SW landfills due to increased reportable CO 2 e emissions attributed to a higher GWP of methane. On the surface this change appears to be only a calculation change not requiring additional monitoring and recordkeeping. However the calculations will result in higher emissions that will delay when a facility can use the off

- ramp provisions included in the GHGRP Subpart A. The ability for existing facilities to demonstrate exiting the GHGRP is directly tied to the actual CO 2 e emission that will increase due to a higher methane GWP as indicated in the Impact Analy sis. Therefore causing a direct financial increase to cost related to extending the number of years a facility is required to monitor and report. The delay of exiting the program will have the greatest impact on closed smaller MSW landfills where there is no “actual” increase to emissions and the emissions are declining each ye ar any way . The financial cost burden associated with extending the number of y ears required to report is therefore unnecessary and burdensome and should be considered in the Impact Anal ys is.253

**Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Niki Wuestenberg, Manager, Air Compliance, **Commenter Affiliation:** Republic Servi ces, Inc. **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0057 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 8 **Comment:** Republic’s review of the cost impact to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements under Subpart HH indicates that the impact cost is underesti mated. The cost impact relies on the original Regulatory Impact Analy sis for Subpart HH (U.S. EPA, 2009b) and does not consider actual cost incurred b y reporters over the last three (3) y ears of reporting. On October 1, 2012 as a part of EPA’s process of r enewing the Information Collection Request (I CR) for the GHGRP, Republic provided a cost analy sis that estimated the actual cost to range from $10,000 to $15,000 per site based on our reporting experience. This is significantl y higher than the incremental cost impact provided in Table 11 of the technical corrections and Tables 4 - 1 and 6 - 16 of the Impacts Analy sis that state the incremental annual cost impact for new Subpart HH reporters is $309,700 or $5,434 per facility for the initial y ear of reporting an d $137,500 or $2,413 per site in subsequent y ears of reporting. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliatio n:**  American Petroleum Institute (API ) 108 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 **Comment:** E PA projects the cost for new reporters to comply with these revisions for the first ye ar of reporting under Subpart W to b e $3,400,000, and for subsequent y ears to be $860,000. No cost impacts are listed for Subparts X, Y, or NN, although EPA is proposing clarification revisions for those subparts. (Full anal ys is of the impacts is provided I the Docket under EPA HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0 934. EPA ’ s estimate of the cost implications for new reporters under Subpart W equate to $34,343 per reporting facility

for the first y ear, and $8,687 per reporting facility for subsequent y ears. This significantl y under - represents the actual cost burden imposed by the GHGRP. APIpreviousl y assessed the costs for reporting under the GHGRP (submitted under Docket EPA

–HQ

– OAR

– 2012

– 0333) based on surveying member companies on the actual resource requirements of complying with the rule. API ’ s data indicate that for Onshore Production facilities that are

108 The comments of th e American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company (EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).254

subject to Subpart W reporting, the continuing burden would average close to $ 400,000 (ranging from to $25,000 to $ 1,500,000). These represent ongoing annual costs to comply with the GHGRP. Costs for the first reporting ye ar would be significantly higher. In addition, EPA's cost estimate assumes that this industry sector will incur capital costs, while it presumes no O&M costs. In realit y, the majorit y of the costs incurred b y oil and natura l gas industry reporters are O&M costs, through the use of either internal resources or external experts to support data collection, data archiving, anal ys is and reporting functions. **Response:** First, EPA disagrees with the comment that our cost estimates significantl y under represent the actual cost burden imposed by the GHGRP. We estimated the total cost burden on all new subpart W reporting facilities (due to revised GWP) to be $ 1,648,000 for the first ye ar of reporting and $ 772 ,000 for subsequent y ears . These estimates are based on average costs per facility that were determined using the number of expected new reporters (due to revised GWP) and the original cost analyses we conducted in the Economic Impact Anal ysis. As stated previously

in our response to public comments on the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Subpart W

– Petroleum and Natural Gas (see Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2009 - 0923), we concluded, after evaluating numerous comments about significantl y underestimating subpart W reporting burd en, that the Agency ’s methodology and assumptions used in the Economic Impact Anal ys is were sound and relied on best available data. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the Economic Impact Analy sis to estimate total cost burden on all new subpart W reportin g facilities (due to revised GWP). The Economic Impact Anal ys is provides a reasonable characterization of costs and adequate explanation of how the costs were estimated. As we discussed in the preamble Section III of the final Part 98, EPA collected and ev aluated cost data from multiple sources, thoroughl y reviewed the input received through public comments, and weighed the anal ys is prepared for the proposal against this input. Second, with regard to the comment that EPA presumes no O&M costs associated with the burden and cost estimates for Subpart W, we responded to a similar comment received in our most recent Information Collection Request (see EPA's response to comments on the greenhouse gas reporting program renewal ICR dated May 2013 in Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0333). In our response, we acknowledged that there will be continued costs for compl yi ng with the GHGRP. We also explained that the costs for these activities are included in the burden anal ys is; and the O&M cost of zero represented travel costs of zero associated with complying the GHGRP for the onshore production segment. O&M activities that incur costs from emplo yee or contractor hours worked are included under the labor hours estimate, not under the O&M estimates. Similarly , upkeep and r eplacement of capital assets are included under the annualized capital costs. Given these considerations, EPA has determined that the costs used in the Economic Impact Analy sis for the final Part 98 are appropriate for estimate of the total cost burden for new subpart W facilities that would be required to report due to revised GWPs. There are no changes to the impact anal ys is as a result of this comment. **Commenter Name:** Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC)255

**Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15A **Comment:** We support EPA’s efforts to “get it right” when scientific data indicates that previous estimation methods under - or over - estimate GHG emissions. AF&PA and AWC urge EPA, however, to balance these interests against the burden being imposed on the regulated community . Every

time EPA changes the GWP to be used for reporting emissions o f a GHG, companies have to expend substantial efforts to revise sy stems they have developed and put in place, often at considerable cost, to collect the required information, appl y the GHG emission estimation methods EPA requires, and consolidate and repor t GHG emission estimates to EPA. The same is true of changes to other factors used in estimating a facility ’s GHG emissions, such as default emission factors or high heat values, some of which EPA has proposed to change b y only a few 100ths of a percent. ( The burden would be even greater if sources were required to go back and re - calculate all their emissions estimates for past years.) Not onl y does this impose substantial burdens on businesses and public and private institutions, it also introduces the pot ential for errors every

time existing reporting sy stems have to be modified. **Response:** Updating the values in Table A - 1 to adopt the values from the IPCC AR4 ensures that the emissions estimates for these compounds are consistent with best data currentl y available, based on GWP values that are more up - to - date relative to the values previously provided in Table A - 1. The changes also make the emissions reported under the Part 98 consistent with other programs, including the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC. It is beneficial for both regulatory agencies and industry

to use similar GWPs for these compounds across programs to reduce confusion and ensure that GHG emissions are easily compared. As stated in Section II.A.2.a of the preamble to the final rule, we do not anticipate updating Table A - 1 more frequently than once every

few y ears. 

### 36.2 **Comments re garding**  **impacts/burden of the technical corrections Commenter Name:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF& PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 15 B **Comment :**  We support EPA’s efforts to “get it right” when scientific data indicates that previous estimation methods under - or over - estimate GHG emissions. AF&PA and AWC urge EPA, however, to balance these interests against the burden being imposed on the regulated community . Every

time EPA changes the GWP to be used for reporting emissi ons of a GHG, companies have to expend substantial efforts to revise sy stems they have developed and put in place, often at considerable cost, to collect the required information, appl y the GHG emission estimation methods EPA requires, and consolidate and report GHG emission estimates to EPA. The same is true of changes to other factors used in estimating a facility ’s GHG emissions, such as default emission factors or high heat values, some of which EPA has proposed to change b y only a few 100ths of a perce nt. (The burden would be even greater if sources were required to go back and re - calculate all their emissions estimates for past years.) Not onl y does this impose256

substantial burdens on businesses and public and private institutions, it also introduces th e potential for errors every

time existing reporting sy stems have to be modified. **Response:** As EPA stated in the preamble for the proposed amendments (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013), the amendments reflect EPA’s engagement with reporters and stakeholders and our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of Part 98 provisions. The changes improve the GHGRP b y clarifying compliance obligations and reducing confusion for reporters, improving the consistency of the data co llected, and ensuring that data collected through the GHGRP is representative of industry and comparable to other inventories. The proposed changes correct errors, simplify data collection and reporting for reporters, and reduce the burden associated with implementing certain provisions of 40 CFR part 98. These clarifications and corrections do not fundamentally affect the applicabilit y, monitoring requirements, or data collected and reported or increase the recordkeeping and reporting burden associated with Part 98. EPA estimated the impacts of the corrections, clarifying, and other amendments in the Final Impacts Anal ys is in Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 and determined that the impacts from these changes was minimal. With these considerations, the am endments to the final rule do not present an undue burden on reporters, but improve the reporting under the GHGRP.

**Commenter Name:** Karin Ritter, Manager, Regulatory and Scientific Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** American Petroleum Institute (API ) 109 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0047 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 38 **Comment:** EPA is neglecting to account for the costs incurred b y existing reporters to implement changes into their internal reporting systems due to the revised GWP values, revised fuel emission factors and heating value factors, and other revisions that will result in changes to reporting forms or the xml schema. **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to the final rule for EPA's response to this comment. **Commenter Nam e:**  Paul Noe, Vice President, Public Policy , American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and Robert Glowinski, President, **Commenter Affiliation:** American Wood Council (AWC) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0058 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 16

109 The comments of the American Petroleum Institute were also supported by Marathon Oil Company ( EPA - HQ OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0114 ).257

**Comment:** As we understand it, the primary use for GHG emissions reported under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule is for comparative purposes

— determining trends in GHG emissions, comparing U.S. emissions to those of other countries, etc. For those purpose s, the accuracy of emissions estimates is less important than that they be relatively

comparable. Additionally , EPA needs to recognize that, of necessity , the precision of individual facility GHG emission estimates, much less of national aggregate emission s, is not particularly high. Man y of the monitoring methods or anal yt ical methods involved in estimating GHG emissions under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule may onl y have a precision of +/ - 15 percent or more (such as the BOD test), and the emission fact ors EPA uses in the Rule also are necessarily averages that may be substantially

higher or lower than the actual emissions from a particular process at a particular facility . In that context, making relatively small revisions to the methods for calculating estimated GHG emissions is not going to produce a benefit that warrants the substantial burden imposed on regulated facilities to adjust to those revisions. For that reason, AF&PA and AWC suggest that, in the future, EPA not promulgate changes to GWPs, no r other changes to the methodologies for estimating GHG emissions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, if the change is unlikely to produce more than a 5 percent change in estimated emissions (nationwide, in the case of something like GWPs, or for the sou rce category , in the case of changes to source specific GHG emission estimation methods). This will assure that GHG emission estimates are relativel y accurate, without requiring regulated facilities to make numerous small ye t burdensome adjustments to thei r GHG emission reporting s ys tems that will not in fact result in significantl y more accurate estimates (especiall y in light of other sources of imprecision and inaccuracy in the emission estimation methods). **Response:** See Section V.C of the preamble to th e final rule for EPA's response to this comment. 

### 37.0 **General Comments on the Proposed Amendments 37.1**  **General support for the amendments Commenter Name:**  J. Lisak 110 **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comment campaign **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0101 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** With my

experience as a farmer, I can assure y ou we are already experiencing some serious issues due to climate change, not only in crop production but also in the migration of disease carrying pests. In addition, being from a state that is poised to have 150,000 gas wells and that has a history

of gas production, I guarantee you that we have a growing problem with increasing CO 2 and CH 4 emissions. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

110 The commenter submitted co mments under a mass comment campaign. See excerpts for DCN EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0934 - 0065.258

**Commenter Name:** V. Jones 110 **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comment campaign **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0096 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2 **Comment:** This is absolutely crucial now that we have already reached the 400ppm levels of CO 2 - we need to do all we can NOW - it is alread y very late to curb some of the drastic consequences of the changes in the climate that our actions are bringing about. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support of the rule.

**Commenter Name:** L. Usech ak 110 **Commenter Affiliation:** Mass comment campaign **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0095 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** As we are alread y dealing with the effects of climate change in our ocean and in increasingl y fierce weather patterns, I appreciate that EPA is updating its GHG RR. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:** Anony mous Public Comment 111 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0031 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 1 **Comment:** The proposed ru le should be held in a necessary urgency ; the warning of such climate effects should be addressed. Although the length of this document is length y, nearl y every revision should be considered to be put into effect. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for th eir support.

**Commenter Name:** D. McKee 110 **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0108 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 2

111 The commenter submitted comments under a mass comment campaign. See excerpts for DCN EPA - HQ - OAR 2012 - 0934 - 0065.259

**Comment:** With the devastating impacts of climate change increasing every day , Iappreciate that EPA is updating its GHG RR. At thi s critical time, it is essential that EPA continue to make use of the best available science in its regulatory decisions. Better science leads to better reporting. Better reporting leads to better policy decisions, which translates into a better quality of life for all Americans, now and in the future. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their support.

**Commenter Name:**  N. Rapp **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0093 - A1 **Comment:** I am glad yo u are updating the latest Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (GHGRR), but you are not doing it in the way it needs to be done!!! YOU ARE NOT INCLUDI NG THE CONTRIBUT ION METHANE MAKES TO GLOBAL WARMING! **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their sup port of the amendments. For EPA’s response to comments related to the GWP for methane, see section 2.8 of this document. 

### 38.0 **Out of Scope Comments 38.1**  **General comments on e -**  **GGRT or reporting questions Commenter Name:**  Russell A. Wozniak, EH&S Operations Regulatory Services **Commenter Affiliation:** The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0044 - A1 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 4 The e - GGRT reporting tool "times - out" too quickly during periods of inactivity . For more complex data entry

s ubparts, this is causing a significant nuisance problem for our reporting sites. We request that the sy stem not "time - out" unless there are greater than 15 minutes of inactivity . The current system frequentl y logs the reporting personnel out, and then they must log back in. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, this comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. EPA will consider this comment in future versions of e - GGRT.

**Commenter Name:** Jennifer Cleary , Director, Regulatory Affairs **Commenter Affiliation:** Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0076 - A2 **Comment Excerpt Number:** 5260

**Comment:** AHAM notes that because e - GGRT seems to b e built on a facility model, it is not intuitive for reporters who are not facilities, such as many reporters that report under Subpart QQ. For example, when a compan y is reporting under Subpart QQ as a company, not a facilit y, many of the data inputs that are specific to facilities still appear on the tool. It would be easier if e - GGRT could identify

a facility versus a company

reporter and provide only the data elements applicable to each. That would make the process less confusing, and, therefore, less b urdensome. **Response:** EPA thanks the commenter for their input; however, this comment is outside of the scope of this rulemaking. EPA will consider this comment in future versions of e - GGRT. 

### 38.2 **General comments outside of the scope of the amendments** The EPA received the following comments, which do not specificall y address the proposed rule and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Therefore, the EPA is not responding to these comments in this document. These commenters also submitted comments through a m ass comment campaign. See excerpts from DCN EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0065 - A1. **Commenter Name:** B. Clark **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0111 - A1 **Comment:** My

thinking is that water, our available drinking water, is the most important resource to protect. And talking about air pollution when fracking gas wells take millions of gallons of water needs to be looked at now. The drilling and fracking must be stopped. I live in Fort Worth Texas and we have been invaded and the land, air, water and neighb orhoods have been raped. It is unbelievable that this continues. Now they are talking about compressing and exporting. Does every one reall y believe that we should complacentl y stand by and deplete our water suppl y? It is insanity ! Please, please help! Wate r is our most precious resource. It is irreplaceable. **Commenter Name:** T. Motes **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0112 - A1 **Comment:** I realize that you are in a difficult position, since the President supports the natural gas industry

while the EPA is supposed to be regulating greenhouse gases. I know that you know that methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and we need to act accordingl y. The EPA has been a strong champion of clean air and water, despite massive politi cal opposition, and I support what you are doing. But please don't water down the negative effects of gas drilling on your Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. Pretending gas drilling has less of a negative impact on the climate will not make it so. Please take the actual potency of methane into account when regulating greenhouse gases. **Commenter Name:** G. Hogan **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0092 - A1 **Comment:** The other concern is that release of Methane during the drilling process and completion p rocess of shale drilling is unnecessary. There are technologies to prevent these releases of Ozone producing methane. The 25 tons per annual does not take into account the cumulative effect of hundreds of well sites in dense urban environments. Many times several pad sites can be within a mile of an y neighborhood such as my own Texas city

Fort Worth.261

**Commenter Name:** D. Lassaw **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0094 - A1 **Comment:** I can SEE gas wells from my house in so - called pristine Alaska - at l east it used to be before the filthy

gas wells began flaring. They are loud, they

smell - AND they

use thousands of gallons of OUR WATER. not only climate change but all life is in danger from polluted water. Please remember this. **Commenter Name:** C. Dy kstr a **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0098 - A1 **Comment:** I’ve been researching fracking since I first saw “Gasland” and began Googling “ fracking ” and cities such as “Athens, Ohio” when a giant boulder crushed a home and two cars: http://www.huffi ngtonpost.com/2012/03/21/boulder - crushes - 2 - cars - house_n_1370654.html, and “Clintonville , Wisconsin” when people began reporting strange sonic booms: http://suite101.com/article/ clintonville - wisconsin - my sterious - booms - explained - a405227 , and “Duluth, Minneso ta” when normal flooding caused unbelievable sink holes which destroy ed the town: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC - 805077, and the location of fracking wells whenever out of - control wildfires raged in states such as California and Colorado (always over area s with live wells, naturall y), and the Bayou Frack - Out : The Massive Oil and Gas Disaster You've Never Heard Of: http://truth - out.org/news/item/ 13136 - bayou - frack - out - the - massive - oil - and - ga s disaster - youve - never - heard - of, and the most recent and absolutely d evastating explosions that set West Virginia and caused untold damage . As scientists have proved, fracking does indeed cause Earthquakes... and New York sits on a huge fault line. New York’s entire economy relies upon Agriculture (we’re #4 in regard to top a griculture states!) and Touris m. Fracking will destro y both. We really

must ensure New York is NEVER fracked! With the severe drought which affected 61% of the lower contiguous states this past summer, we lost a substantial amount of crops. **Commenter Name :**  V. Anderson **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0099 - A1 **Comment:** If the FRACKERS are so certain that they will NOT cause any problems then they , the FRACKING owners, developers, installers and operators should be freely willing to POST a FIVE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR ($500,000,000,000) BOND against all environmental problems (air, land, and water) and detrimental problems to people, farms, businesses, recreation al activities, wildlife and homes to the extent as determined by these groups that the perpetrators have caused and created an y adverse problems. **Commenter Name:** G. Seger **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0104 - A1 **Comment:** Fracking Waste Wate r is toxic killing animals in four hours after drinking and getting into the drinking water suppl y for humans and into the eco - sy stem. Read the report by Cornell Veterinarian College. Methane Gas is a known, Carcinogenic, Immunotoxicant , Neurotoxicant and Pulmonary Toxicant. **Commenter Name:** K. Rowlett **Document Control Number:** EPA - HQ - OAR - 2012 - 0934 - 0103 - A1 **Comment:** We do not need fracking of any kind! The natural gas industry possibly should be outlawed. If the TVA is being sold, it needs to be to a fully American owned company , and have262

a democratic focus. Or possibly , the TVA should be purchased and restructured into The Center for Democratic Energy , Environmental Justice, and Civil Rights Cooperative, possibly owned b y the government but inherently democ rat, thus allowing these areas to alway s, in an uninterrupted fashion to have science and more public health in our focus, while shifting the focus from Christianity to the right, to Christianity to the left keeping the southern culture intact, and with mu ch more environmental health needs, taken into account. We DO NOT NEED the Storm Water Authority

to take the place of the TVA, now or in the future. Itwould better, if that were the only choice, to retain the TVA, restructured to alway s, without exception , be much more democrat and civil rights in its nature.