This comment letter response contains two parts:

(1) The original submittal from the commenter.

(2) A data base printout of EPA’s response to each point raised by the commenter.

Notes about the response letters:

• The response letters were generated by a data base used to track the content of all public

comment submittals and ensure that the Agency responds to each. Each comment letter

was assigned a Letter ID that corresponds to the last four digits of the docket number of the

original comment (as posted on www.regulations.gov).

• Each response letter includes: comment text; an EPA

‐ assigned comment code; and an

individual response. These are described and explained below.

• The data base contains Comment text from the letters submitted by commenters.

Many hard copy letters were scanned into electronic format for inclusion in the data

base. As a result, there may be some typographical errors attributable to optical

character recognition issues. However, all original submittals were reviewed in the

process of drafting responses to ensure that the comment content was understood and

appropriately addressed.

• The content of each comment letter was divided into topic areas and assigned a unique

Comment ID. Additionally, one or more Comment Codes (i.e., unique topic area ID) was

assigned to each discrete point raised by a commenter. This information was added to

the data base. To inform final rulemaking decisions, all comments and information

received on a given topic were reviewed by technical experts in each rule area (e.g., on

construction requirements).

• Following decisions on the final rule requirements, Individual responses were drafted

by topic area to ensure completeness and consistency of the responses with the final

rule and other responses to similar comments. Each discrete point made by a

commenter was given a unique response.

• Upon completion of comment responses, all information was entered into the data base.

Each letter response is a compilation of each comment and its individual response,

compiled in the order of the original comment letter. As a result of this process, there is

repetition in the response text. The Agency believes this approach ensures completeness

and attention to each comment letter that was submitted.

• All comments in a topic area were reviewed, evaluated, and responded to concurrently.

Responses on each topic area are compiled and are also available in the rulemaking docket.Oil refiner says CO2 bill to cost it $7 billion a year

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA

‐ GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57R4JJ20090828

We cannot afford Cap & Trade and there is no technical reason for CO2 sequestration!

G.H. HollidayLetter ID: 0323

Commenter: G.H. Holliday

Organization: Holliday Environmental Services, Inc.

Letter ID: 0323 Comment ID: 27857 Letter Lines: 16 to 19

Comment Code: 6000 6. Other Comments that are Out of Scope for the NODA

Comment: Oil refiner says CO2 bill to cost it $7 billion a year

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA

‐ GreenBusiness/idUSTRE57R4JJ20090828

We cannot afford Cap & Trade and there is no technical reason for CO2

sequestration!

Individual Response: This comment is outside the scope of the Notice of Data Availability and the UIC

Program’s authority under the GS rulemaking.