Industry Meeting on 

MRR CBI Proposal

August 31, 2010
CBI Proposal Discussion Points

• Timing of MRR proposals

• CBI handling

• Definition of “emissions data”

• Other reporting systems

• Consistency with other CBI provisions

2
Timing of MRR proposals

• We have been concerned about CBI since the beginning of 

the MRR process

• We continually communicated this concern to EPA

• EPA’s sequencing of the proposals and final rules did not 

allow impacted facilities to truly evaluate emission calculation 

methods and balance that with CBI, or propose alternatives

• At a minimum, EPA should phase-in data requirements and 

re-evaluate annually the type and amount of data required to 

be submitted to the Agency, and scale back requirements 

where the burden outweighs the utility of the data.

3
CBI handling

• We are very concerned about how CBI sent electronically will 

be protected

• We are also concerned about how EPA will protect the 

volumes of CBI to be submitted under the MRR

• Since the electronic reporting tool is still being developed, we 

urge EPA to limit the amount of information that is required to 

be electronically submitted for the 2010 reporting year to total 

emissions on a subpart by subpart basis. 

4
Definition of “emission data”

• For purposes of Part 98,“emission data” should be interpreted 

narrowly. We oppose the automatic disclosure of the inputs to 

emission equations. 

• 40 CFR §2.301(a)(2)(i) defines “emission data” as “information 

necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, 

concentration...of the emissions.” 

• Two court cases, RSR Corp. v. EPA (1984) and NRDC v. 

Leavitt (2006), both took a narrow interpretation of “emission 

data” and emphasized the term “necessary.”

5
Other reporting systems

• Other information submission systems only require 

disclosure of final data – not inputs.

– TRI – Facilities report facility information, total emissions 

by chemical, and principal method used to calculate 

emissions. Facilities maintain detailed records supporting 

emissions data.

– CA GHG Reporting – Public reports shows facility 

information, and end of stack emission data for each GHG 

for stationary combustion and process emissions. 

6
EPA recognizes that MRR data is 

highly sensitive

• The preamble correctly determined that production and 

throughput data that are not inputs to emission calculations 

are CBI “because disclosure of these production and 

throughput data is likely to cause substantial harm to the 

competitive position of businesses required to report these 

data elements under Part 98.”

• However, that CBI protection should be afforded to ALL 

production and throughput data. 

7
Aggregation

• We support EPA providing aggregate data in many situations, 

where it is done to protect CBI. 

• We do not support aggregation when there are only one or 

two producers or suppliers of a chemical.

• We also do not support EPA releasing disaggregated data in 

the future. Many facilities produce the same product at a 

relatively steady state for a number of years, and 

disaggregation could expose CBI 

8
Other CBI provisions

• Some of the materials and technologies/processes covered 

under Part 98 are “export controlled” by the Dept. of 

Commerce under 15 CFR Part 774. 

• By requiring U.S. firms to report sensitive information (such as 

process inputs and outputs) under Part 98, EPA is placing 

U.S. manufacturing at a competitive disadvantage with 

overseas competitors who have such information protected. 

9