1 Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Renewal ICR :

E PA's Response to Public Comment

EPA received one set of comments from the first Federal Register Notice for the Renewal ICR for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). The comments were submitted by Karin Ritter of the
American Petroleum Institute (API)

. Excerpts of API’s comments and EPA’s responses to the comments
are listed below.

Necessity of the Information Collection

Comment 1: As stated previously by API in its response to comment s of June 9, 2009 (Docket ID No.

EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2008

- 0508), EPA is over

- reaching its authority under Clean Air Act Sections 114 and 208. As explained in greater detail in Section IV of those comments, these provisions do not authorize the
indefinite and burden some monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting from most sectors of the economy. As EPA has acknowledged, the GHGRP was proposed in response to the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which invoked EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act to collect inform ation about greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere.

In the document titled ‘Supporting Statement A’, EPA is presenting its case for the on

- going annual collection of GHG emissions data. It states, “Because EPA does not yet know the specific policies t hat will be adopted, the data reported under the GHGRP is of sufficient quality to inform policy and program development. The requirements in the GHGRP maximize the amount of emissions reported while excluding small emitters and are consistent with existin g GHG reporting programs in order to reduce reporting burden for all parties involved. Also, consistent with the Appropriations Act, the GHGRP covers a broad range of sectors of the economy.”

API continues to maintain, as previously communicated to EPA, that since the legislative mandate for this data collection was to guide policy decisions and future legislation, the rationale put forward by EPA does not justify the sustained burden of annual data collection.

Response 1: Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA ) provide EPA authority to require the information mandated by the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) because such data will inform and are relevant to future policy decisions. CAA section 114(a)(1) authorizes the Administrator to

r equire emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out a ny provision of the CAA (except for a provision of title II with respect to manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines). Section 208 of the CAA provides EPA with similar authority regarding the manufacturers of new motor vehicles

or n ew motor vehicle engines, and other persons subject to the requirements of parts A and C of title II. For these reasons, the Administrator may request that a person, on a one

- time, periodic or continuous basis, establish and maintain records, make reports, install and operate monitoring equipment and, among other things, provide such information the Administrator may reasonably require.

Accuracy of EPA’s Estimate of Burden

Comment 2: In reviewing EPA’s summary data in Exhibit 6.1 in the “Supporting Statem ent Part A: Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program”, and the detailed listing of costs in Appendices E and I it is not clear how EPA developed the estimated burden hours and other2

costs (O&M and Capital) that are provided i n the tables for each of the reporting Subparts. There is no description of the assumptions used for estimating burden and whether they are based on ‘models’, ‘reporting scenarios’ or actual information from reporting facilities.

Response 2: EPA gathere d existing data from EPA, industry trade associations, states, and publicly available data sources (e.g., labor rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS ) ) to characterize the processes, sources, segments, and facilities affected. Costs estimates were modeled using the data
collected

, engineering analysis, knowledge of existing facility conditions and activities, and an estimate of incremental activities required to comply with the GHGRP. EPA used facility counts from the 2010 reporting year to update the number of reporting facilities and existing cost analyses were used to ensure consistency of cost inputs and assumptions. For example, EPA’s CEMS “continuous emissions monitoring system” cost model was used to ensure cost consistency for Subpart W. In developing the
cost estimates used for the Renewal ICR, EPA also considered cost data submitted in public comments on the proposed rule, as further discussed in Section VII.B.2 of the preamble of the final rule.

Capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs include the cost of purchasing and installing monitoring equipment or contractor costs associated with providing the required information. Equipment costs include both the initial purchase price of monitoring equipment and any facility or process modification that may be requ ired. In the Renewal ICR, EPA adjusted the labor hours and labor cost for each facility to recognize the completion of the one

- time activities that occurred in the first year
of data collection.

Comment 3: In order to assess the accuracy of EPA’s estimate s API collected data from its members relating to reporting burden from four key Subparts, i.e. Subparts C, W, Y, and MM. The data provided by API members is based on actual GHGRP experience from the first round of reporting coupled with a projection of th e burden starting with 2013 reporting, and allows for direct comparison of the estimated average burden tabulated by EPA. It is apparent from that comparison (see details in the Technical Annex below) that EPA significantly underestimates the burden of GHG reporting by as much as an order of magnitude or more. The detailed comparisons provided in the Technical Annex demonstrate these differences for the four high impact Subparts cited above (Subparts: C, W, Y, and MM) without attempting to extrapolate this to all Subparts nationwide.

Response 3: In response to the comments provided , EPA has adjusted labor estimates for the oil and gas industry to reflect the higher labor costs for the industry. EPA notes that the Agency’s overall methodology and assumption s were sound and relied on best available data to estimate the costs. See Response 4 for more information on labor rates.

Overall, EPA has determined that the cost estimates provided do not take into consideration the completion of one

- time activities th at occurred in the first year of data collection. The commenter is providing cost estimates for the 2010 and 2011 reporting years. These cost estimates are directly comparable to cost estimates EPA made for the 2010 and 2011 reporting year ICRs. In EPA’s c ost estimates, EPA assumed the startup costs would be incurred during the first year of reporting. For Subpart W, the first year of reporting is the 2011 reporting year. In the renewal ICR, EPA is not including the startup costs for the 2013 through 2015 r eporting years because the startup costs should already be assumed by the facility. Even in cases of facilities using BAMM, startup costs should be assumed prior to the 2013 reporting year. These costs will include the labor burden of planning, registratio n, and installing required equipment to comply with the rule. In comparing the commenter’s cost estimates to3

EPA’s cost estimates for the 2010 and 2011 reporting year, EPA finds that the commenter’s cost estimates are comparable to EPA’s cost estimate. Eve n for facilities that used BAMM, it is expected that the majority of the startup costs would occur within the first couple years of reporting. As the startup costs were already included in the 2011 reporting year ICR costs, EPA finds that it would be dupli cative to include the startup costs for the 2013 reporting year and beyond. While it is possible that facilities will apply for BAMM for 2013 and beyond, EPA anticipates that the use of BAMM in 2013 and beyond would
not result in a burden increase.

EPA’s estimate of labor hours is based on previous analyses of the costs of monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping for other rules; information from the industry characterization on the number of units or process inputs and outputs to be monitored; and engine ering judgment by industry and EPA industry experts and engineers. While the commenter provided a general categorization of the size of facilities in each segment, the cost estimates were only provided at the facility level, and EPA cannot evaluate if the facilities are representative of the industry as a whole. While the costs provided by the commenter are in some cases significantly higher than EPA’s estimates, EPA is unable to determine from the
commenter’s submitted data what costs are incurred as a res ult of Part 98 and what costs are the result of normal business practices.

Complete details of the cost analyses are found in the Appendix E of the Renewal ICR, the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the final rule, and the economic impact analysis (EIA ) for Subpart W. The Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for each source category provide a discussion of the applicable measurement technologies and any existing programs and practices.

See Responses 5 through 9 for a more detailed response to the commen ter ’s cost estimates.

Comment 4: In deriving labor costs EPA used average industrial labor rates for the classifications of technical, managerial, clerical and legal staff, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, as provided in Appendix F of t he current docket. Notwithstanding differences in burden hours, EPA’s use of average industrial labor rates alone may lead to more than a 10% underestimate of labor costs for the Oil & Gas Industry when comparing the rates used by EPA with those provided b y BLS for specific industry sectors (BLS, May 2011, National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates).

API collected data from its members on overall labor burden, and not by labor categories. Therefore, for ease of comparison of cos t estimates the weighted average labor rates used by EPA for the various Subparts are also used in the API analysis, i.e. Subpart C

- $59; Subpart W

- $62; Subpart Y

- $58; and Subpart MM

- $70. In addition API’s cost figures also include its members’ proj ections for O&M costs, without quantification of capital expenditures that may be required in future years.

Response 4: In EPA’s prior cost analyses, labor rates across facilities and sectors were kept consistent
across Part 98. Based on the information provided by the commenter , that the labor rates for oil and gas engineers are higher than the average industrial engineer rate, EPA has updated the labor rates for Subparts W, RR, and UU to use rates specific to the oil and gas industry. Reporting facilities in these
source catego ries include offshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities, onshore petroleum and natural gas production facilities, onshore natural gas processing facilities, onshore natural gas transmission compression facilities, onshore natural gas storage facilities, liquefied natural gas (LNG) storage facilities, LNG import and export facilities, natural gas distribution facilities owned or operated4

by local distribution companies, facilities that inject carbon dioxide, and facilities that geologically

seq uester carbon dioxide. EPA believes the average industrial engineer rate is sufficient to cover the remainder of the source categories.

Comment 5: For refineries , EPA estimates an average labor burden per respondent of 101 hours for combustion (Subpart C) and 394 for refinery processes (Subpart Y), or a total average burden of 495 hours per year for a refinery reporting under Subparts C and Y. Based on data receiv ed from 16 refineries operated by API members that burden could range from about 600 hours to over 8,000 hours per facility. This marked difference between API members’ projections and EPA’s estimates for labor hours are also reflected in the range of cost s. While API members’ estimate a range of costs from about $21,000 to over $500,000, for Subpart C, and from about $7,500 to over $290,000, for Subpart Y, EPA’s average estimates are $7,200 and $25,534 for Subparts C and Y, respectively.

The more signifi cant contributors to the range in GHG Reporting burden among refinery sites include the following.

• Facility size / complexity

– Size and complexity includes overall refinery size, the complexity of its interlinked process units, and the number of proce ss units per site. Large integrated complexes have more applicable requirements, for example Subpart C burden includes combustion units associated with chemical plant(s) that may be onsite, and the need to calibrate and track more equipment.

• Fuel gas sy stem configuration

– The site

- specific refinery fuel gas systems design and layout would determine whether a facility is able to use the common pipe, common stack, or aggregation methodology, or not. This will determine the number of flowmeters that need t o be calibrated and maintained and will contribute to the range of costs.

• Sampling frequency

– Some sites are sampling more frequently than the minimum frequency required by the rule due to other regulatory drivers; however, all of the valid sample data is used for GHG reporting (as required by the GHGRP) therefore, the additional hours for sampling / analysis are
included in the labor burden and costs.

• Elevated equipment

– Sites with a large number of elevated meters and other monitoring equipment

in cur additional cost from having to build scaffolding to access the equipment for calibration.

Response 5: EPA agrees with the commenter that refineries typically have numerous process units with complicated linkages. It is for this reason in part that EPA provided the flexibility to use the various reporting options under Subpart C. The aggregation of units reporting option allows facilities with multiple small units to aggregate the units into a single reporting group. The common pipe and common
stack options allows facilities, in certain cases, to combine several units into a single monitoring and reporting group. For fuel gas systems that are required to use Tier 3, EPA permits the use of calibration
and measurement standards that are consistent with industry standard practice. This allows facilities to use existing equipment, where available, to comply with Part 98. Although no reasons are given for the high outliers in the commenter ’s estimates, EPA notes that there is no requirement for refineries t o use CEMS unless there is an existing CEMS that monitors flow rate and CO 2 concentration.

For electronic flow meters and sampling devices that measure data at a greater frequency than is specified in the rule, Part 98 does require the use of all availabl e measurements. However, as these data are already retained in an electronic format from equipment that is required by other regulatory drivers, EPA finds that there is a minimal incremental cost related to Part 98 for the storage and retrieval of all

meas ured data that already exists in an electronic format.5

EPA does not include the costs of installing and maintaining monitors that have been previously required by other rules within the Part 98 renewal. For example, monitors for determining coke burn

off are required for fluid catalytic cracking units under 40 CFR Part 63 subpart UUU, and the costs of operating and maintaining these monitors are included in the ICR for that subpart. EPA does not double count those monitoring costs under this ICR, but rat her it projects the incremental costs of using the already available data for the purposes of Part 98 reporting.

Aside from the considerations above, EPA cannot assess if the costs estimated by the commenter for
refineries are consistent with the costs t hat are specific to complying with Part 98. EPA is unable to separate what costs are incurred as a result of complying with Part 98 from what costs result from normal operation or compliance with other environmental programs.

Comment 6: For petroleum pr oduct suppliers, EPA estimates an average burden of 42 hours per year per respondent. Such an average is overly simplistic since it does not account for the variability in the actual burden that is due to the quantities and different types of petroleum pro duct grades that are supplied and that need to be tracked. The burden estimated by API members’ accounts for this size and complexity differences. They range from 45 to 260 hours per year for a medium refinery; 60 to 130 hours per year for a large refinery ; and 9 to 580 hours per year for an importer and/or exporter. The cost per respondent under Subpart MM is estimated by EPA to be $2,971. This value should be compared with the industry estimated ranges of close to $3,000 to over $18,000 for a medium refin ery; from over $4,000 to close to $20,000 for a large refinery; and about $600 to close to $40,000 per importer and/or exporter.

Response 6: For the 2010 reporting year (covered under the 2009 ICR), which is the first year facilities were subject to the monitoring requirements of Subpart MM, EPA estimated an average of 144 hours per Subpart MM reporter. The burden estimated by the commenter for the 2010 and 2011 reporting years is broadly consistent with EPA’s burden estimate for Subpart MM first year reporting. Because EPA determined that the majority of the data for petroleum product suppliers is already being collected by reporters for re asons other than Part 98, and that the methods allowed in 40 CFR 98.395 emphasize the use of data that suppliers already maintain, the bulk of the cost in the first year of reporting for Subpart MM was setting up the information systems to track and report the data to EPA. As a result, EPA anticipates that the cost for future reporting years will be reduced for petroleum product suppliers, and this is therefore reflected in EPA’s 2013 to 2015 reporting year burden estimates.

Comment 7: For onshore produc tion facilities, EPA estimates that to meet the requirements of Subpart W (including combustion) for an average onshore production facility the burden is 95 hours per respondent per year. This estimated burden should be contrasted with API’s estimated rang e of about 270 to more than 26,000 (with an average of over 6,000) hours would be required to comply with the reporting rule for an onshore production facility (defined as basin

- wide production operations) per year.
The API data are based on information re ceived from 17 basins/facilities, representing a total of 42,568 gas wells and 4,464 oil wells. The average labor burden estimated by API is greater than 6,000 hours, which is more than sixty (60) times what EPA has estimated. Even at the lowest end of the range, the burden of reporting for onshore production facilities, as reported by API members, would be at least three times higher than what EPA has estimated as the average burden. Similarly, API’s estimated costs of compliance range from close to $25,00 0 to over $1.6 Million (with an average over $400,000).6

Response 7: EPA estimated the burden to Subpart W onshore production reporters assuming operators would implement the lowest cost methodology, which, for example, is to use the horsepower rating,

op erational hours, and conversion factors to estimate fuel consumption from combustion equipment. The burden analysis is based on average national facility costs and takes into account the variance of
sizes of facilities and the costs associated with the siz e. EPA is unable to separate what costs are incurred as a result of complying with Part 98 from what costs result from normal operation or compliance with other environmental programs.

Comment 8: For natural gas processing, EPA estimates an average burden of 103 hours annually when accounting both for reporting on both the processing and combustion aspects of natural gas plants. In comparison, API members burden hours estimates are at least double those of EPA with an annual average of 218 hours for small/medium gas plants ( ≤ 250,000 Mscf/day) and 454 hours for large gas plants (> 250,000 Mscf/day). EPA estimates that the average annual costs per natural gas processing respondent are $5,962 and $1,614 for reporting under Subparts W and C, respectively . According to industry data the annual burden may average about $14,000 or $40,000 for reporting process emissions under Subpart W requirements for a small/medium, or a large natural gas processing plant, respectively. API estimates a large natural gas pr ocessing plant to have an additional annual burden of about $2,500 for reporting its combustion emissions under Subpart C.

Response 8: For the 2011 reporting year, the first reporting year for Subpart W, EPA estimated an average of 289 hours for calcula ting process emissions and 105 hours for calculating combustion emissions at natural gas processing plants. The EPA estimates are broadly consistent with the
commenter’s estimates provided. Because the Renewal ICR covers the 2013 through 2015 reporting

ye ars EPA’s estimates are lower due to startup costs being lower after the first year. See Response 3 for more information about startup costs.

Comment 9: For compressor stations, which are subject only to Subpart C, the amount of labor hours required to comply range from 37 to 72 hours annually per responding facility, based on data from 113 compressor stations provided to API. When compared with EPA’s estimated burden of 24 hours for combustion for an oil and gas upstream facility, industry’s estimated b urden is 1.5 to 3 times higher than that provided by EPA. Similarly, industry estimates a burden in the range of $2,100 to $4,200 per responding facility, as compared with the $1,614 per respondent estimated by EPA.

Response 9: For the 2011 reporting yea r, EPA estimated an average burden of 31 hours for combustion at transmission compressor stations. The EPA estimate for 2011 is under the range of burden provided by the commenter , which may be the result of EPA underestimating the first year costs for com bustion equipment. However, EPA notes that most transmission compressor stations only combust natural gas and very few have combustion units larger than 250 mmBtu/hr. As a result, most transmission compressor stations have the option of using Tiers 1 or 2 and the aggregation of units reporting option. This enables facilities to use existing and already maintained company records to calculate combustion emissions. The costs for obtaining such records will not be the result of complying with Part 98. Instead

, the costs associated with Part 98 will primarily result from registering, performing emissions estimates, and reporting the data to EPA. EPA is unable to separate what costs are incurred as a result of complying
with Part 98 from what costs result from n ormal operation or compliance with other environmental

programs.

.7

Comment 10: In general, reporting for the different industry segments that make up the oil and natural gas sector is very burdensome. As noted in the information above the burden varies a mong producers, natural gas processors and compressor stations due to factors such as wide geographical spread of facilities, and great differences in size, configuration, equipment and systems in place. Specific reasons that account for the wide range of burden hours and costs reported by API members include the following.

• Number of wells

– Burden increases exponentially with the sheer volume of information required for a basin level facility and the activity level associated with the number of wells i n a basin. The burden range can be attributed to the number of pieces of equipment coupled with activity level differences that are part of the monitoring, tracking and reporting costs.

• Geographical distances

– Required travel between support office loc ations and well sites or plants affects travel time, which in turn contributes to higher labor and travel costs.

• Complexity of facilities

– Dry gas wells with very low production will not have additional processing equipment, while other sites may have flares, dehydrators, acid gas removal and similar, which greatly
affects data collection activities.

• Equipment layouts and configurations

– Central facilities with no wells on

- site do not currently require reporting as opposed to non

- centralized operations where all the treatment and/or production surface equipment is located on the well

- pad, which requires reporting.

• Manual data acquisit ion

– The amount of manual labor necessary to acquire the data, including wells production information, as opposed to electronic data collection systems.

• Extent of operations

– Larger operators that operate in multiple basins could spread their basic GH G program maintenance costs over multiple basin

- wide facilities as opposed to smaller operators that are active in only a few basins, or which operate a smaller number of wells.

Additionally, EPA’s assumption that the burden will be constant for on

- going GHG reporting during the period 2013

- 2015 is questionable since it does not account for year

- on year growth and operational changes in very dynamic sectors such as the petroleum and natural gas systems.

Response 10 : See Response 7 for EPA’s response on f actors that affect the cost of calculating emissions for onshore petroleum and natural gas production.

Comment 11: EPA’s ICR burden estimate does not account for the additional burden of collecting and archiving currently deferred data elements. EPA does account for the additional burden that could be imposed on reporters due to new requirements

– yet to be promulgated

– regarding data elements that are ‘inputs to emission equations’ and which are deferred to 2013/2015. Industry is currently collecting
thi s data and archiving it but once the new regulations are promulgated they would prescribe how the data currently retained by industry would have to be reported back to the start of the GHGRP under the updated data confidentiality provisions.

Although EPA recognizes that some of the on

- going amendments and technical corrections may impact burden, it claims that most amendments reduced burden or did not affect it. Even if some amendments did streamline regulations, extra burden is imposed on reporters due to the constantly changing and evolving nature of the reporting regulations, requiring reporters to constantly change their data collection procedures, monitoring plans, personnel training and data management systems. This is particularly acute for reporting under Subpart W, which has gone through major revisions and where8

many technical issues still exist, and which will continue to evolve and thus impose additional burden during the forthcoming 2013

- 2015 time period.

Response 11: EPA has promulgated several technical corrections and revisions rulemakings that updated Part 98. The rulemakings corrected technical and editorial errors and have been well supported by public comments. As the ICR has been revised during each rulemaking, the costs for the ru lemakings that continue through the Renewal ICR time period have already been included in the Renewal ICR. In addition, for each individual action that was open to public comment, EPA has responded to all
comments on the burden of those rule amendments. While some of these amendments affected burden, the amendments generally reduced burden or did not affect it. If any change affected burden, EPA has updated the ICR by evaluating and summarizing changes to burden cost and hours.

EPA recognizes that the in dustry will need to train their human resources to efficiently implement the requirements of Subpart W. EPA has provided numerous webinars, frequently asked questions (FAQs), information sheets, and reporting help content to assist facilities in submittin g emission reports. In addition, EPA has a help desk dedicated to responding to questions about how to report, including how the new rule requirements affect them.

In regard to the inputs to emission equations (inputs) that were deferred, EPA notes that the costs of recording and reporting inputs were included in the burden analysis for the Renewal ICR. If EPA modifies the rule requirements for reporting of inputs in the future, the ICR will be adjusted to account for the burden change.

Comment 12: Ultim ately, API contends that the use of global averages over all reporting sectors and Subparts, as EPA has done in its summary statement of its burden assessment, masks the true reporting burden for individual industry sectors, and respondents (facilities). A s explained in detail above, the deviations from these averages for the burden associated with the petroleum and natural gas sectors both in its upstream and downstream operations is especially significant and is not adequately portrayed via the global bur den statement provided by EPA at 77 FR 28378 (May 14, 2012).

Response 12: The commenter is correct that the Federal Register notice contains a global summary of burden and cost which is a standard practice for all of EPA’s ICRs. However, EPA notes that th e Agency has provided Subpart specific data on the burden and cost in Appendix E of the Supporting Statement (EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2012

- 0333

- 0008).

Comment 13: API recommends that EPA work collaboratively with reporters to learn from their experience and examine th e practical utility of all the data, and its collection frequency, in order to explore ways to meet what Agency data needs still remains while reducing the significant burdens this GHGRP places on industry on an ongoing basis.

Response 13: EPA has been continuously working with facilities and suppliers to update the GHGRP to resolve technical and editorial errors. See Response 11 for more details.

EPA has also included provisions in 40 CFR 98.2(i) to allow facilities and suppliers to stop submitting annual reports under certain conditions, e.g., if facilities decrease emissions to a specified threshold for specified time or if facilities and suppliers close all of their GHG

- emitting processes or operations covered by the GHGRP.9

Quality, Ut ility, and Clarity of the Information to be Collected

Comment 14: The level of detail specified by EPA for GHG quantification methods and associated measurement procedures do not take into account the contribution of specific sources to overall facility (o r sector) emissions; they address most sources with a similar level of detail. When striving for improved data quality and utility, it might be better to focus data collection and reporting on fewer sources, with an emphasis on those that contribute the mo st to overall emissions. This will allow respondents to concentrate on improving data quality for significant emission sources, rather than have to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort collecting and quantifying emissions from an array of

sources that collectively are small and insignificant.

Response 14: The objective of the GHGRP is to collect data on facility

- level direct emissions and supply of fuels and industrial GHGs that can inform future climate policy. EPA selected the source categories after considering the language of the Appropriations Act, the accompanying explanatory statement, the CAA, and EPA’s experience in developing the U.S. GHG Inventory. The Appropriations Act referred to reporting “in all sectors of the economy,” and the expl anatory statement directed EPA to include “emissions from upstream production and downstream sources to the extent the Administrator deems it appropriate.” EPA established an emissions threshold to reduce burden and finalized Part 98 with 41
source categor ies. EPA provided simplified methods for such lower emissions sources in an attempt to
limit burden.

Comment 15: API is hopeful that the initial data being reported would be used by the EPA to refine and improve the national GHG inventory, especially once companies get beyond using best available measurement methods (BAMM).

Response 15: Thank you for your comment

. EPA agrees that the GHGRP data will be useful in refining the US GHG inventory.

Comment 16: API recommends that after a finite duration of reporting, such as two or three years for a particular sector, EPA should undertake a review of the data reported w ith the goal of prioritizing the largest, and truly significant, emission sources for each of the sectors. At that stage, API suggests that EPA consider its options to either sunset the reporting program, or pull back to a less frequent reporting

or a more focused approach that centers on the most significant emitting sources. Such a modified reporting approach would lessen the reporting burden while allowing respondents to improve data quality.

Response 16: EPA has determined that it is appropriate to g ather the information on an annual basis given the strong public interest in facility level emissions data, the breadth of pot ential uses of the information, and the program's purpose to provide accurate and timely information to inform future policy makin g decisions. Should EPA find it appropriate to revise the reporting requirements in the future, it will occur as a result of a notice and comment rulemaking. In order to minimize burden in the future, EPA is committed to working with stakeholders to coordi nate implementation of reporting programs, reduce burden on reporters, provide timely access to verified emissions data, establish mechanisms to efficiently share data, and harmonize data systems to the extent possible.

Comment 17: API stipulates that E PA should be more transparent in their approach to managing the data and describing how it is being used to inform policy, especially as it pertains to Subpart MM.10

Response 17: For all source categories, including Subpart MM, EPA has developed an Electr onic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e

- GGRT) for collecting and managing the data that is reported to EPA,
and EPA allowed s takeholders to test and provide comments on e

- GGRT several months before the reporting deadline s through a sandbox testing environment

. EPA has also made available e

- GGRT XML reporting schema and documentation for download. Furthermore, EPA has provided a data publication tool that the public can use to view the data, as well as a publicly available website which contains
de tailed information about the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program and subpart

- specific materials

.

Minimize the Burden of the Collection of Information

Comment 18: The initial use of BAMM provided flexibility to companies when starting the GHG reporting proce ss. However, in subsequent years of reporting, the cost of installing monitoring equipment, maintaining it, and performing the required measurements would be substantially higher especially for those industry sectors subject to Subparts that are starting t o report only from calendar year 2011.

Response 18: See Response 3.

Comment 19: API recommends that

– at a minimum

- EPA should broaden the use of BAMM beyond 2012. Since BAMM uses a combination of industry activity data with EPA equations for quantifyin g emissions, these proven emissions estimation techniques should be allowed after 2012. This is most important in high burden cases, especially if installing monitoring equipment would lead to facility shut

down with associated economic disruption.

Response 19: This comment is outside of the scope of the ICR. However, EPA notes that owners and operators of petroleum and natural gas systems (Subpart W) could request BAMM for 2013 and beyond in “unique or unusual” circumstances. To use BAMM beyond Dece mber 31, 2012, owners and operators must submit a new request to use BAMM by September 30th of the year prior to the year in which BAMM is being requested. The request will be reviewed by EPA according to the criteria outlined in 40 CFR 98.234(f)(8). See 7 6 FR 59533 (September 27, 2011) for more details.

Comment 20: API is concerned with the added burden posed by the mere fact that EPA is promulgating new rule revisions right up to the reporting deadline. This proximity to the reporting due dates is not
al lowing sufficient time to implement the final version of what EPA is promulgating into either a company’s reporting systems or EPA’s e

- GGRT. For example, the timing of XML schema updates is extremely tight making it very difficult for companies to adjust t heir systems to be compatible with the changes in the EPA revised schema and complete the necessary quality checks in time to meet the reporting deadline. These tight schedules and ever

- changing requirements significantly increase the reporting burden.

Re sponse 20: This comment is outside of the scope of the ICR. However, EPA notes that several months before the reporting deadline, EPA provided stakeholders with a sandbox testing environment to review
and test its Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool ( e

- GGRT)

. The sandbox testing environment
reflected potential rule amendments . D uring the testing period, EPA designed the XML schema with the flexibility to handle any rule amendments and incorporated changes to the schema resulting from stakeholder feedback. See Response 11 for more details on how EPA has reduced burden in the GHGRP.11

Comment 21: API contends that reporting burdens can be substantially reduced if reporting, in subsequent years, is streamlined and limited to high priority emission sources. The determination of which sources should be retained for continued reporting could be based on analysis of the data received by EPA during the initial reporting years, and by judicious use of this learning to prioritize for
continued re porting, all those sources that contribute the most to overall facility/sector emissions.

Response 21: See Response 14 and 16

.