1

Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Renewal ICR: 

EPA'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 comments 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 burdensome 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 information 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 that 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 existing 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 

require 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 any 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 new 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 Statement 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 other 
2

costs (O&M and Capital) that are provided in 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 gathered 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 required. 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 estimates 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 the 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 assumptions 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 that 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 cost 

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 reporting 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, registration, and 

installing required equipment to comply with the rule. In comparing the commenter’s cost estimates to 
3

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. Even 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 duplicative 

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 engineering 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 result 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 commenter’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 the 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 by 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 cost 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’ projections 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 categories 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 operated 
4

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

sequester 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 received 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 costs. 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 significant 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 process 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 system 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 to 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 

incur 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 to use 

CEMS unless there is an existing CEMS that monitors flow rate and CO2 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 available 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 

measured 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 burnoff 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 rather 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 that 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 product 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 product 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 refinery; 

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 reasons 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 production 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 range 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 received 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 $25,000 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, 

operational 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 size. 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 processing 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 calculating 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 

years 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 burden 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 year, 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 combustion 

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 normal 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 among 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 in 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 locations 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 acquisition – 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 GHG 

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 factors 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 

this 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 where 
8

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 rulemakings 

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 industry 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 submitting 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: Ultimately, 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). As 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 burden 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 the 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 the 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, Utility, 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 

(or 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 most 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 explanatory 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 categories. 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 with 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 gather the information on an annual basis 

given the strong public interest in facility level emissions data, the breadth of potential uses of the 

information, and the program's purpose to provide accurate and timely information to inform future 

policy making 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 coordinate 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 EPA 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 Electronic 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT) for collecting and managing the data that is reported to EPA, 

and EPA allowed stakeholders to test and provide comments on e-GGRT several months before the 

reporting deadlines 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 

detailed 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 process. 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 to 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 quantifying 

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 shutdown 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 December 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 76 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 

allowing 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 their 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.

Response 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. During 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 reporting, all those sources that contribute the most to overall facility/sector emissions.

Response 21: See Response 14 and 16.