Summary of Interagency Working Comments under EO12866 

Subject to Further Policy Review

1) We suggest that EPA make a clear statement in the summary section that “although we 

proposed a determination for the direct emitter data category Inputs to Equations, we 

have decided not to make a final determination for this data category in this action” (text 

copied from p 23) 

2) P 23 – Finalizing CBI determinations for 23 new data elements – Logical outgrowth? 

3) P 28 – “We consider the 60-day comment period to be more than adequate .. to respond 

to request for information substantiating a CBI claim (see 40 CFR 2.204 (e) ). Given that 

the commenter’s complaint is based on the premise that the process was changed to make 

them present all claims in advance, this response would be strengthened by including 

language similar to that in the next response on page 30 “further, during the comment 

period, the reporting facilities were able to consider the Agencie’s proposed ....under the 

existing CB regulations that apply to non-part 98 data.” 

4) P 32, last sentence before section 4: It might be helpful here to add language to explicitly 

make the logical argument that the 60 day period provided ample opportunity and time to 

rebut, given that the existing regs allow for only 15 days. 

5) P 35 “We therefore conclude that a proposed confidentiality determination is not 

necessary for these 23 data elements and have included final confidentiality 

determination for these data elements consistent with the final determination for the same 

or similar data elements.” Are there potential logical outgrowth issues here? Does it 

make sense for EPA to more explicitly address whether the public should have had the 

opportunity to comment on or rebut EPA’s determination that these data elements are 

“same or similar” to others? 

6) P 36 “With respect to the new data elements assigned to data categories where 

determinations are made for each individual data element, .... In these data categories.” 

If EPA made individual determinations for the existing data elements in these “mixed” 

categories, then what does it mean to say that EPA’s individual determinations for the 

new elements were “consistent with other data elements in these data categories”? Does 

this mean that determinations for the new elements were made using the same criteria or 

the same process as the determinations for the existing elements? If so, then should the 

focus here be on the consistent criteria or the consistent process rather than on the 

consistency of the determinations themselves? 

7) P 37 “As explained in the notices mentioned above, EPA believes that it is important ..” 

A more transparent approach here would be to summarize the explanation in addition to 

providing a reference to prior notices. 

8) P 37 “it is important that it complete its evaluation and final confidentiality determination 

for the data elements in this category before collecting such data.” Aren’t there other 

data elements (in other categories) where EPA has made individual decisions to defer the 

confidentiality determination (or even to make individual rather than categorical 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments under EO12866 

Subject to Further Policy Review

determinations) yet still go ahead and collect the data starting this year? (See, e.g. 

discussion of data elements relating to description of industrial wastewater treatment 

factilities and underground coal mine gas collection systems in section II B.6 below). 

EPA could explain more clearly hwere why it is important for confidentiality of “Inputs 

to Emission Equations” data to be determined first, before collecting the data, given that 

confidentiality determinations for other data can be made after the data is reported. 

9) P 38 number of process lines or unit over which emissions would be summed – This 

explanation could be more clear; the public may assume that under a common sense 

approach, the number of units would be a factor “used in” an emissions calculation. 

10) P 38 Actual values used to calculate the emissions – how can total emissions be 

calculated without knowing the number of units? So how could it not be an “actual value 

used to calculate the emissions”? 

11) P 40. “Categories could cause potential to some reporters”. The word “harm” is 

probably missing here. 

12) P 41 “Others stated that EPA should have published the CBI proposal before entering 

into settlement discussions with industry and that EPA’s failure to do so prejudiced the 

industries that participated in those settlements.” There is no context or antecedent for 

this discussion of “settlements”. 

13) P 45. “The comments relate to data elements in the Inputs to Emissions Equations 

category, as the use of CEMS reduces the number of data elements necessary...” If a 

facility has 24 process units with a unified exhaust system such that CEMS would be 

feasible, but the data element for number of process units has been moved out of the 

“inputs to emissions equations” category and into another category and if it were 

determined to be non-CBI, then couldn’t the comment that reporters should have 

opportunity to purchase and install CEMS still be valid? 

14) P 51. “In this final action, we have moved 17 data elements to the Unit/Process “static” 

operating characteristics ...” to be more transparent, this could say that they are moved 

*from* the “Inputs to Emission Equations” category. 

15) P 51. “Number and Type of each source of equipment leaks...” Ae these leaks of GHGs 

or that affect production of GHGs? If the leaks are, or affect, GHGs then is the point 

here that these vacilities have some (non Y-21) methodology for determining GHGs 

without knowing the number and type of leaks? If there is not asuch a methodology then 

how does the leak information not meet the definition at 40 CFR 2.301 (a)(2)(i)(A) of 

“information necessary...”? 

16) P 51 “number of cement kilns ... “ and “total number of glass furnaces”. Are all 

methodologies for determining emissions for thse facilities based only on facility-wide 

factors (e.g. total iinputs and outputs; or CEMS) rather than per-production-unit 

calculations? If so, then to better justify moving these elements to this new category, can 
Summary of Interagency Working Comments under EO12866 

Subject to Further Policy Review

EPA briefly explain here (in II.B.6 below) why it is that calculating emissions for these 

facilities would not require this information – rather than, or in addition to, the 

explanation currently in IIB.6, which is a somewhat conclusory statement that that data 

elements are of the “same type”as others in this category? 

II.B.6 below appears to be primarily focused on supporting the confidentiality 

determinations for individual data elements in this category, rather than the decision to 

move some elements from “Inputs to Emissions Equations” to this category. Given that 

the latter decision now affects not only (potentially) confidentiality status but also 

reporting itself, it may be helpful to justify this decision in II.B 6 as much as possible. 

Same comment for 8 – 17 on page 52. 

17) P 84 “With respect to the remaining 37 data elements...” It appears that only 5, not 

14,elements were given confidential treatment. Is the math correct here? 

18) P 93 “... these data elements to the Test and Calibration methods category, which 

contains...” This suggests that the element was moved from one category to the SAME 

category. Can this be stated more clearly? 

19) Could EPA please share the comment(s) that argued that EPA does not have authority to 

make categorical determinations? 

20) After this rule is promulgated, what is the procedure by which a respondent entity could 

challenge EPA’s determination of whether a single element or group of elements should 

in fact be CBI? Must they file a petition, or is there another mechanism to review the 

determination prior to the release of the data to the public?