Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule: EPA’s 

Response to Public Comments 

Crosscutting Comments: 

Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs 

November 2010 1 
November 2010 2 

FOREWORD 

This document provides responses to public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA’s) Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Additional Sources of 

Fluorinated GHGs: Crosscutting Comments. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

the Federal Register (FR) on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18652). EPA received comments on this 

proposed rule via mail, e-mail, and at a public hearing held in Washington D.C. on April 20, 2010. 

Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. 

Comments letters and transcripts of the public hearings are also available electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. 

EPA prepared this document in multiple sections, with each section focusing on a different broad 

category of comments on the rule. In light of the large number of comments received and the 

significant overlap between many comments, this document does not respond to each comment 

individually. Rather, EPA summarized and provided a single response to each significant 

argument, assertion, and question contained within the totality of comments. Within each 

comment summary, EPA provides in parentheses one or more lists of Docket ID numbers for 

commenters who raised particular issues; however, these lists are not meant to be exhaustive, 

and EPA does not individually identify each and every commenter who made a certain point in all 

instances, particularly in cases where multiple commenters expressed essentially identical 

arguments. 

EPA’s responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment 

summary. 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. 

Comments were assigned to specific section of this document based on an assessment of the 

principal subject of the comment; however, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject 

areas. 
Table of Contents 

1. General Comments on the Mandatory Reporting Rule........................................................................4

1.1. Supportive....................................................................................................................................8

1.2. Not Supportive ...........................................................................................................................10

2. Justification for Including Source Category........................................................................................13

2.1. Subpart L ...................................................................................................................................13

2.2. Subpart DD ................................................................................................................................13

2.3. Subpart QQ................................................................................................................................15

2.4. Subpart SS.................................................................................................................................16

3. Legal Authority....................................................................................................................................17

4. Reporting Schedule............................................................................................................................20

Appendix A – List of Commenters Sorted by Submission Number ............................................................21

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 3 
1. General Comments on the Mandatory Reporting Rule 

Relevant Bin Numbers: 1.1, 1.1.2, 4.10 

Track 1 

Comment 1-a: One commenter (0413) was concerned that “punishment for noncompliance, or 

simple mistakes, is harsh and severe. Utilities that misreport or fail to report SF6 nameplate 

capacity or small SF6 emissions according to the requirements of the proposed rule could be 

subject to administrative, civil, and criminal penalties. Administrative penalties alone can amount 

to $32,500 per day per violation. These rules are enforceable by state and federal regulators. The 

Compliance and Enforcement provisions are grossly excessive. Administrative penalties of 

$32,500 per day, as well as civil and criminal penalties, are not related to the extent of the alleged 

violations. The requirement that utilities certify the accuracy of their data is unfair because utilities 

may not be able to submit a signed and certified document promising that emission data collected 

is accurate. EPA's use of clean air enforcement mechanisms for GHG reporting is grossly 

excessive and unfair. The methods of collecting the data, and the formulas used to process the 

data, are new creations of a government entity. The EPA has admitted that the accuracy of the 

data will always be in doubt, yet the rule subjects members of the regulated community to severe 

penalties if they do not certify accuracy and if they do certify accuracy but the data is found to be 

inaccurate.” 

Response 1-a: The enforcement provisions of the rule are critical to achieving EPA’s objective of 

collecting accurate GHG emissions data in a timely manner. EPA has discretion to pursue a 

variety of informal and formal actions in order to achieve compliance. For additional discussion of 

compliance and enforcement, including responses on EPA’s approach to enforcement, see the 

preamble to the October 30, 2009 final rule (Section VI) and the 2009 Response to Comments 

Volume 8, Response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2126 excerpt 7(p. 30). For more discussion of 

the certification and verification requirements, please see the verification and certification 

requirements section of the preamble of the October 30, 2009 final rule. 

Track 2 

Comment Summary 1-b: Two commenters (0085, 0117) recommended that EPA use concepts 

from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting system at CFR 355 where possible to minimize 

the amount of information to be managed in the Part 98 program. The commenters asserted that 

allowing “emissions level calculations to be consistent with the TRI and other Clean Air Act 

reporting” will enable “companies to utilize their existing measurement tools to ensure timely and 

accurate reporting,” avoiding duplication. One of the commenters (0117) cautioned against 

“requiring reporting on any specific greenhouse gases not measurable in the atmosphere” 

because they explain that “there is an impact on climate change only if an emission is 

measurable.” 

One commenter (0117) stated that the proposed rule does not provide a level of appeal or a data 

correction system and that the TRI appeal process, which is adequate, should be instituted. 

Commenter 0085 thought that EPA should encourage best available actual FGHG emissions 

data by providing a reasonable report update mechanism”, which can be done through amending 

Part 98 to allow reporters to update actual FGHG emissions data for either three or five years 

after report submittal. 

Response 1-b: The reporting requirements for the Mandatory Reporting Rule necessarily differ 

from those of the Toxic Release Inventory and other Clean Air Act reporting programs due to the 

diverse nature of their purposes. TRI is a public information program, and the data collected 

under the program are not used for policy analysis or regulatory compliance. Additionally, the 

Mandatory Reporting Rule requires more process data to be reported than what is required to 

show compliance with other CAA programs such as NSPS and NESHAP due to the fact that 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 4 
those programs focus on a facility’s success in achieving a certain emissions rate using emission 

control devices, whereas this rule focuses on establishing each facility’s annual GHG emissions 

in tons per year. Verifying that all emissions are continuously accounted for requires review of 

more data than required to verify that a control device is properly designed and operated. 

Because CO2e emissions data are verified by EPA, not on-site at the facility or by a third party, 

facilities are required to report more detailed supporting data under this rule. Reporting of this 

data allows EPA to verify emission estimates each year. If EPA required that these data were 

only kept on record and not reported, EPA would have to perform onsite auditing to verify the 

data. Due to EPA resource constraints, it is unlikely that EPA would be able to make site visits 

annually to verify reports based on facility records. Without reporting of verification data, 

therefore, the frequency of verification would be lower, while the costs of such verification would 

be much higher. Nonetheless, EPA is aware of the commenters’ concerns and may consider 

moving certain requirements from the reporting section to the recordkeeping section of the rule 

following further analysis. 

EPA has made efforts to reduce the burden on facilities reporting under the rule. To the extent 

possible, emissions calculation methods were developed to use data already routinely monitored 

and recorded by facilities for business reasons. To facilitate the reporting of required emissions 

and supporting data and to enable effective review of the large volume of data, facilities will 

submit data electronically in a standard format through a centralized data system. EPA is 

currently developing this system and will, to the extent possible, work with other programs and 

systems to develop a reporting scheme that minimizes the burden on reporters. 

For a discussion of the relationship between the reporting required under the Mandatory GHG 

Reporting Rule and the reporting required by the Toxics Release Inventory, please see the 

response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0604.1, excerpt 5 in Volume 13 of the Response 

to Comments Documents prepared for the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule published on 

October 30, 2009. For additional discussion of the data reporting requirements, please see the 

response to EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0509.1, excerpt 1 in Volume 3 of the Response to 

Comments Documents for the final Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule. Also see the response to 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0604.1 excerpt 5 (p.1) in Volume 15 of the Response to Comments 

Documents. For responses to general comments on verification, please see the comment 

response document volume on Approach to Verification and Missing Data. 

Under this rulemaking, EPA did not open the definition of fluorinated GHG for comment. 

However, more discussion of this issue can be found in the preamble of the October 30, 2009 

final rule. 

The Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule already includes a mechanism at §98.3(h) to revise an 

annual report in the event that the facility or EPA discovers an error in the in the report. However, 

EPA is not finalizing a provision at this time to allow facilities to update their reports based on 

improved data or methods. While EPA agrees that it may be desirable to update emissions 

estimates for previous years based on improved data or methods, such updates must be 

undertaken carefully, ensuring that the improved methods or data are properly applied to past 

activities. Otherwise, inappropriate application of revised data or methods to past activities may 

misrepresent both the past emissions and the emissions trend over time. In the future, EPA 

plans to consider whether it is appropriate to include a provision for recalculating previous 

emissions based on improved data or methods under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, 

and if so, how such a resubmission process would be implemented. If the Agency concludes that 

updates should be allowed, EPA will initiate a rulemaking to adopt update provisions in subpart A. 

For more discussion of the error correction mechanism, please see the October 2009 preamble, 

Section II.J.2: Making Corrections to Annual Reports (74 FR 5620). 

Comment Summary 1-c: One commenter (0124) recommended that EPA consider unintended 

adverse environmental or health impacts when determining which sources and thresholds are 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 5 
required for inventory reporting in order to balance the costs and risks of estimating actual 

emissions generated. “The cost for reporting in some categories is quite high when considering 

the amount of actual emissions generated. The risk that some sources would choose to replace 

the reduction of an ozone precursor or toxic contaminant with the reduction of a GHG to avoid 

reporting and future regulatory action on greenhouse gas emissions is a possibility that the EPA 

must evaluate.” 

Response 1-c: EPA concurs with the commenter’s point that the rule must balance 

environmental benefits with the cost and economic impact to society and reporting entities. EPA 

has made every effort to reduce the burden and costs of the rule while still ensuring that the 

program yields high quality data and essential information. The mandatory reporting program will 

provide comprehensive and accurate data which will inform future climate change policies. 

Because EPA does not know at this time the specific policies that may be adopted, the data 

reported through the mandatory reporting system should be of sufficient quality to support a 

range of approaches. When developing the proposed rule, the Agency took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on business were minimized. 

With respect to the commenter’s concern that sources would select reduction of GHG emissions 

rather than reduction of other pollutants, EPA expects that all sources will comply with all aspects 

of the CAA. It is the right of the source to choose if and how to go beyond the requirements of 

existing regulation to voluntarily reduce emissions; any and all voluntary pollution reductions are 

welcome. 

Complete documentation of the economic analysis can be found in the final Economic Impact 

Analysis (EIA) for this rule and in the final Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the October 30, 

2009 final rule. Section 6 of the RIA includes a discussion of the benefits assessment. Please see 

the October 2009 preamble, Section VII: Economic Impacts on the Rule as well as Section II.C

(74 FR 5620) for the selection of GHGs to report. See the response to comment DCN EPA-HQOAR-2008-0508-0341, comment excerpt 2, in the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 10 – 

Cost and Economic Impacts of the Rule for further discussion of EPA’s efforts to minimize the 

economic impact of the rule. See also the 2009 Response to Comments Document Volume 7 - 

The Rule Development Process, Statutory and Executive Order Reviews, and Other 

Miscellaneous Comments for additional information about the rule development process. For 

more discussion of this issue, please see the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 10 - Cost 

and Economic Impacts of the Rule, response to DCN EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0341 excerpt 2 

(p. 28-29). 

Comment Summary 1-d: One commenter (0124) was “concerned that an accurate portrayal of 

each state's emissions will not be obtained and that values may be skewed to suppliers of 

commodities consumed in other sectors or parts of the country. The TCEQ also believes that 

consideration should be given for those states with large amounts of GHG emissions that provide 

the goods and commodities that feed our national economy. 

The TCEQ believes that in using any collected data to develop future regulatory requirements, 

states should not be disproportionately penalized for GHG emissions that are a direct result of 

producing goods and commodities necessary to sustain a thriving national economy; and that 

EPA should also take into consideration what environmental performance measures would be 

used to demonstrate that the effects of GHG emissions are being mitigated as reductions occur.” 

Response 1-d: EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concern, but we emphasize that this is a 

reporting rule, not a control requirement. The primary purpose of this rule is to provide policy 

makers and regulators with accurate economy-wide data on GHG emissions for use in 

developing GHG policies and programs. We recognize that emissions are related to levels of 

production or other activity; thus, all of the subparts in this action request information on activity 

levels to allow evaluation of emissions in the light of activity. It is currently unclear what final 

policy direction will be taken; the data collected under this rule can be used to support a number 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 6 
of possible policy options. As explained in the October 2009 Preamble, Section I.D. (74 FR 

56265), EPA promulgated this rule to gather GHG information to assist EPA in assessing how to 

address GHG emissions and climate change under the Clean Air Act. However, we expect that 

the information will prove useful for other purposes as well. For example, using the rich data set 

provided by this rulemaking, EPA, States and the public will be able to track emission trends from 

industries and facilities within industries over time, particularly in response to policies and 

potential regulations. 

Comment Summary 1-e: One commenter (0078) requested that predictive emission monitoring 

systems (PEMS) be explicitly offered as an alternative wherever continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS) are required. The commenter asserted that PEMS are a very cost-effective and 

robust alternative that have been proven effective in 40 CFR Part 60 and 40 CFR Part 75 

applications. 

Response 1-e: This rule does not require use of CEMS to monitor fluorinated GHG emissions. 

For more discussion of the issue of using PEMS to monitor emissions under the Mandatory GHG 

Reporting Rule generally, please see 2009 Response to Comments Volume 15 - Subpart C: 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources, response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-

0696.1 excerpt 2 (p.177).; EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0228e excerpt 3 (p. 178). 

Comment Summary 1-f: Two commenters (0079, 0113) asserted that the definition of fluorinated 

GHGs should include chemicals listed in Table A-1 of proposed 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart A, and 

should not be expanded without a formal rulemaking and public comment. The commenters 

stated that the use of Table A-1 list provides certainty to manufacturers as to the contents of the 

list, which will allow for stable planning and maintain a transparent regulatory process. 

These commenters recommended that EPA provide an incentive to manufacturers to transition 

from high-GWP HFCs with reasonable time and some financial relief, should FGHGs be included 

in the final rule. The commenter suggested including a reporting trigger for fluorinated GHGs with 

a GWP of 150 or higher, consistent with European Union regulations. 

Response 1-f: The definition of “fluorinated GHG” rather than Table A-1 defines the set of 

fluorinated compounds that facilities must monitor and report, and EPA has determined that this 

definition provides sufficient clarity regarding the scope of the rule. EPA did not open the 

definition of fluorinated GHG to public comment in this rulemaking. Please see the October 2009 

preamble Section III.OO (74 FR 5620) for Subpart OO: Suppliers of Industrial GHGs, as well as 

the response to comments document on the same, for discussion of the definition of fluorinated 

GHG and EPA’s intent to periodically update the GWPs in Table A-1. 

Regarding the alternative suggestion to incorporate a GWP threshold of 150 to encourage 

substitution, please see the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 2 – Selection of Reporting 

Thresholds, Greenhouse Gases, and De Minimus Provisions, response to comment EPA-HQOAR-2008-0508-0793.1 excerpts 1 and 2 (p. 7- 9). 

Comment Summary 1-g: One commenter (0106) requested clarification that the requirement 

that “emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from each stationary combustion unit must be reported 

under Subpart C of the rule by following the requirements of Subpart C” follows “the applicability 

requirements as specified in 98.2(a)(1), (2), or (3).” 

Response 1-g: The commenter is correct in their interpretation. 

Comment Summary 1-h: One commenter (0092) noted that “Subpart A as it is currently written 

does not require the reporting of emissions from Subpart L (and other recently proposed 

subparts).” 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 7 
Response 1-h: As noted in the preamble to the Proposed Rule, EPA is amending Subpart A to 

clarify the rule’s applicability to the sources of fluorinated GHGs included in Subparts I, L, DD, 

SS, and QQ. 

Comment Summary 1-i: One commenter (0117) asserted that the Proposed Rule appears 

inconsistent in its use of global warming potentials (GWPs) as it uses 1995 the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report (SAR) GWPs. The commenter 

recommends that EPA use GWPs from IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) because it 

is more comprehensive and accurate. The commenter explains that “emissions data must be 

consistent with the renewed data of the IPCC. Recent climate legislation also refers to the Fourth 

Assessment. Further, if a value does not exist for a given chemical, the reporter should provide 

the best estimate and if available a reference point.” 

Response 1-i: EPA did not open the GWPs listed in Table A-1 to public comment through this 

rulemaking. For more discussion of the GWPs listed in Table A-1, please see the preamble to 

the October, 2009 final rule and the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 2 - Selection of GHGs 

to Report, response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511.1 excerpt 19 (p. 9). 

1.1. Supportive 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.1 

Track 2 

Comment Summary 1.1-a: One commenter (0117) expressed support for “one national federal 

mandatory reporting regime” and “encourages consistency among federal, state, and regional 

emission reporting programs whenever possible.” 

Response 1.1-a: EPA thanks for commenter for their support. EPA carefully reviewed Federal, 

State, and international voluntary and mandatory programs during development of the reporting 

rule and attempted to be consistent with the GHG protocols and requirements within these rules, 

to the extent feasible given the differing scopes and policy objectives. EPA has worked with and 

will continue to coordinate closely with other Federal, State, and regional programs to facilitate 

data exchange when designing the data reporting systems that will be used for the rule and 

planning implementation activities. We will work with the States, TCR, and others on data 

exchange standards to ease sharing of data between systems, consistent with CBI obligations. 

Comment Summary 1.1-b: Five commenters (0087, 0076, 0130, TRANS-DC-01, TRANS-DC03) supported “the general intention of Congress and EPA in establishing a reporting regime for 

significant sources of GHG emissions” given the potent global warming potential of fluorinated 

greenhouse gases (GHG), and recognize that the data collection required by the Mandatory 

Reporting Rule is essential to develop an effective federal regulatory regime for GHG emissions. 

In particular, Commenter TRANS-DC-03 supported the changes made during the revision and reproposal process of the MRR, including improvements to monitoring and emissions reporting 

procedures. 

Commenter 0087 asserted that the proposed rule strikes an appropriate balance between the 

need to develop accurate GHG footprints and the costs and resources required by facilities to 

compile and report GHG data. 

Commenter 0076 stated that, “although there are negatives mainly for the businesses relating to 

the costs of the reporting, I believe that the potential benefits far outweigh these costs. By 

requiring the reporting of this information will allow for more accurate creation and implementation 

of future rules and regulations in regards to fluorinated gases. Also, it will create a transparency 

of information, making it available to parent companies and the general public as to the amount of 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 8 
gasses that are being released by companies and no longer let them hide potential harmful 

effects they are causing to the environment. As environmental protection and awareness 

continues to become increasingly prevalent, this reporting will allow companies to make public 

their footprint on the environment and benchmark themselves against others in their industry 

while creating a standard for the entire industry. All in all it is a shame that companies have not 

been required to report this information sooner as the potential effects of the gasses continue to 

progress. Lastly, the reporting of these figures will just allow for more information to be collected, 

which will hopefully lead to more accurate studies of the harmful effects along with better 

solutions providing a cleaner planet for us all.” 

Commenter 0130 emphasized “the critical nature of economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions 

data, including emissions data from these sectors. Emissions data are foundational – serving as 

the cornerstone for effective air quality planning and management; providing much-needed 

transparency for Americans concerned about global warming pollution in their communities; and 

making it possible to hold the largest polluters accountable for their greenhouse gas emissions.” 

Commenter 0130 explained that “policymakers and the public have already lost a year’s worth of 

this critical data, and EPA must act swiftly to satisfy its legal duty to require reporting from 

additional sources of fluorinated GHGs.” The commenter urges “EPA to take all final steps 

necessary to complete this rulemaking in a prompt manner and to fulfill its legal duty” and to do 

so expeditiously. The commenter expressed concern over the loss of a year’s worth of critical 

emissions data from these sectors, and appreciated EPA’s “reaffirmation in this supplemental 

proposal of the urgent need to require reporting from additional sources of fluorinated GHGs.” 

Response 1.1-b: EPA thanks the commenters for their support. The goal of the reporting 

program is to provide accurate, economy-wide data on GHG emissions to inform policy decisions 

and development of future regulatory programs. EPA is committed to making the data available to 

the public in a timely manner after the reporting deadline. EPA agrees with the commenter that 

making GHG emissions data available to the public can result in industries’ making voluntary 

changes to reduce their emissions and EPA has supported voluntary GHG emission reductions 

through our work on several voluntary programs. Public access to the data is also important for 

promoting better understanding and allowing public participation in future policy decisions. 

As discussed in Section I of the Preamble and in Volume 9 (Legal Issues) of the 2009 Response 

to Comments document, the data submitted under this rulemaking will help inform future policies 

in the Administration and in Congress. The urgent need for this data is further evident from the 

fiscal year 2008 Appropriations Act, which wanted EPA to start collecting data in 2010. Although 

we do not yet know what final policy direction will be taken, the data collected under this rule can 

be used to support a number of possible policy options that would require accurate and reliable 

data. As policies evolve and new programs are developed, the provisions in the rule can be 

amended to address the new data collection needs. For further discussion on how the information 

will be used and the urgent need to collect the data, see the October 2009 preamble, Section I.D.

(74 FR 5620). 

For a response to the comment that EPA must act to satisfy its legal duty to require reporting 

from additional sources of fluorinated GHGs, please see the response to Comment Summary 3-b. 

For more discussion, please see the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 3 – General 

Monitoring Approach response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0657.1 excerpt 1 (p. 90) 

and Volume 7 response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1 excerpt 1. 

Comment Summary 1.1-c: One commenter (0125) “applauds the Agency for its proactive 

outreach to the industry and its history of partnerships in reducing SF6 emissions. The Task 

Group members look forward to collaboratively implementing the greenhouse gas reporting 

rules.” 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 9 
Response 1.1-c: EPA thanks the commenter for their input and recognizes the benefits provided 

by engaging diverse stakeholders and partners, including industry. 

1.2. Not Supportive 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.1.1 

Track 2 

Comment Summary 1.2-a: Three commenters (0065, 0064, 0413) did not support the proposed 

rule. Commenter 0065 asserted that the Mandatory Reporting Rule is an unnecessary regulatory 

intrusion into the private sector. 

Response 1.2-a: The foundation of the Mandatory Reporting Rule is based on compliance with 

the provisions of the FY2008 Appropriations Act, which mandated EPA to “develop and publish a 

draft rule not later than nine months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not 

later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of 

GHG emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” 

(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)). The 

accompanying joint explanatory statement directed EPA to “use its existing authority under the 

Clean Air Act” to develop this mandatory GHG reporting rule, and directed EPA “to include in its 

rule reporting of emissions resulting from upstream production and downstream sources, to the 

extent that the Administrator deems it appropriate.” 

For further discussion, please see the responses to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0525.1, 

excerpt 1 (p. 50-51) and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615, excerpt 1 (p. 49-50) in Volume 7 of the 

2009 Response to Comments document. 

For a discussion of EPA’s legal obligations to promulgate this rule, please see Volume 9 of the 

2009 Response to Comments document. 

Comment Summary 1.2-b: Commenter (0064) asserted that there is no physical evidence that 

GHGs endanger the climate and therefore EPA does not have the technical backing to impose 

the Mandatory Reporting Rule. Specifically, the commenter stated that EPA does not provide 

sufficient physical evidence of statistically significant climate change and that the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report on which the rule 

relies is discredited, not peer-reviewed, and relies on inaccurate models. 

Response 1.2-b: The commenter suggests that the proposed rule was predicated on the IPCC’s 

Fourth Assessment Report. Although the IPCC report highlights the seriousness of climate 

change, EPA reminds the commenter that the EPA’s Mandatory Reporting Rule complies with the 

provisions of the FY2008 Appropriations Act, which mandated EPA to “develop and publish a 

draft rule not later than nine months after the date of enactment of this Act, and a final rule not 

later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, to require mandatory reporting of 

GHG emissions above appropriate thresholds in all sectors of the economy of the United States.” 

(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)). 

As for the commenter’s concern regarding the science of climate change, this rule is not the 

appropriate forum for that discussion. For a discussion on the science, please see 74 FR 66496, 

December 15, 2009, “Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 

Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.” 

For more discussion of the relationship between climate science and this rule, please see the 

2009 Response to Comments Volume 7, response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 

excerpt 1 (p. 49). 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 10 
Comment Summary 1.2-c: Commenter (0413) asserts that the Mandatory Reporting Rule 

violates transparency requirements as set forth by Lisa Jackson’s April 23, 2009 “Transparency in 

EPA’s Operations” directive, is “overly complex and excessively burdensome,” and that the 

supporting technical documents are difficult to locate and were not publicly or peer-reviewed by 

independent scientific authorities as required by EPA's Peer Review Handbook and the 

Information Quality Act, 44 USC 3506 et seq.. 

Response 1.2-c: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s characterizations of the Mandatory 

Reporting Rule and its supporting technical documents. 

Contrary to the commenter’s assertion that the Mandatory Reporting Rule (MRR) violates 

transparency requirements, EPA has developed subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS, as well as the 

MRR generally, through a highly transparent process with multiple opportunities for public review 

and comment. EPA has made information and technical documents publically available through 

a variety of mechanisms. During the development of the April 10, 2009 proposed MRR and the 

October 30, 2009 final MRR, we conducted a proactive communications outreach program to 

inform the public about the rule development effort. We solicited input and maintained an open 

door policy for those parties interested in discussing the rulemaking. Prior to publishing the April, 

2009 proposed rule, EPA staff held more than 100 meetings with over 250 stakeholders, 

including trade associations and firms in potentially affected industries and sectors. Our reasons 

for developing the rule, costs of the program, and our rationale for the applicability criteria, 

monitoring methods, reporting requirements are provided in the preamble to the proposed rule 

(74 FR 16488, April 10, 2009), the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), and in a series of technical 

support documents prepared for each of the affected source categories. These documents were 

made available to the public through the public docket for the 2009 rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508). We also held two public hearings (in Washington D.C. and Sacramento, CA), held a 

60-day public comment period, and provided a hotline for interested parties to ask questions 

about the rule. 

EPA received extensive and detailed comments on the proposed subparts I, L, and DD in 2009. 

To ensure that we effectively addressed these comments, we decided to defer finalization of 

those subparts. Between April 2009 and April 2010, we met extensively with individual 

companies and with trade groups, both in person (including several site visits) and through 

conference calls. Our goal in these meetings was to elicit information on what monitoring 

approaches would effectively balance accuracy and costs. Stakeholders provided very useful 

information and suggestions, many of which were incorporated into the April 12, 2010 proposed 

rule. 

To facilitate public review of the April, 2010 proposed rule and its supporting documents, EPA 

posted the proposed rule on our website on March 24, 2010, two days after it was signed by the 

Administrator. We also posted other resources such as the Technical Support Documents, 

Economic Impact Analysis, and source-specific information sheets approximately two weeks 

before the proposed rule appeared in the Federal Register. A public hearing was held on the 

proposed rule on April 20, 2010. 

In addition, since the April 2010 proposed rule was published, we have maintained an open door 

policy. We have held over 20 meetings and conference calls with stakeholders as part of this 

policy. Details of these meetings are available in the docket. Therefore, EPA provided multiple 

mechanisms for interested parties to express their concerns, ask questions, and provide input on 

the rule. To further facilitate public understanding of the rule, EPA posted on its website sourcespecific factsheets and other information summarizing the requirements of the rule. 

Regarding the comment on peer review, EPA has fully complied with the requirements of the 

Information Quality Act (IQA) and has taken careful steps to ensure that the technical support 

documents are of the highest quality. The technical support documents and other documents 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 11 
November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 12 

supporting the proposal were available for public comment, as is the typical process for this type 

of rule. . Furthermore, EPA assures the commenter that all of the data used for this rule contained 

in the TSD and other supporting materials have undergone proper review and were analyzed with 

the appropriate level of scientific rigor. The monitoring methods for each source category were 

prepared by EPA staff with specialized knowledge of the industry. These staff completed 

comprehensive reviews of existing GHG monitoring protocols and selected methods that would 

provide accurate emissions data without placing too great a burden on reporters. Peer review is 

the process whereby Agency staff involves experts from outside their program in one or more 

aspects of the development of work products. As stated in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Peer Review Handbook (EPA/100/B06/002, Third Edition), regulations are not subject to peer 

review; EPA's Peer Review Handbook provides non-binding guidance to EPA staff and managers 

who are planning and conducting peer reviews, but does not require peer review of particular 

documents. However, any influential scientific information or assessment that is used to support 

the regulation may be subject to peer review. For this rulemaking, peer review is not necessary 

because the monitoring methods included in the rule are either based on information in scientific 

papers (articles) that have already undergone adequate peer review or on methods commonly 

accepted by industry or other reporting programs. For example, many of the monitoring methods 

included in this rule are based on IPCC guidelines that have been established by a recognized 

panel of experts and have undergone significant peer review prior to their adoption. 

In response to the comment that the rule is “excessively complex and overly burdensome,” EPA 

has selected methods that are expected to provide accurate emissions data without placing too 

great a burden on reporters. To the extent that the rule is lengthy, this is because (1) it includes 

the proposed methods and their rationale for five different source categories, (2) it provides 

multiple calculation methods for some source categories to accommodate different types of 

processes and different magnitudes of emissions, and (3) for some source categories, it allows 

facilities to choose among different calculation methods for similar sources to increase flexibility. 

For further discussion, please see response 1-c above, response 3-a below, the 2009 Response 

to Comments document Volume 7, response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0314.1 

excerpt 1 (pp. 3-4), EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413.1 excerpt 7 (pp. 2-3), and EPA-HQ-OAR2008-0508-0433.1 excerpt 1 (pp. 1-2).
2. Justification for Including Source Category 

2.1. Subpart L 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.2.2 

Comment Summary 2.1-a: One commenter (TRANS-DC-03) expressed support for the 

proposed inclusion of fluorinated greenhouse gases “emitted as a byproduct of the production of 

CFCs and HCFCs” and as a “feedstock or byproduct of a transformation process.” 

Response 2.1-a: EPA thanks the commenter for their support. Please see the preamble to the 

final rule (section II) for further discussion on the selection of emissions included in the final 

subpart L. 

2.2. Subpart DD 

Track 1 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.2.4, 4.2.1 

Comment Summary 2.2-a: One commenter (0413) disagreed with the inclusion of SF6 as a 

greenhouse gas under the Mandatory Reporting Rule. The commenter asserted that the amount 

of SF6 gas emitted into the atmosphere from electrical equipment is extremely low, and that its 

contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.01% of the total man-made impact. 

Furthermore, the commenter argued that emissions and sinks of SF6 have decreased by more 

than 50% since 1994 at a time when overall GHG emissions have been increasing, as reported 

by the 2009 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. The commenter concluded that “there is no 

rational basis for EPA to impose mandatory recordkeeping on SF6 in electric utilities.” 

Response 2.2-a: The final rule requires reporting of GHGs whose emissions result from human 

activity: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6, and other fluorinated compounds. This approach 

remains consistent with other State or Federal voluntary or mandatory GHG programs, the 

UNFCCC and the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. The IPCC focuses on 

these gases for both scientific assessments and emissions inventory purposes because they are 

long-lived, well-mixed GHGs not controlled by the Montreal Protocol as Substances that Deplete 

the Ozone Layer. SF6 is extraordinarily long-lived, with an atmospheric lifetime of over 3,000 

years. According to the 2010 U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, emissions 

of SF6 from electrical equipment made up 0.2 percent of total 2008 U.S. GHG emissions. This is 

larger than the contribution of many of the other individual source categories of GHGs that are 

tracked in the Inventory. 

In any event, the primary purpose of the GHG Reporting Program is to provide policy makers and 

regulators with accurate economy-wide data on GHG emissions for use in developing GHG 

policies and programs. The fact that a greenhouse gas or source category is responsible for a 

small fraction of total national or global GHG emissions does not rule out its inclusion in an 

overarching GHG policy; also relevant are factors such as the cost-effectiveness with which 

reductions can be made and the ease with which such reductions can be verified. In view of 

these considerations, information on SF6 emissions from electrical equipment and from other 

source categories is potentially very useful to policy makers. 

Please see the October 2009 preamble (74 FR 5620) for further discussion on the selection of 

GHGs included in the Mandatory Reporting Rule, as well as the 2009 Response to Comments 

Volume 2, response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0258 excerpt 2. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 13 
Comment Summary 2.2-b: One commenter (0413) expressed concern that inclusion of SF6 in 

the Mandatory Reporting Rule may lead to additional SF6 regulations under any potential future 

cap-and-trade or carbon tax laws. 

Response 2.2-b: See Response 2.2-a for a discussion of why SF6 is included in the Mandatory 

Reporting Rule. Please note that this rule requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does not 

establish a cap and trade program or impose any limitations on the amount of GHG a facility can 

emit. Although we do not yet know what final policy direction will be taken, the data collected 

under this rule can be used to support a number of possible policy options that would require 

accurate and reliable data. For more discussion, please see Volume 7 of the 2009 Response to 

Comments document, response to comments EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0433.1 excerpt 1 (p. 1-2) 

and EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0249 excerpt 1 (p.55). 

Comment Summary 2.2-c: One commenter (0413) asserted that all applications of SF6 are 

considered “closed systems” that have been verified historically as extremely low emissions of 

“less than 1% loss.” 

This commenter went on to explain that “SF6 has been used in the environment for nearly 50 

years. SF6 is used in high-voltage substation equipment such as high voltage circuit breakers and 

gas insulated substations (GIS). A large percentage of circuit breakers are used in power 

systems throughout the western states. Two benefits of SF6 not disclosed by EPA as applied to 

high voltage equipment are: First, SF6 equipment requires less maintenance than oil breakers and 

thus provides significantly more reliable electric service, which is required by FERC. Second, SF6 

equipment requires smaller land areas than oil-filled equipment, and third, the replacement of oilfilled equipment reduces the risk of spillage. These are significant reliability and environmental 

benefits. ETF member utilities are committed to further reducing SF6 "leakage" or emissions are 

currently working with EPA in tracking all SF6 emissions.” 

The commenter concluded that “the proposed mandatory reporting and recordkeeping rule for 

SF6 gas is unnecessary and imposes additional paperwork on electric utilities with no 

environmental benefit.” 

Response 2.2-c: EPA is not familiar with verified historical data that shows average SF6

emissions from electric power systems in the United States to be less than 1% annually. The 

overall leak rate for Partners in EPA’s SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power 

Systems has never been below 4% since the inception of the Partnership in 1999. The 

companies in the Partnership represent a wide variety of sizes and geographic locations, and 

these companies collectively owned over 40% of the high-voltage transmission miles in the U.S. 

in 2008. EPA acknowledges that SF6 has variety of uses and benefits, but EPA’s directive for the 

Mandatory Reporting Rule is not to conduct assessments of the overall environmental impact of 

certain greenhouse gases or their operational benefits. Rather, the purpose of the Mandatory 

Reporting Rule is to collect accurate data on sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the United 

States to inform policymaking. 

Comment Summary 2.2-d: One commenter (0413) asserted that the “Mandatory Reporting 

Rule will impose costs and act as a disincentive to reduce SF6 gas emissions without developing 

any alternatives of its use.” The commenter recommended that instead of requiring mandatory 

reporting of SF6, “EPA encourage new technologies, new best management practices, and 

develop a replacement for SF6 gas” through the use of tax credits and incentives. 

Response 2.2-d: Please note that this rule requires only reporting of GHG emissions and does 

not impose any limitations on the amount of GHG a facility can emit. For a detailed analysis of the 

costs of the Mandatory Reporting Rule, please see Section 4 of the Regulatory Impact Analysis

for the October, 2009 final rule, the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 10, and the Economic 

Impact Analysis for this rule. 

Comment Summary 2.2-e: One commenter (0413) questioned the reference to 1354 electric 

power systems in the US as reported by the technical memorandum for SF6 gas, asserting that 

there are over 3,000 electric power systems in the US. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 14 
Response 2.2-e: As stated in the TSD, the 1354 electric power systems that are assumed to 

have SF6 emissions are those listed as having high-voltage transmission miles in the UDI 

Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributors, 109th Edition. EPA assumed in the TSD 

that only electric power systems with high-voltage transmission miles had SF6 emissions, but 

acknowledged that the number of electric power systems with SF6 emissions is probably greater 

than 1354 since SF6 emissions can also occur from distribution equipment. 

Comment Summary 2.2-f: One commenter (0413) asserted that the emissions rates or leakage 

assumptions made by EPA are erroneous. Specifically, the commenter asserted that there is 

little or no technical basis for EPA’s relation between SF6 nameplate capacity and SF6 gas 

emissions and that the erroneous correlation between these two creates a false impression of 

high SF6 gas emission rates, which conflicts with reported SF6 emissions reductions over the past 

two decades. 

This commenter stated, “EPA's rulemaking seeks reporting of nameplate capacity above a 

specified capacity threshold of 17,820 pounds of SF6 gas in electrical equipment. EPA argues at 

I.P. 1528 that nameplate capacity threshold is the equivalent to the 25,000 metric ton CO2e 

emissions threshold level.” The commenter was concerned that no “peer review scientific 

evidence exists to link nameplate capacity with actual SF6 gas emissions or leakage.” This 

commenter stated that, “given the lack of express congressional authorization for reporting 

"capacity" and the significant reductions in SF6 gas emission between 1990 and 2007, there is no 

need, reason or basis to report nameplate capacity or minor emissions under 25,000 metric tons 

of CO2e.” 

Response 2.2-f: Please refer to response 3-a below. 

2.3. Subpart QQ 

Track 1 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.2.4 

Comment Summary 2.3-a: One commenter (0511) recommended that EPA publish guidance 

on “how to allocate the HFC content of imported blown foams at the point of manufacture and the 

point of import,” as this is excluded from Subpart OO. The commenter stated that, “Many 

imported foam articles contain a fraction of the GHGs often used in foam manufacturing. While 

some of the gaseous foam-blowing agent exits the foam during manufacturing, a significant 

portion of the foam blowing gaseous agent is retained in the foam and emitted over the life of the 

foam material. For foam products containing gaseous HFC manufactured in the United States, 

the HFC allocation is managed at the HFC producer level in Subpart OO. However, for articles 

containing gaseous HFC blown foam components, the HFC emissions would not be captured in 

the proposed Subpart OO, and should be added to the inventory system at the point of import into 

the United States.” 

Response 2.3-a: EPA thanks the commenter for their input. Please note that imports and 

exports of closed-cell foams and refrigeration, air–conditioning, and electrical equipment are 

included under Subpart QQ of the Mandatory Reporting Rule. Subpart QQ is intended to address 

the additions to and subtractions from the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs that occur through 

imports and exports of closed-cell foams and air-conditioning, refrigeration, and electrical 

equipment. Fluorinated GHGs that are emitted in a foreign country during foam blowing are not 

imported into the United States and are therefore not added to the U.S. supply. Thus, they are 

not included in subpart QQ. 

Track 2 

Comment Summary 2.3-b: Three commenters (0085, 0128, TRANS-DC-03) supported the 

inclusion of importers and exporters of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams in Subpart 

QQ because this equipment contains a significant amount of stored GHGs and this data will 

supplement information from U.S. suppliers. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 15 
Commenter 0128 remarked that the inclusion of importers and exporters of pre-charged 

equipment and closed-cell foams clarifies the picture of the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs in 

light of import gains and export losses. “With the phase-out of ozone depleting substances under 

Title VI of the Clean Air Act, the demand for these gases is growing and the market is quickly 

evolving. We encourage EPA to periodically review and revise covered sources under this sector 

to account for new uses of these high GWP gases and to ensure accurate industry coverage.” 

Commenter TRANS-DC-03 noted that, “inclusion in the MRR of refrigeration and air conditioning 

equipment that holds large banks of fluorinated gas omissions is a key step towards improving 

the responsible disposal and destruction of high GWP gases contained within them.” 

Commenter TRANS-DC-03 recommended that EPA “periodically review and revise covered 

sources under [the pre-charged equipment and closed cell foam] sector to account for new uses 

of these high GWP gases and to ensure accurate industry coverage.” 

Response 2.3-b: EPA thanks the commenters for their support. Please see the response to 

comments document for Subpart QQ for more discussion on the inclusion of importers and 

exporters of pre-charged equipment. 

2.4. Subpart SS 

Track 2 

Relevant Bin Number: 6.1, 6.4.3 

Comment Summary 2.4-a: Three commenters (0083, 0128, TRANS-DC-03) supported the 

inclusion of SF6 and PFC emissions from electrical equipment manufacturers, refurbishers, and 

repair activities in the Mandatory Reporting Rule. 

Response 2.4-a: The EPA thanks the commenter for their support. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 16 
3. Legal Authority 

Track 1 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.3 

Comment Summary 3-a: One commenter (0413) asserted that EPA has no statutory authority 

under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act to require reporting of SF6 nameplate capacity of electric 

equipment. The commenter stated that EPA’s authority is over SF6 emissions in excess of the 

25,000 tons of CO2e annual emission threshold, and that nameplate capacity is not an emission 

threshold number. The commenter further asserts that “the use of 17,820 pounds of SF6

nameplate capacity for electrical equipment assumes high SF6 emission or leakage rates without 

any scientific or factual basis” and is therefore arbitrary. The commenter also questioned the 

relationship of transmission miles to estimated SF6 emissions as referred to in the technical 

memorandum 

Response 3-a: Please see the preamble (section II.Q) of the October 30, 2009 final rule (74 FR 

56260), as well as the response to comments on legal issues (volume 9) for a discussion of 

EPA’s legal authority to collect the data required by this rule. As noted in the preamble to the 

April 10, 2009 proposed rule (74 FR 16448), as well as in the Technical Support Document for 

Emissions from Electric Power Equipment Use, EPA is adopting a threshold based on equipment 

nameplate capacity because (1) a threshold based on nameplate capacity will be simpler and 

less burdensome to implement than an emission-based threshold, and (2) EPA’s data on 

emissions from electric power systems and similar sources indicate that nameplate capacity is 

strongly correlated with emissions. 

As noted in the Technical Support Document, EPA developed the nameplate capacity threshold 

using historical (1999) data from utilities that participate in EPA’s SF6 Emission Reduction 

Partnership for Electric Power Systems (Partnership). To determine the nameplate capacity 

threshold level, the emissions threshold of 25,000 mtCO2e was converted to lbs of SF6 and 

divided by the 1999 weighted average annual leak rate (as a fraction of nameplate capacity) of 

the Partnership. This emission rate, 13 percent, was developed by dividing the 1999 SF6

emissions reported by 42 partner utilities by the nameplate capacity reported by these partners. 

Partners with extraordinarily high or low leak rates (outliers) were excluded from the analysis. The 

Partners included in the analysis represented approximately 24 percent of U.S. transmission 

miles in 2000. 

EPA’s analysis of the relationships among SF6 emissions, SF6 nameplate capacity, and 

transmission miles has been repeatedly reviewed and accepted by experts on SF6 emissions 

from electrical equipment. It was evaluated by the international expert group that crafted the 2006 

IPCC Guidelines for estimating SF6 emissions from electrical equipment, and the nameplatecapacity-based emission factor based on this analysis was incorporated into the Guidelines. EPA 

has used the transmission-mile-based emission factor in the annual U.S. Inventory for 

Greenhouse Gases and Sinks since 2002 to estimate the SF6 emissions of electric power 

systems that do not participate in EPA’s SF6 Emission Reduction Partnership. (Transmission 

mile information for U.S. utilities is available from a publicly available electric power industry 

database, but nameplate capacity information is not.) Every year, the U.S. GHG Inventory is 

made available for public comment and is reviewed by international GHG emissions experts. 

EPA has never received significant (if any) negative comment regarding use of this factor. 

As noted by the commenter, the SF6 emission rate reported by the Partners has declined since 

1999. However, a significant fraction of this decline is likely to have resulted from the Partners’ 

participation in the Partnership. As Partners, electric power systems receive tools and guidance 

from EPA on tracking and reducing emissions. They also attend regular conferences where they 

share their expertise and experience in reducing emissions. Perhaps most important, in 

Memoranda of Understanding with EPA, Partners commit to emission reduction goals and 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 17 
annually track and report their progress in achieving those goals. Without these tools and 

incentives, non-Partners are not likely to have reduced their SF6 emissions to the same extent as 

Partners, if at all. In fact, it is possible that the average emission rate reported by Partners in 

1999 may slightly underestimate even the current emission rate of non-Partners, because 

Partners are relatively highly motivated to reduce their emissions. In view of these 

considerations, EPA believes that the 1999 Partner emission rate is a reasonable value to use in 

developing a nameplate-capacity-based threshold. 

EPA readily acknowledges that factors other than nameplate capacity, such as service and 

disposal practices and equipment age, can affect SF6 emissions. However, the alternative, 

emission-based threshold suggested by the commenter would require electrical equipment users 

to estimate their emissions using facility-specific gas flow and equipment information. While 

estimating emissions based on such information is relatively straightforward, it is significantly 

more burdensome than a simple assessment of nameplate capacity. Effectively, an emissionbased threshold would require electrical equipment users to estimate their emissions to find out 

whether they must estimate their emissions. EPA has concluded that the overall burden of the 

rule will be reduced through the use of a nameplate capacity based threshold. Based on 

information from the Partnership and from the UDI database, EPA estimates that the 17,820 lbs 

of SF6 nameplate capacity threshold covers only a small percentage (10 percent or 141 utilities) 

of total utilities, while covering the majority (approximately 83 percent) of annual emissions. Any 

risk of over-inclusiveness is mitigated by the fact that facilities whose emissions fall below 25,000 

mtCO2e for five years (or below 15,000 mtCO2e for three years) may cease reporting under 

§98.2(i). 

Track 2 

Relevant Bin Number: 1.2.4, 1.1.2 

Comment Summary 3-b: One commenter (0130) confirmed EPA’s legal authority and obligation 

to promulgate final reporting requirements “for all sectors of the economy of the United States” as 

instructed by Congress (see Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 110-

151, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 (December 26, 2007) and Appropriations Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-

9, 123 Stat. 524, 729 (March 11, 2009)). The commenter asserted that “EPA’s failure to 

promulgate final reporting requirements for additional sources of fluorinated GHGs constitutes an 

ongoing failure to perform an act or duty under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. §§7401 et 

seq.” and urged EPA to finalize the rulemaking process in a prompt manner “in order to satisfy its 

legal mandate to require emissions reporting from ‘all sectors of the economy’.” 

This commenter further stated that “EPA’s legal authority to require greenhouse gas emissions 

reporting from additional sources of fluorinated GHGs falls squarely within EPA’s expansive 

statutory authority to collect information under sections 114 and 208 of the CAA and is consistent 

with past EPA practice.” 

Response 3-b: While EPA does not necessarily agree that it has a legal duty to establish GHG 

emission reporting requirements for the source categories covered by this rule, EPA does believe 

that the establishment of reporting requirements for these source categories is appropriate and 

within EPA’s legal authority. Please see the preamble (section II.Q) of the October 30, 2009 final 

rule (74 FR 56260), as well as Vol. 9 Response to Comments, Legal Issues on the 2009 final 

rule, for a discussion of EPA’s legal authority to collect the data required by this rule. Please see 

the preambles of the April 10, 2009 and April 12, 2010 proposed rules for a discussion of why it 

is appropriate to require reporting of fluorinated GHG emissions (or, in the case of subpart QQ, 

imports and exports) from these source categories. 

 

The language in the FY 2008 Appropriations Act instructed EPA to spend money on a rule 

requiring reporting “in all sectors of the economy.” The appropriations language grants EPA 

much discretion to determine the appropriate source categories to include in the reporting rule. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 18 
The phrase “all sectors of the economy” is not further elaborated in the FY 2008 or later 

appropriations language. The term is ambiguous, and EPA may interpret it in any reasonable 

manner. See Chevron, USA v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Notably, the phrase is not “all 

industrial sectors but rather “all sectors of the economy.” There is a difference between an 

industrial sector and a sector of the economy. The former typically refers to a specific type of 

industry, while the latter refers to categories of industries or businesses. See 75 FR 39752-53. 

EPA can cover a sector of the economy in the reporting rule without covering every type of 

source in that sector of the economy. 40 CFR part 98 already covers a broad and diverse 

selection of sources and emissions in the various sectors of the economy. While EPA considers 

it reasonable to include more than one source category in any given sector of the economy, it is 

not required to include every possible source category. EPA thus may exercise its discretion in 

determining which source categories to include within any given sector. 

Comment Summary 3-c: One commenter (0131) urged EPA to “recognize the significant initial 

challenges that will be posed by any new GHG reporting regime. Not only will companies need to 

create new compliance systems, but EPA also likely will need to supplement any final rule 

creating such a regime with guidance to address technical nuances or to clarify ambiguities. 

Consistent with EPA’s existing enforcement policies and practice, therefore, SIA believes that 

enforcement should account for these initial challenges by using less aggressive mechanisms, 

such as the warning letter, and by encouraging industry to perform auditing and otherwise to take 

advantage of EPA’s Self-Disclosure Policy” 

Response 3-c: See response to comment 1-a. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 19 
4. Reporting Schedule 

Track 1 

Relevant Bin Number: 4.8 

Comment Summary 4-a: Commenter 0413 stated that “there is no need to require that all 

reporting sources keep records for five years onsite or to keep the records open for inspection 

since EPA already has received the information electronically. Because EPA has the information 

electronically, this requirement is unnecessary and burdensome. EPA attempts to justify the 

recordkeeping request beginning at I.P. 146. EPA's justification does not meet the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 USC Sections 3501 and 3508, because EPA appears to be 

maximizing not minimizing paperwork. EPA significantly underestimates the burden and cost of 

its requirements.” 

Response 4-a: EPA has changed the recordkeeping retention requirement in § 98.3(g) to 3 

years. For EPA's rationale for this change, see the October 2009 preamble, Section II.M (74 FR 

5620) for a discussion on the general recordkeeping requirements. Records must be kept of all 

data used for the emissions calculations required under this rule for a period of three years. This 

is necessary for compliance, enforcement, and verification purposes. 

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 20 
November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 21 

Appendix A – List of Commenters Sorted by Submission Number 

Submission No. Commenter Organization 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0064 Holliday Environmental Services, Inc 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0065 Anonymous 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0076 Anonymous 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0078 Brian Swanson CMC Sollutions and CMC Support 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0079 Kevin Messner Assoc of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0083 Deborah Boyle Oncor 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0085 Rich Raiders Arkema, Inc. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0087 Holly Propst Western Business Roundtable 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0090 Giedrius Ambrozaitis Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0092 Lorraine Krupa American Chemistry Council 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0106 Brian R. Keck Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0113 J.B. Hoyt Whirlpool Corporation 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0117 Dave Stirpe 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric 

Policy 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0124 Mark Vickery 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0125 Eric Hsieh National Electric Managers Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0128 Pamela Campos Environmental Defense Fund 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0130 Pamela Campos Environmental Defense Fund 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0131 Tom Diamond Semiconductor Industry Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0413 

Environmental Task Force of the Northwest 

Public Power Association 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0511 Rich Raiders Arkema, Inc. 

Trans-DC-01 Dave Stirpe 

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric 

Policy 

Trans-DC-03 Peter Zalzal Environmental Defense Fund