# Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA’s Response to Public Comments

Crosscutting Comments:

Additional Sources of

Fluorinated GHGs

November 2010 1November 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, 20 10 (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 hea rings are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.

EPA prepared this document in mult iple sections, with each secti on 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, th is document does not respond to each comment individually. Rather, EPA summarized and provi ded a single response to each significant argument, assertion, and question contained with in the totality of comments. Within each comment summary, EPA provides in parentheses o ne or more lists of Docket ID numbers for commenters who raised particular issues; however, these lists are not m eant to be exhaustive, and EPA does not individually identify each and every commenter w ho made a certain point in all instances, particularly in cases where multip le commenters expressed essentially identical arguments.

EPA’s responses to comments are generally pr ovided immediately fo llowing each comment summary. In some cases, EPA provided response s 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 Commenter s 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. Utilit ies that misreport or fail to report SF 6 nameplate capacity or small SF 6 emissions according to the requirements of the proposed rule could be subject to administrative, civil, and criminal pen alties. 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 penalti es, 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 t hey do certify accuracy but the data is found to be

inaccurate.”

Response 1-a: The enforcement provisions of the rule ar e 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 enforce ment, 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-O AR-2008-0508-2126 ex cerpt 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 im pact 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 availabl e actual FGHG emissions data by providing a reasonable report update me chanism”, 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 Releas e 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 C AA programs such as NSPS and NESHAP due to the fact that

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 4those programs focus on a facilit y’s success in achiev ing a certain emission s 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 cont rol device is properly designed and operated.

Because CO 2 e emissions data are verified by EPA, not on- site at the facility or by a third party, facilities are required to report more detailed s upporting 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 hav e to perform onsite auditing to verify the data. Due to EPA resource constraints, it is un likely that EPA would be able to make site visits annually to verify reports based on facility reco rds. Without reporting of verification data, therefore, the frequency of verification would be lo wer, 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 sect ion to the recordkeeping section of the rule following further analysis.

EPA has made efforts to reduce the burden on facilit ies reporting under the rule. To the extent possible, emissions calculation methods were dev eloped 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 form at through a centralized data system. EPA is currently developing this system and will, to the ex tent possible, work with other programs and systems to develop a reporting scheme t hat 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 t he Toxics Release Inventory, please see the response to comment EPA-HQ-OAR-2 008-0508-0604.1, 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 t he data reporting requirements, please see the response to EPA-HQ-OAR -2008-0508-050 9.1, 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-2008-0 508-0604.1 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 def inition 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 improv ed 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 emissi ons and the emissions trend ov er 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 woul d be implemented. If the Agency concludes that updates should be allowed, EPA will initiate a rulemaking to adopt update provisi ons in subpart A.

For more discussion of the error correction mechanism, please see the October 2009 preamble, Section II.J.2: Making Correc tions 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 5required for inventory reporting in order to bal ance 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 cont aminant with the reduction of a GHG to avoid reporting and future regulatory action on greenhouse gas emission s 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 report ing 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 whic h 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 po llutants, EPA expects that all sour ces 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 emission s; 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, Statutor y and Executive Order Reviews, and Other

Miscellaneous Comments for additional information about the rule development process. For more discussion of this issue, please see t he 2009 Response to Comments Volume 10 - Cost and Economic Impacts of the Rule, response to DCN EPA-HQ-O AR-2008-0508-034 1 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 t hat 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 fo r 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 performanc e measures would be

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

Response 1-d : EPA acknowledges the commenter’s concer n, but we emphasize that this is a reporting rule, not a control requirement. The prim ary purpose of this rule is to provide policy makers and regulators with accurate econom y-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 subpar ts 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 6of 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 th e Clean Air Act. However, we expect that the information will prove useful for other purposes as well. For ex ample, using the rich data set provided by this rulemaking, EPA, States and the pu blic 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 alte rnative wherever continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) are required. The commenter as serted that PEMS are a very cost-effective and robust alternative that have been proven effe ctive 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 PEM S to monitor emissions under the Mandatory GHG Reporting Rule generally, please see 2009 Respon se 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 -2008-0508-022 8e 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 certai nty to manufacturers as to the contents of the list, which will allow for stable planning and ma intain a transparent regulatory process.

These commenters recomm ended 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 fa cilities must monitor and repor t, and EPA has determined that this definition provides sufficient clarity regardi ng 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: Supplie rs 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 Mini mus 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 CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O from each stationary combustion unit must be reported under Subpart C of the rule by following the requ irements 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 “Su bpart A as it is currently written does not require the reporting of emissions fr om Subpart L (and other recently proposed subparts).”

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 7Response 1-h : As noted in the preamble to the Prop osed 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 fr om IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessm ent Report (AR4) because it is more comprehensive and accurate. The comm enter explains that “emissions data must be consistent with the renewed data of the IPCC. Recent climate legislat ion also refers to the Fourth Assessment. Further, if a value does not exist fo r 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 lis ted 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 ex cerpt 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 progra ms whenever possible.”

Response 1.1-a: EPA thanks for commenter for their s upport. 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 scop es 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 t he data reporting syst ems 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 betwe en 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 requi red 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 ru le strikes an appropriate balance between the need to develop accurate GHG footprints and the co sts and resources required by facilities to compile and report GHG data.

Commenter 0076 stated that, “although there are nega tives mainly for the businesses relating to the costs of the reporting, I believe that t he potential benefits far outw eigh these costs. By requiring the reporting of this information will a llow 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 co mpanies and the general public as to the amount of

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 8gasses that are being released by companies and no longer let them hide potential harmful effects they are causing to the environmen t. As environmental protection and awareness

continues to become increa singly prevalent, this reporting w ill 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. A ll 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 repo rting 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 natur e of economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions data, including emissions data from these sector s. 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 t he public have already lost a year’s worth of this critical data, and EPA must ac t 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 pr ompt manner and to fulfill its legal duty” and to do so expeditiously. The commenter expressed concer n over the loss of a year’s worth of critical emissions data from these sectors, and apprecia ted 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 s upport. The goal of the reporting program is to provide accurate, economy-wide dat a 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. P ublic 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 opt ions that would require accurate and reliable data. As policies evolve and new programs ar e 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-2008-0508-04 33.1 excerpt 1.

Comment Summary 1.1-c: One commenter (0125) “applauds the Agency for its proactive outreach to the industry and its hi story of partnerships in reducing SF 6 emissions. The Task Group members look forward to collaboratively implementing the greenhouse gas reporting

rules.”

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 9Response 1.1-c : EPA thanks the commenter for their input and reco gnizes 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 dat e 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 a ll sectors of the economy of the United States.” (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub lic Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)). The accompanying joint explan atory statement directed EPA to “u se its existing authority under the Clean Air Act” to develop this mandatory GHG re porting rule, and directed EPA “to include in its rule reporting of emissions resulting from ups tream 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-O AR-2008-0508-0615, ex cerpt 1 (p. 49-50) in Volume 7 of the 2009 Response to Comments document.

For a discussion of EPA’s legal oblig ations 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, t he commenter stated that EPA does not provide sufficient physical evidence of statistica lly significant climate change and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report on which the rule relies is discredited, not peer-review ed, and relies on inaccurate models.

Response 1.2-b : The commenter suggests that the propo sed 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 Ac t, which mandated EPA to “develop and publish a

draft rule not later than nine months after the dat e 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 a ll sectors of the economy of the United States.” (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, P ublic Law 110-161, 121 Stat 1844, 2128 (2008)).

As for the commenter’s concern regarding the scie nce of climate change, this rule is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. For a discus sion 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 betwee n climate science and this rule, please see the 2009 Response to Comments Volume 7, resp onse to comment EPA- HQ-OAR-2008-0508-0615 excerpt 1 (p. 49).

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 10Comment 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 comp lex 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 requ ired by EPA's Peer Re view 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 su bparts 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 developm ent 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 e ffort. We solicited input and maintained an open door policy for those parties interested in discussi ng 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 pr ovided 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 a ffected source categories. These documents were made available to the public through the public docket for the 2009 ru lemaking (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 hot line for interested parties to ask questions

about the rule.

EPA received extensive and detailed comments on the proposed s ubparts I, L, and DD in 2009. To ensure that we effectively addressed these co mments, 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 s upporting 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 resource s 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 confer ence calls with stakeholders as part of this policy. Details of these meetings are availabl e in the docket. Therefore, EPA provided multiple mechanisms for interested parties to express thei r concerns, ask questions, and provide input onthe 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 11November 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 t hat 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 knowle dge of the industry. These staff completed comprehensive reviews of existing GHG monitoring protocols and selected methods that would provide accurate emissions data without placing t oo great a burden on reporters. Peer review is the process whereby Agency staff involves exper ts 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), regu lations 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 progra ms. For example, many of the monitoring methods included in this rule are based on IPCC guide lines 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 ex pected to provide accurate emissions data without placing too great a burden on reporters. To t he 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 SF 6 as a greenhouse gas under the Mandatory Reporting Rule . The commenter asserted that the amount

of SF 6 gas emitted into the atmosphere from electr ical 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 SF 6 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 Repor t. The commenter concluded that “there is no rational basis for EPA to impose mandatory recordkeeping on SF 6 in electric utilities.”

Response 2.2-a : The final rule requires reporting of GH Gs whose emissions result from human activity: CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 , and other fluorinated compounds. This approach

remains consistent with other State or Feder al 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 em issions inventory purposes because they are long-lived, well-mixed GHGs not controlled by the M ontreal Protocol as Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. SF 6 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 SF 6 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 Re porting 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 fact ors such as the cost-effectiveness with which

reductions can be made and the ease with which su ch reductions can be verified. In view of these considerations, information on SF 6 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 13Comment Summary 2.2-b: One commenter (0413) expressed concern that inclusion of SF 6 in the Mandatory Reporting Rule may lead to additional SF 6 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 SF 6 is included in the Mandatory Reporting Rule. Please note that this rule requi res only reporting of GHG emissions and does not establish a cap and trade program or impose any lim itations 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 numbe r 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-2008-0508-024 9 excerpt 1 (p.55).

Comment Summary 2.2-c: One commenter (0413) asserted that all applications of SF 6 are considered “closed systems” that have been verifi ed historically as extremely low emissions of

“less than 1% loss.”

This commenter went on to explain that “SF 6 has been used in the environment for nearly 50 years. SF 6 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 wester n states. Two benefits of SF 6 not disclosed by EPA as applied to high voltage equipment are: First, SF 6 equipment requires less maintenance than oil breakers and thus provides significantly more reliable electric service, which is required by FERC. Second, SF 6 equipment requires smaller land areas than oil-fille d equipment, and third, the replacement of oilfilled equipment reduces the risk of spillage. Th ese are significant reliability and environmental benefits. ETF member utilities are committed to further reducing SF 6 "leakage" or emissions are currently working with EPA in tracking all SF 6 emissions.”

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

SF 6 gas is unnecessary and imposes additional paperwork on electric utilities with no

environmental benefit.”

Response 2.2-c: EPA is not familiar with verified hist orical data that shows average SF 6 emissions from electric power systems in the United States to be less than 1% annually. The

overall leak rate for Partners in EPA’s SF 6 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 SF 6 has variety of uses and benefits, but EPA’s directive for the Mandatory Reporting Rule is not to conduct assess ments 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 SF 6 gas emissions without developing any alternatives of its use.” The commente r recommended that instead of requiring mandatory reporting of SF 6 , “EPA encourage new technologies, new best management practices, and develop a replacement for SF 6 gas” through the use of tax credits and incentives.

Response 2.2-d: Please note that this rule requires on ly 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 Re sponse 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 SF 6 gas, asserting that there are over 3,000 electric power systems in the US.

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

have SF 6 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 SF 6 emissions, but acknowledged that the number of electric power systems with SF 6 emissions is probably greater

than 1354 since SF 6 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 erron eous. Specifically, the comme nter asserted that there is

little or no technical basis for EPA’s relation between SF 6 nameplate capacity and SF 6 gas emissions and that the erroneous correlation between these two creates a false impression of high SF 6 gas emission rates, which conflicts with reported SF 6 emissions reductions over the past

two decades.

This commenter stated, “EPA's rulemaking se eks reporting of namepl ate capacity above a specified capacity threshold of 17,820 pounds of SF 6 gas in electrical equipment. EPA argues at I.P. 1528 that nameplate capacity threshold is the equivalent to the 25,000 metric ton CO 2 e emissions threshold level.” The commenter was concerned that no “peer review scientific evidence exists to link nameplate capacity with actual SF 6 gas emissions or leakage.” This commenter stated that, “given the lack of ex press congressional authorization for reporting "capacity" and the significant reductions in SF 6 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 CO 2 e.”

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 t he 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 retain ed in the foam and emitted over the life of the foam material. For foam products containing ga seous 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-c harged 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 15Commenter 0128 remarked that the inclusion of importers and export ers of pre-charged equipment and closed-cell foams clarifies the pictur e of the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs in light of import gains and export losses. “With t he phase-out of ozone depleting substances under Title VI of the Clean Air Act, the demand for thes e 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 ga s omissions is a key step towards improving the responsible disposal and destruction of high GWP gases contained within them.”

Commenter TRANS-DC-03 recomme nded 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 SF 6 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 SF 6 nameplate capacity of electric equipment. The commenter stated that EPA’s authority is over SF 6 emissions in excess of the 25,000 tons of CO 2 e annual emission threshold, and that nameplate capacity is not an emission

threshold number. The commenter further as serts that “the use of 17,820 pounds of SF 6 nameplate capacity for electrical equipment assumes high SF 6 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 SF 6 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 thres hold based on equipment nameplate capacity because (1) a threshold based on nameplate capacity will be simpler and less burdensome to implement than an emis sion-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 Suppo rt Document, EPA developed t he nameplate capac ity threshold using historical (1999) data from utilities that participate in EPA’s SF 6 Emission Reduction Partnership for Electric Power Systems (Partn ership). To determine the nameplate capacity threshold level, the emissi ons threshold of 25,000 mtCO 2 e was converted to lbs of SF 6 and divided by the 1999 weighted average annual leak ra te (as a fraction of nameplate capacity) of the Partnership. This emission rate, 13 percent, was developed by dividing the 1999 SF 6 emissions reported by 42 partner utilities by the nameplate capacity reported by these partners. Partners with extraordinarily high or low leak ra tes (outliers) were excluded from the analysis. The Partners included in the analysis represented ap proximately 24 percent of U.S. transmission

miles in 2000.

EPA’s analysis of the relationships among SF 6 emissions, SF 6 nameplate capacity, and transmission miles has been repeatedly reviewed and accepted by experts on SF 6 emissions from electrical equipment. It was evaluated by the international expert group that crafted the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for estimating SF 6 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 SF 6 emissions of electric power systems that do not participate in EPA’s SF6 Emi ssion 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 review ed by international GHG emissions experts. EPA has never received significant (if any) negative comment rega rding use of this factor.

As noted by the commenter, the SF 6 emission rate reported by the Partners has declined since 1999. However, a significant fraction of this dec line is likely to have resulted from the Partners’ participation in the Partnership. As Partners, el ectric power systems receive tools and guidance from EPA on tracking and reducing em issions. They also attend regular conferences where they share their expertise and experience in reduci ng emissions. Perhaps most important, in Memoranda of Understanding with EPA, Pa rtners commit to emission reduction goals and

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 17annually track and report their progress in ac hieving those goals. Without these tools and incentives, non-Partners are not likely to have redu ced their SF6 emissions to the same extent as Partners, if at all. In fact, it is possible t hat 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-capac ity-based threshold.

EPA readily acknowledges that factors other than nameplate c apacity, such as service and disposal practices and equipment age, can affect SF 6 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 re latively 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 t he overall burden of the rule will be reduced through t he use of a nameplate capacity based threshold. Based on information from the Partnership and from the UDI database, EPA estima tes 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 fa ct 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 Co nsolidated 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 addition al 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 reporti ng 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 fo r the source categories cover ed 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 ec onomy.” The appropria tions language grants EPA much discretion to determine the appropriate source categories to include in the reporting rule.

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 18The phrase “all sectors of the economy” is not further elaborated in the FY 2008 or later appropriations language. The term is ambiguo us, 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. T he 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 co vering every type of source in that sector of the economy. 40 CFR part 98 already covers a broad and diverse

selection of source s and emissions in the vari ous sectors of the econom y. While EPA considers it reasonable to include more than one source catego ry in any given sector of the economy, it is not required to include every possible source cate gory. 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 re porting 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 policie s and practice, therefore, SIA believes that

enforcement should account for these initial c hallenges by using less aggressive mechanisms, such as the warning letter, and by encouraging i ndustry 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 on site or to keep the records open for inspection since EPA already has received the information electronically. Be cause 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 Se ctions 3501 and 3508, because EPA appears to be maximizing not minimizing paperwork. EPA signi ficantly underestimates the burden and cost of its requirements.”

Response 4-a: EPA has changed the recordkeeping retent ion requirement in § 98.3(g) to 3 years. For EPA's rationale for this c hange, 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 calculat ions required under this rule for a period of three years. This is necessary for compliance, enfor cement, and verification purposes.

November 8, 2010 Crosscutting Comments 20November 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-2009-0 927-0078 Brian Swanson CMC So llutions and CMC Support

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

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0 927-0083 Deborah Boyle Oncor

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0 927-0085 Rich Raiders Arkema, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 -0087 Holly Propst West ern Business Roundtable

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

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927 -0092 Lorraine Krupa Amer ican Chemistry Council

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0 927-0106 Brian R. Keck Air Pr oducts and Chemicals, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0 927-0113 J.B. Hoyt Wh irlpool 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 El ectric 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-2009-0 927-0131 Tom Di amond Semiconductor I ndustry Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0 508-0413 Environmental Task Force of the Northwest

Public Power Association

EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0 508-0511 Rich Raiders Arkema, Inc.

Trans-DC-01 Dave Stirpe Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy

Trans-DC-03 Peter Zalzal Environmental Defense Fund