; (4) while the document of the Office of Management and Budget entitled Circular A–4 and dated September 17, 2003, specifies that, in carrying out an evaluation of the global effects of a rule, regulation, or action, the evaluation shall be reported separately from domestic costs and benefits of that rule, regulation, or action, the social cost of carbon instead calculates the global benefits in lieu of, not in addition to, the domestic costs of a rule, regulation, or action; (5) the use of the estimates for the social cost of carbon, the social cost of methane, and the social cost of nitrous oxide, in the rulemakings of the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the Interior, and the Council on Environmental Quality without public notice and an adequate opportunity for comment violates scientific peer review requirements; (6) the Environmental Protection Agency relied upon the social cost of methane, without appropriate peer review or opportunity for public notice and comment, in justifying the costs and benefits of the September 2015 proposed and the June 2016 finalized rules under the Clean Air Act for methane emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed sources in the oil and gas sector; (7) the Department of the Interior used the social cost of methane estimate to justify the costs and benefits of the final rule entitled Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation (81 Fed. Reg. 83008 (November 18, 2016)); (8) the Council on Environmental Quality issued final guidance on August 1, 2016, that, with respect to a monetary cost-benefit analysis for an evaluation of a proposed Federal action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ( 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), directed the head of each Federal agency to include the social cost of carbon in any consideration of the effect of greenhouse gas emissions