2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 2535-2625 [2015-32753]

Download as PDF Vol. 81 Friday, No. 10 January 15, 2016 Part IV Environmental Protection Agency tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 40 CFR Part 98 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 40 CFR Part 98 [EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526; FRL–9934–93– OAR] RIN 2060–AS60 2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; grant of reconsideration. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. This action also proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements to the program. This action also proposes action in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016. Public hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by January 20, 2016. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on February 1, 2016, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on its Web site (https:// www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/) if a hearing is requested. SUMMARY: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: (202) 343–2342; email address: GHGReporting@epa.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Helpline at: https:// www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ ghgrule_contactus.htm or Carole Cook at 202–343–9263. Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of today’s proposal will also be available through the WWW. ADDRESSES: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Following the Administrator’s signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at https://www.epa.gov/ ghgreporting. Regulated entities. These proposed revisions affect entities that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98). This proposed rule would impose on entities across the U.S. a degree of reporting consistency for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from most sectors of the economy and therefore is ‘‘nationally applicable’’ within the meaning of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the EPA concludes that the rule is nationally applicable, the EPA is also making a determination, for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1), that this action is of nationwide scope and effect and is based on such a determination. (See CAA section 307(b)(1) (a petition for review may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ‘‘if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination’’). Further, the Administrator has determined that rules codified in 40 CFR part 98 are subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other actions as the Administrator may determine’’). These are proposed amendments to existing regulations. If finalized, these amended regulations would affect owners or operators of certain suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. Regulated categories and entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 1 of this preamble: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY NAICS Examples of affected facilities General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources .......................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Category .......................... Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal combustion engines. Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas. Manufacturers of lumber and wood products. Pulp and paper mills. Chemical manufacturers. Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products. Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products. Steel works, blast furnaces. Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories. Electric, gas, and sanitary services. Health services. Educational services. Projects that inject acid gas containing CO2 underground. Acid Gas Injection Projects ........................................................ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 211 321 322 325 324 316, 326, 339 331 332 336 221 622 611 211111 or 211112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2537 TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY—Continued Category NAICS Adipic Acid Production ............................................................... Aluminum Production ................................................................. Ammonia Manufacturing ............................................................ CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Projects ........................ 325199 331312 325311 211 Electrical Equipment Use ........................................................... Electronics Manufacturing .......................................................... 221121 334111 334413 334419 Geologic Sequestration Sites .................................................... Glass Production ........................................................................ N/A 327211 327213 327212 HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction ........................ Hydrogen Production ................................................................. Iron and Steel Production .......................................................... 325120 325120 331111 Lime Production ......................................................................... 327410 Nitric Acid Production ................................................................ Petrochemical Production .......................................................... 325311 32511 325199 325110 325182 325312 324110 322110 322121 322130 562212 221320 325181 212391 211111 324110 221210 211112 325120 325120 212113 212112 322110 322121 322122 322130 311611 311411 311421 325193 324110 562212 221320 322110 322121 322122 322130 311611 311411 311421 Phosphoric Acid Production ....................................................... Petroleum Refineries ................................................................. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing .................................................. Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ................................................. Soda Ash Manufacturing ........................................................... Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels ..................................... Suppliers of Petroleum Products ............................................... Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs .......................................... Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases ................................ Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide ...................................................... Underground Coal Mines ........................................................... Industrial Wastewater Treatment ............................................... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Industrial Waste Landfills ........................................................... Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of facilities than VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Examples of affected facilities Adipic acid manufacturing facilities. Primary aluminum production facilities. Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities. Oil and gas extraction projects using CO2 enhanced oil and gas recovery. Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities. Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities. MEMS manufacturing facilities. CO2 geologic sequestration projects. Flat glass manufacturing facilities. Glass container manufacturing facilities. Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities. Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities Hydrogen manufacturing facilities. Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace shops. Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities. Nitric acid manufacturing facilities. Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities. Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities. Ethylene manufacturing facilities. Carbon black manufacturing facilities. Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. Petroleum refineries. Pulp mills. Paper mills. Paperboard mills. Solid waste landfills. Sewage treatment facilities. Akalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities. Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation. Coal liquefaction at mine sites. Petroleum refineries. Natural gas distribution facilities. Natural gas liquid extraction facilities. Industrial gas manufacturing facilities. Industrial gas manufacturing facilities. Underground anthracite coal mining operations. Underground bituminous coal mining operations. Pulp mills. Paper mills. Newsprint mills. Paperboard mills. Meat processing facilities. Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities. Fruit and vegetable canning facilities. Ethanol manufacturing facilities. Petroleum refineries. Solid waste landfills. Sewage treatment facilities. Pulp mills. Paper mills. Newsprint mills. Paperboard mills. Meat processing facilities. Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable manufacturing facilities. Fruit and vegetable canning facilities. those listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the relevant criteria in the sections related to industrial gas suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Many facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have GHG emissions from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble. Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document. ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials CAA Clean Air Act CAS Chemical Abstracts Service CBI confidential business information CEMS continuous emission monitoring system CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 methane CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent DE destruction efficiency EDC ethylene dichloride e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool EF emission factor EGU NSPS Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units EIA Energy Information Administration EO Executive Order ER enhanced oil and gas recovery EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FR Federal Register GHG greenhouse gas GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program GWP Global warming potential Hg mercury HHV high heat value ICR Information Collection Request IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISBN International Standard Book Number IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry IVT Inputs Verification Tool kg kilograms LDC local distribution company LNG liquefied natural gas mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour mmcfd million cubic feet per day MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration MSW municipal solid waste mtCO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents N2O nitrous oxide NGL natural gas liquid NAICS North American Industry Classification System OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ODS ozone-depleting substances OMB Office of Management and Budget PRA Paperwork Reduction Act PFC perfluorocarbon QA/QC quality assurance/quality control RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act RY Reporting year SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride UIC Underground Injection Control U.S. United States UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 VCM vinyl chloride monomer Table of Contents I. Background A. How is this preamble organized? B. Executive Summary C. Background on This Proposed Rule D. Legal Authority E. When would the proposed amendments apply? F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule? G. Methods Incorporated by Reference II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98 A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98 B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory C. Other Amendments D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart A. Subpart A—General Provisions B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing G. Subpart N—Glass Production H. Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production L. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production M. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries N. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production O. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing P. Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing Q. Subpart DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment R. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines S. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills T. Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment U. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels V. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids W. Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases X. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data Reporting Elements A. Overview and Background B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting Elements D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for Which No Determination Has Been Previously Established PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data Elements F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated? B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98 VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations I. Background A. How is this preamble organized? The first section of this preamble contains background information regarding the origin of the proposed amendments. This section also discusses the EPA’s legal authority under the CAA to promulgate (including subsequent amendments to) the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘Part 98’’) and the EPA’s legal authority to make confidentiality determinations for new or revised data elements required by this amendment or for existing data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not previously been proposed. Section I of this preamble also discusses when the proposed amendments would apply and provides additional information regarding materials referenced in this rulemaking. Section II of this preamble describes the types of amendments included in this rulemaking, and includes the rationale for each type of proposed change. Section III of this preamble is organized by Part 98 subpart and contains detailed information on the proposed revisions to each subpart and the rationale for the proposed revisions in each section. Section IV of this preamble discusses the proposed confidentiality determinations for new or substantially E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data reporting elements, as well as proposed confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR for which the EPA has not previously made a determination or where the EPA has determined that the current determination is no longer appropriate. Section V of this preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments. Finally, section VI of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 B. Executive Summary The GHGRP is a well-known, reliable source for high-quality, timely greenhouse gas emissions data that enables key stakeholders to understand greenhouse gas emissions, identify emission reduction opportunities, and take action. Since the first year of data collection through the GHGRP, the EPA has responded to tens of thousands of questions from reporters, engaged in stakeholder outreach through compliance assistance webinars, solicited feedback via a public testing process to help improve the EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), and learned about various site specific scenarios via interaction with reporters during the verification of submitted data. Through these extensive outreach efforts, the EPA has improved our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of the Part 98 provisions, as well as issues that may impact the quality of the data received. The proposed changes would amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting entities. The EPA is proposing amendments that can be categorized as follows: • Revisions to streamline implementation and reduce burden. These changes reduce or simplify requirements in a manner that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA. The changes would also improve the usefulness of data for the public. Such revisions include revising requirements VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 to focus EPA and reporter resources on relevant data, removing reporting requirements for specific facilities that report little to no emissions, or removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary. • Amendments to improve quality of data. These amendments are needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule and would expand monitoring or reporting requirements that are necessary to improve verification and improve the accuracy of data used to inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘U.S. GHG Inventory’’). • Minor amendments to better reflect industry processes and emissions. Such revisions include amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions). • Minor clarifications and corrections to improve understanding of the rule. Such revisions include the following: Corrections to errors in terms and definitions in certain equations; clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references within and between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public’s understanding of the rule. This action also proposes to establish confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain data elements added or revised in these proposed amendments, and for certain existing data elements for which no confidentiality determination has been previously proposed.1 Finally, section III.S of this preamble describes the proposed changes in response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of 1 During the development of Part 98, the EPA received a number of comments from stakeholders regarding their concern that some of the data reported consisted of confidential business information that, if released to the public, would likely harm their competitive position. The EPA has subsequently published a series of notices to establish determinations for the confidentiality status of data required to be reported under the GHGRP (i.e., ‘‘confidentiality determinations’’). See section IV.A of this preamble for additional information. PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2539 subpart HH, which applies to municipal solid waste landfills. The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden for Part 98 reporters in cases where they would expand current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden for reporters in cases where they would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported. The estimated incremental change in burden from the proposed amendments to Part 98 includes burden associated with: (1) Changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing existing reporting requirements; (2) revisions to the applicability of subparts such that additional facilities would be required to report; and (3) additional monitoring requirements for underground coal mines. Many of the amendments that the EPA is proposing in this action are not anticipated to have a significant impact on burden. As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to implement these changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time. The burden has subsequently been determined based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in each year (e.g., the burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A (General Provisions)). The EPA determined that one-time implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to applicability and monitoring requirements that would first apply in reporting year (RY) 2017 and RY2018; therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the subsequent annual costs incurred by industry. As more fully explained in section V of this preamble, the EPA has determined that the total estimated incremental burden associated with all revisions in this proposed rulemaking would be $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by the proposed rule, with an estimated annual burden of $1,081,830 per year once all changes have been implemented. The incremental implementation costs for each reporting year are summarized in Table 2 of this preamble. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2540 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—INCREMENTAL BURDEN FOR REPORTING YEARS 2016–2019 [$/year] Reporting year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total Annual Cost (all subparts) ...................................................................... $9K $34K $2.0M $1.1M C. Background on This Proposed Rule The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The final rule became effective on December 29, 2009 and requires reporting of GHGs from various facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act.2 The EPA subsequently proposed and finalized amendments to various subparts, including subparts in this action. The amendments generally did not change the basic requirements of Part 98, but were intended to improve clarity and ensure consistency across the calculation, monitoring, and data reporting requirements. The EPA issued additional rules in 2010 finalizing the requirements for subparts T, FF, II, and TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010); and subparts RR and UU (75 FR 75060, December 1, 2010). Following the promulgation of these subparts, the EPA finalized several technical and clarifying amendments to these and other subparts under the GHGRP. A number of subparts have been revised since promulgation (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR 73866, November 29, 2011; 77 FR 10373, February 22, 2012; 77 FR 29935, May 21, 2012; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; and 79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014). The amendments in this action are a continuation of the effort to improve the GHGRP and address issues identified during implementation. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 D. Legal Authority The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to the EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. See the preambles to the proposed and final GHG reporting rule for further information. In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed new, revised, and existing data elements in Part 98 under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA. Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that the EPA make publicly available information obtained under CAA section 114, except for information (excluding emission data) that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. Generally section 307(d) contains a set of procedures relating to the issuance and review of certain enumerated CAA rules. E. When would the proposed amendments apply? In this action, the EPA is proposing: (1) Numerous amendments to Part 98 including subpart-specific revisions that would streamline implementation of Part 98, improve the quality of the data collected under the rule, update certain provisions to more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions, and other corrections, as described in sections II and III of this preamble; and (2) new or revised confidentiality determinations for data elements that are added or revised in the proposed amendments or for certain existing data elements, as described in section IV of this preamble. The EPA is planning to phase in implementation of the proposed requirements depending on the nature of the revision. Some of the amendments would apply in RY2016, some in RY2017, and some in RY2018. This section describes when each of the proposed amendments would apply. We are proposing that amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), with related revisions to subpart A (General Provisions), would apply to the RY2016 reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. The remaining amendments proposed in this action would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2017, except for amendments to V (Nitric Acid Production), Y (Petroleum Refineries), FF (Underground Coal Mines) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) which would apply to reports for RY2018. We are proposing to implement these revisions over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time, in consideration of the types of changes being made and the associated revisions needed to implement them, including impacts to reporters and revisions to EPA’s e-GGRT. Specifically, some of the proposed changes include revisions to software that would need to be updated in e-GGRT. The time phasing also allows sufficient lead time for reporters to implement the proposed changes following the promulgation of the final rule revisions. For example, where the proposed changes would require reporters to collect new data that are not readily available or that could not be determined from existing monitoring and recordkeeping, the EPA would not apply these changes to RY2016 reports. The proposed schedule also provides sufficient time for new reporters who would become subject to Part 98 as a result of the proposed amendments to acquire monitoring equipment and begin collecting data. The amendments that would apply to RY2016, RY2017, and RY2018 reports are discussed in sections I.E.1, I.E.2, and I.E.3 of this preamble. 1. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2016? Table 3 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would apply to RY2016. 2 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2541 TABLE 3—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2016 Subpart affected a Changes applicable in RY2016 A—General Provisions ............................................................................. 40 CFR 98.6 (definition of ‘‘Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system’’ only). All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. I—Electronics Manufacturing .................................................................... HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ....................................................... a Subpart names may also be found in the Table of Contents for this preamble. We are proposing that all changes to subparts I and HH, and minor revisions to subpart A, would apply to reports for RY2016, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. For subpart I, we are proposing several revisions that would improve the quality of the data collected. For example, we are proposing to revise the requirements of the technology triennial report in 40 CFR 98.96(y), which applies to semiconductor manufacturing facilities with emissions from subpart I processes greater than 40,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) per year. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 98.96(y)(1), facilities are required to submit the first triennial report on March 31, 2017. The changes we are proposing to 40 CFR 98.96(y) would clarify the types of data and measurements to be submitted with the triennial report, but would not fundamentally alter the data reported or require additional data collection from reporters. Specifically, we are clarifying that where reporters provide any utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data in the triennial report, they must also include information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, where available (see section III.F of this preamble for additional information). We are proposing to implement the changes to subpart I in RY2016 in order to ensure that the data submitted in the triennial reports submitted on March 31, 2017 reflects these methods and conditions, which will help the EPA to more efficiently review the reported data. In addition to the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing revisions to improve the methodology used to calculate the fraction of fluorinated-GHG and fluorinated-GHG byproduct destroyed or removed in a fab using the stack testing methodology. Under subpart HH, we are proposing several revisions to improve the quality of the data collected, better align the rule requirements with industry operating practices, and streamline the reporting requirements. We are also proposing one related change to subpart A of Part 98 to update the definition of ‘‘gas collection system or landfill gas collection system’’ in 40 CFR 98.6. These revisions, which are described in section III.S of this preamble, are proposed to apply to RY2016 reports because they provide additional clarifications and flexibility regarding the existing regulatory requirements that address questions raised by reporters during implementation. We have determined that it would be feasible for existing reporters to implement the proposed changes to subparts A, I, and HH for RY2016 because these changes are consistent with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. The proposed revisions would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially affect the type of information that must be collected. The owners or operators are not required to actually submit RY2016 reports until March 31, 2017, which is three months or more after we expect the final rule amendments based on this proposal to be published, thus providing ample opportunity for reporters to adjust to the amendments. 2. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2017? Table 4 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would apply to RY2017. For these revisions, reporters would submit an annual report on March 31, 2018. TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2017 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2017 A—General Provisions ............................................................................. C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources .................................. E—Adipic Acid Production ....................................................................... F—Aluminum Production .......................................................................... G—Ammonia Manufacturing .................................................................... N—Glass Production ................................................................................ O—HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction ................................ P—Hydrogen Production .......................................................................... Q—Iron and Steel Production .................................................................. S—Lime Manufacturing ............................................................................ U—Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate ..................................................... X—Petrochemical Production ................................................................... Z—Phosphoric Acid Production ............................................................... AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing ........................................................ CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing ................................................................. DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment .............. II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment ........................................................ LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels ............................................... MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products .................................................... NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids ......................... PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide ............................................................ RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide ..................................... TT—Industrial Waste landfills ................................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 § 98.2; § 98.3; § 98.4; § 98.6; § 98.7(e)(33); and Tables A–3 and A–4. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. All proposed changes in subpart. Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2542 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2017—Continued Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2017 UU—Injection of Carbon Dioxide ............................................................. The changes to subparts listed in Table 4 of this preamble would apply to the annual reports submitted for RY2017 on March 31, 2018; these changes are proposed to apply to the 2017 reporting year in order to allow for adequate time for the agency to integrate the revisions through e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT), as well as prepare to incorporate the revisions into other GHGRP datasets and publications. The changes to subparts included in Table 4 of this preamble would be feasible for reporters to implement for RY2017 because these changes are consistent with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. In most cases, the proposed revisions include minor revisions such as editorial corrections, corrections to cross-references, and technical clarifications regarding the existing regulatory requirements. Where calculation equations are proposed to be modified, the changes generally clarify terms in the emission calculation equations and do not materially affect monitoring requirements or how emissions are calculated. In some cases, we are adding flexibility by providing alternative monitoring methods or missing data procedures that would reduce burden on reporters. For example, in subpart AA (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing), for missing All proposed changes in subpart. measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, we are proposing to allow reporters to use the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired that are currently reported under 40 CFR 63, subpart MM (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills) as an alternative to maximum mass and flow rate values currently required in 40 CFR 98.275(b) (see section III.O of this preamble for additional information). Other proposed changes would reduce the type of information that must be collected; e.g., we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98 (see section III.A.1 of this preamble), and we are proposing to remove reporting requirements in subpart O (HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction) (see section III.H of this preamble) and subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) (see section III.U of this preamble) that are no longer needed to support verification or other activities. Although some of the proposed revisions included in Table 4 of this preamble would include reporting additional data, the EPA has determined that the data we are proposing to collect would be readily available to reporters. For example, we are proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR part 98, subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) and subpart NN (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) for reporters to include the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the facility’s annual report. Because these revisions would not require the collection of additional data or changes to existing monitoring requirements, it is feasible for these revisions to be implemented for RY2016. However, we are not implementing these changes until RY2017 to allow the agency sufficient time to incorporate the revisions into eGGRT and IVT. Finally, we note that the reporters affected under the subparts in Table 4 of this preamble are not required to actually submit RY2017 reports until March 31, 2018. Because a final rule based on this proposal would be finalized in late 2016, reporters will have over a year to prepare for the amendments before they must submit RY2017 reports. 3. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2018? We are proposing that the revisions to the subparts listed in Table 5 of this preamble would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2018, which must be submitted by March 31, 2019. TABLE 5—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE FOR RY2018 Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2018 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 A—General Provisions ............................................................................. V—Nitric Acid Production ......................................................................... Y—Petroleum Refineries .......................................................................... FF—Underground Coal Mines ................................................................. OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases ..................................... We are proposing that revisions to subparts V, Y, FF, and OO, and related changes to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) and Table A–5 of subpart A, would apply to RY2018, with reporters following the revised rule requirements beginning January 1, 2018. In several cases, the proposed changes would revise the applicability of a source category to certain facilities or significantly revise existing calculation or monitoring methodologies. For example, we are proposing to revise the definition of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 § 98.7(l)(1); Table A–5. All proposed changes in All proposed changes in All proposed changes in All proposed changes in industrial gas supplier source category in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO to include facilities that destroy, but do not produce, fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs. These proposed changes could expand the applicability of Part 98 to additional facilities that were not previously required to report under the rule; these facilities would require more time to acquire and install monitoring equipment and begin collecting data under Part 98. Similarly, we are proposing to revise the PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 subpart. subpart. subpart. subpart. calculation methodology for delayed coking units in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) to better reflect industry emissions (see section III.M of this preamble). As discussed in section III.R of this preamble, we are proposing some methodological changes to subpart FF to clarify the type of facilities included in the source category and revise the monitoring and data collection requirements to improve the quality of the data collected. We are proposing a related revision to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) in E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules subpart A to incorporate updated methods for sampling methane concentration and conducting measurements of flow rate, temperature, pressure, and moisture content. Given that the final rule revisions would not be finalized until the second half of 2016, it is assumed that it would not be feasible for these facilities to acquire, install, and calibrate new monitoring equipment, or to perform more frequent monitoring, in time for the reports submitted for RY2017. However, the EPA is also seeking comment on whether underground coal mine facilities would indeed be able to meet these revised requirements for RY2017. In past rulemakings, the EPA has typically required monitoring to begin a few months after finalization of revised rules, and has offered Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) to be used temporarily to provide sufficient time for facilities to come into full compliance with the newly finalized monitoring methods. In this action, to avoid the need to offer the use of BAMM and to stagger the burden associated with making revisions to e-GGRT, we are proposing that the revisions to these subparts would apply to RY2018 reports. If finalized, subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters, including new reporters, would begin following the revised rule requirements on January 1, 2018 and submit the first annual reports using the revised monitoring and data collection methods on March 31, 2019. This schedule would allow at least one year for subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate any new monitoring equipment, as well as implement any changes to existing monitoring methods, for the 2018 reporting year. The proposed timeline also allows sufficient time for the agency to integrate any associated changes to reporting requirements in the affected subparts into e-GGRT and other GHGRP activities, such as verification. The EPA is proposing one related change to subpart A that could apply to certain subpart FF reporters prior to January 1, 2018. In keeping with the proposed changes discussed in section III.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to streamline the reporting requirements for closed coal mines. These proposed revisions would apply beginning January 1, 2017, consistent with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.2 listed in Table 4 of this preamble, and could affect owners and operators of abandoned underground mines (see section III.A and III.R of this preamble for additional information). All other proposed revisions related to subpart FF VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 would apply beginning January 1, 2018 for the reasons described above. F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule? This preamble references several documents developed to support the proposed rulemaking. These documents provide additional information regarding the proposed changes to Part 98, and supplementary information which the EPA considered in the development of the proposed revisions. These documents are referenced in sections II through V of this preamble and are available in the docket to this rulemaking or other rulemaking dockets, as follows: • ‘‘Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.’’ EPA memorandum summarizing the less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the proposed rule, as discussed in section II of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.’’ From Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 29, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) as discussed in section III.K of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X.’’ Letter received from Occidental Chemical Company, July 10, 2015, as discussed in section III.L of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).’’ From Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI International (RTI) to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units.’’ From Jeff Coburn, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. Available PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2543 in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based on Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly).’’ Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Use of Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts.’’ From Clark Talkington, Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI) to Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the PeerReviewed Literature.’’ From Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015, Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.S of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Review of Site-Specific Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data’’ from Jeff Coburn and Katherine Bronstein, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.Y of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions.’’ Memorandum listing all proposed new, substantially revised, and existing data elements with proposed category assignments and confidentiality determinations, as described in Section IV of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526. • ‘‘Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015.’’ Memorandum, September 2014. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0929. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2544 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules • ‘‘Summary of Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) Part 98 ‘Inputs to Emission Equations’ Data Elements Deferred Until 2013.’’ Memorandum, December 17, 2012. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. • ‘‘Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Reporting Elements.’’ Memorandum, April 29, 2011. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 0924. • ‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.’’ Memorandum describing the costs of the proposed revisions to Part 98, as discussed in section V of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 G. Methods Incorporated by Reference In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text for 40 CFR 98.7 that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following: • Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866–12), which would apply to subpart C reporters (see section III.B.2 of this preamble). These standards are available on the ASTM Web site (https:// www.astm.org/) to everyone at a cost determined by the ASTM ($50). The ASTM also offers memberships or subscriptions that allow unlimited access to their methods. The cost of obtaining these methods is not a significant financial burden, making the methods reasonably available for reporters. The EPA will also make a copy of these documents available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information) for review purposes only. • Inspection and sampling standards from the Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13–V–1 (February 2013) as published by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which would apply to subpart FF reporters (see section III.R.2 of this preamble). These standards are available free of charge through the MSHA Web site (https://www.msha.gov). The EPA has also made, and will continue to make, these documents available VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 electronically through www.regulations.gov. Because these standards do not present a significant financial burden to reporters, the EPA has determined that these methods are reasonably available. The EPA has also made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98 In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise specific provisions in Part 98 to simplify and streamline implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting entities. The EPA has identified four categories of changes that we are proposing in this rulemaking, which include the following: • Revisions to streamline implementation of the rule by reducing or simplifying requirements that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA, such as revising requirements to focus GHGRP and reporter resources on relevant data, removing reporting requirements for specific facilities which report little to no emissions, or removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary; • Amendments that would expand monitoring, applicability, or reporting requirements that are necessary to enhance the quality of the data collected, improve verification of collected data under the GHGRP, and improve the accuracy of data included in the U.S. GHG Inventory; • Other amendments, such as amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions). • Minor clarifications and corrections, including: corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations; clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references within and between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public’s understanding of the rule. Sections II.A through II.D of this preamble describe each of the above PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 categories in more detail and provide rationale for the changes included in each category. The proposed changes in this action would advance the EPA’s goal of maximizing rule effectiveness. For example, these proposed changes would clarify existing rule provisions, thus enabling government, regulated entities, and the public to easily identify and understand rule requirements. In addition, specific changes such as increasing the flexibility given to reporting entities related to requesting extensions for revising annual reports would make compliance easier than non-compliance. The proposed changes also serve to clarify whether and when reporting requirements apply to a facility, and more specifically when a facility may discontinue reporting, thereby allowed a regulated entity to regularly assess their compliance and prevent noncompliance. The proposed changes would also improve the EPA’s ability to assess compliance by adding reporting elements that allow the EPA to more thoroughly verify GHG data and understand trends in emissions. For example, the proposed requirement to report the date of installation of any abatement equipment at Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production facilities will increase the EPA and public’s understanding of the use of and trends in emissions reduction technologies. Lastly, the proposed changes further advance the ability of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program to provide access to quality data on greenhouse gas emissions by adding key data elements to improve the usefulness of the data. One example is the proposed addition of the reporting of emissions by state for Suppliers of Natural Gas (subpart NN reporters). This data will allow users of the GHGRP data to more easily identify the state within which the reporter operates, which will be useful for determining state level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply and increase transparency and usefulness of the data reported. Additional details for the specific amendments proposed for each subpart are included in section III of this preamble. To reduce the length of this preamble, we have summarized the remaining less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the memorandum, ‘‘Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’ (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Table of Revisions’’) available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526). These changes include straightforward clarifications of E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 requirements to better reflect the EPA’s intent; harmonizing changes within subparts (such as harmonizing terminology); corrections to calculation terms and cross-references; editorial and minor error corrections; and removal of redundant text. The Table of Revisions describes each proposed change within a subpart, including those itemized in this preamble, and provides the current rule text and the proposed correction. Where the proposed change is listed only in the Table of Revisions, the rationale for the proposed change is also listed there. We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically identified in this notice (including the changes listed in the Table of Revisions) for the identified subparts. We are not reopening other aspects of Part 98. A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98 Following implementation of Part 98, the EPA has identified several areas of the rule which could be revised or simplified to improve the efficiency of the requirements or to reduce the burden on reporters and the EPA. We are consequently proposing several revisions that would streamline the requirements as well as improve implementation of the rule. Several of the proposed revisions would clarify and revise the requirements of Part 98 in order to focus the GHGRP and reporter resources on the most relevant data. In some cases, we are proposing to revise requirements to reduce when facilities must report emissions, such as by clarifying requirements for facilities that may report very little or no emissions. The EPA does not anticipate a significant change in the overall reported emissions or a reduction in the quality of reported carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and supply. Removing these instances of reporting would also reduce burden on some reporters. As an example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF to allow an underground coal mine to cease reporting after it has closed and its status is determined to be ‘‘abandoned’’ by MSHA. The CO2e emissions from abandoned and sealed mines are far below the reporting threshold. The EPA is proposing these types of changes to reduce burden, as well as to focus the collection of data under the GHGRP on those sources that are expected to emit, import, or export larger amounts of greenhouse gases. In addition, the EPA is proposing in this rulemaking that pilot gas, which is considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, may be VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 excluded from the quantity of flare gas used to perform GHG emissions calculations for subparts Q (Iron and Steel Production), X (Petrochemical Production), and Y (Petroleum Refineries). The quantity of GHG emissions associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from a flare at petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and steel production facilities. Eliminating the monitoring of this small quantity of emissions will not adversely impact the quality of the greenhouse gas data collected and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas. We are proposing similar revisions to other subparts that simplify data collection for reporters and focus the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA requires to review, assess, and verify reported emissions. Other proposed revisions to the rule include changes that would streamline the rule, such as removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary. For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels), we are proposing to remove requirements of 40 CFR 98.386 that are no longer needed to support verification or other activities. In a prior notice, ‘‘2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements’’ (78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013, hereafter referred to as ‘‘2013 Revisions Rule’’), we finalized amendments to subpart LL that removed requirements in 40 CFR 98.386 for suppliers to report the annual quantity of each product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. Subpart LL reporters are currently only required to report the total annual quantities of each product or natural gas liquid in metric tons or barrels supplied. In this action, we are proposing to remove the provisions of 40 CFR 98.386 that require suppliers to report the methods used to measure the quantities of each product reported. This change would harmonize with the previously finalized revisions which removed the requirement to report products by method and would reduce the burden on reporters. We are also proposing certain revisions that would streamline the reporting and verification process. These proposed changes would ease the burden on reporters (e.g., by reducing the actions required of reporters) and improve agency implementation of the rule. For example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2545 provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting when annual emissions are less than certain thresholds, or if process operations are permanently shut down. We are proposing to clarify when these requirements apply for suppliers, processes or operations that cease operation in the reporting year, and facilities where the operations are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ for a subpart. These provisions are anticipated to streamline reporting by specifying when reporters are no longer required to report for a particular process or operation. We are proposing similar changes to Part 98 which would improve the efficiency of the reporting process. The specific changes that we are proposing that are intended to streamline Part 98, as described in this section, are described for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble. B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory The EPA is also proposing amendments in this action that would improve the existing applicability, monitoring, or reporting requirements of Part 98 in order to enhance the quality and accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected data, and provide additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory. Several of the amendments in this action are being proposed to improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. The data collected under Part 98 are used to inform the EPA’s understanding of the relative emissions and distribution of emissions from specific industries, the factors that influence GHG emission rates, and to inform policy options and potential regulations. Following several years of implementation of the rule, the EPA has identified certain areas of the rule where clarifying amendments to source category definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies or monitoring methods, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements are needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule. For example, we are proposing revisions to subpart FF to revise the monitoring requirements for methane liberated from ventilation systems to remove the option to use quarterly testing by the MSHA. This change is being proposed because we have determined that the quarterly flowrate data gathered by E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2546 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules MSHA cannot be used to reliably estimate coal mine emissions for GHG reporting purposes. Instead, coal mines will be required to use one of the other existing methods to measure emissions from ventilation, either collection of grab samples or use of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA is also seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken at underground coal mines. Currently coal mines must take grab samples on a quarterly basis and report methane liberation on a quarterly basis. In this action, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the frequency of grab samples to monthly sampling in order to provide more transparent and reliable measurement of methane emissions from ventilation systems while more closely aligning the monitoring requirements for mine ventilation with those for degasification systems. The EPA also seeks comments on other monitoring frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or monitoring frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as bimonthly). For comments on increasing the monitoring frequency and the availability of other alternative monitoring methods, the EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background information on multi-year ventilation system monitoring on a basis that is more frequent than quarterly. This information will help determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation emissions that is needed to ensure reliable and accurate measurements. In another case, we are proposing to revise existing reporting requirements to collect more detailed facility data. For example, we are proposing to amend the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart O (HFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction) to require reporting of the information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at a process level. Currently, reporters are required to submit the annual mass of HCFC–22 produced, the annual mass of reactants fed into the process, the annual mass of HFC–23 emitted, and additional information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at the facility level. Collecting this information on a process-level basis would further our understanding of emissions from HCFC–22 production VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 processes and provide a more accurate emissions profile for this sector. Some of the proposed amendments include revisions to existing reporting requirements to clarify the data that are currently reported or improve verification of reported data. For example, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH to add a requirement for landfills with gas collection systems to report the number of hours active gas flow was sent to each destruction device instead of the annual operating hours for each destruction device. This revision is needed in order for the EPA’s reporting tool to accurately calculate a key variable in certain equations used to calculate emissions. Although the proposed change would require different data to be reported, it would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the number of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer verification errors and followup messages to reporters. We are also proposing several amendments to ensure data collected by the GHGRP adequately support the U.S. GHG Inventory. As described in the preamble of the proposed GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and complement the U.S. GHG Inventory by advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. Specifically, the GHGRP complements the U.S. GHG Inventory by providing data from individual facilities and suppliers above certain thresholds to improve the assumptions and emissions values used in the U.S. GHG Inventory. The collected facility, unit, and processlevel GHG data from the GHGRP provide and confirm the national statistics and emission estimates presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory, which are calculated using aggregated national data. These proposed amendments include clarifications to source category definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements that will improve the accuracy of the data included in the U.S. GHG Inventory and improve our ability to inform the development of GHG policies and programs. For example, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart E (Adipic Acid Production) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) that would require reporting of the date of installation of any abatement systems (if applicable). The addition of these data elements would help improve the accuracy of trend estimates for these PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 sectors in the U.S. GHG Inventory. Specifically, the proposed data elements would allow the agency to apply emission factors with and without abatement systems over the correct time periods using the reported dates. The specific changes that we are proposing for each subpart, as appropriate, are described in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble. C. Other Amendments In addition to the amendments described in sections II.A and II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing other amendments to certain subparts of Part 98. Through outreach and communication with stakeholders, the EPA has identified certain aspects of the rule that may require substantive revision, such as amending calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities, or to more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions. These changes would respond to comments raised by stakeholders in prior rulemakings and issues raised by petitioners for certain subparts, and would more closely align rule requirements with the processes conducted at specific facilities. For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills), we are proposing to add several waste types for pulp and paper, including associated degradable organic content (DOC) and kvalues, to Table TT–1 of subpart TT to include common industrial waste subtypes. The EPA is proposing these revisions following comments on 2013 Revisions Rule, in which stakeholders requested the EPA add these common waste types to Table TT–1 of subpart TT. These proposed revisions would improve the accuracy of calculated emissions reported by these facilities. Additional details for the amendments described in this section are discussed for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble. D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions The EPA is proposing additional minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions that would improve understanding of the rule. These revisions primarily include simple revisions of requirements to better reflect the EPA’s intent, such as clarifying changes to definitions, calculation methodologies, monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing data procedures, and reporting requirements. Some of these proposed changes result from questions raised by reporters through the GHGRP Help Desk or e-GGRT and are intended to resolve E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules uncertainties in the regulatory text. The proposed changes would reduce confusion for reporters and correct inconsistencies in the rule. In some cases, we are proposing minor amendments that would clarify general monitoring requirements, measurement methods, or reported data elements. These revisions include less substantive changes, such as simple corrections to calculation terms, revisions of cross-references, harmonizing changes (such as changes to terminology within a subpart for consistency), simple editorial corrections, and removal of redundant text. As discussed earlier in section II of this preamble, these less substantive revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526). III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart This section summarizes the specific substantive amendments proposed for each Part 98 subpart, as generally described in section II of this preamble. Sections III.A through III.Z of this preamble also identify where additional minor corrections to a subpart are included in the Table of Revisions. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Subpart A—General Provisions In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart A of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart A; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart A To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments that are intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart A and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years, or if process operations are permanently shut down. There has been confusion among reporters as to whether these offramp provisions apply to both direct emitters and suppliers, given the use of VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 the term ‘‘emissions’’ in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) since suppliers report the quantity of product supplied into the economy and the emissions that would occur if the products were completely released, combusted, or oxidized when used by their customers. The EPA’s original intention was that these off-ramp provisions apply to both suppliers (subparts LL through QQ) and direct emitters (subparts A through KK and subparts SS and TT), as well as the Injection of Carbon Dioxide source category (subpart UU). The EPA is adding a new paragraph to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify this point. We are proposing to retain the current language in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) (i.e., ‘‘reported emissions’’) to continue to refer to direct emitters and to add new paragraph 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers (i.e., by specifying in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers by substituting the term ‘‘quantity of GHG supplied’’ for ‘‘emissions’’ in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2)). For example, a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases because GHG exports are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)). Further, we have clarified that, for suppliers, these off-ramp provisions apply individually to each importer, exporter, petroleum refinery, fractionator of natural gas liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), or fluorinated greenhouse gases. For example, regarding the example above where a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases qualifies under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases, this same supplier would still be required to report as an importer if they also report GHG imports that do not qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting because GHG imports are not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Likewise, a company might qualify under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases under subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) because the reported quantity of industrial greenhouse gases supplied is less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(2)), but the company might still be required to report as a supplier of carbon dioxide under PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2547 subpart PP because the reported quantity of carbon dioxide supplied is not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Additionally, the proposed off-ramp requirements for suppliers would be applied separately from those for direct emitters. This would occur whether the supplier and direct emitter report as two separate entities in e-GGRT or, for simplicity, as one entity in e-GGRT. For example, if a facility reports under subpart Y (a direct emitter subpart) and subpart MM (a supplier subpart), and the facility meets the off-ramp requirements in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) for the GHG quantities reported under subpart MM but does not meet the off-ramp requirements in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2) for GHG emissions under subpart Y, then the facility may cease reporting under subpart MM while still reporting under subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in two different annual reports under two different e-GGRT identification numbers, the facility would discontinue submitting reports for subpart MM all together while continuing to submit reports for subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in one annual report under one e-GGRT identification number, the facility would continue to submit reports under that e-GGRT identification number with the subpart Y data and without the subpart MM data. The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) allow reporters to discontinue reporting if all processes or operations cease operation (e.g., plant closure). There has been confusion among reporters as to whether there is a similar provision to cease reporting for situations where a single process or operation ceases operation. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to specify that reporting is not required for any process or operation that ceases operation in the reporting years following the reporting year in which the process or operation ceased operation, provided the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator and explains the reasons for the cessation of operation. For example, if a facility previously reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart T (Magnesium Production) removes all of their combustion sources, but continues their magnesium casting operations under subpart T, the proposed revision to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) would clarify that this facility is exempt from the subpart C reporting of the combustion processes in the reporting years following the year in which the combustion sources ceased E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2548 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules operation. Note that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations, and that reporting must resume for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation. A similar change is being proposed to streamline reporting for operators of underground coal mines subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF. Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to delete an exclusion for abandoned underground coal mines that precludes them from the off-ramp. Data submitted by closed and abandoned mines during the first four years of the GHGRP have improved the EPA’s understanding of emissions from these mines and have shown that they produce GHG emissions in quantities well below the reporting threshold. This change is further discussed in section III.R.1 of this preamble. In addition, there has been confusion regarding how Part 98 addresses situations where a facility no longer meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ specified in an applicable subpart. For example, subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) applies to anaerobic processes that treat wastewater from either meat processing operations (NAICS 3116) or fruit and vegetable processing (NAICS 3114). If a facility were subject to subpart II because it processes meat byproducts into human food, but switched its operations to producing animal food or to processing seafood rather than meat byproducts, then the processing plant would no longer meet the source category definition of ‘‘industrial wastewater treatment’’ in 40 CFR 98.350 because it no longer falls under the classification of NAICS 3116. The facility, therefore, would not be subject to reporting under subpart II. The EPA is proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to clarify that if the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting under any such subpart for the reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. For any future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as specified in an applicable subpart, the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 owner or operator would be required to resume reporting for the process or operation. Lastly, the EPA is proposing to limit resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the current reporting year. For example, in RY2016, resubmittal of reports from RY2011–2015 would be allowed, but a resubmittal of a RY2010 report would no longer be permitted. The EPA currently requires facilities to resubmit past year reports for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in which a substantive error is identified, and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of the program. Based on the resubmittals to the program to date, the EPA has determined that the number of reports that are resubmitted falls drastically after the active verification period of 6 months, and continues to fall over time. Because there is significant burden to the EPA for maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years, the EPA is seeking comment on limiting the resubmittals to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. The EPA would set the limit at five years in part because there is a 5-year recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.3 The EPA has determined that this change will have minimal impact on the quality of the data set, as resubmissions for past years to date have not impacted overall sector or total emission trends. While this change would not require a revision to the regulatory text, the EPA wishes to seek input from stakeholders prior to implementing this policy. As a result, in this action, the EPA is asking for comment on limiting resubmittal of reports to five years before the current reporting year. 2. Revisions to Subpart A To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 The EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart A that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions are intended to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are anticipated to generally result in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.3(c) to revise the content of the annual report to include three new data elements to uniquely identify 3 According to 40 CFR 98.3(g), facilities using the Inputs Verification Tool are required to maintain all records at the facility for five years. Facilities that are not required to use the Inputs Verification Tool for any subparts under which they are reporting are required to maintain records for three years. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 individually reported fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTF): Chemical name, CAS registry number, and the linear chemical formula. Currently, 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E) and (F) require reporting of each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF from applicable source categories, and 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(ii) requires the reporting of each fluorinated GHG from suppliers. The rule, however, does not specify how to identify each compound; instead, only the name of a GHG is required in a facility’s annual report. Generally, reporters identify the GHGs in their annual report from Table A–1 of subpart A, which provides a list of fluorinated GHG along with the GWP of each gas, a registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and the chemical formula. When newly developed compounds are not listed in Table A–1 of subpart A, reporters classify the GHG as ‘‘other’’ and provide a chemical name. In these situations, different reporters sometimes refer to the ‘‘other’’ gas by different names (e.g., a standard IUPAC name as well as one or more common or trade names), especially when compounds have more than one name that is scientifically valid. This also results in facilities reporting the same gas under a different name from year to year. As an example, in prior reporting years, separate facilities under 40 CFR part 98, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) have reported emissions of the same fluorinated GHGs under multiple common names (e.g., octafluorotetrahydrofuran may be reported separately as octafluorotetrahydrofuran, perfluorotetrahydrofuran, and c-C4F8O). Further, with the fast pace of technology development, new fluorinated chemicals are routinely being developed. Because of the rapid pace at which new chemicals enter the marketplace, it is not feasible for the EPA to update Table A–1 or the fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF lists in the GHGRP’s electronic reporting system fast enough to keep pace with all chemicals in use at any point in time. If a fluorinated GHG were to be reported under a different name in a future reporting year, it could result in delays or errors in data analysis and trends if the GHGRP dataset contains information for the GHG associated with two different names. To improve the usefulness of the emissions and supplier data reported, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) and (5) to include two additional identifiers of fluorinated E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules GHGs and fluorinated HTFs so that each compound can be identified unambiguously. To the extent available, we propose to require chemical identifiers provided by national consensus organizations. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides a naming convention that can be used for all organic chemicals. The Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) of the American Chemical Society assigns a chemical registry number that is widely used in industry and academia to identify individual chemical compounds. However, even with these two standardized services, we have learned that chemicals often are reported under different names for a variety of reasons. Therefore, knowing the linear chemical formula would help the EPA to classify compounds consistently. (We are proposing to require reporting of the linear chemical formula rather than the condensed chemical formula because the former provides information on the structure of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is useful for identifying the compound and distinguishing it from other fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that have the same number of atoms of each element in different arrangements.) Accordingly, we are proposing to require reporting all three of the following data elements to ensure that the EPA can properly classify and identify each unique compound reported: • Chemical name. If a chemical is not included in Table A–1 of subpart A (or not listed in the Web forms in the EPA’s reporting tool), then facilities or suppliers would be required to report the name using the chemical naming convention provided by IUPAC. • CAS Registry Number. If a CAS number is not assigned or if the CAS number is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then reporters would report an identification number assigned by the EPA’s Substance Registry Services.4 • Linear chemical formula. Next, we are proposing to add a sentence to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8) to clarify the missing data provisions. The proposed revision explains that missing data provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but to any parameter used to monitor or calculate 4 Substance Registry Services (SRS) is the EPA’s central system for information about substances that are tracked or regulated by EPA or other sources. It is the authoritative resource for basic information about chemicals, biological organisms, and other substances of interest to EPA and its state and tribal partners. See https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/ registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 emissions. Use of missing data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate regardless of whether that parameter is reported. It is the EPA’s intention that the effect be documented, such that the accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood. We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.4(i) to update the content of the certificate of representation (COR). For each facility or supplier, all GHG reports and other communications are submitted by a ‘‘designated representative’’ of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier. The designated representative (DR) acts as a legal representative between the facility or supplier and the agency. The DR is appointed by submitting to the EPA a COR at least 60 days prior to the deadline for submission of the initial annual GHG report. Currently, 40 CFR 98.4(i) specifies that the COR must contain the following information: • Identification of the facility or supplier; • Name and contact information for the DR; • A list of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier; • Certification statements that the DR was appointed by a binding agreement with the owners and operators, that the DR has the necessary authority to carry out the duties and responsibilities on behalf of the owners and operators, and that the owners and operators are bound by the representations, actions, inactions, or submissions of the DR; and • Signature of the DR. We are proposing the addition of one item to the COR, which is a list of all the 40 CFR 98 subparts under which the facility or supplier intends to report. The information on the subparts anticipated to be reported is for the EPA’s internal planning and management purposes, and would streamline the EPA’s internal processes related to preparing for upcoming reporting seasons. This new COR requirement would impose no new burden on reporters. The revised content of the COR would apply only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not previously reported to the GHGRP. The DR would not be required to re-submit a previously submitted COR to add the new information. For example, the new information would not be required for a revised COR that is submitted to change the DR, address, or list of owners. The information submitted on anticipated subpart applicability would be based on whatever applicability analysis the facility or supplier has conducted on their own to determine that Part 98 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2549 applies, and on best engineering judgment as to the specific subparts that apply at the time that the COR is submitted. There would be no legal obligation to include GHG data for a particular subpart in the annual GHG report only because that subpart was included in the list of subparts submitted in the COR. Rather, the annual report must include all of the subparts that the DR determines meet the applicability requirements of 40 CFR 98.2 at any time during a reporting year. Also, the facility or supplier is not required to maintain any records to support the listing of subparts in the COR. Finally, we are proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to include a requirement that a facility must inform the EPA whenever the facility (or supplier) stops reporting under one eGGRT identification number because the emissions (or quantity supplied) are being reported under another e-GGRT identification number. The EPA anticipates that this would occur when one facility purchases another facility (in its entirety) that is physically adjacent. The emissions from the purchased process equipment would automatically become part of the facility for the purchaser, and the facility previously reported by the seller would no longer exist. In general, the rule currently requires a facility reporting under an e-GGRT identification number to have a valid reason for discontinuing reporting under that e-GGRT identification number and to notify the EPA of that valid reason. The e-GGRT system is set up to collect such notification from the discontinuing reporter, and the EPA routinely follows up with all facilities that have discontinued reporting without providing a valid reason. On several occasions, a facility that was discontinuing reporting under its eGGRT identification number contacted the GHGRP Help Desk in an attempt to notify the EPA that the emissions would be reported under another e-GGRT identification number. In those cases, the discontinuing reporter was looking for a formal way to transfer the reporting obligation to the other facility and confirm that the reporter was no longer responsible for reporting those emissions. The rule currently does not require reporting of any information from which the EPA could ascertain that the discontinuation of reporting was done for a valid reason or with which the discontinuing reporter could make a formal notification. To ensure that the EPA is aware of situations when an annual report for a facility or supplier E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2550 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 is no longer required because the emissions will now be reported under a different facility, we are proposing the following changes: If a facility reported GHG emissions in the previous year, and the GHG emissions are being reported as part of another facility in the current reporting year, the prior facility must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT facility identification number under which the emissions are reported in the current reporting year. A similar requirement would apply to suppliers. In other words, whenever a business relationship such as an acquisition, merger, or joint venture abrogates a facility or supplier that previously registered in e-GGRT and submitted an annual GHG report, the designated representative for the subsumed facility or supplier would have to report the eGGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility or supplier. The facility identification number should be readily available to the reporter, and this change would allow the EPA to better assess compliance with the Program while providing the subsumed facility or supplier a formal method of notifying the EPA of their valid reason for discontinuing reporting. This provision would not include Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas Production Facilities reporting under subpart W, consistent with FAQ 749,5 which currently does not require these facilities to notify the EPA when they discontinue reporting because of a change in ownership of all wells and associated equipment in a basin. In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether requiring the reconstituted entity to report the eGGRT identification number of the subsumed facility or supplier would impose less burden on the regulated community while achieving the same objectives. For more information on subpart A confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 3. Other Amendments to Subpart A For reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to simplify the process for requesting an extension for the reporter to respond to the EPA’s questions on a submitted report or submit a revised report to correct a reporting error identified by the EPA during report verification. Currently, reporters are allowed a 45-day period to 5 The EPA publishes Frequently Asked Questions to provide general and administrative information about 40 CFR part 98. FAQ 749 is available at: https://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/ viewpage.action?pageId=198705183. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 respond to the EPA’s questions and may request an extension of 30 days, which is automatically granted, if needed. The Administrator may also grant an additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension, if the owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. We are proposing to remove the requirement that the request for an extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension. Reporters would still be required to submit a request for the additional extension, but they may do so closer to (but not after) the expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension. We are also proposing two amendments to subpart A of Part 98 to clarify a definition in 40 CFR 98.6. We are proposing to amend the definition of ‘‘gas collection system’’ to clarify that active venting systems that convey landfill gas to the surface of the landfill by mechanical convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally destroyed prior to release to the atmosphere, are not considered a landfill gas collection system. The requirements in subpart HH for gas collection systems are specific to landfill gas that is recovered or destroyed, but ‘‘active venting’’ systems appear to meet the definition of gas collection systems. The proposed revision clarifies that ‘‘active venting systems’’ are not subject to the monitoring and calculation requirements for landfills with gas collection systems. The EPA is proposing to amend the definitions for ‘‘ventilation hole or shaft’’ in 40 CFR 98.6 to clarify that the term ‘‘vent hole or shaft’’ for mine ventilation systems includes mine portals, adits, and other mine entrances and exits used to move air from the ventilation system out of the mine. The proposed change is prompted by questions that we have received from reporters during the first four years of implementation, seeking guidance on whether these ventilation system components are considered part of the source category definition. Portal and adit are terms sometimes used to describe mine entries and shafts. The intent of the rule is to capture all points in the ventilation system where methane emissions may exhaust to the atmosphere. Adding these terms should provide clarity for reporters. We do not expect this rule change to result in an additional burden to reporters; it is a clarification to provide further guidance in applicability. However, the EPA does PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 expect this proposed change to improve the accuracy of reporting. 4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart A For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections and clarifications to subpart A of Part 98, including clarifications to definitions, editorial changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2015–0526). B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart C of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart C; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart C To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s ability to verify data under Part 98, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, the EPA is proposing to require reporting of the moisture content used to correct the default high heating value (HHV) for wood and wood residuals (dry basis) in Table C–1, in accordance with the procedures of footnote 5 in Table C–1. The Table C–1 default HHV for wood and wood residuals assumes that the wood and wood residuals are dry (i.e., zero percent moisture content). However, wood and wood residuals are often wet when combusted. Applying the wet weight of the wood to the dry basis HHV overestimates emissions, as a portion of the weight that is combusted is water. Facilities raised this concern through the GHGRP Help Desk and the EPA responded by adding footnote 5 to Table C–1 in the 2013 Revisions Rule, which allowed reporters to correct the default dry basis HHV to a wet basis. Currently e-GGRT and IVT require the use of the default dry basis HHV when reporting wood and wood residuals using Equations C–1 and C–8. For reporters that need to correct their HHV, the only option available is to override the eGGRT or IVT calculated value, which is on a dry basis. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 The EPA is proposing to add the moisture correction calculation as a reporting element, as well as a data element that would be entered into IVT for those reporters using IVT. This would allow the EPA to verify the accuracy of the moisture content and resultant emissions. Based on current reporting year data, approximately 132 facilities (167 units) would be affected by this new data element. The EPA anticipates that the impact of this new data element will be minimal, as moisture content is already determined by the facilities that correct the HHV of their wood products. Because the new data element is an input to an emission equation, the EPA evaluated the data element to determine if its public release would cause disclosure concerns as was done for all inputs to equations through a previous action (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014).6 In the evaluation conducted for the October 24, 2014 action, the EPA described in section 2.2 of Part 2 of the memorandum ‘‘Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,’’ September 2014 (available in Docket Id. No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2010–0929) that data related to ‘‘process design, process performance, and/or cost to do business’’ could be detrimental to a firm’s competitiveness. After considering this newly proposed data element, we have determined that for those subpart C combustion sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f),7 this data element fits the 6 The October 24, 2014 action used the process established in the notice ‘‘Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule’’ (76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Final Deferral Notice’’) and the accompanying memorandum entitled ‘‘Process for Evaluating and Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations’’ (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–0929) to determine if there are any associated disclosure concerns. In the ‘‘Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP’’ (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Final Inputs Rule’’), the EPA finalized an approach for addressing disclosure concerns associated with inputs to emissions equations, in which the inputs for which disclosure concerns were identified are entered and verified in the EPA’s inputs verification tool (IVT). IVT is a software tool that verifies emissions without the inputs being reported to EPA. Inputs to emissions equations for which disclosure concerns have been identified are entered into the tool. IVT uses the entered inputs to calculate emission equation results. IVT does not retain the entered inputs but conducts certain checks of the inputs and calculated emissions values and generates a verification summary. The same process was used for the evaluation of this new input to equation data element. 7 40 CFR 98.36(f) specifies the following criteria for combustion sources: (1) The stationary fuel combustion source contains at least one combustion VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 description of being related to ‘‘process design, process performance, and/or costs to do business.’’ Specifically, for industrial facilities that produce wood and wood residuals as a production process byproduct (e.g., pulp and paper production), the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals affects the heating value of the wood fuel used to produce steam for the production process. As such, moisture content could reveal information about process efficiency and the cost to produce a product. However, given the wide range of industries subject to the wood and wood residuals reporting requirements under subpart C, it is possible that there are industries that do not have concerns disclosing the proposed new data element. In light of the above, we propose to allow reporters to elect under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) (for subpart C sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to either enter the moisture content into IVT or, if potential disclosure is not a concern to the reporter, report the data.8 If a reporter were to elect to enter the data into IVT, the reporter would also be required to keep a record of the data as specified in proposed new 40 CFR 98.37(b)(37). After considering whether disclosure concerns exist for those sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), the EPA has determined that the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals would not reveal any proprietary information about facility or process performance, design, and operation; cost to do business; raw material usage; or production. Site-specific fuel characteristics do not vary significantly from publicly-known average values. Additionally for the electric utilities, this sector has experienced a high level of transparency due to the practice of passing fuel costs through to paying customers. The EPA is proposing that, for sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), there are no disclosure concerns and the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals must be reported in e-GGRT. unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator owned or operated by an entity that is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by the public utility commission (excluding generators that are connected to combustion units that are subject to subpart D of this part); and (2) the stationary fuel combustion source is located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output. 8 If a reporter elects to report the moisture content of wood and wood residuals for a source that does not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f), e-GGRT will require the reporter to waive the right to make confidentiality claims before reporting the moisture content via e-GGRT. PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2551 For emissions reported using the aggregation of units (GP) and common pipe (CP) configurations, the EPA does not currently have the ability to compare emissions to the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for the units in the configuration. This information is important for verifying these emissions. The EPA is proposing to resolve this gap in verification by requiring reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units (within the configuration) that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). When originally promulgated, 40 CFR 98.36(c) required the cumulative heat input capacity for all units in GP and CP configurations. These requirements were removed in December 2010 amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010). The 2010 final rule noted that for verification purposes, ‘‘the only critical data element is the maximum rated heat input capacity of the largest unit in the group’’ (75 FR 79117). Although the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit in these configurations is useful in verifying compliance with the rule requirements, it does not provide enough information to assess the quality of emissions reported under these configurations. Currently over 50 percent nonbiogenic CO2 reported under subpart C is reported using GP and CP configurations. Therefore, we have identified the need to obtain additional information on these reporting configurations to further assess data quality for these reported emissions. The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be used to verify that emissions data are not over or under reported for GP and CP configurations. In the December 2010 amendments (75 FR 79117), commenters highlighted the burden associated with determining the maximum rated heat input capacity and maintaining an equipment count for small domestic combustion sources (e.g., water heaters, furnaces, space heaters) located at large industrial facilities. The EPA agrees with the commenters’ position and believes that meaningful data verification can be achieved without requiring information on small domestic combustions sources, as GHG emissions data are typically dominated by larger emission units. There were approximately 7,000 GP and CP configurations reported in 2014, out of the total 18,000 configurations reported in subpart C. Of these, approximately 2,250 reporting configurations reported that the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2552 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules any unit in the configuration was less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The total nonbiogenic CO2 reported from these 2,250 configurations was approximately 2 percent of the total non-biogenic CO2 reported for all 7,000 GP and CP configurations. The remaining 98 percent of non-biogenic CO2 reported came from the 4,750 GP and CP configurations that identified the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit as greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). These data provide evidence that using the heat input capacity information from units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr will allow for meaningful data validation without mandating overburdensome requirements for reporters. When reporting the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity, reporters will not be required to account for units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. For GP configurations, this means that the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units in the group that are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/ hr) and less than or equal to 250 (mmBtu/hr). Units with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr are not allowed to use the GP configuration. For CP configurations, the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served by the pipe that are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). Note that fuel use and corresponding emissions are still required to be reported for units with a maximum rated heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). Emissions reporting of GHGs for GP and CP configurations will remain unchanged. Approximately 2,250 existing GP and CP reporting configurations will not be affected by this new requirement. Approximately 4,750 GP and CP reporting configurations will be required to determine and report cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. This equates to approximately 3,540 affected facilities (out of the roughly 5,925 reporting in subpart C). However, many of these affected facilities will likely benefit from not having to account for units with a heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The EPA believes that the burden associated with determining the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP configurations will be minimal. Existing air permits and compliance records for other federal and state regulations likely contain heat input capacity data for many of the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 affected sources (i.e., units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr). The proposed requirement for reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP reporting configurations would greatly improve the ability to verify emissions for these configurations. For more information on subpart C confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 2. Other Amendments to Subpart C For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) to (1) clarify the reporting requirements when the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly for certain sources; (2) streamline the conversion factors used to convert short tons to metric tons; and (3) revise Tables C–1 and C–2 to more clearly define emission factors for certain petroleum products. First, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the definition of terms for Equation C–2b in cases where the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly. Reporters subject to 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation C–2b, however the equation currently defines the frequency of HHV sampling as monthly. This proposed revision will replace the term ‘‘month’’ in the equation inputs ‘‘(HHV)I,’’ ‘‘(Fuel)I,’’ and ‘‘n’’ with the term ‘‘samples.’’ We are proposing changes to Tables C–1 and C–2 to remove duplication and to further classify several fuels to provide clarity. These changes are minor clarifications to existing rule requirements and, therefore, do not impact the burden on reporters. The first change that we are proposing to Table C–1 is to remove duplication of default HHV and CO2 emission factors for petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is currently listed under both the ‘‘Petroleum products’’ category and ‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ category. To avoid confusion with the classification of this fuel, we propose to remove petroleum coke from both of these categories and to include the fuel under a new category entitled ‘‘Petroleum products—solid.’’ The second change to Table C–1 proposed is to move the fuel propane gas from the ‘‘Other fuels—gaseous’’ category into a new category entitled ‘‘Petroleum products—gaseous.’’ Propane is also included under the ‘‘Petroleum products’’ category, and we are not proposing to remove propane from this category as a majority of reporters use this fuel type when PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 reporting use of propane. To help clarify that all fuels in the ‘‘Petroleum products’’ category are liquid fuels, we propose to rename this category to ‘‘Petroleum products—liquid.’’ In conjunction with the changes to Table C–1 for propane and petroleum coke, we are also proposing to change Table C– 2 to further clarify that these fuels are considered petroleum products and their methane (CH4) and N2O emissions should be calculated and reported accordingly. Therefore we propose to change the ‘‘Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C–1)’’ category to ‘‘Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C–1),’’ which will encompass all liquid, solid, and gaseous petroleum products. We are also proposing another change to Table C–2 to further streamline the CH4 and N2O emission factors for fuels in the ‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ category. With the proposed reclassification of petroleum coke from this category to a new solid petroleum products category, the remaining fuels are municipal solid waste (MSW), tires and plastics. Both MSW and tires are listed in Table C–2 and have identical CH4 and N2O emission factors, however plastics are not included in the table. We are proposing to combine the MSW and tire line items into an ‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ category, which would encompass all three solid fuels (i.e., MSW, tires and plastics). Finally, we are proposing to update the Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866–08) to the current standard (ASTM D6866–12). The proposed change would revise references to the method in 40 CFR 98.34(d) and (e), 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2), and include a harmonizing change to 40 CFR 98.7(e)(33). 3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart C In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart C. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart E of Part 98 (Adipic Acid Production). This section discusses all of the proposed amendments to subpart E. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 1. Revisions to Subpart E To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart E and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2) to remove the annual approval for an alternative method for determining N2O emissions request by the reporter and the annual request approval by the EPA if the reporter’s methodology has not changed. Reporters that are subject to subpart E are allowed to use an alternative method to calculate N2O emissions from the production of adipic acid. The alternative method must be approved by the EPA before being used to comply with subpart E. Currently, reporters who choose to use the alternative method are required to request approval on an annual basis and provide the following information: • The calculation method for determining annual N2O emissions; • associated data collection procedures (parameters, how the parameters will be determined, frequency of data collection); • initial and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) procedures; • missing data procedures that will be applied in the event that quality-assured parameters are unavailable (e.g., if a CEMS malfunctions during a unit operation); • any N2O emissions abatement technology that is being used on this unit or process; • any specific test methods or industry consensus standards that would be applied (ASTM, EPA, etc.) for data collection or monitoring; and • any data reporting elements, in addition to the elements required in the rules, which would be provided to the EPA to verify the calculated emissions using the alternative method. In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to allow additional flexibility in the use of alternative methods by removing the annual approval request. Unless there have been changes in the reporter’s methodology. If a reporter received approval to use an alternative method in the previous reporting year and the methodology has not changed, the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for subsequent reporting years. For most reporters, the alternative method is based on innovative methodologies that are already in practice at the facility, so the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 underlying monitoring, data collection, and QA/QC procedures used are unlikely to change from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would only need to notify the EPA that it is using an already approved alternative method. This notification would be included in the annual report submission. If, however, a reporter makes any changes to the previouslyapproved alternative method, then it must request permission to use the revised method as stated in 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2). Not only would this proposed change add flexibility to the reporters, it would also reduce the burden for reporters to comply with subpart E. By requiring requests only for new approvals or for methodologies that have changed since prior approval, the EPA burden required to review and approve the methodologies would also be reduced. 2. Revisions to Subpart E To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart E while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.56(f) to require reporting of the date of installation of any N2O abatement technology (if applicable). This information is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would not require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data element would help improve our understanding of the use and trends in emissions reduction technologies and the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable emission factors over specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an N2O abatement technology during that time period. For more information on subpart E confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production In this action, we are proposing several technical amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart F (Aluminum PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2553 Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart F; additional minor corrections and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart F To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR 98, subpart F to improve the quality of the data collected under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. We are proposing to require reporting of two data elements that influence perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from aluminum production: annual average anode effect minutes per cell-day and annual smelter-specific slope coefficients. These proposed revisions are intended to collect more accurate and informative data. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from aluminum production while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. The annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is a measure of the fraction of the time during which aluminum electrolysis cells are operating that the cells are experiencing process disturbances known as anode effects. PFC emissions from aluminum production are closely associated with the frequency and duration of anode effects.9 Smelter-specific slope coefficients are a measure of the relationship between average anode effect minutes per cell day, aluminum production, and PFC emissions at individual smelters. Both data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. However, in the Final Deferral Notice published on August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data elements because they were classified as inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057).10 The two data elements were 9 Recent research has revealed that PFC emissions may also occur from some aluminum smelters in the absence of anode effects as those are traditionally defined. These ‘‘non-anode-effect emissions’’ are particularly prevalent in recently built smelters that use very large cells, i.e., cells containing 40 or more anodes. Most U.S. smelters do not use such large cells. 10 See the final rule titled ‘‘Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Confidentiality Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,’’ (79 FR 63753– 54, October 24, 2014) for a full discussion of the E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM Continued 15JAP2 2554 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 considered inputs into Equation F–2. In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), we decided not to collect these data elements and to include the inputs into Equation F–2 in IVT. However, after further investigation, we have determined that for average anode effect minutes per cell day, the actual input in Equation F–2 is a monthly average, while the removed reporting element is an annual average.11 Consequently, annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is not an input to an emission equation and, if restored as a reporting element, would be eligible for confidential treatment. As discussed in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing to determine that the annual average of the anode effect minutes per cell day is CBI. IVT currently requires the entry of monthly anode effect minutes and smelter-specific slope coefficients (along with monthly metal production), allowing PFC emission estimates from smelters to be verified. However, our interest in anode effect minutes and slope coefficients goes beyond verification of emission estimates. Specifically, the annual average of anode effect minutes is of interest because it provides insight into one of the key drivers of PFC emissions from primary aluminum production at the facility and U.S. level. This data element helps us to understand why emissions have increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods. Thus, it is important for informing the development of future GHG policies and programs. In addition, it is important for explaining U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. Before the GHGRP became effective, anode effect minutes (as well as smelter-specific slope coefficients) had been provided to the EPA by most U.S. smelters under the Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP), although anode effect minutes was reported as a company-wide (rather than smelter-specific) average by some companies in some years.12 Smelter-specific slope coefficients also influence emissions. Because they are relatively stable over time (under subpart F, they are required to be remeasured every ten years), they do not drive trends in the same way that metal production and anode effect minutes do. history of EPA’s treatment of inputs to emission equations under the GHGRP. 11 Although a monthly total of metal production is used in Equation F–2, the annual total metal production is used in Equations F–5 and F–6; thus, we are not proposing to collect annual metal production. 12 Although the VAIP program continues, GHGRP reporting supplanted reporting under the VAIP. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 However, they do contribute to differences in emission rates from different smelters and are therefore of interest for purposes of informing GHG policies and programs. Smelter-specific slope coefficients are inputs to emission equations (i.e., to Equation F–2). In the analysis titled, ‘‘Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘‘Inputs to Equations’’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015’’ (September, 2014, available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 2010–0929), we concluded that smelterspecific slope coefficients provided data related to process efficiency and also provided data that could be used to calculate the mass of aluminum produced if both the anode effect minutes and reported GHG emissions were also known. (The product of the slope coefficient, monthly metal produced, and monthly average anode effect minutes is the CF4 emissions from the smelter or potline.) However, we are now revisiting this conclusion in light of our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI. Without data on anode effect minutes, data on smelter-specific slope coefficients pose few, if any, disclosure concerns. Most variability in process efficiency is driven by anode effect minutes, not smelter-specific slope coefficients, and it is not possible to back-calculate metal production without anode effect minutes.13 Therefore, in conjunction with our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI, we are proposing to revise the findings in the Final Inputs Rule and to now find no disclosure concerns associated with this input to equation, and are proposing to collect this data. Note that we would continue to use IVT to verify the results of Equation F–2 because we would be collecting only one of the three inputs to this equation.14 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart F In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart F. These minor corrections are summarized in 13 A review of the slope coefficients and anode effect minutes provided under the VAIP showed that the relative standard deviation of smelterspecific slope coefficients was 32 percent, while the relative standard deviation of anode effect minutes was 95 percent. The comparison was made for the year 2007 because that is the most recent year for which detailed smelter-specific slope coefficients were available. 14 IVT will use the data element reported to eGGRT to calculate the emissions value. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing In this action, we are proposing multiple amendments to subpart G of Part 98 (Ammonia Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart G. 1. Revisions to Subpart G To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from ammonia manufacturing while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. Specifically, we are proposing to add three data reporting elements. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.76(a) to require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2) to require reporting of annual feedstock consumption, and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7) to require reporting of annual average carbon content. These data elements are readily available so these proposed changes would have no impact on burden for the reporters. The addition of these data elements would improve the EPA’s ability to verify reported GHGRP emissions, and enable the EPA to transparently apply more advanced calculation methods 15 (based on total fuel requirements) for determining emissions from ammonia production within the U.S. GHG Inventory, using aggregated facility level GHGRP data. Currently, the annual U.S. GHG Inventory emissions estimates are based on multiplication of a technologyfeedstock type specific default emission factor and national ammonia production. Further data on feedstock consumption and associated carbon contents would assist the EPA in reconciling CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels in the energy sector and CO2 process emissions from ammonia production. Finally, collecting annual ammonia production from facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions ensures data completeness if ammonia manufacturers begin employing CEMS in the future, and enhances the EPA’s ability to verify 15 See Equation 3.4 (Tier 3), p. 3.13 and 3.15. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.2: Ammonia Production; Section 4.5 (p. 4–20) of U.S. Inventory. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4Industrial-Processes.pdf. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules reported information. Currently, annual ammonia production is collected on a facility basis, but only for facilities without CO2 CEMS. For more information on subpart G confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Other Amendments to Subpart G For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing multiple amendments to Subpart G to clarify the EPA’s intentions related to the reporting of annual ammonia production and annual methanol production. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.74(f) to read, ‘‘You may use company records or an engineering estimate to determine the annual ammonia production and the annual methanol production.’’ We are also proposing to clarify the requirement to report annual methanol production for each process unit in 40 CFR 98.76(b)(15) by adding that this information must be reported ‘‘regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product.’’ These amendments will clarify the original intent of the requirements and reduce uncertainty from reporters by addressing multiple Help Desk questions, including questions related to the reporting of methanol that were raised during the RY2014 reporting period. F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart I of Part 98 (Electronics Manufacturing). The reporting requirements for the electronics manufacturing sector were initially promulgated under subpart I on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). Since the promulgation of that final rule, the EPA has published several rules to amend the calculation, monitoring, and reporting provisions of subpart I to respond to concerns raised by reporters and representatives from the semiconductor industry. Notably, the EPA finalized substantial amendments to provisions in subpart I on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162). These amendments included significant revisions to the methods for calculating GHG emissions, including revised default emission factors and the addition of a new stack test methodology, as well as substantial revisions to monitoring methodologies, data reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and clarifications to terms and definitions. These amendments became effective on January 1, 2014, and reporters used the revised VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 requirements in the submittal of their annual reports for RY2014. In this action, we are not proposing revisions that would include significant changes to the calculation methodologies, monitoring provisions, or data reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart I. Rather, we are proposing revisions that we have identified following implementation of the November 13, 2013 final rule and through discussions with industry stakeholders on how to improve the emissions estimates from the electronics manufacturing sector. These proposed changes are needed to improve the clarity of the calculation requirements and quality of the data collected under subpart I and to improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from the electronics manufacturing sector. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart I; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart I To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart I that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect more accurate and detailed data which would improve the EPA’s understanding of sector GHG emissions, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, the EPA is proposing to revise Equation I–24, including revising the name to Equation I–24A, which calculates the weighted-average fraction of a fluorinated GHG destroyed or removed in a fab using the stack testing methodology in 40 CFR 98.93(i), to incorporate two changes. First, instead of calculating the weighted-average fraction of gas destroyed or removed weighted by the consumption of that gas in different process types, the EPA is proposing to revise the equation so that the average fraction destroyed or removed is weighted by the estimated uncontrolled emissions of that gas from different process types. This change is needed to address the fact that the same gas can have different emissions when used in different process types, and these differences could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the fraction of gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2555 abatement. To calculate the estimated uncontrolled emissions of each gas, the EPA is proposing to use the input gas emission factors from Tables I–3 to I–7 of subpart I and the consumption of each gas in each process type for each fab. The second proposed change is to create a second equation (Equation I– 24B) in 40 CFR 98.93(i) to calculate the weighted-average fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas ‘‘k’’ destroyed or removed in abatement systems in each fab using the stack testing methodology. This change is needed to clarify how the term dkf, which is used in several other equations in subpart I, should be calculated. This second equation would also address the fact that the same byproduct gas can be formed at different rates from different input gas and process combinations, which could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the average fraction of byproduct gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with abatement. The EPA is also proposing conforming changes throughout Subpart I to the rule sections where Equation I– 24A and I–24B should be referenced. Finally, for the triennial technology report required of certain facilities as specified in 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing to specify that reporters that are providing any utilization and byproduct formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data must also include information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, where such information is available. The triennial report would describe, for any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted: the methods used for the measurements, the wafer size, film type being manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or technology node, process type, process subtype for chamber clean processes, the input gases used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and the by-product formation rates measured, where this information is available. All of these data elements, with the exception of substrate type and linewidth, were submitted with the emission factor measurements provided to the EPA by semiconductor manufacturers during the development of the 2010 and 2013 final rules. This information is necessary to enable the EPA to better understand the data being submitted and to better apply it in the development of new or revised emission factors. Without collecting this data, the agency would not be able to effectively evaluate how emissions may vary by E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2556 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules wafer size, film type, substrate type, linewidth or technology node, and process type or process subtype. The current subpart I is based on the recognition that emission factors vary significantly by wafer size and process type and subtype, and given the high rate of technical evolution in this sector, film type, substrate type, and linewidth may also increasingly affect emission factors. Additionally, the input gases used, methods used for measurement, and measured utilization rates and byproduct formation rates are vital for the development of accurate and useful emission factors. For more information on subpart I confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart I For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections and clarification to subpart I of Part 98, including editorial changes, harmonizing changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2015–0526). G. Subpart N—Glass Production In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart N of Part 98 (Glass Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart N; additional minor corrections are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing amendments that are intended to clarify the rule requirements in subpart N, while resulting in no impact on burden for reporters. Specifically, the changes clarify that a default value of 1.0 can be used for the fraction of calcination and the carbonate mass fraction for each carbonate type contained in the raw materials charged to the furnace. The current rule is unclear as to whether a reporter must perform a chemical analysis if they select to use a default value of 1.0. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.144(b), 40 CFR 98.144(c), 40 CFR 98.144(d), 40 CFR 98.146(b)(5), and 40 CFR 98.146(b)(7) to clarify that no further chemical analysis is required if the default value of 1.0 is selected. These amendments will clarify the original intent of the requirements and address multiple Help Desk questions. Additional minor editorial corrections VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 may be found in the Table of Revisions in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526). H. Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction In this action we are proposing several amendments to subpart O of Part 98 (HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction). This section discusses all of the changes to subpart O. 1. Revisions to Subpart O To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments to subpart O that are intended to simplify and streamline GHGRP requirements and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process, generally resulting in a decrease in burden on reporters. We are proposing to revise subpart O to remove three reporting requirements related to the revised destruction efficiency that facilities are required to calculate in the event that the HFC–23 concentration that they annually measure at the outlet of the destruction device exceeds the concentration measured during the performance test that is the basis for the current destruction efficiency. The reporting requirements are found at 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4) and include, respectively, the concentration (mass fraction) of HFC–23 at the outlet of the destruction device, the flow rate at the outlet of the destruction device in kilograms per hour (kg/hr), and the emission rate (in kg/hr) calculated from these two parameters. These reporting requirements were originally intended to allow us to verify the calculation of a revised destruction efficiency. However, the requirements to report the revised destruction efficiency (the result of the calculation) and the flow rate of HFC–23 being fed into the destruction device (another input into the calculation) were removed by the Final Inputs Rule, and verification of HFC–23 emissions, including their destruction, is now conducted by the IVT. Thus, reporting these data elements to the EPA is no longer needed. 2. Revisions to Subpart O To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory We are also proposing revisions to subpart O to (1) reinstate in 40 CFR 98.156(d) reporting of the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency, and (2) require facilities to report HCFC–22 production and HFC– 23 emissions for each HCFC–22 production process rather than for the facility as a whole. As discussed in PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from HCFC–22 production and HFC–23 destruction while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. The requirement to report the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency (not an input to emission equation) was inadvertently removed by the Final Inputs Rule. We are proposing to reinstate this requirement because it is useful for understanding data quality, specifically, the rigor of the method used to revise the destruction efficiency. Subpart O currently requires facilities to report production and emissions information at the facility level although these quantities are monitored and calculated at the process level. We are proposing to revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a) to require that facilities report production and emissions information for each HCFC–22 production process. At the time the EPA finalized the subpart O requirements (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), we had intended to collect data on individual HCFC–22 processes, with the understanding that each facility had one HCFC–22 process. We have learned since that time that some facilities may have more than one HCFC–22 process and we are proposing to revise the rule to require reporting for each individual process. In the event that a facility has more than one HCFC–22 production process, this would provide more precise information that would allow us to better verify emissions and understand HFC–23 trends. Reporters in this subpart already monitor, estimate, and record process and emissions data on a process basis per 40 CFR 98.153; therefore, these proposed rule revisions to report the production and emissions data on a process basis are not expected to significantly increase burden. For more information on subpart O confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production In this action we are proposing amendments to subpart Q of Part 98 (Iron and Steel Production). This section discusses one substantive change to subpart Q; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). A revision is being made to align with revisions being proposed for subpart Y E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 (Petroleum Refineries). Under 40 CFR 98.172(b), facilities that report to subpart Q are referred to provisions in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y for reporting CO2 emissions from flares that burn blast furnace gas or coke oven gas. Subpart Q reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities should exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas. J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart S of Part 98 (Lime Manufacturing). This section discusses all the proposed amendments to subpart S. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several revisions to subpart S to improve the quality of data collected under Part 98. We are proposing to require reporting of three data elements that influence CO2 emissions from lime manufacturing: Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data to improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from lime manufacturing and the U.S. GHG Inventory while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. Similar data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; however, these data elements were monthly values, listed in 40 CFR 98.196(b)(2), 40 CFR 98.196(b)(3), and 40 CFR 98.196(b)(5). However, in a final rule published on August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data elements because they were inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057). In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), we identified disclosure concerns with these data elements and therefore decided not to collect these monthly data elements and to include the inputs from Equations S–1 and S–2 in IVT. IVT currently requires the entry of monthly calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content for Equation S–1, outputting the monthly emission factor for lime type; monthly calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content for VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Equation S–2, outputting the monthly emission factor for calcined lime byproduct/waste type sold; calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content, and annual weight or mass of calcined byproducts or wastes for lime type that is not sold for Equation S–3, outputting the annual CO2 emissions for calcined lime byproduct or waste type that is not sold; and monthly weight or mass of lime type produced, monthly weight or mass of calcined byproducts or wastes sold for Equation S–4, outputting the annual CO2 process emissions from lime production from all lime kilns. The IVT inputs allow us to verify CO2 emissions from lime kilns. Collecting the annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold would allow us to understand why emissions have increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods. Thus, they are important for informing the development of future GHG policies and programs. In addition, they are important for explaining U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. These annual values are not inputs to equations; as described in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing that these data elements be eligible for confidential treatment. For more information on subpart S confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production In this action, we are proposing three amendments to subpart V of Part 98 (Nitric Acid Production). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart V. 1. Revisions to Subpart V To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart V and increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.223(a)(2) to conditionally remove the annual approval request by the reporter and the annual request approval by the EPA. As further discussed in section III.C of this preamble for subpart E, the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for the next reporting year if the reporter received approval to use an PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2557 alternative method in the previous reporting year and the method has not changed. 2. Revisions to Subpart V To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing two amendments that are intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart V that would result in a moderate increase in burden for reporters. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.220 to change the definition of the source category to require reporting from all reporters that produce nitric acid, regardless of the nitric acid strength. The subpart V definition was based on the Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants in 40 CFR part 60 (77 FR 48433, August 14, 2012) which covers the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the production of weak nitric acid (specifically between 30 percent and 70 percent in strength). Weak nitric acid is produced through a three step process. The majority of N2O emissions from nitric acid production occur during ammonia oxidation, which is the first step in the process. High-strength nitric acid is produced by two different methods. The first method begins with producing weak nitric acid and then uses extractive distillation to concentrate the nitric acid. Since N2O emissions occur only during weak nitric acid production and the production of weak nitric acid is covered by the existing source category definition, N2O emissions from this high-strength nitric acid production method are covered by the existing nitric acid source category definition. The second method is an extended version of the weak nitric acid production process, meaning that the high-strength nitric acid is produced in a single nitric acid train rather than two separate processes. This combined process is not currently covered by the existing source category definition, even though the amount of N2O emissions from the process would be similar to the weak nitric acid production process. When the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule was published in 2009, only one nitric acid plant in the United States produced nitric acid greater than 70 percent in strength. In the interim, further research has indicated the existence of three other nitric acid trains capable of producing high-strength nitric acid, including one existing plant and two potential plants becoming operational as early as the end of 2015. See the memorandum, ‘‘Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.’’ from E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2558 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 29, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526. Because of increased usage of the high-strength nitric acid process in the United States, we are proposing that the definition of nitric acid be updated to apply to all nitric acid strengths to ensure that subpart V reporting captures all N2O emissions related to the production of nitric acid. By revising the definition, the rule would avoid confusion and ensure that all nitric acid trains and all N2O emissions are subject to subpart V. The applicability change would help improve the completeness of reporting under subpart V and further standardize Part 98 to be consistent with Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) guidance. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.226(h) to require reporting of the date of installation of any N2O abatement technology (if applicable). This date is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would not require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data element would help improve the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable emission factors over specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an N2O abatement technology during that time period. For more information on subpart V confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. L. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart X (Petrochemical Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart X; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart X To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 amendments to subpart X that are intended to simplify, streamline, and align with other proposed GHGRP requirements, which would generally result in a decrease in burden for reporters. Under 40 CFR 98.243(c), facilities that report to subpart X are referred to provisions in subpart Y for reporting CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from flares. Subpart X reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities have the option to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas. The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) to allow operators of an integrated ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) process to report either the measured quantity of EDC produced or both the measured quantity of VCM and an estimate of the amount of EDC produced as an intermediate in the process. We are also proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.240(a) to indicate that a reporter may elect to consider the entire integrated process (rather than just the EDC operations) to be the petrochemical process for the purposes of complying with the mass balance method. Subpart X currently requires EDC manufacturers to perform the mass balance around operations involved in the production of the EDC, including situations where EDC is produced as an intermediate in the production of VCM. In a letter received from Occidental Chemical Company titled ‘‘Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X,’’ dated July 10, 2015, industry representatives indicated that an integrated EDC/VCM process is a continuous process with EDC produced as an intermediate that is not stored or measured. As an alternative to incurring the burden of modifying the process to enable measurement of the intermediate EDC stream, Occidental Chemical Company has requested that subpart X reporters be allowed to perform the mass balance over the entire integrated process and, for the quantity of petrochemical produced, report the quantity of VCM produced instead of the amount of EDC produced. Conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process is acceptable to the EPA because the CO2 process emissions (from oxidation of ethylene in the oxychlorination process PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to produce EDC) and emissions from combustion of vent gases from the EDC operations are calculated under both methods. The alternative method also would estimate additional CO2 emissions for combustion of both vent gases and liquid wastes from the VCM operations. Under the proposed optional method, carbon emitted in vent streams from VCM operations and carbon in liquid wastes that are combusted would be assumed to be converted to CO2. For most facilities, using the optional method likely means either a more complete reporting of total facility emissions or a shift from reporting under subpart C (if the subpart C applicability criteria are met) to reporting under subpart X. Facilities have indicated that vent gases from the VCM operations are combusted, typically in the same combustion unit as the vent gases from the EDC operations. Thus, the assumption that carbon in such vent streams is converted to CO2 is expected to be valid. Liquid waste from the VCM operations that is not combusted would be included as a product for the purposes of the mass balance and, thus, any carbon in such stream would be subtracted from the total inlet carbon and not attributed to CO2 emissions. In addition to conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process, the EPA is proposing that facilities electing to use this optional method would report both the measured amount of VCM produced and an estimate of the amount of EDC produced as an intermediate. Reporting the amount of VCM would help the EPA to verify the estimate of EDC reported. Reporting the estimate of EDC produced would enable the EPA to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in average emissions per metric ton of EDC between results reported by facilities that use the option for integrated processes versus results for facilities that report only for EDC operations. The proposed change to 40 CFR 98.240(a) would harmonize the proposed integrated EDC/VCM mass balance option with other requirements related to petrochemical processes (or process units) in subpart X. For example, the mass balance calculation requirements in 40 CFR 98.243(c) and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a) are per petrochemical ‘‘process unit.’’ Thus, considering the entire integrated process to be the petrochemical process unit clarifies that these calculation and reporting requirements apply to the entire integrated process under the option, and E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 not to just the EDC portion of the process. It is anticipated that the proposed amendments would reduce the compliance burden by not requiring monitoring equipment and/or sampling and analysis of an intermediate EDC stream just for the purpose of complying with subpart X. Instead, facilities would be allowed to measure the final product VCM, which is likely already being measured for other business reasons. A few facilities may have a liquid waste stream from the VCM operations that is not combusted. Such streams would need to be measured and included as products in the mass balance. The potential increase in burden for measurement of such streams is expected to be more than offset by the reduction for not measuring the intermediate EDC stream because not all facilities will have a liquid waste stream that is not combusted, and a waste stream is an output that would be more readily measured than an intermediate that is not stored. 2. Revisions to Subpart X To Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing to amend subpart X to collect additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory. The EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements for facilities that use the mass balance approach to determine emissions under 40 CFR 98.243(c) to report the annual average of the measurements of the carbon content and molecular weight of each feedstock and product reported under subpart X. Much of these data are currently required to be determined and retained per the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.247, so adding the reporting requirement to report annual averages adds very little burden to reporters. These additional data elements will be aggregated to the national level and used to improve national emission estimates in the U.S. GHG Inventory for several reasons. First, these data points will be helpful for understanding non-energy uses of fossil fuels by the chemical industry, so they can more accurately be allocated between the industrial process and energy sectors of the U.S. GHG Inventory. As noted in the U.S. GHG Inventory, currently some degree of double-counting may occur between CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels in the energy sector and CO2 process emissions from petrochemical production in this sector. Complete data integration is not feasible at this time as feedstock data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) used VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 to estimate non-energy uses of fuels are aggregated by fuel type, rather than disaggregated by both fuel type and particular industries (e.g., petrochemical production). The EPA, through the GHGRP, obtained complete data on quantities of fuel consumed as feedstocks by petrochemical producers for the first time in 2015. The carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks will facilitate conversion of the GHGRP feedstock quantity data (by fuel type) into energy units for integration with EIA data to ensure appropriate allocation of emissions across sectors in the national U.S. GHG Inventory, including addressing issues with double-counting. Second, having annually averaged carbon content and molecular weight for products and feedstocks derived from facility-level GHGRP data would enable the EPA to transparently apply the IPCC mass balance method 16 for determining emissions from petrochemical production in the U.S. GHG Inventory. Currently, only the aggregated facilitylevel products from application of the GHGRP mass balance are aggregated and published in the U.S. GHG Inventory. For more information on subpart X confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart X For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart X of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). M. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart Y; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart Y To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several amendments that are intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart Y. To reduce 16 See Equation 3.17, p. 3.67. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.9: Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2559 reporter burden, the EPA is proposing to clarify in this rulemaking that pilot gas, which is considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, may be excluded from the quantity of flare gas used to perform GHG emissions calculations. As described below, the quantity of GHG emissions associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from a flare at petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and steel production facilities, and monitoring the quantity of pilot gas may impose additional burden on some facilities. Generally flares combust waste gas (excess gas generated by the facility that needs disposal which the flare was designed to treat/destroy), purge/sweep gas (gas that must be added to the flare header system or to the base of the flare in order to prevent oxygen ingress during periods of low waste gas flow), and pilot gas (gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip). The majority of gas combusted by a flare is waste gas. The remaining gas combusted by the flare is comprised of purge/sweep and pilot gas. The amount of purge/sweep gas needed is dependent on the complexity of the flare gas header system and the flare diameter and tip design. As discussed in the memorandum ‘‘Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)’’ from Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015 (see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2015–0526), flares generally require at least 0.1 to 0.2 foot per second (ft/s) flow velocity at the tip to prevent oxygen ingress, but can be significantly higher for flares with complex header systems. For a 2 foot diameter flare, this translates to a minimum flow of 1,100 to 2,200 cubic feet per hour or 1 to 2 mmBtu/hr. Recommended heat rate for industrial flare pilots is approximately 0.05 mmBtu/hr, so GHG emissions from flare pilot gas are typically 10 percent or less of the emissions from the flare purge/sweep gas while the flare is on standby (i.e., no active waste gas flow). Therefore, we expect the resultant GHG emissions from pilot gas to be low, especially in the context of the broader flare emissions. Further, it is difficult for facilities to estimate the quantities of pilot gas without the use of a meter. Facilities generally measure the flare gas, but do not always have unit-specific meters installed for the gas used for the pilot flame (typically natural gas). The EPA does not intend for facilities to install a separate meter to measure the pilot gas for the purposes of reporting under this E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2560 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 rulemaking, either to include or exclude this quantity of pilot gas. Installation of an additional meter for this purpose would be burdensome to reporters, especially when considering the increase in reported GHG emissions would be very low. Therefore, we are proposing to amend the rule to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y. Purge/sweep gas would still be included in the flare GHG emissions calculations. Finally, the EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.256(e) to add a requirement that facilities provide a yes/no indication as to whether a flare has a flare gas recovery system. Currently, 40 CFR 98.256(e) requires facilities to report general information as to the type of flare (e.g., air-assisted, steam-assisted, or non-assisted) and the flare service (e.g., general facility flare, unit flare, or emergency flare). Several offices within the EPA (as well as external researchers) use the GHGRP data on flares to characterize flare emissions, assess trends, and evaluate GHG emission reductions that could be achieved under various policies. In using the GHGRP data for flares for these purposes, we identified a key deficiency in the GHGRP data set is the lack of information regarding which flares have flare gas recovery systems. Flare gas recovery is a primary means by which owners and operators of flares may reduce flare emissions. The inclusion of information on which flares have flare gas recovery systems will provide useful information to characterize emission trends in key industries using flares and provide critical information needed by the EPA to make policy decisions. Only an indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system is being proposed, so this amendment would add only a slight increase in burden to subpart Q, X, and Y reporters that have flares. For more information on subpart Y confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 2. Revisions to Subpart Y To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several amendments that would improve the quality of the data collected from subpart Y reporters while resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. The EPA originally promulgated rules for the reporting of GHG emissions from VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 various source categories, including petroleum refineries, on October 30, 2009. Since the reporting requirements were developed, understanding of emissions from delayed coking units (DCU) has improved. The rule originally established a methodology to estimate methane emissions from a DCU based on a simple gas expansion model (i.e., Equation Y–18) which the EPA is proposing to replace with a new methodology that will more accurately determine emissions from DCU. Recently, EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) conducted a detailed information collection request (ICR) (OMB Control No. 2060–0657) of the petroleum refining industry that gathered information about DCU operations and the decoking process. Based on the information collected, the EPA determined that the simple gas expansion model did not accurately reflect the emissions source and significantly underestimated emissions from the DCU. First, there is less gaseous void space in the coke drum than previously thought because the coke drum is filled with water and the void (vapor) space in the coke drum is small. Second and more importantly, there is a significant quantity of steam generated and released from the coke drum during the depressurizing process because the boiling point of the water decreases as the pressure of the vessel decreases. That is, there is a phase change and gas generation that occurs during the venting process. Consequently, the total quantity of gas discharged during a venting event is actually much greater than predicted by the simple pressure expansion (no phase change) model previously used in Equation Y–18. Upon review of the test data collected in response to the ICR, the EPA determined that methane emissions are a function of steam generation, not the initial void volume in the delayed coking unit vessel. Based on these determinations, the EPA developed and used a steam generation model to estimate emissions from the DCU (see Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2010–0682–0202) and revised and incorporated this methodology as part of the emissions factors update for petroleum refineries (see https:// www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/ index_consent_decree.html; April 2015). We are now proposing to amend the DCU GHG emission calculation methodology to align the GHGRP’s methodology with the methodology recently incorporated into the emission factors update and to provide a more PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 accurate means of estimating methane emissions from the DCU. The proposed methodology uses a heat balance on the DCU coke drum vessel contents to estimate the volume of steam produced during the DCU decoking operations (steam venting, draining, vessel deheading, and coke cutting). Methane emissions per venting cycle is proportional to the quantity of steam generated. Key inputs to the heat balance include the mass of water and coke in the coke drum vessel and the average temperature of the coke drum contents when venting first occurs. We are proposing to allow reporters to determine the mass of coke in the coke drum based on company records or to estimate the mass of coke in the coke drum based on drum dimensions and drum outage (parameters already required to be recorded under the current rule) and a new equation provided in the rule (Equation Y–18a). We are proposing to require reporters to determine the mass of water in the coke drum based on the height of water in the coke drum and the mass of coke in the coke drum. We are proposing to allow either one of two methods to estimate the average temperature of the coke bed contents: (1) A method based on the measured overhead temperature of the drum, and (2) a method based on the overhead pressure using a temperaturepressure correlation equation provided in the rule. While the EPA generally considers the temperature method to be the most accurate means to determine the average temperature of the coke bed contents, the EPA understands that there are concerns that the temperature measurements in the overhead line may be erroneously high due to additional steam purges in the overhead line to prevent coke build-up on the monitoring equipment, so we have provided the temperature-pressure correlation equation as well to provide reporters additional flexibility. Additionally, the EPA has not previously required temperature monitoring for the DCU in subpart Y of Part 98, but the previous methodology for delayed coking units in subpart Y required the vessel pressure prior to venting to be monitored and used as an input to the previous equation. Consequently, the EPA is providing the use of the temperature-pressure correlation to allow reporters to use current pressure monitoring and recordkeeping practices to obtain the information needed to implement the new methodology. As such, the new methodology will not require the installation or use of new monitoring systems. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Finally, we are proposing to allow facilities that have DCU vent gas measurements to use these measurements to develop a unit-specific methane emissions factor for the DCU. This allows reporters that have previously used the combined Equation Y–18/Y–19 method (as well as other reporters) to use the measurement data available to provide an improved, sitespecific emissions estimate. If a unitspecific methane emissions factor is not available, we are proposing that reporters use the default methane emissions factor for DCU of 7.9 kg methane per metric ton of steam generated. Additional background on this change is available in the memo ‘‘Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units’’ from Jeff Coburn, RTI International to Brian Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015 (see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). The EPA is proposing that the new methodology be used to estimate the emissions for each DCU and the EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements for DCU to only require reporting at the unit level. This change is being proposed for several reasons. Currently, DCU emissions are reported at the facility level. The decision was originally made to require reporting at the facility level to allow facilities that have two identical DCU (with same sized drums) to apply Equation Y–18 to the set of drums one time to reduce burden. However, the rule contains several required reporting elements be submitted on a DCU unit-specific basis, so the burden reduction associated with this simplification is very small, and facility-level data hindered the EPA’s ability to verify the reported data. Facilities currently have the option to use a combination of Equation Y–18 and Y–19 (process vent method) for estimating the emissions from the DCU. This further splits certain reporting elements between the DCU process unit and the process vents inputs. This split in the DCU reporting elements has caused confusion among reporters and made verification of the reported data challenging. For example, facilities that did not have a DCU were required to actively report a zero for their emissions from this source. Also, because emissions were to be reported at the facility level, the emissions from process vents added for DCU vents needed to be reported as zero for the DCU vent at the process vent level. However, many reporters reported emissions at the process vent level and may or may not have fully reported the DCU emissions at the facility level. Due to the difficulties associated with the split reporting requirements, we are VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 proposing that the new methodology be implemented to estimate the emissions for each delayed coking unit separately. This will simplify the reporting requirements for facilities and allow the EPA to simplify and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements for most reporters. Additionally, in the proposed approach, DCU vent measurements may be used to develop a unit-specific methane emissions factor so the available measurement data can be used within the context of the proposed DCU methodology, rather than splitting the emissions estimates between two different methodologies (i.e., Equations Y–18 and Y–19). For these reasons, the EPA anticipates the burden on reporters would be reduced by streamlining the DCU reporting requirements so that DCU-related reporting elements are only required to be reported at the DCU unit level. In related revisions, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.253(j) to delete ‘‘CH4 emissions if you elected to use the method in paragraph (i)(1) of this section,’’ because the DCU methodology no longer includes an option to use a combination of techniques to determine the CH4 emissions from DCU decoking operations. We are also including ‘‘coke produced per cycle’’ in the list of quantities of petroleum process streams that are determined using company records in 40 CFR 98.254(j), and adding a requirement that temperature and pressure measurements associated with the DCU are to be determined ‘‘using process instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated according to manufacturer’s instructions.’’ These revisions are included to clarify monitoring requirements associated with the new DCU methodology. Additionally, we are proposing to revise the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.257 associated with the DCU to harmonize the recordkeeping requirements with the new DCU methodology equations. The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) to clarify the appropriate equations to be used for reporters with an asphalt blowing unit with a control device other than a vapor scrubber, thermal oxidizer, or flare (classified as ‘‘other (specify)’’ in eGGRT). The current rule language in 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) only specifies the methodology to use for these three control systems and for uncontrolled asphalt blowing. In the proposed amendments, we are revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) to clarify that reporters with ‘‘asphalt blowing operations controlled either by vapor scrubbing or by another non-combustion PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2561 control device’’ must use Equations Y– 14 and Y–15 to calculate their GHG emissions. We are also revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(2) to clarify that reporters with ‘‘asphalt blowing operations controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, a flare, or other vapor combustion control device’’ must use Equations Y– 16a/Y–16b and Y–17 to calculate their GHG emissions. These amendments will yield more accurate emissions values as reporters will now be required to use the most appropriate equations for ‘‘other’’ control systems used for asphalt blowing operations. For more information on subpart Y confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart Y For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart Y of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). N. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart Z of Part 98 (Phosphoric Acid Production). This section discusses all the proposed amendments to subpart Z. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing to revise subpart Z of Part 98 (Phosphoric Acid Production) to allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from phosphoric acid production while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) to require that the annual report must include the annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid line, rather than the annual permitted phosphoric acid production capacity. In a prior technical correction to the rule (78 FR 19823, April 2, 2013) we acknowledged that not all phosphoric acid production facilities have a permitted production capacity, and additionally, not all facilities produce to the permitted capacity. During that action, we removed the word ‘‘permitted’’ from the requirement at 40 CFR 98.266(b) to report the facility-level production capacity. We are proposing a similar revision in this action to remove the word ‘‘permitted’’ from the requirement to report the process-level production capacity, E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2562 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules noting similarly that not all facilities have a permitted production capacity at the process-level or produce to the permitted capacity. We are also proposing to clarify the units of measurement for this reporting requirement. The current text for 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires the reporting of ‘‘annual phosphoric acid permitted production capacity (tons) for each wetprocess phosphoric acid process line (metric tons).’’ In this action, we are proposing to remove the units of measurement ‘‘(metric tons)’’ from this text to provide further clarity on the requirements that the unit of measurement is ‘‘tons’’ and not ‘‘metric tons.’’ The revision to the process-level capacity is necessary to ensure that the EPA collects consistent annual production capacity data and will provide a better characterization of the relationship between industry production and emissions. For more information on subpart Z confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 O. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart AA of Part 98 (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart AA. 1. Revisions to Subpart AA To Streamline Implementation of Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment to subpart AA that would streamline the requirements of the rule and improve implementation, while generally reducing burden. We are proposing to clarify that Tier 4 CEMS are not used to report emissions under subpart AA. Subpart AA currently requires that fossil-fuel based CO2 emissions be calculated using subpart C methodologies. Subpart AA states that Tier 1 or a higher tier may be used. Subpart AA reporters have not used the Tier 4 CEMS methodology during any previous reporting year, and are not expected to do so given the mixture of biogenic and fossil-fuel CO2 emissions in the exhaust streams from subpart AA emission units. Therefore, we are proposing amendments to clarify that Tier 4 is not included in 40 CFR 98.273(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1), which refer to the subpart C calculation methodologies for CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil-fuel. This clarification will provide clarity to reporters and also reduce the EPA burden and related program expense VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 required to maintain e-GGRT CEMS web forms and associated verification checks and documentation. 2. Other Amendments to Subpart AA As described in section II.C of this preamble, through communication with stakeholders, we have identified certain aspects of the rule that may require revision, including those we are proposing in response to comments submitted by stakeholders on prior rulemakings. Subpart AA requires pulp mill reporters to determine the annual mass of spent liquor solids fired in chemical recovery furnaces and chemical recovery combustion units by either measuring the mass of spent liquor solids annually (or more frequently) with a Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) method, or using records of measurements made with an online measurement system. Missing measurements are currently required to be populated with either the maximum spent liquor mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or the maximum mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure. Representatives of the forest products industry requested revisions to the missing data requirements for spent liquor solids in 40 CFR 98.275(b).17 The industry representatives explained that use of the maximum potential spent liquor solids firing rate or the maximum the meter can measure can overstate GHG emissions. The industry representatives stated that this procedure is unnecessarily burdensome and confusing because this requirement differs from the way mills handle spent liquor solids flow monitoring for other federal air rules, such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. The industry representatives noted that having a data acquisition, analysis, and reporting program that uses one value for liquor feed rate for GHG reporting purposes and another feed rate for all other purposes is overly complicated for both mill personnel and regulatory agencies. The industry representatives requested that 40 CFR 98.275(b) of subpart AA be amended to require use of the mass of spent liquor solids reported under 40 CFR 63.866 of subpart MM for missing measurements. The EPA has reviewed the industry representatives’ request and agrees that use of the daily value recorded under 40 17 See docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0934– 0058. Although this request was received in comments on the 2013 Revisions Rule, this request was determined to be outside the scope of the 2013 proposed amendments and was not addressed at that time. This request is being considered as part of these proposed amendments. PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 CFR 63.866(c)(1) of subpart MM results in an acceptable missing data estimate for the combustion unit. Thus, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.275(b) to allow use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired reported under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) as an alternative to maximum values. The provisions of 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) require pulp mills to retain records of the mass of spent liquor solids fired in megagrams (Mg) or tons per day. This proposed amendment acknowledges that the daily value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) may need to be adjusted to match the duration of missing data under subpart AA. For example, the daily measurement may need to be adjusted to represent only a few hours of monitor downtime. We are proposing to retain the original requirements of 40 CFR 98.275(b) in addition to proposing the alternative to use the value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) to avoid requiring reconfiguration of data systems in mills that may have configured their data reporting systems to supply maximum values for subpart AA. We are proposing one additional revision to subpart AA that is a minor clarification and that would improve the understanding of the rule. We are proposing a clarification to column labels in Table AA–2. Table AA–2 contains CH4 and N2O emission factors for ‘‘kraft lime kilns’’ and ‘‘kraft calciners,’’ both of which are ‘‘pulp mill lime kilns’’ as defined in 40 CFR 98.6. The N2O emission factors differ for these two technologies. Because calcining (thermal removal of carbonates from lime mud) occurs in both types of equipment, there has been some confusion regarding which N2O emission factors apply. To eliminate this confusion, we are proposing minor wording changes to clarify that the columns for ‘‘kraft lime kilns’’ in Table AA–2 refers specifically to ‘‘kraft rotary lime kilns.’’ We are also proposing to add a footnote to Table AA–2 indicating that fluid bed calciners are an example of kraft calciners. The majority of kraft pulp mills operate rotary lime kilns while at least one kraft mill operates a fluidized bed calciner. P. Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart CC of Part 98 (Soda Ash Manufacturing). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart CC; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart CC To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 We are proposing two revisions that are intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart CC, while only resulting in a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.296(a) and (b) to require reporting of the facility-level annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing the addition of this data element to help improve the quality of the U.S. GHG Inventory by using aggregated facility level data. These data are already required to be reported on the manufacturing-line basis for subpart CC reporters that report using CEMS. For non-CEMS subpart CC reporters, the requirements to report consumption data for each manufacturing line, previously required per 40 CFR 98.269(b)(5), was removed in the Final Inputs Rule. This action would propose to streamline the reporting of facility-level consumption data from both CEMS and non-CEMS reporters on a more aggregate level. Currently, the U.S. Inventory estimates CO2 emissions based on application of default emissions factors to estimated trona production.18 Consistent collection of this data element from facilities would enable the EPA to aggregate and integrate GHGRP emission estimates, and transparently determine national emissions based on trona consumption within the U.S. GHG Inventory and allow for the application of more advanced calculation methods. For more information on subpart CC confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart CC For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing one minor correction to subpart CC of Part 98. This minor revision is summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). 18 See p. 3.52–53 (Tier 2 and 3). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.3: Natural Soda Ash Production. See also Section 4.11 (pp. 4–40 through 4–42) of U.S. GHG Inventory https://www.epa.gov/ climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2015-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Q. Subpart DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart DD of Part 98 (Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart DD. For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several changes to subpart DD that will improve the quality and usefulness of the data received by the GHGRP, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. A facility is defined under subpart DD at 40 CFR 98.308 as an electric power system, comprised of all electric transmission and distribution equipment insulated with or containing SF6 or PFC that is linked through electric power transmission or distribution lines and functions as an integrated unit that is owned, serviced, or maintained by a single electric power transmission or distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common owner), and that is located between: (1) The point(s) at which electric energy is obtained from an electricity generating unit or a different electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a common owner; and (2) the point(s) at which any customer or another electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a common owner receives the electric energy. The facility also includes servicing inventory for such equipment that contains SF6 or PFC. Given the nature of electric power systems, subpart DD facilities generally span a geographic area, and in some cases, may cross state boundaries. Currently, subpart DD reporters provide the EPA with the facility address on their certificate of representation. However, this address does not provide complete information on where the electric power system actually lies. The EPA is proposing to add new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 98.306(m) to make data collected under subpart DD more useful to the public. The new data elements would require the electric power system to provide the name of the U.S. state, states, or territory in which the electric power system lies and the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory. These data elements would allow users of GHGRP data to more easily identify the state, states, or territory within which the electric power system lies. Users of GHGRP data PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2563 would also be able to compare the miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state or territory to the total miles of transmission and distribution lines for the facility and then approximate the percentage of emissions that occur within each state or territory. (As discussed in the U.S. GHG Inventory, SF6 emissions from electric power systems are correlated with the length of their transmission lines.) This would be useful for determining state- and territory-level GHG emissions associated with particular electric power systems. Although requiring facilities to report their emissions by state or territory would provide more precise estimates of emissions by state or territory, such a requirement would probably significantly increase the burden of reporting. In comparison, reporting the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state and territory appears likely to be relatively straightforward for electric power systems. We request comment on whether it would be less burdensome for facilities to report the total transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory within the facility boundary or to report the emissions for each state or territory within the facility boundary. We also request comment on whether miles of transmission lines alone are likely to be a better predictor of SF6 use and emissions than combined miles of transmission and distribution lines. If so, the EPA could simply require reporting of the miles of transmission lines in each state or territory. We are also proposing to add reporting elements to subpart DD that are related to the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of new and retiring equipment. Currently, electric transmission and distribution facilities are required to include the nameplate capacities of new and retiring hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, along with the corresponding quantities for other electrical equipment, in their emission calculations. They are also required to report the total nameplate capacity of new equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, and the total nameplate capacity of retiring equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. However, they are not required to distinguish between hermetically sealed-pressure and other equipment in these reports. In lieu of reporting the total nameplate capacity for all hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment, we are proposing to require facilities to separately report the nameplate capacities of hermetically E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2564 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and retire during the year. We are also proposing to require facilities to report the numbers of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and retire during the year. These additional requirements would not require any additional data gathering but would enable us to better understand the quantities of SF6 contained in hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, which is typically used in medium voltage, distribution applications. Currently, the GHGRP does not require reporting of the quantity of SF6 inside such equipment or the number of pieces of such equipment.19 Information on the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of such equipment being installed and retired, along with the corresponding information for other types of equipment, would provide insight into the relative importance of the two types of equipment as potential emission sources (e.g., upon disposal), and a rough but useful gauge of the average charge sizes of both types of equipment, which affects the choice of strategy for reducing emissions. Historically, hermetically sealedpressure equipment has been considered to be a relatively small source of SF6 in the U.S., but its importance is known to be growing internationally and may also be growing domestically. These data elements represent information that reporters are expected to have readily available and would therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting burden. The proposed amendments would add reporting of the nameplate capacities of new hermetically sealedpressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(2)), new SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(3)), retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(4)), and retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(5)). These data elements are inputs to an emission equation (Equation DD–1). Therefore, 19 We excluded hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from the requirement to annually inventory the total nameplate capacity of the facility’s electrical equipment because hermetically sealed-pressure equipment tends to have small individual charge sizes, to be serviced only rarely or not at all, and to be spread in large numbers throughout transmission and distribution networks, making it relatively difficult to track after it is installed. However, it is relatively easy (and currently required) to track this equipment when it is installed or retired (75 FR 74803, December 1, 2010). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 the EPA evaluated these data elements to determine if their public release would cause disclosure concerns, using the process established in the Final Deferral Notice (76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011). The EPA determined that facilities reporting under this subpart consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority), federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration), and municipally-owned electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. The reported data relates to maintenance activities and installation of new/replacement of existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g., circuit breakers, switchgear, power transformers, etc.) and amounts of SF6 and PFC used or recovered in servicing or replacing such equipment. These data elements do not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be proprietary. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that there are no disclosure concerns with these proposed data elements, and they must be reported in e-GGRT. Because we recognize that the range of charge sizes can be large (e.g., greater than an order of magnitude) for both types of equipment, we are requesting comment on an alternative approach in which facilities would report the numbers of pieces of each type of equipment that are newly installed or retired and that fall into particular nameplate capacity ranges. One possible set of ranges is shown in Table 6 of this preamble: TABLE 6—NAMEPLATE CAPACITY RANGES FOR REPORTING NUMBERS OF PIECES OF NEW AND RETIRING EQUIPMENT [Pounds of SF6] 0 to 0.5. >0.5 to 1. >1 to 15. >15 to 30. >30 to 100. >100 to 500. >500. While this approach would require more effort than providing the total numbers of pieces of equipment newly installed and retired for hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and for all other equipment, it would provide more precise data. For example, it would enable us to distinguish between situations in which most newly installed, hermetically sealed-pressure PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 equipment had a charge size of 1 or 2 pounds, and situations in which most such equipment had a charge size of one or two ounces, but the average charge size was inflated by a few outliers with charge sizes of ten pounds or more. For more information on subpart DD confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. R. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart FF; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart FF To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA is proposing three changes to subpart FF that will streamline reporting of GHG emissions under subpart FF. First, for the reasons described in section III.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), which provides that an owner or operator of a facility that has reported to the GHGRP can stop reporting to the program if all applicable GHG-emitting processes and operations permanently cease to operate. Facilities may take advantage of this provision beginning in the year after the cessation of operations. However, paragraph (i)(3) expressly precludes owners and operators of underground coal mines from using this off-ramp even after a mine is closed and abandoned. Underground coal mines may only cease reporting after meeting the other criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i): (1) If GHG emissions fall below 25,000 mtCO2e for five consecutive years, or (2) if GHG emissions fall below 15,000 mtCO2e for three consecutive years. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to give owners and operators of abandoned underground mines the opportunity to use the off-ramp provided by paragraph (i)(3). Specifically, we are proposing to amend paragraph (i)(3) to state that paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to underground coal mines, except those whose status is determined to be ‘‘abandoned’’ by MSHA. In keeping with the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i) discussed in section III.A.1 of this preamble, these proposed revisions would apply beginning on January 1, E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2017. All other proposed revisions to subpart FF, as discussed in this section, would apply beginning January 1, 2018 (see section I.E of this preamble for additional information). In proposing this change, the EPA recognizes that non-flooded underground coal mines continue to liberate methane even after the mining operations cease. However, methane liberation from closed mines occurs on a rapidly declining basis until the mine is sealed and declared abandoned by MSHA, and sealed shafts emit virtually no methane to the atmosphere. This is supported by the EPA’s work in developing a methodology for calculating emissions from abandoned underground mines.20 The proposed change will streamline reporting under subpart FF by limiting reporting to facilities actively emitting measurable volumes of methane. Reports submitted by closed and abandoned mines during the first four years of the GHGRP show that abandoned and sealed mines produce quantities of GHG emissions far below the reporting threshold, and the data are of limited value for the GHGRP and U.S. GHG Inventory while resulting in additional reporting burden for facilities. With respect to defining when a mine is considered abandoned, the EPA is proposing to rely on the MSHA determination of a mine’s operational status as ‘‘abandoned,’’ because it is a transparent, publicly available indicator of mine operational activity. The operational status of any mine can be found using MSHA’s on-line Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) https:// www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. Moreover, the MSHA abandoned status provides confidence that closed mines are sealed, and are, therefore, not emitting methane. MSHA regulations require operators to seal any mine that has been permanently closed or abandoned for more than 90 days.21 The MSHA operating procedures require an MSHA district manager to inspect and certify that the mine is sealed as part of the abandonment process.22 Furthermore, the EPA believes that this proposed change has the added benefit of removing a perceived conflict with 40 CFR 98.320(c), ‘‘Definition of 20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane Emissions from Abandoned Coal Mines in the United States: Emission Inventory Methodology and 1990–2002 Emissions Estimates. Washington, DC, April 2004. https://epa.gov/cmop/docs/amm_ final_report.pdf. 21 See 30 CFR 75.1711. 22 U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Administration. Coal Mine Safety And Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook. Handbook Number: PH13–V–1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 the source category’’, in subpart FF. This provision exempts abandoned and closed underground coal mines as source categories required to report to the GHGRP. Some reporters are uncertain which provision, 40 CFR 98.2(i) or 40 CFR 98.320(c), takes precedence when formerly operating and reporting mines change status to abandoned and sealed mines. The EPA believes the proposed modification would remove any ambiguity and uncertainty, clarifying when underground coal mines may cease reporting to the GHGRP and streamlining implementation of the GHGRP. Second, the EPA is proposing several amendments to clarify when moisture content is to be reported. The first several amendments apply to 40 CFR 98.326, which lists the data reporting requirements for subpart FF. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326(o) to require reporting of moisture content only in those cases where the volumetric flow rate and CH4 concentration from a specific mine ventilation or degasification monitoring point are not measured on the same dry or wet basis, and in the case that flow rate is measured with a flow meter that does not automatically correct for moisture content. For example, if the volumetric flow rate at a specified monitoring point is measured on a dry basis but CH4 concentration at that monitoring point is measured on a wet basis, then the reporter must report moisture content for the monitoring point unless using a flow meter that automatically corrects for moisture content. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326 (f) through (i) to require reporters to specify whether volumetric flow rate and CH4 concentration measurements for ventilation and degasification systems are determined on a wet or dry basis. The proposed changes would also amend 40 CFR 98.326(f) and (h) to specify that where a flow meter is used, the reporter must indicate whether the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture content. This information will provide the necessary information for the reporter and for the EPA to determine if moisture content should be reported for an individual facility. Third, the EPA is proposing several amendments related to moisture content in 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324, which lists the requirements for calculating GHG emissions. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.323(a)(2) to read, ‘‘Values of V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O), . . .’’ so that ‘‘if applicable’’ more explicitly applies to the moisture content term, (fH2O). The PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2565 EPA is proposing the same change for 40 CFR 98.323(b)(1) and 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1). The changes to 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324 are being proposed to ensure consistency with the proposed change to 40 CFR 98.326(o). 2. Revisions to Subpart FF To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing two changes to subpart FF that will improve the quality of data received by the GHGRP and seeking comment on a third. First, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.324(b) to no longer allow MSHA quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation systems. Instead, the facility will be required to use either of the two other methods set forth in the rule to monitor methane released from mine ventilation systems: CEMS or independently collected grab samples. Second, the EPA is proposing to add annual coal production to the list of data reporting requirements outlined in 40 CFR 98.326. Third, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken, from quarterly to monthly. Under 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) through (3), reporters may choose to monitor methane liberated from mine ventilation systems using any one or a combination of three approved methods: 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1)—quarterly grab samples; 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2)—data from MSHA quarterly inspection reports; or 40 CFR 98.324(b)(3)—use of a CEMS. MSHA conducts health and safety inspections at all operating mines at least once every quarter. Each inspection includes a methane survey of the ventilation system to ensure that the mines are operating within prescribed safety limits. To obtain methane measurements, an MSHA inspector takes grab samples using sealed test tubes. The samples are analyzed at an MSHA laboratory. A handheld anemometer is used to determine ventilation air flow. Approximately 50 percent of the 125 mines reporting to the GHGRP use MSHA quarterly reports as the basis for reporting methane liberation from ventilation. The EPA is proposing to remove the option of using MSHA quarterly inspection reports as an accepted methodology for monitoring methane liberation in mine ventilation systems. Reporters would be required to collect grab samples or use a CEMS to monitor mine ventilation systems. This change will remove 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2). We are E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2566 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules proposing this change because we have determined, through several reporting cycles and a review of MSHA quarterly inspection reports for 30 of the highest emitting mines, that the quarterly flow rate data gathered by MSHA cannot reliably be used for GHG reporting purposes. MSHA regulations and inspections are intended to ensure mine worker health and safety rather than to quantify specific mine operating parameters. MSHA inspections provide important data for assessing mine safety, and if complete, MSHA data may provide a reasonable estimate of methane emissions from underground coal mines. However, the EPA found that for many facilities the MSHA data can result in too many data gaps to meet the objectives of the GHGRP, adding considerable uncertainty to the calculation of facility and sector-wide GHG emissions. One common example is the occasional inconsistency in the locations within specific mines where MSHA inspectors take volumetric flow measurements and methane grab samples. Sampling locations are not fixed and, from quarter to quarter, inspectors may use more than one name for a single approach. In addition, approaches and even shafts may not appear in every quarterly report. For more information on the EPA’s review of the MSHA data see the memorandum titled ‘‘Use of Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts’’ from Clark Talkington, ARI to Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526. Although this rule change will increase the burden on facilities that currently use MSHA data to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 98.324(b), the EPA has determined that the proposed amendment is necessary to improve the quality of data consistent with the intended purpose of Part 98. In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background information that can support additional analysis. The second proposal to improve data quality under subpart FF adds a new provision 40 CFR 98.326(u). The EPA is proposing to require reporters to report the total volume of coal produced, in short tons, during the reporting period. An important approach for verifying the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 accuracy of subpart FF annual reports is a comparison of year to year changes in methane liberation and methane emissions for each facility. To support report verification, the EPA is proposing to add coal production to the list of required data to be reported under subpart FF. In many instances, an increase or decrease in coal production is a reasonable explanation for a corresponding increase or decrease in methane liberation. Obtaining annual coal production data with the annual subpart FF report would allow the EPA to review year-to-year changes in methane emissions in light of changes in coal production. These data are expected to reduce the burden on reporters and the EPA in verifying the annual reports. This change will not result in additional reporting burden for the mine because coal companies closely track coal production and report quarterly production totals to MSHA. MSHA makes quarterly and annual coal production publicly available through MSHA’s Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) at https://www.msha.gov/drs/ drshome.htm. Total annual coal production for the reporting year is publicly available by the March 31st GHGRP submission date in the year following the reporting year. Third, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the sampling frequency for reporters using grab samples from quarterly to monthly in order to provide more accurate and reliable data. Currently, mines that monitor methane liberation from grab samples must take at least one grab sample per quarter for each ventilation monitoring point (40 CFR 98.324(b)(1)), and report methane liberation on a quarterly basis. Minespecific daily and weekly data sets show that significant day-to-day and week-toweek variation in methane emissions can occur depending on operating and geologic conditions at a mine. According to the IPCC Guidelines, frequent measurements of underground coal mine emissions can account for such variability and also reduce the intrinsic errors in the measurement techniques. As emissions vary over the course of a year due to variations in coal production rate and associated drainage, good practice is to collect measurement data as frequently as practical, preferably biweekly or monthly to smooth out variations.23 Preliminary analysis of high frequency ventilation air emissions at underground coal mines shows that uncertainty decreases as 23 From 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 4. See: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/ 2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 sampling frequency increases. Therefore, increasing the frequency with which grab samples are taken from quarterly to monthly could improve the accuracy of ventilation data reported to the GHGRP. In considering this change, the EPA analyzed high-frequency datasets of ventilation air methane (VAM) emissions at three mines (Mines ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) to examine the uncertainty associated with weekly, monthly, and quarterly sampling based on using a random day selection approach. Using VAM emissions data recorded daily and weekly from the three underground coal mines (one with daily sampling and two with weekly sampling), the EPA analyzed the average daily VAM emissions rate by randomly selecting the sampling day or week during a 12 month reporting period. Mine A had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 1 to 4 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) with an average of ∼2.5 million cubic feet per day mmcfd. Mine B had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 4 to 18 mmcfd (avg. ∼10.1 mmcfd). Mine C had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 1 to 7 mmcfd (averaging. ∼3.6 mmcfd). To assess the variability in emissions, each case was run for a weekly, monthly, and quarterly sampling frequency over a 12 month reporting period. For Mine A, the results showed that weekly sampling produced a small standard deviation of 1.6% compared to daily sampling. For all three mines, the results showed the standard deviations increased to 4.3–5.2% when sampling frequency decreased from weekly to monthly sampling. Finally, the results showed the standard deviations increased to 12.1–13.4% when sampling frequency decreased from monthly sampling to quarterly sampling. Due to the day-to-day variability in VAM emissions, ranges of maximum possible errors are also greater with decreased sampling frequency. Deviations from the actual value for monthly sampling ranged from 8.8–10.7%, while deviations for quarterly sampling ranged from 20.6–35.1%. This analysis demonstrates that uncertainty decreases as sampling frequency increases, most noticeably when the frequency decreases from quarterly to monthly. Although the EPA considered requiring weekly sampling, it appears that monthly sampling strikes the most appropriate balance between improving data quality while limiting the additional burden on reporters for more frequent sampling. The EPA also notes that a number of mines reporting to the GHGRP already take grab samples on a more frequent basis than the quarterly MSHA sampling requirements. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 In addition, based on published papers the EPA understands that many mining operations conduct ventilation surveys on a monthly and possibly more frequent basis as a critical element of good practice health and safety. Air samples are taken as part of the ventilation survey to confirm levels of hazardous gases. Therefore, the EPA believes an amendment to increase monitoring frequency is feasible for the industry. The EPA is also seeking comment on other monitoring frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or monitoring frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as bimonthly). For additional information regarding the EPA’s preliminary analysis for increasing monitoring frequency, see the memorandum entitled ‘‘Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based on Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly),’’ Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526. The EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background information demonstrating multi-year VAM monitoring on a basis that is more frequent than quarterly. This information will help determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation emissions that is needed to ensure accurate and reliable measurements. Finally, we are also proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) to require use of the most recent edition of the MSHA Handbook for inspections and sampling procedures entitled, Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13–V–1, February 2013. In addition to improving the quality of data reported to the GHGRP, and, in turn, the quality of emissions data aggregated and reported to the public by the GHGRP, the proposed changes to monitoring methods for mine ventilation systems, as well as the addition of annual coal production to the data reporting requirement, would improve the emissions estimates for coal mines reported in the U.S. GHG Inventory. For more information on subpart FF confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 3. Other Amendments to Subpart FF As described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to Part 98 to respond to issues raised by reporters and to more closely align rule requirements with the processes conducted at specific facilities. The following proposed revisions to subpart VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 FF are in response to comments and questions we have received since reporting under subpart FF began in 2011. In 40 CFR 98.323(a) and (b), we are proposing to clarify for Equations FF–1 and FF–3 the method for determining the number of days in a month or week (n) where active ventilation and degasification are taking place. In both equations, the definition of Number of Days (n) is being clarified to note that (n) is determined by taking the number of hours in the monitoring period and dividing by 24 hours per day. In 40 CFR 98.323(a)(3) and 40 CFR 98.323(b)(2), the text is being amended to state that the quarterly sum of CH4 liberated from ventilation and degasification systems, respectively, ‘‘must be’’ rather than ‘‘should be’’ determined as the sum of the CH4 liberated at each monitoring point during that quarter. This change is being proposed because calculating the quarterly sum of CH4 liberated is required rather than being optional. The EPA is proposing to remove ‘‘If applicable’’ in 40 CFR 98.324(h) to clarify that the provision requiring the owner or operator to document the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of gas flow rate, gas composition, temperature, pressure, and moisture content measurements is a requirement for all reporters, because grab samples and CEMS would be the only acceptable monitoring methods if the amendments to 40 CFR 98.324(b) are finalized as proposed. In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(2), we are proposing to clarify the start date and end date for a well, shaft, or vent hole. This requirement has caused confusion for some reporters. The start date of a well, shaft, or vent hole is the date of actual initiation of operations and may begin in a year prior to the reporting year. For purposes of reporting, we are amending paragraph (r)(2) to state that the end date of a well, shaft, or vent hole is the last day of the reporting year if the well, shaft, or vent hole is operating on that date. In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(3), we are proposing to add language clarifying the method for determining and reporting the number of days a well, shaft, or vent hole was in operation during the reporting year. The number of days is determined by dividing the total operating hours in the reporting year by 24 hours per day. This change is consistent with similar changes to the method for determining number of days in Equations FF–1 and FF–3, discussed earlier in this section. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2567 4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart FF In addition to the substantive changes proposed, for the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart FF. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). S. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart HH of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart HH; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart HH To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart HH and focus the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA requires to review, assess, and verify reported emissions. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(f) to remove the requirement to report the surface area for each type of cover material used at the facility. The surface area for each cover material used has not been useful in assessing or verifying reported emissions and therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to report this data. The proposed amendment will still require the reporting of the total surface area of the landfill containing waste (in square meters) and an identification of the type(s) of cover material used. This information is used during verification to check the consistency of the collection efficiency reported by the landfill. However, when multiple cover types are used, reporters will no longer be required to report the surface area of the landfill containing waste associated with each cover type. The proposed change would reduce the burden to reporters and the agency as described in section II.A of this preamble. 2. Revisions to Subpart HH To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several amendments to E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2568 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules subpart HH that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of sector GHG emissions while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, we are seeking comment on whether revisions should be made to Table HH–3 to allow landfill owners or operators to determine the weighted average collection efficiency for their landfill using either an area-based weighting approach, as has been required in previous reporting years, or a volume-based weighting approach. We are also seeking comment on whether reporters should be given the option to use either approach, or if one approach should be required if reporters meet certain landfill characteristics and if so, what those landfill characteristics should be. We have received comments from reporters stating that the area weighted average does not accurately reflect the overall efficiency of the gas collection system due to differences in the waste depth or age in different portions of their landfill. We considered allowing reporters to define subareas of the landfill and perform all of the subpart HH calculations and report the equation inputs for each subarea. This approach would consider the effects of waste age, composition, and quantity for the different landfill subareas, but it would essentially double or triple the number of reporting elements, depending on the number of subareas defined. We next considered providing a volume-based weighting approach for calculating collection efficiency. This approach only considers some of the variables that influence methane generation rate, but these are variables already reported, namely the depths for each waste area defined in Table HH– 3. If the option to use the area weighted approach or the volume-based weighting approach is finalized, no new reporting elements beyond an indication of which weighting approach is used would be required. This revision would allow us to use the data previously reported to develop a consistent time line, if necessary, without requiring reporters to revise previously submitted reports. If a requirement to use one approach over another for reporters with certain landfill characteristics is finalized, one or more new reporting elements may be required depending on what the certain landfill characteristics are. Consequently, we are seeking comment on (1) whether reporters should be given the option to calculate the collection efficiency; (2) whether reporters should be allowed to use and report the option of either the area VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 weighted average or the volume weighted average approach; (3) whether reporters should be required to use one approach over the other depending on specific landfill characteristics (e.g., reporters with drastically different wastes depths in portions of their landfill should be required to use the volume weighted approach); and (4) what those specific landfill characteristics should be. We expect that the many landfills that have similar waste depths in different areas of their landfill (or a single area) will maintain their existing data collection and calculation procedures by using the area weighted average. In contrast, we expect reporters with different waste depths in portions of their landfill to use the volume weighted average approach, thereby improving the accuracy of the data reported for those landfills. If finalized, these changes would be effective beginning with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive. We are proposing to broaden the description of area type A5 in Table HH–3 to include alternative final covers. Currently, facilities with landfill gas collection and approved alternative final covers are not allowed to use the 95 percent collection efficiency in their emissions calculations because an alternative final cover does not fit the exact language in the definition for area type A5 in Table HH–3. This proposed revision would allow facilities with alternative final covers to use a collection efficiency greater than 75 percent. Alternative final covers may include, but are not limited to, evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier covers, asphalt covers, or concrete covers. The state, local, or other agency responsible for permitting the landfill determines whether an alternative final cover meets the applicable regulatory requirements and has been shown to adequately protect human health and the environment. This rule does not intend to provide details of the design or implementation of alternative final covers and solely relies on the agency responsible for permitting the landfill to approve an alternative final cover at the facility. For clarity, we are also proposing a definition for alternative final covers to this effect in 40 CFR 98.348. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to require reporting of the annual hours that active gas flow was sent to each destruction device instead of reporting the annual operating hours for each destruction device associated with a given measurement location. The proposed revision refers to the fraction of hours the destruction device was operating PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (fDest), which is a term used in Equations HH–6 and HH–8. The term fDest is defined as the ‘‘fraction of hours the destruction device associated with the nth measurement location was operating during active gas flow calculated as the annual operating hours for the destruction device divided by the annual hours flow was sent to the destruction device as measured at the nth measurement location . . .’’ Although no changes are being made to the definition or calculation of fDest, there is currently no reporting requirement for the ‘‘. . . hours . . . operating during active gas flow . . .’’ in the rule. By collecting these data, the proposed revision would allow the EPA’s reporting tool to accurately calculate fDest, as well as the results of Equations HH–6 and HH–8. More accurate calculation by e-GGRT would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the number of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer potential errors identified during the verification process. The removal of the current requirement to report the annual operating hours for each destruction device associated with a given measurement location would not impede verification of reported data, as this parameter is not used in the subpart calculations. We are also proposing to move the requirement to report the annual operating hours of the gas collection system for each measurement location in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(7) to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to consolidate all reporting requirements that are associated with each measurement location to the same paragraph, consistent with reporting organization used in e-GGRT. Finally, landfills with active gas collection systems must calculate and report their GHG emissions in two ways. Equation HH–6 is designed to be driven by the modeled methane generation (i.e., Equation HH–1), whereas Equation HH–8 is driven by methane recovery (i.e. Equation HH–4). For a landfill with an active gas collection system, where the quantity of recovered methane is greater than the modeled methane generation (i.e., the result of Equation HH–4 is greater than the result of Equation HH–1), we are proposing that the facility must report the results of Equation HH–8 as the final subpart HH methane emissions instead of the value for Equation HH–6. We allowed the term GCH4 in Equation HH–6 to be substituted with the greater of the Equation HH–4 or Equation HH– 1 value to avoid a negative result when the quantity of recovered methane is greater than the modeled methane generation. We reviewed several years E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 of facility data and found a few cases where the amount of methane recovered by the gas collection system was greater than the amount of modeled methane generation. After reviewing the reports where this occurs, as well as examining the difference in net emissions between Equation HH–6 and HH–8 at these facilities, we concluded that the value of Equation HH–6 is not reliable for use as the final subpart HH emissions when the amount of methane recovered is greater than the amount of modeled methane generation. The substitution of Equation HH–4 for GCH4 was only done to prevent a negative value of methane emissions for Equation HH–6. The EPA did not intend for that value to then be used as the total subpart HH emissions since it is not possible to recover more methane from the landfill than was generated. To prevent inaccurate values from being reported as the final subpart HH methane emissions, we are proposing to expressly add the ‘‘methane emissions for the landfill’’ as a reporting element in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(13). This proposed new paragraph directs reporters to ‘‘Choose the methane emissions from either Equation HH–6 of this subpart or Equation HH–8 of this subpart that best represents the emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH–4 of this subpart is used as the value of GCH4 in Equation HH–6 of this subpart, use the methane emissions calculated using Equation HH–8 of this subpart as the methane emissions for the landfill.’’ For more information on subpart HH confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 3. Other Amendments to Subpart HH and Grant of Petition for Reconsideration We are proposing two amendments for subpart HH for the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble. These proposed amendments are anticipated to have minimal or no impact on burden for reporters. On April 2, 2013, the EPA proposed flux-dependent oxidation fractions based on data provided by industry representatives (78 FR 19802). While we proposed the use of these oxidation fractions with no minimum soil cover requirement, we received comments on the proposed soil oxidation fractions noting that soil oxidation only occurs with soil of adequate depth, porosity, temperature and microbes. To respond to this comment, we reviewed the soil depths present in the peer-reviewed studies upon which the data were based and determined that the studies supporting VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 the higher flux-dependent oxidation fractions were performed on soils with an average depth across all of the studies reviewed of 24 inches or more of soil cover. We finalized the proposed flux dependent soil oxidation fractions, and also included a requirement that these flux dependent soil oxidation fractions could only be used if the majority of the landfill area that contains waste has a soil cover of at least 24 inches (78 FR 71971, November 29, 2013). We subsequently received an administrative petition for reconsideration from Waste Management, Inc. (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Petitioner’’) on January 28, 2014 regarding the inclusion of this minimum soil cover requirement in order to use the flux-dependent soil oxidation fractions, titled ‘‘Waste Management’s Petition for Reconsideration of 2013 Revisions to Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements Docket I.D. EPA– HQ–OAR–2012–0934’’ (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Petition for Reconsideration,’’ available in the docket for this rulemaking). This section of this preamble discusses the specific issue raised in the Petition for Reconsideration that is addressed in this action, the review and analysis that was undertaken since the Petition for Reconsideration was received, and the changes the EPA is proposing in response to the petition. The EPA intends to complete its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this rulemaking. In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA re-evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature (27 studies) at the time of proposal regarding soil oxidation fractions. This review found that 85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches or more. This investigation confirmed that the vast majority of the soil oxidation studies were performed on landfills with cover depths of 24 inches or more, which was the basis for the 24 inch soil depth requirement in the final rule (78 FR 71927, November 29, 2013). However, several of these studies investigated the oxidation profile within the cover soil and several of these studies indicated that the majority of soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil cover. While some of the data support the idea that the bulk of the oxidation may occur in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil, it is unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2569 inches of soil cover were present. For further details on the review of the soil oxidation literature, see the memorandum entitled ‘‘Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the Peer-Reviewed Literature’’ from Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015, in Docket Id. Number EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526. We also reviewed the codified state standards from all 50 states for requirements regarding intermediate or interim cover depth and found that the depth requirements are not consistent from state to state, and for some states depth requirements are not specified (e.g., Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire). Most states require a minimum intermediate cover thickness of 12 inches. Some states include a minimum intermediate cover depth in their regulations that is inclusive of the federally-mandated 6 inches of daily cover depth. For example, Massachusetts requires a minimum intermediate cover depth of 12 inches, including 6 inches of daily cover. Other states, such as Florida, require 12 inches of intermediate cover in addition to the 6 inches of initial cover, thereby requiring 18 inches of intermediate cover in total. After reviewing the literature on the soil oxidation studies and the codified state standards for intermediate soil cover, we determined that while the literature studies are not conclusive regarding the minimum soil cover necessary for oxidation to occur, they do show that oxidation generally occurs with at least 12 inches of soil cover. Further, most states require at least 12 inches of intermediate soil cover. As a result, we are proposing to revise and clarify the soil cover requirements as follows. First, we are proposing to revise the phrase ‘‘. . . for a majority of the landfill area containing waste . . .’’ to read ‘‘. . . for at least 50 percent of the landfill area containing waste . . .’’ to clarify that we intended the majority of the landfill to mean 50 percent or more. Second, we are proposing to revise the requirement for ‘‘. . . a soil cover of at least 24 inches . . .’’ to read ‘‘. . . intermediate or interim soil cover . . .’’ Third, we propose to define intermediate or interim soil cover in 40 CFR 98.348 to mean ‘‘the placement of material over waste in a landfill for a period of time prior to disposal of additional waste and/or final closure as defined by state regulation, permit, guidance or written plan, or state accepted best management practice.’’ In the case where a landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2570 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules or interim soil cover requirement as proposed to be defined, we are proposing to add a footnote to Table HH–4 stating that the landfill must have a soil cover of 12 inches or greater to use an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. Lastly, in our review of the oxidation studies, we noted that some investigators observed that soil methane flux near passive vent locations was low. Most of the landfills where methane flux and soil oxidation were measured occurred at landfills with active gas collection systems. For landfills with passive gas collection, a significant portion of the generated methane can be released via these passive vents and bypass diffusion through the cover soil. That is, landfill gas that is lost through the passive vents would not undergo any soil oxidation. The GHGRP does not currently require, nor are we proposing to require, direct measurement of passive vent flows; thus, a facility is unable to determine the fraction of the generated landfill gas that bypasses the soil cover and it is therefore not possible to estimate a weighted average soil oxidation fraction for landfills with passive vents. It is important to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2006 Guidelines 24 recommends the use of oxidation fractions ranging from 0 to 10 percent largely due to the fact that landfill gas will flow primarily through channels of least flow resistance, which one would expect the passive vents to be. If there are fissures in the soil cover (or passive vent systems), a significant portion of the landfill gas will be released without any oxidation occurring. However, we are not proposing to require the use of an oxidation fraction of zero for landfills with passive or active venting because a small portion of the generated landfill gas will pass through the soil cover and undergo soil oxidation. Because we would expect a larger portion of the generated landfill gas to be released via the passive vents, for the portion of the landfill gas that does diffuse through the soil cover the methane flux rate is expected to be small, resulting in a fraction of methane oxidized that is expected to be greater than 10 percent. Considering the gas released through the passive or active vents and the methane that remains to be oxidized in the soil cover, while not precise, the overall oxidation fraction could be expected to 24 See IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan. Available at: https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 average approximately 10 percent. Therefore, we are proposing revisions to Table HH–4 to require landfills that have passive or active vent systems that service greater than 50-percent of the landfill area containing waste or landfills that have only passive or active vent systems to use the default 10 percent oxidation fraction in their emission calculations. The EPA is seeking comment on whether landfills with only passive or active vent systems or landfills with such systems on greater than 50 percent of the landfill area containing waste should be required to use the 10 percent oxidation fraction. If finalized, these changes to Table HH–4 would be effective beginning with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive. The table as it appeared before these proposed revisions applies to the relative earlier reporting years. While we are proposing to lower the minimum amount of soil cover required to use certain oxidation fractions, we are proposing to require the use of a 10 percent oxidation fraction for landfills with passive or active venting, or for landfills with less than 12 inches of soil cover (that do not also have a geomembrane cover) because application of higher soil oxidation fractions would be inappropriate at landfills with limited cover soils or passive vent systems because a significant portion of the landfill gas may be released through channels or vents with little to no soil oxidation occurring. We are also proposing to add definitions of ‘‘passive vent’’ and ‘‘active venting’’ to further clarify the rule requirements as they pertain to landfill gas collection system flow and composition monitoring and the use of soil oxidation fractions. Specifically, we are proposing ‘‘Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that allows landfill gas to flow naturally, without the use of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a passive vent flare without diffusion through the top layer of surface soil.’’ ‘‘Active venting means a pipe or a system of pipes used with a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) used to actively assist the flow of landfill gas to the surface of the landfill where the landfill gas is discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to a noncombustion control device (such as a carbon absorber) and then to the atmosphere.’’ As described previously, we are proposing to require landfills with passive vents or active venting to use a default oxidation fraction of 0.1. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Providing these definitions clarifies the meaning of these terms and thereby clarifies the reporters that must use the 0.1 oxidation fraction. 4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart HH For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor corrections and clarifications to subpart HH of Part 98, including editorial changes and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). T. Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment We are proposing amendments to subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart II; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart II To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing amendments to subpart II reporting requirements that would provide additional data to support estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.356 to require facilities that perform ethanol production to indicate if their facility uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process. To clarify this requirement, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 98.358 to add definitions of ‘‘wet milling’’ and ‘‘dry milling.’’ The EPA intends to use the data on the numbers of facilities with wet versus dry milling processes and their respective wastewater characteristics to update assumptions used in the U.S. GHG Inventory and thereby improve the estimates of U.S. emissions from wastewater treatment at ethanol production facilities. In addition, the EPA intends to update the U.S. GHG Inventory using data on the level of biogas recovery in use at wet milling facilities and at dry milling facilities. For more information on subpart II confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2. Other Amendments to Subpart II For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several clarifying amendments to subpart II; these proposed changes would have no impact on burden for reporters. In order to resolve uncertainties in the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.356(b)(1) and 40 CFR 98.356(d)(3) through (d)(6) regarding how to calculate weekly averages for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration, CH4 concentration, biogas temperature, biogas moisture content, and biogas pressure, the EPA is proposing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.358 to add a definition of the term ‘‘weekly average.’’ liquids (NGLs) reported under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(20) should not include NGLs already reported as individual products under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2). These changes not only clarify the reporting requirements, but also harmonize subpart LL requirements with those of subpart MM. 3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart II For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor clarifications to subpart II of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). V. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to subpart NN of Part 98 (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart NN; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 U. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart LL of Part 98 (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart LL; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart LL To Streamline Implementation For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) to clarify requirements and amend data reporting requirements, resulting in a decrease in burden for reporters. As described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing to remove the requirements of 40 CFR 98.386(a)(4), (a)(8), (a)(15), (b)(4), and (c)(4) for each facility, importer, and exporter to report the annual quantity of each coal-based liquid fuel on the basis of the measurement method used. Reporters would continue to report the annual quantities of each coal-based liquid fuel in metric tons or barrels at 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and (c)(2). We are also proposing to clarify that the quantity of bulk natural gas VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart LL For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several minor clarifications to subpart LL of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart NN To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing one amendment to subpart NN that would improve the quality of the data collected under Part 98 while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. Each local distribution company (LDC) reporting under subpart NN is defined in 40 CFR 98.400(b) as a company that owns or operates distribution pipelines that physically deliver natural gas to end users that are within a single state. LDCs provide the EPA with a corporate address on their certificate of representation which may or may not be within the state where the LDC operates. The EPA is proposing to add a new reporting requirement at 40 CFR 98.406(b)(14) to support data verification and make the data more useful to the public. The new data element would require LDCs to provide the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the report. This data element will improve the EPA’s ability to compare reported data to information contained in outside data sets (such as those from the EIA). Adding this requirement will enable the EPA to identify a larger portion of LDCs in the PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2571 EIA data set which will lead to improved data quality in both the EPA and the EIA data sets. This data element will also allow users of GHGRP data to more easily identify the state within which the LDC operates, which will be useful for determining state level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply. For more information on subpart NN confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart NN For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several changes to subpart NN that are corrections, editorial changes, and minor clarifications to improve understanding of the rule. These additional minor corrections to subpart NN are discussed in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2015–0526). W. Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart OO. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of industrial GHG supplies while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing three amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) that would improve the quality of the data collection under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. We are proposing two revisions to the definition of the source category to include facilities that (1) destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of industrial greenhouse gases and/or fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually; or (2) produce, import, or export fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs) that are not also fluorinated greenhouse gases. We are also proposing to expand the scope of monitoring and reporting to include production, transformation, destruction, imports, and exports of fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs. Revisions to Include Facilities that Destroy Fluorinated GHGs and Fluorinated HTFs. To develop an accurate estimate of the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, it is necessary to track all significant additions to and E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2572 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules subtractions from that supply. Additions to the U.S. supply include production and import, while subtractions include transformation, destruction, and export. Currently, subpart OO requires producers and importers to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that they produce, import, transform, destroy, or send to another facility for destruction. (Exporters are required to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that they export.) While this reporting accounts for destruction by producers and importers, it does not account for destruction by other entities. This may result in a significant underestimate of the quantities destroyed because the fluorinated GHG market includes participants who neither produce nor import industrial GHGs but may end up destroying them, such as refrigerant reclaimers who clean used HFCs for reuse. On occasion, these reclaimers may destroy fluorinated GHGs that are found to be irretrievably contaminated. Alternatively, they may send such fluorinated GHGs to a facility other than a fluorinated gas producer or importer for destruction. In other cases, fluorinated GHG users may themselves recognize that recovered fluorinated GHGs are irretrievably contaminated and send them directly to a destruction facility. By requiring facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs to report that destruction, we would capture such destruction and thereby eliminate a potential overestimate of the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs. To avoid covering the destruction of very small quantities of fluorinated GHGs that do not have a material impact on the CO2e fluorinated GHG supply, we are also proposing to require facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs (and are not otherwise covered by subpart OO) to report that destruction only if they destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated GHGs annually. This is consistent with the thresholds currently applied to facilities that destroy HFC–23 under subpart O and to importers and exporters of industrial GHGs under subpart OO. This expansion of the definition of the subpart OO source category would apply to facilities that destroy previously produced fluorinated GHGs and that are not already required to report any residual emissions of the destroyed fluorinated GHGs under another subpart. For example, cement kilns that annually accept and destroy a total of 25,000 mtCO2e or more of irretrievably contaminated HFCs or SF6 recovered from air-conditioning or electrical equipment would be covered, VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 but electronics manufacturing facilities that dissociate fluorinated GHGs during and/or after etching and chemical vapor deposition chamber cleaning processes would not be covered. Electronics facilities are currently required to report both their emissions and their effective destruction efficiencies under subpart I, and we therefore already receive data to account for the impacts of electronics manufacturing on fluorinated GHG supplies and emissions. We estimate that five to ten destruction facilities would be newly covered by subpart OO under this amendment. This estimate is based on the number of facilities that report destruction of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) to the EPA under the Stratospheric Protection Program. Because fluorinated GHGs are chemically similar to ODSs, are manufactured and imported by many of the same facilities and companies that manufacture and import ODSs, and are used in many of the same applications as ODSs, the set of facilities destroying fluorinated GHGs is likely to be similar to the set of facilities destroying ODSs. These facilities include hazardous waste treatment facilities that use a variety of different destruction technologies such as plasma arc and combustion. Facilities destroying very small quantities of ODSs were excluded from the total because similar quantities of fluorinated GHGs appeared unlikely to equal or exceed the proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold (using an average GWP of 2000). The same rationale applies to destruction of fluorinated HTFs; reporting by suppliers of fluorinated HTFs is discussed below. Revisions to Include Facilities that Produce, Import, Transform, Export or Destroy Fluorinated Heat Transfer Fluids and to Require Reporting of these Activities. We are also proposing to revise subpart OO to include entities that produce, import, transform, export, or destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs under the subpart A definition, and to require monitoring and reporting of these activities from all suppliers that engage in them. Currently, the Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gas source category includes suppliers of, and requires reporting of, nitrous oxide and fluorinated GHGs. The definition of fluorinated GHG excludes compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C, because in applications where temperatures are near or below 25 degrees C, such compounds are not likely to evaporate and enter the atmosphere (74 FR 56348, October 30, 2009). However, fluorinated PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 HTFs are used in electronics manufacturing applications where temperatures can be much higher. Consequently, even compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C can enter the atmosphere when used in these applications. For this reason, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) defines fluorinated HTFs to include compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C (as well as above this level) and that are used in temperature control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering; and subpart I requires electronics manufacturing facilities to report emissions of these compounds. We are proposing to use essentially the same definition for subpart OO. Collecting information on the U.S. supply of fluorinated HTFs would enable us to compare reported supplies to the demand for fluorinated HTFs that we calculate based on the emissions (1) reported under subpart I, and (2) estimated for electronics facilities that do not report under subpart I (e.g., because they fall below the threshold). Large differences would imply that emissions are being over- or underestimated, for example because some users and emitters of fluorinated HTFs are not being accounted for.25 Because many fluorinated HTFs are composed of fully-fluorinated GHGs and have GWPs near 10,000, it is important to ensure that we are accurately accounting for fluorinated HTF emissions on a national level. Suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be subject to the same thresholds as suppliers of fluorinated GHGs. That is, there would be no threshold for producers of fluorinated HTFs, but the threshold for importers, exporters, and destroyers of fluorinated HTFs would be 25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated HTFs or GHGs. We anticipate that few, if any, suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be required to begin reporting under this provision because all suppliers of fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already. (One possible exception is facilities that destroy but do not produce or import fluorinated HTFs, but this group of facilities is included in the set of destruction facilities discussed above.) The incremental burden associated with 25 Such differences have been seen for other fluorinated GHGs; a recent comparison between the U.S. supply of SF6 reported under OO and the demand for SF6 calculated based on reporting under subparts I, T (Magnesium Production), DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use), and SS (Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment) found that in 2012, supplies exceeded the calculated demand by more than half. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules reporting production, import, export, and destruction of fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs is expected to be modest, e.g., it may involve reporting supplies of one to twelve additional compounds by two to three suppliers of fluorinated HTFs. For more information on subpart OO confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble. X. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart RR of Part 98 (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart RR. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from geologic sequestration, while generally resulting in a minimal increase in burden for reporters. The EPA is proposing to add a data reporting element to 40 CFR 98.446 to indicate whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas. This additional data element will also allow the EPA to make categorical confidentiality determinations on data elements related to CO2 received and CO2 produced that currently have a confidentiality status that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis (77 FR 48072, 48081–48083; August 13, 2012). For more information on subpart RR confidentiality determinations resulting from this proposed revision, see section IV of this preamble. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart TT of Part 98 (Industrial Waste Landfills). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart TT; one additional correction is summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526). 1. Revisions to Subpart TT To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several amendments to Table TT–1 to subpart TT of Part 98 that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP and improve the EPA’s understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are anticipated to either have no impact on VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 the burden for reporters or may reduce burden for some facilities currently using site-specific factors. During the development of subpart TT, we received several comments regarding the need to provide more default DOC values for specific industrial waste streams, particularly from the pulp and paper industry. Additionally, on May 17, 2013, we received written comments from the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Wood Council, with input from the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, on the proposed 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determination for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013). These comments stated that the current DOC values in Table TT–1 overstate substantially the GHG emissions from landfills at pulp and paper mills. (See Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 0934). One suggested resolution was for the EPA to create separate categories of wastes that would include largely inorganic waste streams and assign a lower DOC value in Table TT–1. At that time, the information provided in the comments was considered new, the comments contained only limited data on which to base any changes, and they did not address items that were not part of the proposal. The EPA also did not have data to develop more waste specific DOC values for any of the industrial waste categories. Instead, we provided methods in the rule that allowed reporters to develop sitespecific DOC values for wastes that may not be well-characterized by the default values provided in Table TT–1. While we still maintain that site-specific DOC values are preferable to the Table TT– 1 defaults, we reviewed the site-specific DOC values reported under subpart TT from 2011 to 2013 to determine if we had adequate data to develop more specific industry default DOC values for inclusion in Table TT–1. For most industries, we did not have enough data from site-specific DOC estimates to establish new or revise default DOC values for inclusion in Table TT–1. However, we had site-specific DOC data for over 100 waste streams at pulp and paper manufacturing facilities. We note that the pulp and paper industry accounts for approximately 55 percent of the subpart TT reporters and accounts for 62 percent of the emissions reported during the 2013 reporting year. Within the data, we found four general pulp and paper waste types for which reporters commonly developed sitespecific DOC values. These are: Boiler PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2573 ash, kraft recovery (causticizing) wastes, wastewater treatment sludges, and other (which included hydropulper rejects, bark wastes, and digester knots). We found that our general pulp and paper waste (other than industrial sludge) default DOC value was reasonable for the ‘‘other’’ waste category, but overestimated DOC content for other pulp and paper waste streams. Boiler ash and kraft recovery wastes had very low DOC values, but not low enough to be considered ‘‘inerts.’’ We also found that wastewater treatment sludges for the pulp and paper industry had, on average, a slightly higher DOC content than the default for ‘‘industrial sludge.’’ See memorandum, ‘‘Review of SiteSpecific Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data’’ from Jeff Coburn and Katherine Bronstein, RTI International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015 in Docket Id. EPA– HQ–OAR–2015–0526. Based on the available site-specific DOC values for these different pulp and paper industry wastes, we consider it appropriate to provide additional default DOC values for the pulp and paper industry for the purposes of improving the accuracy of the methane emissions estimates reported under subpart TT. Specifically, we are proposing to provide default DOC values for the four specific pulp and paper industry waste types previously listed. The proposed default DOC value for boiler ash is 0.06; the proposed default DOC value for kraft recovery wastes is 0.025. As proposed, these values, rather than the previous ‘‘pulp and paper waste (other than industrial sludge)’’ default value of 0.20 or the ‘‘Inert Waste [i.e., waste listed in 40 CFR 98.460(c)(2)]’’ default value of 0, should be used for these specific waste streams. The proposed default DOC value for pulp and paper wastewater sludge is 0.12, which would be required, as proposed, for pulp and paper wastewater treatment sludges rather than the generic ‘‘Industrial Sludge’’ default value of 0.09. The fourth category being proposed is ‘‘Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise listed)’’ and is to be used for all other pulp and paper wastes not included in the three other pulp and paper categories; the proposed default DOC value for this category is 0.20, which is consistent with the previous default for general pulp and paper wastes. In addition, we are adding a footnote to Table TT–1 to explain that kraft recovery wastes include green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be referred to collectively as causticizing or recausticizing wastes. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2574 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Reporters used any and all of these terms in their submitted reports to refer to these waste types. While we are proposing to provide these specific defaults for different types of waste in the pulp and paper industry, we do not intend to prevent the pulp and paper industry from using the other default values in Table TT–1 that may apply. For example, if construction and demolition wastes are disposed of in a landfill at a pulp and paper manufacturing facility, the reporter may still use the construction and demolition waste default DOC value for these waste streams. However, to clarify, we intend to require the pulp and paper industry to use the industry-specific wastewater sludge default DOC value, and are therefore proposing to revise the ‘‘Industrial Sludge’’ category to be ‘‘Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper industry sludge).’’ 2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart TT For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing one minor correction to subpart TT of Part 98 that is an editorial change. This minor revision is summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 In addition to the substantive amendments proposed in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble, for the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions, clarifications, and corrections to subparts P, U, MM, PP, and UU of Part 98. The proposed changes to these subparts are provided in the Table of Revisions for this rulemaking, available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526, and include clarifying requirements to better reflect the EPA’s intent, corrections to calculation terms or cross-references that do not revise the output of calculations, harmonizing changes within a subpart (such as changes to terminology), simple typographical errors, and other minor corrections (e.g., removal of redundant text). IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data Reporting Elements A. Overview and Background In this notice we are proposing confidentiality determinations for new or substantially revised reporting data elements (i.e., the data required to be reported would change under the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 proposed revision) in the proposed subpart rule amendments. We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not previously been proposed or finalized, or where the EPA has determined that the current determination is no longer appropriate. In this action, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for 117 new or substantially revised data reporting requirements in 21 subparts. We are not proposing new confidentially determinations for data reporting elements where the change does not require an additional or different data element to be reported. The final confidentiality determinations the EPA has previously made for these minimally revised data elements are unaffected by this proposed amendment and continue to apply. We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for 27 existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR that are not revised in the proposed amendments. These include 22 data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR for which the EPA had not made previous confidentiality determinations under Part 98, as well as two data elements in subpart NN for which a previous confidentiality determination is proposed to be revised because of new information indicating the data element is not entitled to confidential treatment under the provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for three data elements in subpart PP that were included in the finalized ‘‘Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units’’ (EGU NSPS) (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 2013–0495). These proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized before the end of 2016 based on public comment. The confidentiality determinations for new and substantially revised data elements would apply at the same time as the proposed rule amendments described in sections II and III of this preamble, as described in section I.E of this preamble. The confidentiality determinations for the existing Part 98 data elements would apply to reports submitted in RY2016 as well as all prior reporting years in which the data elements applied. This proposal is one of a series of rulemakings dealing with confidentiality determinations for data reported under Part 98. For more information on previous confidentiality PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 determinations for Part 98 data elements, see the following notices: • 75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010; hereafter referred to as the ‘‘July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.’’ Describes the data categories and category-based determinations the EPA developed for the Part 98 data elements. • 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2011 Final CBI Rule.’’ Assigned data elements to data categories and published the final CBI determinations for the data elements in 34 Part 98 subparts, except for those data elements that were assigned to the ‘‘Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. • 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012, hereafter referred to as ‘‘2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule.’’ Finalized confidentiality determinations for data elements reported under nine subparts I, W, DD, QQ, RR, SS, UU; except for those data elements that are inputs to emission equations. Also finalized confidentiality determinations for new data elements added to subparts II and TT in the November 29, 2011 Technical Corrections Notice (76 FR 73886). • 78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013; hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2013 Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing.’’ Finalized confidentiality determinations for new data elements added to subpart I. • 78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013; hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2013 Revisions Rule.’’ Finalized determinations for new and revised data elements in 15 subparts, except for those data elements assigned to the ‘‘Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. • 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; Final Inputs Rule. Revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 23 subparts and finalized confidentiality determinations for new data elements in 11 subparts. B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations To make the determinations proposed in this notice, we applied the same approach as previously used for making confidentiality determinations for data elements reported under the GHGRP, which consisted of assigning data elements to an appropriate data category and then either assigning the previously determined category-based confidentiality determination or making an individual determination if the data element is assigned to a category for which no category-based determination was previously made. The data categories used were those finalized in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, the EPA made categorical confidentiality determinations for data elements assigned to eight direct emitter data categories and eight supplier data categories. For two direct emitter data categories (‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations,’’) and three supplier data categories (‘‘GHGs Reported,’’ ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition,’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics’’), the EPA did not make categorical CBI determinations; instead the EPA determined that none of the data elements were emissions data (as defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)) and made CBI determinations for each individual data elements based on the criteria in 40 CFR 2.208. In subsequent amendments to Part 98,26 the EPA assigned each new or substantially revised data element to an appropriate data category created in the 2011 Final CBI Rule and applied the categorical confidentiality determination if one was established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. If a data element was assigned to one of the two direct emitter or three supplier data categories identified above that do not have categorical determinations, the EPA made individual CBI determinations. In this action, we are proposing to assign new and substantially revised data elements in the proposed amendments, as well as certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, II, MM, NN, PP, and RR, to the appropriate direct emitter or supplier data category.27 For new, substantially 26See, e.g., FR 48072 (August 13, 2012) and 77 FR 51477 (August 24, 2012). 27 With the exception of subpart RR, the EPA inadvertently did not proposed CBI determinations for these data elements. For subpart RR, the EPA initially proposed that all data elements were not CBI (see Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, 77 FR 1434; January 10, 2012). We then received comment that in certain cases, for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas (ER), the data would be CBI. In the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule, the EPA did not have a subpart RR data element to distinguish between the ER and non-ER facilities. Therefore, the EPA did not finalize the CBI determinations for those certain cases, but rather noted that the EPA would evaluate the confidentiality status on a case-by-case basis. The remaining subpart RR data elements (including monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plans, annual mass of CO2 emitted by surface leakage, and annual mass of CO2 sequestered) were determined not to be CBI in the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule. In this action, we are VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 revised, or existing data elements being assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality determinations, we propose to apply the categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI Rule to the assigned data elements. For new, substantially revised, or existing reporting elements assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ direct emitter data categories or the ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics’’ supplier data categories, consistent with our approach toward data elements previously assigned to these data categories, we propose that these data elements are not emission data, and are making individual CBI determinations for the data elements in these categories. Although the EPA grouped similar data into categories and made categorical confidentiality determinations for a number of data categories, the EPA also recognized in previous rulemakings that similar data elements may not always have the same confidentiality status28. In these cases, the EPA made individual instead of categorical determinations for the data elements. In this action, for the reasons explained below in section IV.C of this preamble, we are proposing to make an individual CBI determination for one data element for which we are not assigning a data category. Please see the memorandum titled ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions’’ in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526 for a list of the proposed new, substantially revised, and existing data elements, their proposed category assignments, and their proposed confidentiality determinations (whether categorical or individual).29 Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the proposed CBI proposing to add a new data element to indicate whether a facility is conducting ER, which now enables proposed confidentiality determinations to be made. 28 See, e.g., ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems’’ (79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014). 29 Excludes data elements assigned to the ‘‘Inputs to Emissions Equations’’ data category. ‘‘Inputs to Emissions Equations’’ are considered emissions data. This memorandum includes the data element that is not being assigned to a data category. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2575 determinations and supporting rationale for new or substantially revised data elements. Section IV.D of this preamble describes the proposed CBI determinations and supporting rationale for existing data elements for which we have not previously proposed a confidentiality determination. Finally, section IV.E of this preamble discusses the proposed changes to the determinations and rationale for two existing data elements in subpart NN for which a confidentiality determination was previously established. C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting Elements In this action, the EPA is proposing to assign each of the 117 new or substantially revised data reporting requirements to the appropriate direct emitter or supplier data category. New and substantially revised data elements assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality determinations are summarized in the memorandum ‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions,’’ available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. For new and substantially revised reporting elements assigned to direct emitter or supplier data categories without a categorical determination, we are proposing that these data elements are not emission data and are making individual CBI determinations for each data element. We are proposing individual CBI determinations for 48 data elements assigned to the ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ direct emitter data categories and the ‘‘Production/ Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics’’ supplier data categories. These data elements consist of 17 new data elements in the direct emitter subparts C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, II, and subpart RR, and 27 new data elements in the supplier subpart OO. We are also proposing individual CBI determinations for four substantially revised data elements in subparts Y, DD, HH, and II. Table 7 of this preamble provides the category assignment and proposed rationale for the proposed determinations. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2576 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR) Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) Confidentiality determination Data element Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ Direct Emitter Data Category 98.36(c)(1)(iii) (new) ... Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). Not CBI .............. C ............. 98.36(c)(3)(ii) (new) .... 98.56(f) (new) ............. Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the units served by the common pipe, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). Date of installation of abatement technology. Not CBI E .............. I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. (iv) . . . For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must describe, where available: Wafer size. Not CBI .............. I ............... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 C ............. 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. (iv) . . . For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must describe, where available: substrate type. Not CBI VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:45 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Not CBI .............. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 These data elements consist of descriptions of the cumulative heat input capacity for an aggregated group of stationary combustion units. These data elements do not reveal any proprietary information or any other information that could provide insight for competitors to gain an advantage because they do not provide specific design details. Further, these data elements provide information that that is generally already available to the public through other sources (e.g., operating permits). Therefore, we are proposing that these data elements are not CBI. These data elements do not provide insight into current production rates, raw material consumption, or other information that competitors could use to discern market share and other sensitive information. Information regarding the date of installation of abatement devices constitute general information that is already available to the public through other sources (e.g., construction permits). Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. The data element for the triennial technology review report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in the prior three years. The EPA previously made a determination that 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) was emission data and, therefore, not CBI. Several of the data elements that we are proposing to clarify should be included are already reported under 40 CFR 98.96 (e.g., wafer diameter) and the EPA is proposing the same category assignment and confidentiality determination for these data elements, including: • the wafer size • substrate type. Wafer size and substrate type are data elements that are published in datasets available from the World Fab Forecast. Furthermore, for the purposes of the triennial report, these data elements may be reported by one or multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and may include measurements made by tool manufacturers or other fabs in lieu of fab-specific information. Therefore, we have concluded that the release of these data elements would not cause substantial competitive harm. For these reasons, we are proposing to assign a determination of not CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2577 TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) I ............... Confidentiality determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. (iv) . . . For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must describe, where available: Film type being manufactured. CBI .................... I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the information described in paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through (v) of this section. (iv) . . . For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must describe, where available: Linewidth or technology node. Not CBI .............. V .............. 98.226(h) (new) .......... Date of installation of abatement technology. Not CBI .............. Y .............. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Data element 98.256(e)(3) (new) ...... An indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system. Not CBI .............. This data element for the triennial technology review report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in the prior three years. We are proposing that the ‘‘film type’’ is CBI because this data element could potentially provide insight into facility operating practices or proprietary device designs that are considered sensitive by the reporter. Information provided by semiconductor manufacturers in prior rulemakings indicates that this data element is closely guarded and protected as sensitive business information. The data element for the triennial technology review report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in the prior three years. We are proposing that the ‘‘linewidth or technology node’’ be categorized as ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ because this data elements describes basic characteristics of the products and processes in the facility that do not vary with time. We are proposing that the ‘‘the linewidth or technology node’’ are Not CBI because this data is publicly available. Specifically, these data elements are published in datasets available from the World Fab Forecast. We have therefore concluded that the release of this data will not cause substantial competitive harm. This data element does not provide insight into current production rates, raw material consumption, or other information that competitors could use to discern market share and other sensitive information. Information regarding the date of installation of abatement devices constitute general information that is already available to the public through other sources (e.g., construction permits). Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. The proposed data element, which describes whether the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system, is similar to: 40 CFR 98.256(e)(3) (description of flare gas service) and 40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual operating hours of gas collection system), for which we have previously assigned a ‘‘Not CBI’’ designation. Descriptions of flare gas service are not CBI because describing the type of flare or whether a flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system does not reveal any confidential information because flares are commonly used in the industry and no detailed specifications are required to be reported (see 75 FR 39113, July 7, 2010). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2578 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) DD ........... Confidentiality determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 98.306(m) (new) ......... Total miles of transmission and distribution lines located within each state or territory. Not CBI .............. DD ........... 98.306(n) (new) .......... 98.356(a) (revised) ..... The following numbers of pieces of equipment:. (1) New hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during the year. (2) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (3) Retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (4) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. The average depth in meters of each anaerobic lagoon. Not CBI .............. II .............. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Data element This data element is the same type of data that must be reported by these companies in 40 CFR 98.306(b) and (c), which requires reporting of the aggregate length all transmission lines carrying voltages above 35 kilovolt and the aggregate length all distribution lines carrying voltages above 35 kilovolt, for which we previously assigned a determination of not CBI. We had determined that the length of distribution lines and length of transmission lines are basic characteristics of equipment, and that facility-specific lines that do not vary with time or with the operations of the process. Moreover, facilities reporting under this subpart consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration), and municipally owned electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. Further, data on transmission and distribution miles is publicly available in the Platts UDI Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributers, which can be purchased by any interested party. Disclosure of this proposed new data element by the EPA would not provide any additional insight into facility-specific operating conditions or process design or to any other proprietary or sensitive information that would give insight for competitors to gain an advantage over the reporter. Facilities reporting under this subpart consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration), and municipally owned electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. The reported data relate to maintenance activities and installation of new/replacement of existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g., circuit breakers, switchgear, power transformers, etc.) and amounts of SF6 and PFC used or recovered in servicing or replacing such equipment. These data elements do not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be proprietary. Therefore, we are proposing that these data elements are not CBI. For the industries with industrial wastewater treatment, the types of information that are considered proprietary or have previously been determined to be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI determination notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element would not provide detailed insight into the design and operation of the facility’s manufacturing processes, raw materials, or products. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Not CBI .............. Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2579 TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) II .............. 98.356(a) (revised) ..... II .............. RR ........... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart VerDate Sep<11>2014 Confidentiality determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Indicate whether biogas generated by each anaerobic process is recovered. Not CBI .............. 98.356(b)(6) (new) ...... For each anaerobic wastewater treatment process (reactor, deep lagoon, or shallow lagoon) you must report: If the facility performs an ethanol production processing operation as defined in § 98.358 of this subpart, you must indicate if the facility uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process. Not CBI .............. 98.446(g) (new) .......... Whether the CO2 stream is being injected into subsurface geologic formations to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas. Not CBI .............. For these industries, the types of information that are considered proprietary or have previously been determined to be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI determination notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because indicating whether biogas is recovered from an anaerobic process would not provide detailed insight into the design and operation of the facility’s manufacturing processes, raw materials, or products, and provides only general information about the wastewater treatment system that is not considered sensitive by manufacturers. For the industries with industrial wastewater treatment, the types of information that are considered proprietary or have previously been determined to be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI determination notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element would not provide detailed insight into the design and operation of the facility’s manufacturing processes raw materials, or products that is considered sensitive by reporters. This data element indicates only that the facility uses wet and/or dry milling, which is information that would be available from the facility’s construction and Title V operating permits. This data element combined with the volume of wastewater entering the treatment plant (reported under 40 CFR 98.356(b)(2)) provides information on the quantities of wastewater generated by wet and dry milling activities. However, this information does not provide insight into any sensitive information, such as the amount of grain processed through the wet and dry milling processes, the amount of ethanol produced, plant production efficiency, or production costs. This data element would identify whether a facility is performing enhanced oil recovery. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because this data element does not reveal any significant details regarding the activities at the facility, the quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization rates of the facility 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Data element Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2580 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) Confidentiality determination Data element Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ Direct Emitter Data Category 98.66(c)(2) (new) ........ The following PFC-specific in- CBI .................... formation on an annual basis: Anode effect minutes per cell-day (AE-mins/cellday), anode effect frequency (AE/cell-day), anode effect duration (minutes). (Or anode effect overvoltage factor ((kg CF4/metric ton Al)/(mV/cell day)), potline overvoltage (mV/cell day), current efficiency (%).). S .............. 98.196(b)(21) (new) .... Annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined product or waste sold. CBI .................... X .............. 98.246(a)(14) (new) .... 98.246(a)(15) (new) .... Annual average of the measurements of the carbon content of each feedstock and product: (i) For feedstocks and products that are gaseous or solid, report this quantity in kg carbon per kg of feedstock or product. (ii) For liquid feedstocks and products, report this quantity either in units of kg carbon per kg of feedstock or production or kg C per gallon of feedstock or product. For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of the measurements of molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole. CBI .................... X .............. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 F .............. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 While the proposed new data elements share characteristics with data elements previously assigned to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations’’ data categories, we have determined that they do not share the same characteristics or confidentiality status as the data elements already assigned to this data category. These data elements are not inputs to emissions equations. Annual anode effect minutes per cell day, anode effect frequency, anode effect duration (or annual anode effect overvoltage factor, potline overvoltage, and current efficiency) describe operating characteristics associated with aluminum production. Our review of these data elements shows that they qualify for confidential treatment. We are proposing to classify annual average anode effect minutes, anode effect frequency, and anode effect duration as CBI because these data elements are an important measure of process efficiency (which provides insight into a firm’s operational strengths and weaknesses) and are not otherwise publicly available. The proposed data elements describe the material composition of the products manufactured. These values are not used as inputs to emissions equations, rather, they are annual average values for the purposes of QA/QC of the composition data used as inputs to the emissions calculations. We are proposing these data elements as CBI because the reported data provides information on the composition of lime produced or raw material. Disclosing information revealing a facility’s product compositions could give competitors insight into a firm’s local and regional market conditions and expansion plans, enabling competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and to steal market share in specific locations. The proposed data elements describe the carbon content and annually averaged weight of feedstocks. This information could disclose a facility’s feedstock composition, which could provide insight into its operational strengths and weaknesses, expose its competitive and marketing strategies, or reveal its suppliers and sourcing strategies. Therefore, we are proposing that these data element qualify as CBI. CBI Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2581 TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) Data element Confidentiality determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Y .............. 98.256(e)(6) (revised) Annual mass of flare gas combusted (in kg/yr). Not CBI .............. HH ........... 98.346(i)(5)(iii)(B) (revised). The annual operating hours where active gas flow was sent to each destruction device. Not CBI .............. The proposed data element, which describes the annual mass of flare gas combusted, is similar to: 40 CFR 98.256(e)(3) (description of flare gas service) and 40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual operating hours of gas collection system), for which we have previously assigned a ‘‘Not CBI’’ designation. Descriptions of flare gas service are not CBI. Describing the annual mass of flare gas combusted during the reporting year does not reveal any confidential information because flares are commonly used in the industry and no detailed specifications are required to be reported (see 75 FR 39113, July 7, 2010). This data element describes the operating characteristics of a destruction device. Although the proposed data element is similar to the prior data element in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) ‘‘Annual operating hours for each destruction device associated with a given measurement location,’’ this data element reflects a separate operating parameter. This data element is not an input to an emissions equation. We are proposing that this data element is Not CBI. This data element would not reveal any information about landfill fees, revenues, costs, or contracts. Such information does not reveal any trade secrets or other sensitive business information regarding the design or operation of an aeration system or the landfill. Further, this type of data on landfills is generally already publicly available from the municipalities operating landfills. We have therefore concluded that the release of this data will not cause substantial competitive harm. Date Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ Supplier Data Category tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 OO .......... OO .......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 98.416(a)(1) (new) ...... 98.416(a)(2) (new) ...... 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF . . . produced at that facility by process, except for amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off site for destruction. Mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF . . . transformed at that facility, by process. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 CBI .................... CBI Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 These data elements describe production and throughput quantities and product compositions (including products produced, imported, or exported). These data elements are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI. The disclosure of annual production quantities and composition of products (i.e., quantities sold and/or delivered), could provide insight into a firm’s market strength and position. Disclosure of facility-level production/throughput quantities and product compositions could give competitors insight into a firm’s local and regional market conditions and expansion plans, enabling competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and to steal market share in specific locations. Therefore, the EPA proposes to determine that these data elements are CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2582 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) OO .......... 98.416(a)(3) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(a)(5) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(a)(6) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(a)(7) (new) ...... OO .......... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart 98.416(a)(11) (new) .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Confidentiality determination Data element Mass in metric tons of . . . fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under this paragraph (a)(3) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. Total mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF . . . sent to another facility for transformation. Total mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF sent to another facility for destruction, except . . . fluorinated HTFs that are not included in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) because they are removed from the production process as by-products or other wastes. Quantities to be reported under this paragraph (a)(6) could include, for example, fluorinated GHGs that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore sent to another facility for destruction. Total mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF that is sent to another facility for destruction and that is not included in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) because it is removed from the production process as a byproduct or other waste. Mass in metric tons of . . . fluorinated HTF that is fed into the destruction device and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under this paragraph (a)(11) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2583 TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) OO .......... 98.416(a)(12) (new) .... OO .......... 98.416(a)(14) (new) .... OO .......... 98.416(a)(15) (new) .... OO .......... 98.416(c)(1) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(c)(2) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(c)(6) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(c)(8) (new) ...... OO .......... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart 98.416(c)(9) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(c)(10) (new) .... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Confidentiality determination Data element Mass in metric tons of . . . fluorinated HTF . . . that is measured coming out of the production process, by process. Quantities (metric tons) of . . . of each . . . fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for transformation. Quantities (metric tons) of each . . . fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for destruction. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (1) Total mass in metric tons of . . . each . . . fluorinated HTF imported in bulk, including each . . . fluorinated HTF constituent of the . . . fluorinated HTF product that makes up between 0.5 percent and 100 percent of the product by mass. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (2) Total mass in metric tons of . . . fluorinated HTF imported in bulk and sold or transferred to persons other than the importer for use in processes resulting in the transformation or destruction of the chemical. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (6) Commodity code of the . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . shipped. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (8) Total mass in metric tons of each . . . fluorinated HTF destroyed by the importer. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (9) Quantities of fluorinated HTFs sold or transferred to each facilities for transformation. Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (10) If applicable, the quantities (metric tons) of each . . . fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each facility for destruction. Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI CBI Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2584 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) OO .......... 98.416(d)(1) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(d)(4) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(i) (new) ........... OO .......... 98.416(j) (new) ........... Confidentiality determination Data element Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide . . . at the corporate level . . . (1) Total mass in metric tons of . . . each . . . fluorinated HTF exported in bulk. Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide . . . at the corporate level . . . (4) Commodity code of the . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . shipped. . . . quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. . . . the identities or concentrations of the fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF product have changed, then the new or changed concentrations . . . Rationale for the proposed CBI determination CBI CBI CBI CBI Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics’’ Supplier Data Category 98.416(b)(1) (new) ...... Any facility that destroys . . . fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (1) Destruction efficiency (DE). Not CBI OO .......... 98.416(b)(4) (new) ...... 98.416(b)(5) (new) ...... Any facility that destroys . . . fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (4) Chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the performance test conducted to determine DE. Any facility that destroys . . . fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (5) Name of all applicable federal or state regulations that may apply to the destruction process. Not CBI OO .......... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 OO .......... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 The proposed data elements, which apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of not CBI. The EPA previously determined that the destruction efficiency of each fluorinated GHG destruction unit, the chemical identity of the fluorinated GHG(s) used in the performance test conducted to determine the destruction efficiency, and the name of all applicable federal and state regulations that may apply to the destruction process are not CBI. The proposed data elements do not reveal sensitive business information about the process, nor do they reveal the technology used for fluorinated GHG destruction, or the operating conditions for a particular technology. Not CBI Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2585 TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, AND RR)—Continued Citation in 40 CFR part 98 (new or revised) OO .......... 98.416(c)(3) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (3) Date on which the . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . were imported. CBI OO .......... 98.416(c)(4) (new) ...... 98.416(d)(5) (new) ...... OO .......... 98.416(j) (new) ........... Each bulk importer of . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (4) Port of entry through which the . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . passed Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs . . . at the corporate level . . . (5) Date on which, and the port from which, the . . . fluorinated HTFs . . . were exported from the United States or its territories If . . . identities or concentrations of the fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF product have changed, the date of the change . . . CBI OO .......... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart We are proposing to assign one revised data element in subpart Z (Phosphoric Acid Production) to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emissions Equation Category’’ but are not making a confidentiality determination for this data element. The provision 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires reporting the annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid process line (metric tons). The EPA reviewed the available capacity information and determined that the situation may vary for individual facilities. While the production capacity data elements are generally publicly available through construction and Title V permits, there VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Confidentiality determination Data element Jkt 238001 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination These data elements describe the dates of import and export shipments, and the ports of entry or exit. The proposed data elements, which apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which we have previously assigned a determination of CBI. Release of these data elements to the public could allow competitors to link customs records on quantities and product composition with the import and export data reported under Part 98, thus allowing competitors to determine market share and devise marketing strategies to undermine or weaken a competitor’s position. Because disclosure of these data elements is likely to cause harm, we have determined that these data elements qualify as CBI. CBI Not CBI The proposed data elements, which apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs under 40 CFR 98.416(f), for which we have previously assigned a determination of not CBI. The date on which changes were made to the composition of a fluorinated HTF product does not disclose the actual composition of the product, the raw materials used to make the product, the method of manufacture, or the efficiency of the manufacturing process. Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. may be facilities where these data are not public. Further, the information publicly available for facilities may not necessarily be the same as the data elements required under Part 98. For example, capacity data available in the Title V permit may be a plant-wide throughput capacity rather than the capacity of the individual process line reported under Part 98. For this reason, we have decided not to make a confidentiality determination for this revised data element, but instead determinations for this data element will be made on a case-by-case basis. This decision not to propose a determination for this data element is consistent with our treatment of other capacity data (e.g., capacity of process PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 lines or production units) (see 2011 Final CBI Rule). We are also proposing to make an individual confidentiality determination for one data element in subpart FF without assigning it to a data category. While our general approach for making confidentiality determination is to assign each data element to a data category and apply the categorical confidentiality determination where one has been made, we are not doing so here for the following reason. The data element at issue is in provision 40 CR 98.326(u), which requires the annual coal production in short tons for the reporting year. The proposed data element shares characteristics with data elements previously assigned to the E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2586 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules ‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations’’ data category, which the EPA has categorically determined to be CBI. However, unlike data elements assigned to that data category, the proposed data element is publicly available and therefore does not qualify as CBI. Coal production data are currently published quarterly and annually by MSHA and annually by the EIA.30 We are therefore not assigning this proposed data element to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations’’ data category. Because these data are already publically available, we are proposing a determination of ‘‘Not CBI.’’ D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for Which No Determination has Been Previously Established We are proposing categorical determinations for 22 data elements currently in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR for which no determination has been previously proposed or finalized under Part 98, as well as for three data elements that were proposed to be tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 30 MSHA Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) (available at: https://www.msha.gov/drs/ drshome.htm) and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Mine Level Data (available at: https://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/ browser/#/topic/38?agg=1,0&rank=g&geo= g0000000000003ms&mntp=g&freq= A&start=2001&end=2012&ctype=linechart&ltype= pin&rtype=b&rse=0&pin=&maptype=0) VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 included in subpart PP in the finalized EGU NSPS. For subpart I, the affected data element was revised in final subpart I rule amendments on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162) following public comment. In this case, the EPA had not proposed a confidentiality determination for the revised data element and therefore did not finalize a determination in the final rule. For subpart Z, we are proposing to clarify the original determination for a data element in which it is unclear how to apply the final determination assigned in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. For subpart MM, we are proposing a determination for one data element where the EPA inadvertently failed to finalize a determination in the 2013 Revisions Rule. We are proposing confidentiality determinations for three data elements in subpart PP which were added to Part 98 in the EGU NSPS. Finally, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for 16 data elements in subpart RR. In the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012), we did not finalize a confidentiality determination for these data elements, which relate to facility-level and flow meter-level quantities of CO2 received onsite, because the sensitivity of these data elements was dependent on whether the reporter conducted enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) activities or non-ER activities. In this action, we are proposing to require that facilities report PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 whether they are conducting ER activities. As such, the proposed amendments would allow the submitted reports to indicate that the facility is conducting ER activities and therefore would allow for categorical confidentiality determinations for these data elements. Of these data elements, we are proposing to assign one data element in subpart MM to the ‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials Received’’ supplier data category, which has a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI. We are proposing to assign the remaining data elements in subparts I, Z, PP, and RR to the ‘‘Unit/ Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ direct emitter data categories and the ‘‘Production/ Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ supplier data categories, and are proposing individual confidentiality determinations for these data elements. For 16 data elements in subpart RR, we are proposing separate determinations for each data element for facilities conducting ER operations and facilities conducting non-ER operations. Table 8 of this preamble provides the category assignment and proposed rationale for the proposed determinations for the existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2587 TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98 [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Confidentiality Determination Data element Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ Direct Emitter Data Category 98.96(a) ...................... Annual manufacturing capacity of each fab at your facility used to determine the annual manufacturing capacity of your facility in Equation I–5 of this subpart. CBI ........... Z .......... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 I ........... 98.266(a) .................... Origin of the phosphate rock ........................... CBI ........... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 The EPA revised this data element in the final rule published on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162), to apply at the fab level instead of at the facility level to be consistent with other revised data reporting requirements, but did not make a proposed or final confidentiality determination for the revised data element in the final rule. The EPA is now proposing to revise the confidentiality determination for this data element, and to consider it as CBI. This data element describes the annual product production capacity of individual fabs, and could cause competitive harm if released. Specifically, this data element could provide insight into facility operating practices that are considered sensitive by the reporter and could provide a competitor with a competitive advantage over other facilities. Additional information provided by industry indicates that this data element is closely guarded and protected by nearly all industry members as sensitive business information. In the ‘‘Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 Reporting Elements’’ memorandum issued April 29, 2011, we categorized the subpart Z data element ‘‘Annual phosphoric acid production by origin of the phosphate rock’’ at 40 CFR 98.266(a) to be production/ throughput data that are not inputs to emission equations, and therefore considered to be confidential business information. To clarify this determination, we are proposing to specify that both the annual phosphoric acid production and the origin of the phosphate rock are both considered to be confidential business information. This data element describes operating parameters related to the operating processes at the facility and is assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ’Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data category. We are proposing that this data element is CBI because the data element could reveal information on the source and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing processes, which could provide insight into the facility’s raw material suppliers, production costs and manufacturing processes. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2588 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Confidentiality Determination Data element Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ Direct Emitter Data Category 98.96(q)(2) .................. For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, the following: (2) If you use default destruction or removal efficiency values in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), (b), or (i), certification that the site maintenance plan for abatement systems for which emissions are being reported contains manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance for each abatement system. Not CBI .... I ........... 98.96(q)(3) .................. 98.96(q)(4) .................. For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, the following: (3) If you use default destruction or removal efficiency values in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), certification that the abatement systems for which emissions are being reported were specifically designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement, as applicable. You must support this certification by providing abatement system supplier documentation stating that the system was designed for fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement, as applicable. For all abatement systems through which fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled emissions, the following: (4) For all stack systems for which you calculate fluorinated GHG emissions according to the procedures specified in § 98.93(i)(3), certification that you have included and accounted for all abatement systems and any respective downtime in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(i)(3). Not CBI. I ........... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 I ........... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 In the final rule amendments published on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162), the EPA revised 40 CFR 98.96(q) into four paragraphs and added paragraphs (q)(2) to (q)(4) to address comments received on the proposal related to abatement systems. However, because the EPA proposed no confidentiality determination for these three new paragraphs, the EPA made no final CBI determination. These data elements are similar to data element 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1). For 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1), the EPA made a final determination that this data element should be in the category for ‘‘Unit/Process ’Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and that that this data element was not CBI. Similar to 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1), paragraphs (q)(2) to (q)(4) are certification statements that do not provide detailed information on sensitive business information of a competitive nature. Moreover, the EPA certification statements are the same language in 40 CFR 98.96(q)(2) through (4) and do not include any facility- or process-specific information that could be considered exclusive. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that these three data elements should also be assigned to the category for ‘‘Unit/Process ’Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations,’’ and the EPA is proposing that these three data elements also be classified as ‘‘not CBI.’’ Not CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2589 TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Confidentiality Determination Data element Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials Received’’ Supplier Data Category MM ...... 98.396(a)(20) .............. For all crude oil that enters the refinery, report the annual quantity in barrels. CBI ........... In rule amendments published on November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71904), we revised this data element from ‘‘the batch volume of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels’’ to ‘‘the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels.’’ However, we did not make a confidentiality determination for this revised data element at that time. We are proposing that the revised data element be assigned to the ‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials Received’’ category, which has a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI. Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ Supplier Data Category 98.426(h)(1) ................ If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR of this part, you must report the facility identification number associated with the annual GHG report for the subpart D facility. Not CBI .... PP ....... 98.426(h)(2) ................ 98.426(h)(3) ................ If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR of this part, you must report each facility identification number associated with the annual GHG reports for each subpart RR facility to which CO2 is transferred. If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR of this part, you must report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred to each subpart RR facility. Not CBI .... PP ....... RR ....... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 PP ....... 98.446(a)(1) ................ For enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) Activities: If you receive CO2 by pipeline, report the following for each receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) annually. CBI ........... RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(i) ............. For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): Volumetric flow through a receiving flow meter at standard conditions (in standard cubic meters) in each quarter. CBI. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Not CBI .... This data element identifies subpart D facilities that transfer CO2 to any facilities that are subject to subpart RR of this part. This information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. This data element identifies subpart RR facilities to which CO2 streams are transferred from subpart PP. This information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. This data element describes the quantity of CO2 that is captured at an electric generating unit that is subject to subpart D and transferred to subpart RR facilities. This information does not reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. We are proposing that these data elements are CBI when reported by facilities conducting enhanced oil or natural gas recovery, on the basis that they are not publicly available and cannot be derived from publicly available data. Further, the EPA has previously determined for subpart UU that the quantities of CO2 reported as received by specific ER facilities could enable CO2 suppliers and pipeline transportation companies to use the information to their advantage in price negotiations on future contracts with the CO2 purchasers, which would lead to an economic disadvantage for these facilities. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2590 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Confidentiality Determination Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Data element RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(ii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(iii) ........... RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(i) ............. RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(ii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(iii) ........... RR ....... 98.446(b)(1) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(2) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(3) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(4) ................ RR ....... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart 98.446(c) ..................... For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The volumetric flow through a receiving flow meter that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well (in standard cubic meters) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): CO2 concentration in the flow (volume percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The mass flow through a receiving flow meter (in metric tons) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The mass flow through a receiving flow meter that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well (in metric tons) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The CO2 concentration in the flow (weight percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or volume at standard conditions (in standard cubic meters) of contents in containers in each quarter. For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Concentration of CO2 of contents in containers (volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or volume (in standard cubic meters) of contents in containers that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well in each quarter. For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) annually. For ER Activities: If you use more than one receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) through all flow meters annually. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2591 TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Confidentiality Determination Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Data element RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(i) .............. For ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 mass produced (metric tons) annually. CBI ........... RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(ii) ............. 98.446(f)(4)(iii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iv) ............ RR ....... 98.446(a)(1) ................ For ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 concentration in flow (volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a volumetric flow meter is used, volumetric flow rate at standard conditions (standard cubic meters) in each quarter. For ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a mass flow meter is used, mass flow rate (metric tons) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 by pipeline, report the following for each receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) annually. CBI. RR ....... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination We are proposing that these data elements, which are related to the quantity of produced CO2 measured at a separator meter, are CBI when reported by facilities performing enhanced oil and gas recovery. Previously, commenters have noted31 that although some data from ER wells is publicly available, the total mass of produced CO2 by well or within a field is not already in the public domain. Publication of produced CO2 data, when coupled with publicly available information on oil and gas production by well, could enable competitors to calculate CO2 utilization rates for both individual wells and fields and possibly track changes in CO2 utilization over time. This data could be used to gain insight into production costs and reservoir performance, which could result in competitive harm. CBI. CBI. Not CBI .... For non-ER facilities, we are proposing that these data elements are not eligible for CBI treatment because these data elements are publicly available or can be derived from publicly available data. These data can be derived from Underground Injection Control (UIC) permits, which are issued for each injection well by the EPA or by states that have assumed primary enforcement authority for permitting Class II injection wells. Unlike ER facilities, the CO2 received at nonER facilities is not recycled and re-injected. The amount of CO2 received at non-ER facilities is equivalent to the amount of CO2 injected (which is reported per UIC permit conditions). Information related to the permits is reported to EPA or States at least annually and made available to the public upon request. Because this information is publicly available, the EPA finds that disclosure of these data elements is not likely to cause substantial competitive harm to reporters who conduct non-ER activities. The EPA proposes to determine that these data elements are not CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2592 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Confidentiality Determination Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Data element RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(i) ............. RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(ii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(iii) ........... RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(i) ............. RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(ii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(iii) ........... RR ....... 98.446(b)(1) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(2) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(3) ................ RR ....... 98.446(b)(4) ................ RR ....... tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Subpart 98.446(c) ..................... For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): Volumetric flow through a receiving flow meter at standard conditions (in standard cubic meters) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The volumetric flow through a receiving flow meter that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well (in standard cubic meters) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): CO2 concentration in the flow (volume percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The mass flow through a receiving flow meter (in metric tons) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The mass flow through a receiving flow meter that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well (in metric tons) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The CO2 concentration in the flow (weight percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or volume at standard conditions (in standard cubic meters) of contents in containers in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Concentration of CO2 of contents in containers (volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or volume (in standard cubic meters) of contents in containers that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your well in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) annually. For Non-ER Activities: If you use more than one receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) through all flow meters annually. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2593 TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued [Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] Confidentiality Determination Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 98 Data element RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(i) .............. For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 mass produced (metric tons) annually. Not CBI .... RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(ii) ............. Not CBI. RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iii) ............ RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iv) ............ For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 concentration in flow (volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a volumetric flow meter is used, volumetric flow rate at standard conditions (standard cubic meters) in each quarter. For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in § 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a mass flow meter is used, mass flow rate (metric tons) in each quarter. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data Elements We are proposing revised confidentiality determinations for two existing data elements in subpart NN. Under subpart NN, local distribution companies report the volume of natural gas withdrawn from on-system storage and the annual volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG) withdrawn from storage and vaporized for delivery on the distribution system (40 CFR 98.406(b)(3)). The EPA previously assigned these data elements to the ‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials Received’’ category, which has a VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For non-ER facilities, we are proposing that these data elements are not eligible for CBI treatment because these data elements are publicly available or can be derived from publicly available data. These data can be derived from UIC permits, which are issued for each injection well by the EPA or by states that have assumed primary enforcement authority for permitting Class II injection wells. Unlike ER facilities, the CO2 received at non-ER facilities is not recycled and re-injected. The amount of CO2 received at non-ER facilities is equivalent to the amount of CO2 injected (which is reported per UIC permit conditions). Information related to the permits is reported to EPA or States at least annually and made available to the public upon request. Because this information is publicly available, the EPA finds that disclosure of these data elements is not likely to cause substantial competitive harm to reporters who conduct non-ER activities. The EPA proposes to determine that these data elements are not CBI. Not CBI. Not CBI. confidentiality determination of CBI. The EPA is proposing to change these data elements’ status from CBI to nonCBI. These data elements are reported to the EPA by LDCs subject to subpart W of Part 98 (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) in addition to subpart NN. In support of a recent subpart W rulemaking (79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014), review of publicly available data found that gas withdrawals from underground storage are reported to the EIA on form EIA–176 (Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition). As we noted in the proposed version of that rule, the EIA considers all information submitted on EIA–176 to be non-proprietary PO 00000 Rationale for the proposed CBI determination information and publishes the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage on their Web site. Data that are already in the public domain are not entitled to confidential treatment under the provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. Since the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage is publicly available, the EPA proposes to assign the confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.406(b)(3) to ‘‘not CBI.’’ F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations For the CBI component of this rulemaking, we are soliciting comment on the following specific issues. We E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2594 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules specifically seek comment on the proposed data category assignment for each of the new and substantially revised data elements in the proposed amendments, for the existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR for which no determination was previously made, and the two data elements in subpart NN for which we are revising the prior confidentiality determination. If you believe that the EPA has improperly assigned certain new, substantially revised, or existing data elements in these subparts to any of the data categories established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule, please provide specific comments identifying which of the data elements may be wrongly assigned along with a detailed explanation of why you believe them to be incorrectly assigned and in which data category you believe they belong. In addition, if you believe that a data element should be assigned to one of the five categories that do not have a categorical confidentiality determination, please also provide specific comment along with detailed rationale and supporting information on whether such data element does or does not qualify as CBI. We also seek comment on the proposed confidentiality status of the new, substantially revised, or existing data elements in the direct emitter data categories ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and the supplier data categories ‘‘Production/ Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics.’’ By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide potential reporters an opportunity to submit comments, particularly comments identifying data they consider sensitive and their rationales and supporting documentation. This opportunity to submit comments is the same opportunity that is afforded to submitters of information in case-bycase confidentiality determinations. In addition, it provides an opportunity to rebut the agency’s proposed determinations prior to finalization. We will evaluate the comments on our proposed determinations, including claims of confidentiality and information substantiating such claims, before finalizing the confidentiality determinations. Please note that this will be reporters’ only opportunity to substantiate a confidentiality claim. Upon finalizing the confidentiality VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 determinations of the data elements identified in this rule, the EPA will release or withhold these data in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains special provisions governing the treatment of Part 98 data for which confidentiality determinations have been made through rulemaking. When submitting comments regarding the confidentiality determinations we are proposing in this action, please identify each individual proposed new, revised, or existing data element you do or do not consider to be CBI or emission data in your comments. Please explain specifically how the public release of that particular data element would or would not cause a competitive disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how this data element may be different from or similar to data that are already publicly available. Please submit information identifying any publicly available sources of information containing the specific data elements in question. Data that are already available through other sources would likely be found not to qualify for CBI protection. In your comments, please identify the manner and location in which each specific data element you identify is publicly available, including a citation. If the data are physically published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal agency publication, provide the title, volume number (if applicable), author(s), publisher, publication date, and International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a Web site, provide the address of the Web site, the date you last visited the Web site and identify the Web site publisher and content author. If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data element to discern sensitive information, specifically describe the pathway by which this could occur and explain how the discerned information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe any unique process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if the particular proposed new or revised data element you consider sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other publicly available data, then describe the other data, identify the public source(s) of these data, and explain how the combination of data could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures currently taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions regarding potential harm. Please be as specific as possible and PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 include all information necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments. V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments The EPA is proposing amendments to Part 98 that would streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and clarify certain provisions. The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden in cases where the proposed amendments would expand current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden in cases where the proposed amendments would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported. For most subparts, we are proposing both revisions that would result in an increase in burden and revisions that would result in a decrease in burden. In several cases, we are proposing changes where we anticipate a decrease in burden, but are unable to quantify this decrease. This conservative approach means that the impacts for this proposed rule generally reflect an increase in burden for most subparts. For example, as discussed in section II.C and II.K of this preamble, we are proposing amendments to add new reporting requirements to subpart E and subpart V to improve the quality of the data collected under the rule, as well as amendments that would streamline the rule by conditionally removing the annual approval request for an alternative method for determining N2O emissions currently required by reporters and the annual request approval by the EPA. The proposed changes for the annual approval request are anticipated to add flexibility for reporters and reduce the burden for subpart E and subpart V reporters using the alternative method. Additionally, we anticipate that the EPA burden required to review and approve the alternative methods would also be reduced. However, because the proposed changes would apply to an optional calculation method and are not required for compliance with Part 98, we have not included this reduction in burden in our analysis, and have only quantified the increase in burden associated with the proposed new reporting requirements. As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to implement these changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time and provide time for needed software revisions. The burden has subsequently been determined E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2595 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in each year (e.g., the burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A (General Provisions)). One-time implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to applicability and monitoring provisions that would be finalized in RY2017 and RY2018; therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the subsequent year costs incurred by industry. The incremental implementation costs for all subparts for each reporting year are summarized in Table 9 of this preamble. The estimated incremental burden is $2,049,478 for all proposed revisions implemented between RY2016 through RY2018, including $9,359 from revisions implemented in RY2016, $33,782 from revisions implemented in RY2017, and $2,006,337 from revisions implemented in RY2018. The estimated annual burden is $1,081,830 per year following implementation of all changes. The incremental burden by subpart is shown in Table 10 of this preamble. One-time implementation costs are incorporated into first year costs, while subsequent year costs represent the annual burden that will be incurred in total by all impacted reporters. TABLE 9—INCREMENTAL BURDEN FOR REPORTING YEARS 2016–2019 [$/year] Cost summary 2016 2017 a$9,359 First Year Costs ..................................................................... 2018 $25,650 2019 b c$1,972,555 ........................ 8,132 25,650 .................................................. 2,006,337 a9,359 25,650 1,046,821 a1,081,830 Subsequent Year Annual Costs for Changes Implemented in: 2016 ....................................................................................... 2017 ....................................................................................... 2018 ....................................................................................... Total Costs by Year (all subparts) .................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 9,359 8,132 ........................ ........................ 33,782 a Includes annual labor costs of $1,226 for reporting additional data elements for subpart I for a triennial report submitted once every three years. b Includes one-time implementation costs for new monitoring under subpart FF. c Includes one-time implementation costs for new reporters under subparts V and OO. TABLE 10—INCREMENTAL BURDEN BY SUBPART [$2011] Costs for additional reporters Costs for revisions to reporting Costs for revisions to monitoring provisions Total cost Subpart Subsequentyear First-year First-year Subsequentyear Subsequentyear First-year First-year Subsequentyear Changes Implemented in RY2016 $0 0 $0 0 $1,226 8,132 a $0 8,132 $0 0 $0 0 $1,226 8,132 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 9,359 8,132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,906 12,139 10 73 228 0 106 0 0 744 0 1,074 40 0 33 2,000 2,562 ¥17 0 1,752 0 0 0 0 I ......................................... HH ..................................... Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2016 a $0 8,132 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Changes Implemented in RY2017 A ........................................ C ........................................ E ........................................ F ........................................ G ........................................ N b ...................................... O ........................................ P b ...................................... Q b ..................................... S ........................................ U b ...................................... X ........................................ Z ........................................ AA b ................................... CC ..................................... DD ..................................... II ........................................ LL c .................................... MM b .................................. NN ..................................... PP b ................................... RR d ................................... TT b .................................... UU b ................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jkt 238001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PO 00000 Frm 00061 4,906 12,139 10 73 228 0 106 0 0 744 0 1,074 40 0 33 2,000 2,562 ¥17 0 1,752 0 0 0 0 Fmt 4701 4,906 12,139 10 73 228 0 106 0 0 744 0 1,074 40 0 33 2,000 2,562 ¥17 0 1,752 0 0 0 0 Sfmt 4702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 4,906 12,139 10 73 228 0 106 0 0 744 0 1,074 40 0 33 2,000 2,562 ¥17 0 1,752 0 0 0 0 2596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE 10—INCREMENTAL BURDEN BY SUBPART—Continued [$2011] Costs for additional reporters Costs for revisions to reporting Costs for revisions to monitoring provisions Total cost Subpart Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2017 First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 25,650 25,650 83,544 0 0 36,215 66,403 0 0 26,612 129 1,448 2,066 582 129 1,448 2,066 582 0 0 1,848,571 0 0 0 949,582 0 83,673 1,448 1,850,638 36,797 66,531 1,448 951,648 27,194 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,972,555 1,046,821 119,759 93,015 39,234 38,007 1,848,571 949,582 2,006,337 1,081,830 Changes Implemented in RY2018 V ........................................ Y ........................................ FF ...................................... OO ..................................... Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2018 Total (All Subparts) ............... a Costs for subpart I include new data elements related to the triennial technology report required by § 98.96(y). The first report must be submitted with RY2016 reports on March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with the data elements were included in the total incremental estimates for RY2016 and RY2019 (see Table 9 of this preamble) and not for RY2017 or RY2018. b The proposed changes to this subpart include only minor revisions, clarifications, and corrections that have no impact on the burden to reporters. c This entry is a negative value because certain reporting requirements were removed from subpart LL and no new reporting requirements were added for the subpart, resulting in a net cost savings for this source category. d There is no increase in costs under subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide) because there are no facilities currently reporting, or projected to report, under this source category in the next three years. A full discussion of the impacts may be found in the memorandum, ‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated? The estimated incremental change in burden from the proposed amendments to Part 98 include burden associated with: (1) Changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing existing reporting requirements (21 subparts); (2) revisions to the applicability of subparts such that additional facilities would be required to report under Part 98 (subparts V and OO); and (3) additional monitoring requirements (subpart FF). 1. Burden Associated With the Revision of Reporting Requirements Section III of this preamble describes proposed amendments to each subpart of Part 98 that improve the quality and accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected data, and provide additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory. In general, these proposed amendments would add reporting requirements or revise existing reporting requirements to collect more detailed facility data. The proposed amendments would collectively add or VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 revise data elements in 21 subparts of Part 98, including 97 data elements that were not previously required to be collected. With the exception of revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines), the collection of these new and revised data elements would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially affect the type of information that must be collected. For all of these additional data elements, the EPA has estimated a nominal additional cost to report the data element and fulfill the recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data elements in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and LL. For these data elements, the EPA has estimated a nominal reduction in cost, since reporters would no longer be required to report the data element. The total incremental costs from the addition, revision, and removal of these reporting requirements are anticipated at $39,234 annually ($2011). This includes $9,359 from revisions implemented in RY2016, $25,650 from revisions first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions first implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in the proposed rule pertain to the triennial technology report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with RY2016 reports on or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For the purposes of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with these data elements ($1,226) would apply in RY2016 only. For RY2017 and RY2018, the estimated incremental cost associated with reporting the new, revised, and removed data elements for all affected source categories is $33,782 and $38,007, respectively. All costs to the regulated industry resulting from changes to the reporting requirements for the GHGRP are labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility staff to meet the rule’s information collection requirements). For each subpart, the EPA determined the incremental change in annual hourly labor estimates by multiplying the number of data elements that were added, revised, or removed in each subpart by the number of hours required to review each data element and the number of affected reporters for each subpart. Where data elements were removed in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and LL, a reduction in the annual hourly labor estimate was assumed. Labor costs were applied to the total annual hour estimates for each labor category to obtain the total costs for each subpart. 2. Burden Associated With Revisions That Affect Applicability The EPA is proposing revisions that would affect the applicability of two subparts of Part 98: Subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) and subpart OO E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). The proposed changes would apply beginning in RY2018. These proposed changes are anticipated to require reporting for four additional reporters under subpart V, and five to ten additional reporters under subpart OO. (For the purposes of estimating burden, an average of eight additional reporters were assumed to be required to report under subpart OO of Part 98). The majority of facilities within these industries already report under Part 98; specifically, all four of the affected reporters under subpart V already submit annual reports. The total incremental burden from changes to applicability is $119,759 in the first year and $93,015 in subsequent years ($2011). The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart V includes first-year costs of $83,544 ($20,866 per facility) and subsequent year costs of $66,403 ($16,601 per facility). The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart OO includes first-year costs of $36,215 ($4,527 per facility) and subsequent year costs of $26,612 ($3,327 per facility). To estimate the cost impacts for additional reporters, the recent information collection request for the GHG reporting program 32 was used to obtain the first year average cost per facility that is incurred from reporting under subparts V and OO (updated to $2011) and the subsequent year burden. These average costs per facility include labor costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. We determined total reporting costs for each subpart by assigning these costs to model facilities that are representative of each industry sector. The total cost for each subpart was determined by multiplying the model facilities cost by the number of affected facilities. 3. Burden Associated With Revisions to Monitoring Requirements for Underground Coal Mines As discussed in section III.R.2 of this preamble, we are proposing changes to the monitoring requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 to remove the option to allow MSHA quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation systems. Instead, facilities would be required to independently collect their own grab samples or to use CEMS. The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters who would no longer have the option to use MSHA data (and would need to collect 32 See Supporting Statement Part A: Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (U.S. EPA, 2013). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 monthly grab samples) are $28,440 per facility in the first year and $14,609 per facility in subsequent years ($2011); these revisions would affect approximately 65 reporters anticipated to use MSHA data annually. The proposed revisions would have an industry-wide incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first year and $949,582 in subsequent years. The proposed changes would apply beginning in RY2018. The incremental costs to the regulated industry resulting from changes to the monitoring requirements for Underground Coal Mines are based on the collection of independent grab samples in ventilation air. Currently, about 50 percent of subpart FF reporters collect quarterly gas samples. For mines that currently use MSHA data, the annual incremental costs for taking grab samples was estimated as the cost of taking the samples, less the avoided cost of obtaining, interpreting and reporting MSHA data. We assumed that facilities would not install a CEMS as a result of the monitoring changes. The costs resulting from removing the use of MSHA quarterly data and requiring facilities to collect quarterly grab samples include additional labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility staff to meet the rule’s information collection requirements), capital costs (e.g., the costs of anemometers or sample kits, for reporters that are not currently conducting sampling), and operating and maintenance costs (e.g., the cost associated with gas sample analysis). Hourly labor costs were estimated based on the number of labor hours for developing the sampling methodology and purchasing the devices, and the number of hours required for sampling. B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98 In addition to amendments that would revise the existing applicability, monitoring, or reporting requirements of Part 98, the EPA is proposing additional technical revisions and other clarifications to several subparts in Part 98 that are not anticipated to have a significant impact on burden. These include revisions discussed in section III of this preamble that are intended to streamline the rule requirements, including proposed revisions to clarify and revise the requirements of Part 98 in order to focus GHGRP and reporter resources on relevant data, to expand and clarify the conditions under which a facility can cease reporting, or to clarify requirements for facilities that report very little or no emissions, and revisions that would improve the PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2597 efficiency of the reporting and verification process. These changes are anticipated to minimally reduce burden for reporters. The EPA is also proposing revisions that are intended to improve the quality of the rule but that would not impact burden, such as amending calculation methods to improve the accuracy of the emissions estimate (e.g., subparts I and Y); these proposed amendments would increase the accuracy of reported emissions, but do not require additional monitoring or data collection by reporters, and would have no additional impact on burden. We are proposing, for certain subparts, to amend monitoring or measurement methods to more closely align rule requirements with different operating scenarios in the industry. Other proposed amendments would provide flexibility for reporters and clarify reporting requirements, as described in section II.C of this preamble. These proposed amendments are anticipated to have no impact or minimally decrease burden for reporters. The proposed revisions also include minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications, including simple revisions of requirements such as clarifying changes to definitions, calculation methodologies, monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing data procedures, and reporting requirements. These proposed changes clarify Part 98 to better reflect the EPA’s intent, and would not present any additional burden on reporters. A full discussion of the burden associated with the proposed revisions for each subpart may be found in the memorandum, ‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2015–0526. VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because the proposed amendments raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. A copy of the analysis is available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2598 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 OAR–2015–0526 and is briefly summarized in section V of this preamble. B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2300.18. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. This action is proposing to amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or propose minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. These proposed amendments would improve the quality and consistency of the data collected, as well as improve the efficiency of the reporting process for both the EPA and reporters. The proposed amendments are anticipated to increase burden in cases where the proposed amendments would expand current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden in cases where the proposed amendments would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported. Specifically, this action proposes to amend the reporting requirements to add or revise 118 data elements in 21 subparts of Part 98. These revisions are necessary to improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data elements in five subparts, which would streamline rule requirements. This action also proposes amendments that would affect the applicability of two subparts of Part 98: subparts V (Nitric Acid Production) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). These amendments could increase the number of facilities required to report under Part 98. Finally, this action proposes to revise the monitoring requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines). The proposed amendments would remove the option to allow Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation systems, and require facilities to independently collect their own grab samples or to use continuous emissions monitoring. Impacts associated with the proposed changes to the applicability, monitoring, and VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 reporting requirements are detailed in the memorandum ‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’ (see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 0526). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The total estimated incremental burden and cost associated with the proposed revisions is 23,456 hours and $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by the information collection. These costs include $9,359 in RY2016, $33,782 in RY2017, and $2,006,337 in RY2018, averaging $683,159 per year over the three years. The total estimated number of reporters affected by the proposed amendments is 8,240. The proposed frequency of response for these changes is once annually, with the exception of certain data elements for subpart I which would be submitted once every three years. The estimated incremental costs and hour burden associated with the addition and revision of 118 data elements and the removal of 18 data elements in 21 subparts is 682 hours and $39,234 annually ($2011), including $9,359 from revisions first implemented in RY2016, $25,650 from revisions first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions first implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in the proposed rule pertain to the triennial technology report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with RY2016 reports on or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes of estimating burden for the three years covered by the information collection, the annual burden and costs associated with these data elements (21 hours and $1,226) would apply for RY2016 only. Therefore, the estimated incremental burden and cost associated with reporting the new, revised, and removed data elements for all affected source categories is 588 hours and $33,782 in RY2017, and 661 hours and $38,007 for RY2018. The annual reporting burden associated with these changes is estimated to average 0.17 hour per response, and the estimated number of reporters affected is 7,127. The estimated incremental cost burden associated with additional reporters to subparts V and OO is $119,759 in the first year (RY2018) and $93,015 in subsequent years. The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart V includes firstyear costs of $83,544 and subsequent year costs of $66,403. The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart OO includes first-year costs of $36,215 and subsequent year costs of $26,612. The estimated number of likely PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 new respondents that would result from these amendments is 12, including four additional reporters under subpart V, and an average of eight additional reporters for subpart OO. The annual hourly burden for these additional reporters is based on the annual average hourly burden for existing reporters under subparts V and OO, which is 191 hours and 55 hours per reporter, respectively. The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters from the revised monitoring requirements are $28,440 per facility in the first year (RY2018) and $14,609 in subsequent years ($2011). The proposed revisions are estimated to affect 65 respondents and would have an industry incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first year (RY2018) and $949,582 in subsequent years. The annual hourly burden associated with these monitoring costs are 320 hours per reporter in the first year and 165 hours in subsequent years. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. Submit your comments on the agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to oria_ submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than February 16, 2016. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The impacts to small entities due to the revisions was evaluated for each subpart. The EPA conducted a screening assessment E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules comparing compliance costs for revisions to reporting requirements, applicability to new reporters, and monitoring revisions under subparts V, FF, and OO to specific receipts data for establishments owned by small businesses in each industry. This ratio constitutes a ‘‘sales’’ test that computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio exceeds 1 percent. The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the establishment level (average reporting program costs per establishment/average establishment receipts) for several business size ranges. We determined that the cost-tosales ratios are less than 1 percent for all establishments in all business size ranges for subparts V, OO, and FF, except the ratio for the 1–19 employee size range for facilities in subpart FF was greater than 1 percent and less than 2 percent. The sales test for this size category was also exceeded in the original EIA 33 and the EPA noted that mines owned by enterprises with less than 19 employees would be unlikely to be covered by this rule. Therefore, we do not anticipate any impacts on small entities for subpart FF reporters, and we have determined that there will not be a significant economic impact to small entities for these three subparts. For all other subparts, which are only affected by revisions for adding, revising, or removing reporting requirements, we determined that these facilities will experience annual impacts of approximately $11 per facility. Because this cost is minimal, no small entity impacts are anticipated for the remaining subparts. Although there are no small entity impacts associated with these proposed revisions, in the development of Part 98, the EPA took several steps to reduce the impact on small entities. For example, the EPA determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of small businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA conducted several meetings with industry associations to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and reporting. The proposed rule amendments are minor technical corrections, clarifying, and other amendments that will not impose any new requirement on small entities that are not currently required by the regulation of Part 98. We have therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly 33 U.S. EPA. Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subparts T, FF, TT, and II. See Docket Id. No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2008–0508–2313. June 2010. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 regulated small entities. The EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the GHGRP and maintains an ‘‘open door’’ policy for stakeholders to help inform the EPA’s understanding of key issues for the industries. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 114(a)(1) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule amendments would not result in any changes to the requirements that are not currently required for 40 CFR part 98. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of the rules for Part 98. A summary of that consultation is provided in sections VIII.E and VIII.F of the preamble to the October 30, 2009 final GHG reporting rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2599 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This action is not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Part 98 relates to monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping and does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use. This final rule amends monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements for the GHGRP. In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements proposed in this rulemaking and for certain existing data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not previously been proposed, or where the EPA has determined that the current determination is no longer appropriate. These proposed amendments and confidentiality determinations do not make any changes to the existing monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements under Part 98 that affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment because it is a rule addressing information collection and reporting procedures. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Suppliers. Dated: December 21, 2015. Gina McCarthy, Administrator. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2600 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules PART 98—MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING 1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. Subpart A—General Provision 2. Section 98.2 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); b. Revising paragraph (i)(1) through (3); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (i)(4) through (6). The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ ■ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 98.2 Who must report? (a) * * * (1) A facility that contains any source category that is listed in Table A–3 of this subpart. For these facilities, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources (subpart C of this part), miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U of this part), and all applicable source categories listed in Table A–3 and Table A–4 of this subpart. * * * * * (i) * * * (1) If reported emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive year of emissions less than 25,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under § 98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years prior to notification of discontinuation of reporting and retain such records for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. The owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year or more. (2) If reported emissions are less than 15,000 metric tons CO2e per year for three consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 immediately following the third consecutive year of emissions less than 15,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required under § 98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive years and retain such records for three years prior to notification of discontinuation of reporting following the year that reporting was discontinued. The owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year or more. (3) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that all applicable processes and operations subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section cease to operate, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the reporting years following the year in which cessation of such operations occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and certifies to the closure of all applicable processes and operations no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. If one or more processes or operations subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section at a facility or supplier cease to operate, but not all applicable processes or operations cease to operate, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting for any such processes or operations in the reporting years following the reporting year in which cessation of the process or operation occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. This paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations. This paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to facilities with municipal solid waste landfills or industrial waste landfills, or to underground coal mines except those with abandoned status as determined by the U.S. Mine Safety & Health Administration. The owner or operator must resume reporting for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation. (4) The provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section apply to suppliers subject to subparts LL through QQ of this part by substituting the term ‘‘quantity of GHG supplied’’ for ‘‘emissions.’’ For suppliers, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section apply individually to each importer and exporter and individually PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 to each petroleum refinery, fractionator of natural gas liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of CO2, N2O, or fluorinated greenhouse gases (e.g., a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might qualify to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases but still be required to report as an importer; or a company might qualify to discontinue reporting as a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases under subpart OO of this part but still be required to report as a supplier of carbon dioxide under subpart PP of this part). (5) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that a process or operation no longer meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with any such subpart for the reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. The owner or operator must resume complying with this part for the process or operation starting in any future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the ‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as specified in an applicable subpart. (6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this part, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the eGGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. * * * * * ■ 3. Section 98.3 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(G); and ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(8), (d)(1)(i), and (h)(4). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and verification requirements of this part? * * * * * (c) * * * (4) * * * (iii) Annual emissions from each applicable source category, expressed in metric tons of each applicable GHG E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section. * * * * * (G) For each reported fluorinated GHG and fluorinated heat transfer fluid, report the following identifying information: (1) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A–1 of this subpart, then use the method of naming organic chemical compounds as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). (2) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Registry Service. If a CAS registry number is not assigned or is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then report an identification number assigned by EPA’s Substance Registry Services. (3) Linear chemical formula. * * * * * (5) * * * (ii) Quantity of each GHG from each applicable supply category in Table A– 5 to this subpart, expressed in metric tons of each GHG. For each reported fluorinated GHG, report the following identifying information: (A) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A–1 of this subpart, then use the method of naming organic chemical compounds as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). (B) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Registry Service. If a CAS registry number is not assigned or is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG, then report an identification number assigned by EPA’s Substance Registry Services. (C) Linear chemical formula. * * * * * (8) Each parameter for which a missing data procedure was used according to the procedures of an applicable subpart and the total number of hours in the year that a missing data procedure was used for each parameter. Parameters include not only reported data elements, but any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions. * * * * * (d) * * * (1) * * * (i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not meet the specifications of a relevant subpart. * * * * * (h) * * * (4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section, upon request by the owner or operator, the Administrator may provide reasonable VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 extensions of the 45-day period for submission of the revised report or information under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. If the Administrator receives a request for extension of the 45-day period, by email to an address prescribed by the Administrator prior to the expiration of the 45-day period, the extension request is deemed to be automatically granted for 30 days. The Administrator may grant an additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension if the owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension and the request is received by the Administrator prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension, provided the request demonstrates that it is not practicable to submit a revised report or information under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section within 75 days. The Administrator will approve the extension request if the request demonstrates to the Administrator’s satisfaction that it is not practicable to collect and process the data needed to resolve potential reporting errors identified pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) or (2) of this section within 75 days. * * * * * ■ 4. Section 98.4 is amended by adding paragraph (i)(6) to read as follows: § 98.4 Authorization and responsibilities of the designated representative. * * * * * (i) * * * (6) A list of the subparts that the owners and operators anticipate will be included in the annual GHG report. The list of potentially applicable subparts is required only for an initial certificate of representation that is submitted after [date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility or supplier that previously was not registered under this part). The list of subparts is not required for a revised COR. * * * * * ■ 5. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definition for ‘‘Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system’’, adding a definition for ‘‘Reporting year’’ in alphabetical order, and revising the definition for ‘‘Ventilation hole or shaft’’ to read as follows: § 98.6 Definitions. * * * * * Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system means a system of pipes used to collect landfill gas from different locations in the landfill by means of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) to a single location for treatment (thermal destruction) or use. Landfill gas PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2601 collection systems may also include knock-out or separator drums and/or a compressor. A single landfill may have multiple gas collection systems. Landfill gas collection systems do not include ‘‘passive’’ systems, whereby landfill gas flows naturally (without forced convection) to the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) is installed to allow for the flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a remote flare installed to combust landfill gas that is passively emitted from the vent. Landfill gas collection systems also do not include ‘‘active venting’’ systems, whereby landfill gas is conveyed to the surface of the landfill using forced convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally destroyed prior to release to the atmosphere. * * * * * Reporting year means the calendar year during which the GHG data are required to be collected for purposes of the annual GHG report. For example, reporting year 2014 is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and the annual report for reporting year 2014 is submitted to EPA on March 31, 2015. * * * * * Ventilation hole or shaft means a vent hole, shaft, mine portal, adit or other mine entrance or exits employed at an underground coal mine to serve as the outlet or conduit to move air from the ventilation system out of the mine. * * * * * ■ 6. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(33) and (l)(1) to read as follows: § 98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference into this part? * * * * * (e) * * * (33) ASTM D6866–12 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis, IBR approved for §§ 98.34(d), 98.34(e), and 98.36(e). * * * * * (l) * * * (1) Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook, Handbook Number: PH13– V–1, February 2013, IBR approved for § 98.324(b). * * * * * ■ 7. Table A–3 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries ‘‘Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years’’ and ‘‘Additional Source Categories Applicable in 2011 and Future Years’’ to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE A–3 TO SUBPART A OF PART 98—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(1) Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years * * * * * * * * * * Additional Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years * a Source * * * categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 8. Table A–4 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries ‘‘Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years’’ and ‘‘Additional ■ Source Categories Applicable in 2011 and Future Years’’ to read as follows: TABLE A–4 TO SUBPART A—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(2) Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years * * * * Additional Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years * a Source * * * * * * * * * categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 9. Table A–5 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the entry ‘‘Supplier Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years’’; b. Revising the entries associated with ‘‘Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart OO)’’; and ■ ■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘Additional Supplier Categories Applicable in 2011 and Future Years.’’ The revisions read as follows: ■ TABLE A–5 TO SUBPART A—SUPPLIER CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(4) Supplier Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years * * * * * * * Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart OO): (A) All producers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids. (B) Importers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids with annual bulk imports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more. (C) Exporters of industrial greenhouse gases with annual bulk exports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more. (D) Facilities that destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually. * * * * Additional Supplier Categories Applicable a in Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years * a Suppliers * * 10. Section 98.33 is amended by revising parameters ‘‘(HHV)I,’’ ‘‘(Fuel)I,’’ and ‘‘n’’ of Equation C–2b in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) and revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(C), (a)(5)(ii)(C), and (a)(5)(iii)(C) to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ Calculating GHG emissions. * * * (a) * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * (A) * * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * * are defined in each applicable subpart. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources § 98.33 * * * * * * (HHV)I = Measured high heat value of the fuel, for sample period ‘‘i’’ (which may be the arithmetic average of multiple determinations), or, if applicable, an appropriate substitute data value (mmBtu per mass or volume). (Fuel)I = Mass or volume of the fuel combusted during the sample period ‘‘i,’’ (e.g., monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or by lot) from company records (express mass in short tons for solid fuel, volume in standard cubic feet (e.g., for gaseous fuel, and volume in gallons for liquid fuel). n = Number of sample periods in the year. * * * 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 * * (5) * * * (i) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00068 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 (C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons. * * * * * (ii) * * * (C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons. (iii) * * * (C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons. * * * * * ■ 11. Section 98.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules § 98.34 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (d) Except as otherwise provided in § 98.33(b)(1)(vi) and (vii), when municipal solid waste (MSW) is either the primary fuel combusted in a unit or the only fuel with a biogenic component combusted in the unit, determine the biogenic portion of the CO2 emissions using ASTM D6866–12 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) and ASTM D7459–08 Standard Practice for Collection of Integrated Samples for the Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) and Fossil-Derived Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Stationary Emissions Sources (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). Perform the ASTM D7459–08 sampling and the ASTM D6866–12 analysis at least once in every calendar quarter in which MSW is combusted in the unit. Collect each gas sample during normal unit operating conditions for at least 24 total (not necessarily consecutive) hours, or longer if the facility deems it necessary to obtain a representative sample. Notwithstanding this requirement, if the types of fuels combusted and their relative proportions are consistent throughout the year, the minimum required sampling time may be reduced to 8 hours if at least two 8-hour samples and one 24-hour sample are collected under normal operating conditions, and arithmetic average of the biogenic fraction of the flue gas from the 8-hour samples (expressed as a decimal) is within ±5 percent of the biogenic fraction from the 24-hour test. There must be no overlapping of the 8-hour and 24-hour test periods. Document the results of the demonstration in the unit’s monitoring plan. If the types of fuels and their relative proportions are not consistent throughout the year, an optional sampling approach that facilities may wish to consider to obtain a more representative sample is to collect an integrated sample by extracting a small amount of flue gas (e.g., 1 to 5 cc) in each unit operating hour during the quarter. Separate the total annual CO2 emissions into the biogenic and non-biogenic fractions using the average proportion of biogenic emissions of all samples analyzed during the reporting year. Express the results as a decimal fraction (e.g., 0.30, if 30 percent of the CO2 is biogenic). When MSW is the primary fuel for multiple units at the facility, and the VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only one of the units is sufficient. (e) For other units that combust combinations of biomass fuel(s) (or heterogeneous fuels that have a biomass component, e.g., tires) and fossil (or other non-biogenic) fuel(s), in any proportions, ASTM D6866–12 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) and ASTM D7459–08 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) may be used to determine the biogenic portion of the CO2 emissions in every calendar quarter in which biomass and non-biogenic fuels are co-fired in the unit. Follow the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section. If the primary fuel for multiple units at the facility consists of tires, and the units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only one of the units is sufficient. * * * * * ■ 12. Section 98.36 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (c)(3)(ii) and revising paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(x) introductory text, and (e)(2)(xi) to read as follows: § 98.36 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) * * * (iii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units in the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the units served by the common pipe (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served by the common pipe, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). * * * * * (e) * * * (2) * * * (i) For the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology, report: (A) The total quantity of each type of fuel combusted in the unit or group of aggregated units (as applicable) during the reporting year, in short tons for solid fuels, gallons for liquid fuels and standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels, or, if applicable, therms or mmBtu for natural gas. PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2603 (B) If applicable, the moisture content used to calculate the wood and wood residuals wet basis HHV for use in Equations C–1 and C–8, in percent. * * * * * (x) When ASTM methods D7459–08 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) and D6866–12 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) are used to determine the biogenic portion of the annual CO2 emissions from MSW combustion, as described in § 98.34(d), report: * * * * * (xi) When ASTM methods D7459–08 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) and D6866–12 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) are used in accordance with § 98.34(e) to determine the biogenic portion of the annual CO2 emissions from a unit that co-fires biogenic fuels (or partly-biogenic fuels, including tires if you are electing to report biogenic CO2 emissions from tire combustion) and non-biogenic fuels, you shall report the results of each quarterly sample analysis, expressed as a decimal fraction (e.g., if the biogenic fraction of the CO2 emissions is 30 percent, report 0.30). * * * * * ■ 13. Section 98.37 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b)(37) to read as follows: § 98.37 Records that must be retained. * * * * * (a) The applicable records specified in §§ 98.34(f), 98.35(b), and 98.36(e). * * * * * (b) * * * (37) Moisture content used to calculate the wood and wood residuals wet basis HHV (percent), if applicable (Equations C–1 and C–8). ■ 14. Table C–1 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Removing the entries ‘‘Petroleum Coke’’ under ‘‘Petroleum products’’, ‘‘Petroleum Coke’’ under ‘‘Other fuels— solid’’, and ‘‘Propane Gas’’ under ‘‘Other fuels—gaseous’’; ■ b. Removing the heading ‘‘Petroleum products’’ in the ‘‘Fuel type’’ column and adding in its place the heading ‘‘Petroleum products—liquid’’; and ■ c. Adding heading ‘‘Petroleum products—solid’’ and its entry ‘‘Petroleum Coke’’,and heading ‘‘Petroleum products—gaseous’’, and its entry ‘‘Propane Gas’’ after the entry ‘‘Crude Oil’’. The revisions, and additions read as follows: E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2604 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE C–1 TO SUBPART C OF PART 98—DEFAULT CO2 EMISSION FACTORS AND HIGH HEAT VALUES FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF FUEL Fuel type * * * * Petroleum products—liquid ............................................... * * * * * * * * 15. Table C–2 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Removing the entry ‘‘Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C–1)’’ and adding in ■ * * * * ■ * kg CO2/mmBtu 102.41 kg CO2/mmBtu 61.46 * its place the entry ‘‘Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C–1)’’; ■ b. Removing the entry ‘‘Municipal Solid Waste’’ and adding in its place the entry ’’ Other Fuels—Solid’’; * kg CO2/mmBtu * mmBtu/short ton ....................................... 30.00 ......................................................... mmBtu/scf ................................................. 2.516 × 10¥3 ............................................ * * * mmBtu/gallon ............................................ * Petroleum products—solid ................................................ Petroleum Coke ................................................................ Petroleum products—gaseous .......................................... Propane Gas ..................................................................... * Default CO2 emission factor Default high heat value * c. Removing the entry ‘‘Tires’’. The additions read as follows: TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART 98—DEFAULT CH4 AND N2O EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF FUEL Default CH4 emission factor (kg CH4/ mmBtu) Fuel type * * * * Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C–1) ............ * * * Other Fuels—Solid ............................................................ * * * * * * Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production 16. Section 98.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: ■ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 98.53 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * (2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions in the previous reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative method is automatically approved for the next reporting year. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 * Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 * * 4.2 × 10¥03 * Sfmt 4702 * 6.0 × 10¥04 * (ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved alternative method in your annual report. (iii) Otherwise, you must submit the request within 45 days following promulgation of this subpart or within the first 30 days of each subsequent reporting year. (iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested alternative method within 150 days of the end of the reporting year, you must determine the N2O emissions for the current reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. * * * * * ■ 17. Section 98.56 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: PO 00000 * 3.2 × 10¥02 ............................................... * * * 3.0 × 10¥03 ............................................... * Default N2O emission factor (kg N2O/ mmBtu) * § 98.56 * Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (f) Types of abatement technologies used and date of installation for each (if applicable). * * * * * Subpart F—Aluminum Production 18. Section 98.65 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and Equation F–8 to read as follows: ■ § 98.65 data. Procedures for estimating missing * * * * * (a) Where anode or paste consumption data are missing, CO2 emissions can be estimated from aluminum production by using Equation F–9 of this section. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules * * * * 19. Section 98.66 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(2) and revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 98.66 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) Anode effect minutes per cell-day (AE-mins/cell-day), anode effect frequency (AE/cell-day), anode effect duration (minutes). (Or anode effect overvoltage factor ((kg CF4/metric ton Al)/(mV/cell day)), potline overvoltage (mV/cell day), current efficiency (%).) (3) Smelter-specific slope coefficients (or overvoltage emission factors) and the last date when the smelter-specific slope coefficients (or overvoltage emission factors) were measured. * * * * * Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing 20. Section 98.74 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: ■ § 98.74 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. * * * * * (f) You may use company records or an engineering estimate to determine the annual ammonia production and the annual methanol production. * * * * * ■ 21. Section 98.76 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; ■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and ■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (7), and revising paragraph (b)(15). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 98.76 Data reporting requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (a) If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, then you must report the relevant information required under § 98.36 for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology and the information in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section: * * * * * (3) Annual ammonia production (metric tons, sum of all process units reported within subpart G of this part). (b) * * * (2) Annual quantity of each type of feedstock consumed for ammonia VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 manufacturing (scf of feedstock or gallons of feedstock or kg of feedstock). * * * * * (7) Annual average carbon content of each type of feedstock consumed. * * * * * (15) Annual methanol production for each process unit (metric tons), regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 22. Section 98.93 is amended by: a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; ■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘Nil’’ and ‘‘Fil’’ of Equation I–12 in paragraph (d); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iv); ■ d. Revising Equation I–17 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii); ■ e. Revising parameter ‘‘dif’’ of Equation I–19 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii); ■ f. Revising parameter ‘‘dkf’’ of Equation I–20 in paragraph (i)(3)(iv); ■ g. Revising parameter ‘‘dif’’ of Equation I–21 in paragraph (i)(3)(v); ■ h. Revising parameter ‘‘dkf’’ of Equation I–22 in paragraph (i)(3)(vi); and ■ i. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(viii) and paragraph (i)(4) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * (1) If you manufacture semiconductors, you must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must calculate annual emissions of each input gas and of each by-product gas using Equations I–6 and I–7 of this subpart, respectively. If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your fab’s annual consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation I–11 of this subpart, plus any by-product emissions of that gas calculated under paragraph (a) of this section. * * * * * (d) * * * * * * * * Nil = Number of containers of size and type l used at the fab and returned to the gas distributor containing the standard heel of input gas i. PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l containing input gas i (kg). * * * * * (i) * * * (1) * * * (ii) You must use representative data from the previous reporting year to estimate the consumption of input gas i as calculated in Equation I–13 of this subpart and the fraction of input gas i and by-product gas k destroyed in abatement systems for each stack system as calculated by Equations I–24A and I– 24B of this subpart. If you were not required to submit an annual report under subpart I for the previous reporting year and data from the previous reporting year are not available, you may estimate the consumption of input gas i and the fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement systems based on representative operating data from a period of at least 30 days in the current reporting year. When calculating the consumption of input gas i using Equation I–13 of this subpart, the term ‘‘fij’’ is replaced with the ratio of the number of tools using input gas i that are vented to the stack system for which you are calculating the preliminary estimate to the total number of tools in the fab using input gas i, expressed as a decimal fraction. You may use this approach to determining fij only for this preliminary estimate. * * * * * (iv) If you anticipate an increase or decrease in annual consumption or emissions of any fluorinated GHG, or the number of tools connected to abatement systems greater than 10 percent for the current reporting year compared to the previous reporting year, you must account for the anticipated change in your preliminary estimate. You may account for such a change using a quantifiable metric (e.g., the ratio of the number of tools that are expected to be vented to the stack system in the current year as compared to the previous reporting year, ratio of the expected number of wafer starts in the current reporting year as compared to the previous reporting year), engineering judgment, or other industry standard practice. * * * * * (3) * * * (ii) * * * E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.000</GPH> * 2605 2606 * * in fab f, as calculated in Equation I–24B of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). * * * dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in Equation I–24A of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of this parameter is zero. * * * (iv) * * * * * * * * * * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: dif = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction). dkf = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction). Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i consumed for process type j fed into abatement systems in fab f as calculated using Equation I–13 of this subpart (kg). (1—Uij) = The default emission factor for input gas i used in process type j, from applicable Table I–3 to I–7 of this subpart. Bijk = The default by-product gas formation rate factor for by-product gas k from input gas i used in process type j, from applicable Table I–3 to I–7 of this subpart. DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG input gas i in abatement systems connected to process tools where process type j is used (expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to § 98.94(f). DREjk = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k in abatement systems connected to process tools where input gas i is used in process type j (expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to § 98.94(f). f = fab. i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. j = Process type. (4) Method to calculate emissions from stack systems that are not tested. 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 * * * * * dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included in the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I–24A of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). * dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG byproduct gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * (v) * * * * * * * * (vi) * * * * * * * * * * dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG byproduct k destroyed or removed in abatement You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG input gas and by-product gas for those fluorinated GHG listed in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using default utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Tables I–11, I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using Equations I– 8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart. When using Equations I–8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, you must use, in place of the term Cij in each equation, the total consumption of each fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section or that is used in tools vented to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. You must use, in place of the term aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section used in tools with abatement systems or that is used in tools with abatement systems that are vented to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. You also must use the results of Equations I–24A and I–24B of this subpart in place of the terms dij in Equation I–8 of this subpart and djk in Equation I–9 of this subpart, respectively, and use the results of PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included in the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I–24B of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). * * * * (viii) When using the stack testing option described in paragraph (i) of this section, you must calculate the weighted-average fraction of each fluorinated input gas i and each fluorinated by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems for each fab f, as applicable, by using Equation I–24A (for input gases) and Equation I–24B (for by-product gases) of this subpart. Equation I–23 of this subpart in place of the results of Equation I–15 of this subpart for the term UTij. * * * * * ■ 23. Section 98.94 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (j)(5)(ii) introductory text to read as follows: § 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. * * * * * (f) If your fab employs abatement systems and you elect to reflect emission reductions due to these systems, or if your fab employs abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHG abatement and you elect to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack test method under § 98.93(i), you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. If you use an average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for a gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, in your emission calculations under § 98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), you must also adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section. * * * * * (j) * * * E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.002</GPH> * * (iii) * * * * * * EP15JA16.001</GPH> * Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2607 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules (5) * * * (ii) Criteria to test less frequently. After the first 3 years of annual testing, you may calculate the relative standard deviation of the emission factors for each fluorinated GHG included in the test and use that analysis to determine the frequency of any future testing. As an alternative, you may conduct all three tests in less than 3 calendar years for purposes of this paragraph (j)(5)(ii), but this does not relieve you of the obligation to conduct subsequent annual testing if you do not meet the criteria to test less frequently. If the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are met, you may use the arithmetic average of the three emission factors for each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product for the current year and the next 4 years with no further testing unless your fab operations are changed in a way that triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph (j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year following the last stack test included in the previous average, you must test each of the stack systems for which testing is required and repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the results of the most recent three tests (i.e., the new test and the two previous tests conducted prior to the 4 year period). If the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are not met, you must use the emission factors developed from the most recent testing and continue annual testing. You may conduct more than one test in the same year, but each set of emissions testing for a stack system must be separated by a period of at least 2 months. You may repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the most recent three tests, including those tests conducted prior to the 4 year period, to determine if you are exempt from testing for the next 4 years. * * * * * ■ 24. Section 98.96 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and (e); ■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘dif’’ and ‘‘dkf’’ of Equation I–28 in paragraph (r)(2); and ■ c. Revising paragraph (y)(2)(iv). The revisions read as follows: § 98.96 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) When you use the procedures specified in § 98.93(a), each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process type or process sub-type as calculated in Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart, as applicable. * * * * * (d) The method of emissions calculation used in § 98.93 for each fab. (e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, PVcell, glass) for each fab, including specification of the substrate. * * * * * (r) * * * (2) * * * * * * * * dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated from Equation I–24A of this subpart, which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction). * * * * * dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated from Equation I–24B of this subpart, which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction). * * * * * (y) * * * (2) * * * (iv) It must provide any utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data that have been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must describe, where available: methods used for the measurements, wafer size, film type being manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or technology node, process type, process subtype for chamber clean processes, the input gases used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and the by-product formation rates measured. * * * * * ■ 25. Section 98.97 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) introductory text and (d)(7) to read as follows: § 98.97 Records that must be retained. * * * * * (d) * * * (5) In addition to the inventory specified in § 98.96(p), the information in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section: * * * * * (7) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made to determine the average weighted fraction of each gas destroyed or removed in the abatement systems for each stack system using Equations I–24A and I–24B of this subpart, if applicable. The inputs should include an indication of whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency is a default value or a measured site-specific value. * * * * * ■ 26. Table I–3 of subpart I is amended to read as follows: TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES Process gas i Process type/sub-type CF4 C 2F 6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 0.11 0.037 NA NA NA 0.0086 0.040 0.19 0.0040 0.025 NA NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 C4F8O 0.55 0.13 0.11 NA NA NA NA 0.0012 0.17 0.13 0.11 NA NA NA NA 0.066 0.072 NA 0.014 NA NA NA NA 0.0039 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.14 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING 1–Ui ................................................... BCF4 .................................................. BC2F6 ................................................ BC4F6 ................................................ BC4F8 ................................................ BC3F8 ................................................ BCF8 .................................................. BCHF3 ............................................... 0.81 NA 0.046 NA NA NA 0.0012 0.10 0.72 0.10 NA NA NA NA NA 0.047 0.51 0.085 0.030 NA NA NA 0.0012 NA 0.13 0.079 0.025 NA NA NA NA 0.049 0.064 0.077 0.024 NA NA NA NA NA 0.70 NA 0.0034 NA NA NA NA NA CHAMBER CLEANING In situ plasma cleaning: 1–Ui ................................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 0.92 Jkt 238001 0.55 PO 00000 NA Frm 00073 NA Fmt 4701 NA NA Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES—Continued Process gas i Process type/sub-type CF4 BCF4 .................................................. BCF6 .................................................. BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA C 2F 6 CHF3 0.19 NA NA CH2F2 C2HF5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA CH3F C3F8 NA NA NA C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 0.20 NA NA 0.11 NA NA 0.050 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.13 0.045 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.017 0.015 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Remote plasma cleaning: 1–Ui ................................................... BCF4 .................................................. BCF6 .................................................. BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA In situ thermal cleaning: 1–Ui ................................................... BCF4 .................................................. BC2F6 ................................................ BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type. Subpart N—Glass Production 27. Section 98.144 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows: ■ § 98.144 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (b) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must measure carbonatebased mineral mass fractions at least annually to verify the mass fraction data provided by the supplier of the raw material; such measurements shall be based on sampling and chemical analysis using consensus standards that specify X-ray fluorescence. For measurements made in years prior to the emissions reporting year 2014, you may also use ASTM D3682–01 (Reapproved 2006) Standard Test Method for Major and Minor Elements in Combustion Residues from Coal Utilization Processes (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) or ASTM D6349– 09 Standard Test Method for Determination of Major and Minor Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid Residues from Combustion of Coal and Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma— Atomic Emission Spectrometry (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). (c) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine the annual average mass fraction for the carbonatebased mineral in each carbonate-based raw material by calculating an arithmetic average of the monthly data obtained from raw material suppliers or sampling and chemical analysis. (d) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine on an annual basis the calcination fraction for each carbonate consumed based on sampling VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 and chemical analysis using an industry consensus standard. If performed, this chemical analysis must be conducted using an x-ray fluorescence test or other enhanced testing method published by an industry consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API, etc.). ■ 28. Section 98.146 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(7) to read as follows: § 98.146 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (b) * * * (5) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, as specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section. * * * * * (7) Method used to determine decimal fraction of calcination, unless you used the default value of 1.0. * * * * * ■ 29. Section 98.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4) introductory text, (d)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows: § 98.147 Records that must be retained. * * * * * (b) * * * (3) Data on carbonate-based mineral mass fractions provided by the raw material supplier for all raw materials consumed annually and included in calculating process emissions in Equation N–1 of this subpart, if applicable. (4) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the carbonate-based PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, including the data specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section. * * * * * (d) * * * (2) Annual amount of each carbonatebased raw material charged to each continuous glass melting furnace (tons) (Equation N–1 of this subpart). (3) Decimal fraction of calcination achieved for each carbonate-based raw material for each continuous glass melting furnace (specify the default value, if used, or the value determined according to § 98.144) (percentage, expressed as a decimal) (Equation N–1 of this subpart). Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction 30. Section 98.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (d) to read as follows: ■ § 98.156 Data reporting requirements. (a) In addition to the information required by § 98.3(c), the HCFC–22 production facility shall report the following information for each HCFC– 22 production process: * * * * * (d) If the HFC–23 concentration measured pursuant to § 98.154(l) is greater than that measured during the performance test that is the basis for the destruction efficiency (DE), the facility shall report the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency, specifying whether E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2609 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules § 98.164 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. § 98.154(l)(1) or (2) has been used for the calculation. * * * * * * Subpart P—Hydrogen Production 31. Section 98.163 is amended by revising parameter ‘‘CO2’’ of Equation P–3 in paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 98.163 Calculating GHG emissions. * * * (b) * * * (3) * * * * * * * * * * CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from fuel and feedstock consumption (metric tons/yr). * * * * * ■ 32. Section 98.164 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: * * * * (b) * * * (1) Calibrate all oil and gas flow meters that are used to measure liquid and gaseous fuel and feedstock volumes (except for gas billing meters) according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements for the Tier 3 methodology in § 98.34(b)(1). Perform oil tank drop measurements (if used to quantify liquid fuel or feedstock consumption) according to § 98.34(b)(2). Calibrate all solids weighing equipment according to the procedures in § 98.3(i). * * * * * ■ 33. Section 98.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (d), and (e) to read as follows: § 98.166 * * * * * * 35. Section 98.176 is amended by revising Equation Q–10 in paragraph (e)(6)(ii), Equation Q–11 in paragraph (e)(6)(iii), Equation Q–12 in paragraph ■ Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production 34. Section 98.173 is amended by revising Equation Q–5 in paragraph (b)(1)(v) to read as follows: ■ § 98.173 * Data reporting requirements. * * (b) * * * * * (e)(6)(iv), and the parameter ‘‘n’’ of Equation Q–12 in paragraph (e)(6)(iv) to read as follows: * * * * * * * * * * (iv) * * * * * (iii) * * * * Data reporting requirements. * * (e) * * * (6) * * * (ii) * * * and adding paragraphs (b)(19) through (21) to read as follows: n = Number of gaseous, liquid, and solid fuel inputs to each process unit as used in Equation Q–9 of this subpart. § 98.196 * * * * * * Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing 36. Section 98.196 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Data reporting requirements. * * * * (b) If a CEMS is not used to measure CO2 emissions, then you must report the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (21) of this section. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (19) Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced. (20) Annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold. (21) Annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.006</GPH> * * EP15JA16.005</GPH> * * EP15JA16.004</GPH> * § 98.176 * Calculating GHG emissions. * * (b) * * * (1) * * * (v) * * * EP15JA16.003</GPH> * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 (4) Annual quantity of ammonia intentionally produced as a desired product, if applicable (metric tons). * * * * * (d) Annual quantity of carbon other than CO2 collected and transferred off site in either gas, liquid, or solid forms (kg carbon), excluding methanol. (e) Annual quantity of methanol intentionally produced as a desired product, if applicable, (metric tons) for each process unit. 2610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Subpart U—Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate 37. Section 98.216 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 98.216 Data reporting requirements. * * * * (e) If you followed the calculation method of § 98.213(a), you must report the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section. * * * * * Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production 38. Section 98.220 is revised to read as follows: ■ Definition of source category. A nitric acid production facility uses one or more trains to produce nitric acid. A nitric acid train produces nitric acid through the catalytic oxidation of ammonia. ■ 39. Section 98.223 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 98.223 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * (2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. (i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions in the previous reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative method is automatically approved for the next reporting year. (ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved alternative method in your annual report. (iii) Otherwise, if you have not received Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions in a prior reporting year or your methodology has changed, you must submit the request within the first 30 days of each subsequent reporting year. (iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested alternative method within 150 days of the end of the reporting year, you must determine the N2O emissions for the current reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. * * * * * ■ 40. Section 98.226 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: § 98.226 * * Data reporting requirements. * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Subpart X—Petrochemical Production 41. Section 98.240 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: ■ * § 98.220 (h) Abatement technologies used (if applicable) and date of installation of abatement technology. * * * * * § 98.240 Definition of the source category. (a) The petrochemical production source category consists of processes as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. (1) The petrochemical production source category consists of all processes that produce acrylonitrile, carbon black, ethylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide, or methanol, except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. (2) The petrochemical production source category includes processes that produce the petrochemical as an intermediate in the on-site production of other chemicals as well as processes that produce the petrochemical as an end product for sale or shipment off site. (3) When ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer are produced in an integrated process, you may consider the entire integrated process to be the petrochemical process for the purpose of complying with the mass balance option in § 98.243(c). If you elect to consider the integrated process to be the petrochemical process, then the mass balance must be performed over the entire integrated process. * * * * * ■ 42. Section 98.243 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4) introductory text, and (c)(4)(i) to read as follows: § 98.243 Calculating GHG emissions. * * * * * (c) * * * (3) Collect a sample of each feedstock and product at least once per month and determine the molecular weight (for gaseous materials when the quantity is measured in scf) and carbon content of each sample according to the procedures of § 98.244(b)(4). If multiple valid molecular weight or carbon content measurements are made during the monthly measurement period, average them arithmetically. However, if a particular liquid or solid feedstock is delivered in lots, and if multiple deliveries of the same feedstock are received from the same supply source in a given calendar month, only one representative sample is required. Alternatively, you may use the results of analyses conducted by a feedstock PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 supplier, or product customer, provided the sampling and analysis is conducted at least once per month using any of the procedures specified in § 98.244(b)(4). (4) If you determine that the monthly average concentration of a specific compound in a feedstock or product is greater than 99.5 percent by volume or mass, then as an alternative to the sampling and analysis specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, you may determine molecular weight and carbon content in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. (i) Calculate the molecular weight and carbon content assuming 100 percent of that feedstock or product is the specific compound. * * * * * ■ 43. Section 98.246 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6)(ii), and (a)(6)(iii); ■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) and (15); and ■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (8). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 98.246 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (a) * * * (5) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each process unit (metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer process, report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric tons) or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride production (metric tons). (6) * * * (ii) Description of each type of measurement device (e.g., flow meter, weighing device) used to determine volume or mass in accordance with § 98.244(b)(1) through (3). (iii) Identification of each method (i.e., method number, title, or other description) used to determine volume or mass in accordance with § 98.244(b)(1) through (3). * * * * * (14) Annual average of the measurements of the carbon content of each feedstock and product. (i) For feedstocks and products that are gaseous or solid, report this quantity in kg carbon per kg of feedstock or product. (ii) For liquid feedstocks and products, report this quantity either in units of kg carbon per kg of feedstock or production, or kg C per gallon of feedstock or product. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules § 98.247 Records that must be retained. * * * * (a) If you comply with the CEMS measurement methodology in § 98.243(b), then you must retain under this subpart the records required for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in § 98.37, records of the procedures used to develop estimates of the fraction of total emissions attributable to petrochemical processing and combustion of petrochemical process off-gas as required in § 98.246(b), and records of any annual average HHV calculations. * * * * * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * Where: Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle). VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 45. Section 98.248 is amended by revising the definition for ‘‘Product’’ to read as follows: ■ § 98.248 Definitions. * * * * * Product means each of the following carbon-containing outputs from a process: the petrochemical, recovered byproducts, and liquid organic wastes that are not combusted onsite. Product does not include process vent emissions, fugitive emissions, or wastewater. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries 46. Section 98.253 is amended by: a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii)(B), (h)(1) introductory text, and (h)(2) introductory text; ■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘0.98’’ of Equations Y–16a and Y–16b and ‘‘0.02’’ of Equation Y–17 in paragraph (h)(2); and ■ c. Revising paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 98.253 Calculating GHG emissions. * * * * * (b) For flares, calculate GHG emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. All gas discharged through the flare stack must be considered for the flare GHG emissions calculations with the exception of gas used for the flare pilots, which may be excluded. (1) * * * (iii) * * * (B) For periods of normal operation, use the average higher heating value measured for the fuel gas used as flare sweep or purge gas for the higher heating value of the flare gas. If higher heating value of the fuel gas is not measured, the higher heating value of the flare gas under normal operations may be estimated from historic data or engineering calculations. * * * * * (h) * * * (1) For uncontrolled asphalt blowing operations or asphalt blowing operations controlled either by vapor scrubbing or by another non-combustion rbulk = Bulk coke bed density (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0191 mt/ft3. Hdrum = Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel (feet). PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 control device, calculate CO2 and CH4 emissions using Equations Y–14 and Y– 15 of this section, respectively. * * * * * (2) For asphalt blowing operations controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, a flare, or other vapor combustion control device, calculate CO2 using either Equation Y–16a or Equation Y– 16b of this section and calculate CH4 emissions using Equation Y–17 of this section, provided these emissions are not already included in the flare emissions calculated in paragraph (b) of this section or in the stationary combustion unit emissions required under subpart C of this part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). * * * * * (Eq. Y–16a) * * * * * * * * 0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device. * * * * * (Eq. Y–16b) * * * * * * * * 0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device. * * * * * (Eq. Y–17) * * * * * * * * 0.02 = Fraction of methane uncombusted in the controlled stream based on assumed 98% combustion efficiency. * * * * * (i) For each delayed coking unit, calculate the CH4 emissions from delayed decoking operations (venting, draining, deheading, and coke-cutting) according to the requirements in paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section. (1) Determine the typical dry mass of coke produced per cycle from company records of the mass of coke produced by the delayed coking unit. Alternatively, you may estimate the typical dry mass of coke produced per cycle based on the delayed coking unit vessel (coke drum) dimensions and typical coke drum outage at the end of the coking cycle using Equation Y–18a of this section. Houtage = Typical distance from the top of the delayed coking unit vessel to the top of the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at the end of the coking cycle (feet) from E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.007</GPH> (15) For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of the measurements of molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole. (b) * * * (2) For CEMS used on stacks that include emissions from stationary combustion units that burn any amount of off-gas from the petrochemical process, report the relevant information required under § 98.36(c)(2) and (e)(2)(vi) for the Tier 4 calculation methodology. Section 98.36(c)(2)(ii), (ix) and (x) does not apply for the purposes of this subpart. (3) For CEMS used on stacks that do not include emissions from stationary combustion units, report the information required under § 98.36(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii) and (e)(2)(vi). * * * * * (8) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each process unit (metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer process, report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric tons) or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride product (metric tons). * * * * * ■ 44. Section 98.247 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 2611 2612 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules company records or engineering estimates. D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet). (2) Determine the typical mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle prior to venting to the atmosphere using Equation Y–18b of this section. Where: Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons/cycle). rwater = Density of water at average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0270 mt/ft3. Hwater = Typical distance from the bottom of the coking unit vessel to the top of the water level at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (feet) from company records or engineering estimates. Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. rparticle = Particle density of coke (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0382 mt/ft3. D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet). Where: Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere (°F). Toverhead = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line measured as near the coking unit vessel as practical just prior to venting to the atmosphere. If the temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line is less than 216 °F, use Toverhead = 216 °F. (3) Determine the average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere using either Equation Y–18c or Y–18d of this section, as appropriate, based on the measurement system available. Tbottom = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel near the bottom of the coke bed. If the temperature at the bottom of the coke bed is less than 212 °F, use Tbottom = 212 °F. determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. Tfinal = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when steam generation stops (°F). Use the default value of 212 °F. DHvap = Heat of vaporization of water (British thermal units per metric ton; Btu/mt). Use the default value of 2,116,000 Btu/ mt. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 (5) Calculate the CH4 emissions from decoking operations at each delayed coking unit using Equation Y–18f of this section. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.011</GPH> Fahrenheit; Btu/mt-°F). Use the default value of 2,205 Btu/mt-°F. Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this section. Cp,coke = Heat capacity of petroleum coke (Btu/mt-°F). Use the default value of 584 Btu/mt-°F. Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere (°F) as EP15JA16.010</GPH> Where: Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric tons/ cycle). fConvLoss = fraction of total heat loss that is due to convective heat loss from the sides of the coke vessel (unitless). Use the default value of 0.10. Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons/cycle). Cp,water = Heat capacity of water (British thermal units per metric ton per degree EP15JA16.012</GPH> (4) Determine the typical mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle using Equation Y– 18e of this section. EP15JA16.009</GPH> Poverhead = Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel just prior to opening the atmospheric vent (pounds per square inch gauge, psig). EP15JA16.008</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Where: Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere (°F). Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Where: CH4 = Annual methane emissions from the delayed coking unit decoking operations (metric ton/year). Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric tons/ cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this section. EmFDCU = Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per metric ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam) from unit-specific measurement data. If you do not have unit-specific measurement data, use the default value of 7.9 kg CH4/metric ton steam. N = Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles) for all delayed coking unit vessels associated with the delayed coking unit during the year. 0.001 = Conversion factor (metric ton/kg). (j) For each process vent not covered in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section that can reasonably be expected to contain greater than 2 percent by volume CO2 or greater than 0.5 percent by volume of CH4 or greater than 0.01 percent by volume (100 parts per million) of N2O, calculate GHG emissions using Equation Y–19 of this section. You must also use Equation Y– 19 of this section to calculate CH4 emissions for catalytic reforming unit depressurization and purge vents when methane is used as the purge gas, and CO2 and/or CH4 emissions, as applicable, if you elected this method as an alternative to the methods in paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of this section. * * * * * ■ 47. Section 98.254 is amended by revising paragraph (j), redesignating paragraph (k) as paragraph (l), and adding new paragraph (k) to read as follows: § 98.254 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (j) Determine the quantity of petroleum process streams using company records. These quantities include the quantity of coke produced per cycle, asphalt blown, quantity of crude oil plus the quantity of intermediate products received from off site, and the quantity of unstabilized crude oil received at the facility. (k) Determine temperature or pressure of delayed coking unit vessel using process instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated according to the manufacturer’s instructions. * * * * * ■ 48. Section 98.256 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3) and (6), (h)(5)(ii)(A), and (k) to read as follows: § 98.256 * Data reporting requirements. * * (e) * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * 22:45 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 (3) A description of the flare service (general facility flare, unit flare, emergency only or back-up flare) and an indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system. * * * * * (6) If you use Equation Y–1a in § 98.253, an indication of whether daily or weekly measurement periods are used, annual average carbon content of the flare gas (in kg carbon per kg flare gas), and, either the annual volume of flare gas combusted (in scf/year) and the annual average molecular weight (in kg/ kg-mole), or, the annual mass of flare gas combusted (in kg/yr). * * * * * (h) * * * (5) * * * (ii) * * * (A) The annual volume of recycled tail gas (in scf/year). * * * * * (k) For each delayed coking unit, the owner or operator shall report: (1) The unit ID number (if applicable). (2) Maximum rated throughput of the unit, in bbl/stream day. (3) Annual quantity of coke produced in the unit during the reporting year, in metric tons. (4) The calculated annual CH4 emissions (in metric tons of CH4) for the delayed coking unit. (5) The total number of delayed coking vessels (or coke drums) associated with the delayed coking unit. (6) The basis for the typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (mass measurements from company records or calculated using Equation Y–18a of this subpart). (7) An indication of the method used to estimate the average temperature of the coke bed, Tinitial (overhead temperature and Equation Y–18c of this subpart or pressure correlation and Equation Y–18d of this subpart). (8) An indication of whether a unitspecific methane emissions factor or the default methane emission factor was used for the delayed coking unit. * * * * * ■ 49. Section 98.257 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(41) through (45); ■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(46) ■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) through (67) as paragraphs (b)(53) through (73); ■ d. Adding new paragraphs (b)(46) through (52); and ■ e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(65). The revisions and additions read as follows: PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 § 98.257 2613 Records that must be retained. * * * * * (b) Verification software records. You must keep a record of the file generated by the verification software specified in § 98.5(b) for the applicable data specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (73) of this section. Retention of this file satisfies the recordkeeping requirement for the data in paragraphs (b)(1) through (73) of this section. * * * * * (41) Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) from company records or calculated using Equation Y–18a of this subpart (Equations Y–18a, Y–18b and Y–18e in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (42) Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equation Y–18a in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (43) Typical distance from the top of the delayed coking unit vessel to the top of the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at the end of the coking cycle (feet) from company records or engineering estimates (Equation Y–18a in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (44) Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equations Y–18a and Y– 18b in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (45) Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle prior to atmospheric venting (metric ton/cycle) (Equations Y– 18b and Y–18e in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (46) Typical distance from the bottom of the coking unit vessel to the top of the water level at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (feet) from company records or engineering estimates (Equation Y–18b in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (47) Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric tons/cycle) (Equations Y–18e and Y–18f in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (48) Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere (°F) (Equations Y–18c, Y–18d, and Y– 18e in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (49) Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line measured as near the coking unit vessel as practical just prior to venting the atmosphere (Equation Y–18c in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (50) Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel just prior to opening the atmospheric vent (psig) (Equation Y– 18d in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2614 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules (51) Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per metric ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam) (Equation Y–18f in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. (52) Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles) for all delayed coking unit vessels associated with the delayed coking unit during the year (Equation Y–18f in § 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. * * * * * (65) Specify whether the calculated or default loading factor L specified in § 98.253(n) is entered, for each liquid loaded to each vessel (methods specified in § 98.253(n)). * * * * * Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production 50. Section 98.266 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows: ■ § 98.266 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (f) * * * (3) Annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wetprocess phosphoric acid process line. * * * * * Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing 51. Section 98.273 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) to read as follows: ■ § 98.273 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * (1) Calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions from direct measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default emissions factors according to the Tier 1 methodology for stationary combustion sources in § 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from § 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC requirements described in § 98.34 are met. * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Calculate fossil CO2 emissions from fossil fuels from direct measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default emissions factors according to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology for stationary combustion sources in § 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from § 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC requirements described in § 98.34 are met. * * * * * (c) * * * (1) Calculate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel from direct measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default HHV and default emissions factors, according to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology for stationary combustion sources in § 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from § 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC requirements described in § 98.34 are met. * * * * * ■ 52. Section 98.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 98.275 Procedures for estimating missing data. * * * * * (b) For missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, use the lesser value of either the maximum mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or the maximum mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure. Alternatively, records of the daily spent liquor solids firing rate obtained to comply with § 63.866(c)(1) of this chapter may be used, adjusting for the duration of the missing measurements, as appropriate. * * * * * ■ 53. Table AA–2 to Subpart AA of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the column headings for ‘‘Kraft lime kilns’’ and ‘‘Kraft calciners’’; ■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Petroleum coke’’; and ■ c. Revising the footnotes. The revisions read as follows: TABLE AA–2 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 98—KRAFT LIME KILN AND CALCINER EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR CH4 AND N2O Fossil fuel-based emissions factors (kg/mmBtu HHV) Fuel CH4 * * * * Petroleum coke ................................................................................................ * Kraft calciners a Kraft rotary lime kilns * * N2O * 0.0027 * CH4 * * b NA 0 * * N2O b NA * a Includes, for example, fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills. b Emission factors for kraft calciners are not available. Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing 54. Section 98.294 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ § 98.294 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) Measure the mass of trona input to each soda ash manufacturing line on a VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 monthly basis using belt scales or methods used for accounting purposes. * * * * * ■ 55. Section 98.296 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: § 98.296 * Data reporting requirements. * * (a) * * * PO 00000 Frm 00080 * Fmt 4701 * Sfmt 4702 (1) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level (tons). * * * * * (b) * * * (5) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level (tons). * * * * * E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use 56. Section 98.306 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and adding paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (m), and (n) to read as follows: ■ § 98.306 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (a) * * * (2) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (3) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (4) Retired hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during the year. (5) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. * * * * * (m) State(s) or territory in which the facility lies and total miles of transmission and distribution lines located within each state or territory. (n) The following numbers of pieces of equipment: (1) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (2) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. (3) Retired hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during the year. (4) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines 57. Section 98.323 is amended by: a. Revising parameter ‘‘n’’ of Equation FF–1 in paragraph (a); ■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2); ■ c. Revising parameter ‘‘CH4D’’ and ‘‘n’’ of Equation FF–3 in paragraph (b); and ■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph (b)(2) introductory text. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ § 98.323 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * n = The number of days in the quarter where active ventilation of mining operations is taking place at the monitoring point. To obtain the number of days in the quarter, divide the total number of hours in the quarter where active ventilation is taking place by 24 hours per day. * * * * * (1) The quarterly periods are: * * * * * VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 CH4D = Weekly CH4 liberated from the monitoring point (metric tons CH4). * * * * * n = The number of days in the week that the system is operational at that measurement point. To obtain the number of days in the week, divide the total number of hours that the system is operational by 24 hours per day. * * * * * (1) Values for V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O), must be based on measurements taken at least once each calendar week with at least 3 days between measurements. If measurements are taken more frequently than once per week, then use the average value for all measurements taken that week. If continuous measurements are taken, then use the average values over the time period of continuous monitoring when the continuous monitoring equipment is properly functioning. (2) Quarterly total CH4 liberated from degasification systems for the mine must be determined as the sum of CH4 liberated determined at each of the monitoring points in the mine, summed over the number of weeks in the quarter, as follows: * * * * * ■ 58. Section 98.324 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); ■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2); and ■ c. Revising paragraph (h). The revisions read as follows: § 98.324 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. * Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * * * * (2) Values of V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O), must be based on measurements taken at least once each quarter with no fewer than 6 weeks between measurements. If measurements are taken more frequently than once per quarter, then use the average value for all measurements taken that quarter. If continuous measurements are taken, then use the average value over the time period of continuous monitoring. * * * * * (b) * * * * * * * * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Collect quarterly or more frequent grab samples (with no fewer than 6 weeks between measurements) for methane concentration and make quarterly measurements of flow rate, temperature, pressure, and, if applicable, moisture content. The sampling and measurements must be made at the same locations as Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) inspection samples are taken, PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2615 and should be taken when the mine is operating under normal conditions. You must follow MSHA sampling procedures as set forth in the MSHA Handbook entitled, Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13– V–1, February 2013 (incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). You must record the date of sampling, flow, temperature, pressure, and moisture measurements, the methane concentration (percent), the bottle number of samples collected, and the location of the measurement or collection. * * * * * (h) The owner or operator shall document the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of gas flow rate, gas composition, temperature, pressure, and moisture content measurements. These procedures include, but are not limited to, calibration of flow meters, and other measurement devices. The estimated accuracy of measurements and the technical basis for the estimated accuracy shall be recorded. ■ 59. Section 98.326 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) through (i), (o), (r)(2) and (r)(3), and adding paragraph (u) to read as follows: § 98.326 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (f) Quarterly volumetric flow rate for each ventilation monitoring point and units of measure (scfm or acfm), date and location of each measurement, and method of measurement (quarterly sampling or continuous monitoring), used in Equation FF–1 of this subpart. Specify whether the volumetric flow rate measurement at each ventilation monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, indicate whether or not the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture content. (g) Quarterly CH4 concentration for each ventilation monitoring point, dates and locations of each measurement, and method of measurement (sampling or continuous monitoring). Specify whether the CH4 concentration measurement at each ventilation monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis. (h) Weekly volumetric flow rate used to calculate CH4 liberated from degasification systems and units of measure (acfm or scfm), and method of measurement (sampling or continuous monitoring), used in Equation FF–3 of this subpart. Specify whether the volumetric flow rate measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, indicate whether or not E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2616 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture content. (i) Quarterly CH4 concentration (%) used to calculate CH4 liberated from degasification systems, and if the data is based on CEMS or weekly sampling. Specify whether the CH4 concentration measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis. * * * * * (o) Temperature (°R), pressure (atm), moisture content (if applicable), and the moisture correction factor (if applicable) used in Equations FF–1 and FF–3 of this subpart; and the gaseous organic concentration correction factor, if Equation FF–9 of this subpart was required. Moisture content is required to be reported only if CH4 concentration is measured on a wet basis and volumetric flow is measured on a dry basis, if CH4 concentration is measured on a dry basis and volumetric flow is measured on a wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, the flow meter does not automatically correct for moisture content. * * * * * (r) * * * (2) Start date and close date of each well, shaft, and vent hole. If the well, shaft, or vent hole is operating through the end of the reporting year, December 31st of the reporting year shall be the close date for purposes of reporting. (3) Number of days the well, shaft, or vent hole was in operation during the reporting year. To obtain the number of days in the reporting year, divide the total number of hours that the system was in operation by 24 hours per day. * * * * * (u) Annual coal production in short tons for the reporting year. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 60. Section 98.346 is amended by revising paragraphs (f), (i)(5), and (i)(7), and adding paragraph (i)(13) to read as follows: ■ § 98.346 Data reporting requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (f) The surface area of the landfill containing waste (in square meters), identification of the type(s) of cover material used (as either organic cover, clay cover, sand cover, or other soil mixtures). * * * * * (i) * * * (5) An indication of whether destruction occurs at the landfill facility, off-site, or both. If destruction occurs at the landfill facility, also report for each measurement location: (i) The number of destruction devices associated with the measurement location. (ii) The annual operating hours of the gas collection system associated with the measurement location, (iii) For each destruction device associated with the measurement location, report: (A) The destruction efficiency (decimal). (B) The annual operating hours where active gas flow was sent to the destruction device. * * * * * (7) A description of the gas collection system (manufacturer, capacity, and number of wells), the surface area (square meters) and estimated waste depth (meters) for each area specified in Table HH–3 to this subpart, the estimated gas collection system efficiency for landfills with this gas collection system and an indication of whether the gas collection efficiency was determined on an area-weighted average basis (Option 1) or a volumeweighted average basis (Option 2), and an indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares (vents or flares that are not considered part of the gas collection system as defined in § 98.6) are present at the landfill. * * * * * (13) Methane emissions for the landfill (i.e., the subpart HH total methane emissions). Choose the methane emissions from either Equation HH–6 of this subpart or Equation HH– 8 of this subpart that best represents the emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH–4 of this subpart is used as the value of GCH4 in Equation HH–6 of this subpart, use the methane emissions calculated using Equation HH–8 of this subpart as the methane emissions for the landfill. ■ 61. Section 98.348 is amended by adding definitions for ‘‘Active venting,’’ ‘‘Alternative final cover,’’ ‘‘Intermediate or interim cover,’’ and ‘‘Passive vent’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 98.348 Definitions. * * * * * Active venting means a pipe or a system of pipes used with a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) used to actively assist the flow of landfill gas to the surface of the landfill where the landfill gas is discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to a non-combustion control device (such as a carbon absorber) and then to the atmosphere. Alternative final cover means materials, other than soil, used at a landfill that meets final closure regulations of the competent federal, state, or local authority. Alternative final covers may include, but are not limited to, evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier covers, asphalt covers, or concrete covers. The state, local, or other agency responsible for permitting the landfill determines whether an alternative final cover meets the applicable regulatory requirements and has been shown to adequately protect human health and the environment. * * * * * Intermediate or interim cover means the placement of material over waste in a landfill for a period of time prior to the disposal of additional waste and/or final closure as defined by state regulation, permit, guidance or written plan, or state accepted best management practice. * * * * * Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that allows landfill gas to flow naturally, without the use of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a passive vent flare without diffusion through the top layer of surface soil. * * * * * ■ 62. Table HH–3 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘A5’’; ■ b. Removing the entry ‘‘Area weighted average collection efficiency for landfills’’; and ■ c. Adding heading ‘‘Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills’’ and entries for ‘‘Option 1’’ and ‘‘Option 2’’ after the entry for ‘‘A5’’. The revision and additions read as follows: TABLE HH–3 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES Description VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Landfill gas collection efficiency PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2617 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE HH–3 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES—Continued Description Landfill gas collection efficiency * * * * A5: Area with a final soil cover of 3 feet or thicker of clay or alternative CE5: 95%. final cover (as approved by the relevant agency) and/or geomembrane cover system and active gas collection. * * * Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills: Option 1: Area weighted average collection efficiency for landfills .......... Option 2: Volume weighted average collection efficiency for landfills, where D2, D3, D4 and D5 are the waste depths for areas A2, A3, A4 and A5, respectively, as described in this table.. 63. Table HH–4 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘C2’’ through ‘‘C7’’; ■ CEave1 = (A2*CE2 + A3*CE3 + A4*CE4 + A5*CE5)/(A2 + A3 + A4 + A5). CEave1 = (A2*D2*CE2 + A3*D3*CE3 + A4*D4*CE4 + A5*D5*CE5)/ (A2*D2 + A3*D3 + A4*D4 + A5*D5). b. Redesignating footnote ‘‘a’’ as footnote ‘‘b’’; and ■ c. Adding new footnote ‘‘a’’. ■ The revisions and additions read as follows: TABLE HH–4 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL METHANE OXIDATION FRACTIONS Use this landfill methane oxidation fraction: Under these conditions: * * * * * * C2: For landfills that have an alternative final cover (approved by the relevant agency) and/or a geomembrane (synthetic) cover with less than 12 inches of cover soil for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste ................................. C3: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and for which you elect not to determine methane flux, or for landfills with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting ..................................................................................................... C4: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and that do not have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste .......................................................................................................................... C5: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the methane flux rate b is less than 10 grams per square meter per day (g/m2/d) ........................................................ C6: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the methane flux rate b is 10 to 70 g/m2/d ....................................................................................................................... C7: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the methane flux rate b is greater than 70 g/m2/d ........................................................................................................... * 0.0 0.10 0.10 0.35 0.25 0.10 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 EP15JA16.013</GPH> tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 a Where a landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate or interim cover requirement, the landfill must have soil cover of 12 inches or greater in order to use an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. b Methane flux rate (in grams per square meter per day; g/m2/d) is the mass flow rate of methane per unit area at the bottom of the surface soil prior to any oxidation and is calculated as follows: 2618 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules Where: MF = Methane flux rate from the landfill in the reporting year (grams per square meter per day, g/m2/d). K = unit conversion factor = 106/365 (g/ metric ton per days/year) or 106/366 for a leap year. SArea = The surface area of the landfill containing waste at the beginning of the reporting year (square meters, m2). GCH4 = Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH–1 of this subpart or Equation TT–1 of subpart TT of this part, as applicable, except for application with Equation HH–6 of this subpart (metric tons CH4). For application with Equation HH–6 of this subpart, the greater of the modeled methane generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH–1 of this subpart or Equation TT–1 of this part, as applicable, and the quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH–4 of this subpart (metric tons CH4). CE = Collection efficiency estimated at landfill, taking into account system coverage, operation, and cover system materials from Table HH–3 of this subpart. If area by soil cover type information is not available, use default value of 0.75 (CE4 in table HH–3 of this subpart) for all areas under active influence of the collection system. N = Number of landfill gas measurement locations (associated with a destruction device or gas sent off-site). If a single monitoring location is used to monitor volumetric flow and CH4 concentration of the recovered gas sent to one or multiple destruction devices, then N = 1. Rn = Quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH–4 of this subpart for the nth measurement location (metric tons). fRec,n = Fraction of hours the recovery system associated with the nth measurement location was operating (annual operating hours/8760 hours per year or annual operating hours/8784 hours per year for a leap year). Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment 64. Section 98.356 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: ■ § 98.356 Data reporting requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (a) Identify the anaerobic processes used in the industrial wastewater treatment system to treat industrial wastewater and industrial wastewater treatment sludge, provide a unique identifier for each anaerobic process, indicate the average depth in meters of each anaerobic lagoon, and indicate whether biogas generated by each anaerobic process is recovered. Provide a description or diagram of the industrial wastewater treatment system, identifying the processes used, indicating how the processes are related VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 to each other, and providing a unique identifier for each anaerobic process. Each anaerobic processes must be identified as one of the following: * * * * * (b) * * * (6) If the facility performs an ethanol production processing operation as defined in § 98.358, you must indicate if the facility uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process. * * * * * ■ 65. Section 98.358 is amended by adding definitions for ‘‘Dry milling,’’ ‘‘Wet milling,’’ and ‘‘Weekly average’’ in alphabetical order to read as follows: § 98.358 Definitions. * * * * * Dry milling means the process in which shelled corn is milled by dry process, without an initial steeping step. * * * * * Wet milling means the process in which shelled corn is steeped in a dilute solution of sulfurous acid (sulfur dioxide dissolved in water) prior to further processing. Weekly average means the sum of all values measured in a calendar week divided by the number of measurements. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels 66. Section 98.382 is revised to read as follows: ■ § 98.382 GHGs to report. Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must report the CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of fossil-fuel products (besides coal or crude oil) produced, used as feedstock, imported, or exported during the calendar year. Additionally, producers must report CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of any biomass co-processed with fossil fuel-based feedstocks. ■ 67. Section 98.383 is revised to read as follows: § 98.383 Calculating GHG emissions. Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the calculation methods of § 98.393 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier (i.e., calculation methods for refiners apply to producers of coal-toliquid products and calculation methods for importers and exporters of petroleum products apply to importers and exporters of coal-to-liquid products). (a) In calculation methods in § 98.393 for petroleum products or petroleum- PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 based products, suppliers of coal-toliquid products shall also include coalto-liquid products. (b) In calculation methods in § 98.393 for non-crude feedstocks or non-crude petroleum feedstocks, producers of coalto-liquid products shall also include coal-to-liquid products that enter the facility to be further processed or otherwise used on site. (c) In calculation methods in § 98.393 for petroleum feedstocks, suppliers of coal-to-liquid products shall also include coal and coal-to-liquid products that enter the facility to be further processed or otherwise used on site. ■ 68. Section 98.384 is revised to read as follows: § 98.384 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the monitoring and QA/QC requirements in § 98.394 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier. Any monitoring and QA/QC requirement for petroleum products in § 98.394 also applies to coal-to-liquid products. ■ 69. Section 98.385 is revised to read as follows: § 98.385 Procedures for estimating missing data. Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the procedures for estimating missing data in § 98.395 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-toliquid product supplier. Any procedure for estimating missing data for petroleum products in § 98.395 also applies to coal-to-liquid products. ■ 70. Section 98.386 is amended by: ■ a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4) and (8); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(9) introductory text, (a)(10) introductory text, and (a)(11) introductory text; ■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(15); ■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(20); ■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4); ■ f. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(6) introductory text; ■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and ■ h. Revising paragraphs (c)(5) introductory text and (c)(6) introductory text. The revisions read as follows: § 98.386 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (a) * * * (9) For every feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (10) For every non-solid feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (11) For every product reported in paragraph (a)(6) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (20) Annual quantity of bulk NGLs in metric tons or barrels received for processing during the reporting year. Report only quantities of bulk NGLs not reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (b) * * * (5) For each product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) used was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (c) * * * (5) For each product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * (6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for which Calculation Method 2 in § 98.393(f)(2) used was used to determine an emissions factor, report: * * * * * ■ 71. Section 98.387 is revised to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 98.387 Records that must be retained. Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must retain records according to the requirements in § 98.397 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier (e.g., retaining copies of all reports submitted to EPA under § 98.386 and records to support information contained in those reports). Any records for petroleum products that are required to be retained in § 98.397 are also required for coal-to-liquid products. VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 Subpart MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products § 98.395 [Amended] 72. Section 98.395 is amended by removing paragraph (c). ■ Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids 73. Section 98.401 is revised to read as follows: ■ § 98.401 Reporting threshold. Any supplier of natural gas and natural gas liquids that meets the requirements of § 98.2(a)(4) must report GHG emissions associated with the products they supply. ■ 74. Section 98.403 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; ■ b. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–1 in paragraph (a)(1) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2i’’; ■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text; ■ d. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–2 in paragraph (a)(2) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2i’’; ■ e. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–3 in paragraph (b)(1) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2j’’; ■ f. Revising parameter ‘‘Fuel’’ of Equation NN–3 in paragraph (b)(1); ■ g. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–4 in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2k’’; ■ g. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2l’’; ■ h. Revising parameter ‘‘EF’’ of Equation NN–5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i); ■ i. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–5b in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2n’’; ■ j. Revising the parameters of Equation NN–6 in paragraph (b)(4); ■ k. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of Equation NN–7 in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for ‘‘CO2m’’; ■ l. Revising parameter ‘‘Fuelg’’ of Equation NN–7 in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and ■ m. Revising the parameters of Equation NN–8 in paragraph (c)(2). The revisions read as follows: § 98.403 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) * * * (1) Calculation Methodology 1. NGL fractionators shall estimate CO2 emissions that would result from the PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2619 complete combustion or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using Equation NN– 1 of this section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN– 1 and NN–2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the natural gas received at the city gate (including natural gas that is transported by, but not owned by, the reporter) using Equation NN–1 of this section. For each product, use the default value for higher heating value and CO2 emission factor in Table NN– 1 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each product, a reporter-specific higher heating value and CO2 emission factor may be used, in place of one or both defaults provided they are developed using methods outlined in § 98.404. For each product, you must use the same volume unit throughout the equation. * * * * * CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of each product ‘‘h’’ for redelivery to all recipients (metric tons). * * * * * (2) Calculation Methodology 2. NGL fractionators shall estimate CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using Equation NN– 2 of this section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN– 1 and NN–2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the natural gas received at the city gate (including natural gas that is transported by, but not owned by, the reporter) using Equation NN–2 of this section. For each product, use the default CO2 emission factor found in Table NN–2 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each product, a reporter-specific CO2 emission factor may be used in place of the default factor, provided it is developed using methods outlined in § 98.404. For each E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2620 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules product, you must use the same volume unit throughout the equation. * * * * * CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of each product ‘‘h’’ (metric tons) * * * (b) * * * (1) * * * * * * * * * * CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas for redelivery to transmission pipelines or other LDCs (metric tons). Fuel = Total annual volume of natural gas supplied to downstream gas transmission pipelines and other local distribution companies (Mscf per year). * * * (2) * * * (ii) * * * * * * * * * * CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to each large end-user k, as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section (metric tons). * * (3) * * (i) * * * * * * * * * * (ii) * * * * * tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * (4) * * * * * * * * CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered to customers or on behalf of customers less the quantity received from other fractionators (metric tons). CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered to all customers or on behalf of customers as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section (metric tons). CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs received from other fractionators and calculated in paragraph (c)(1) of this section (metric tons). * * * * * * 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 * * * * 75. Section 98.404 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows: * * * * (2) * * * * * * ■ CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to LDC end-users not covered in paragraph (b)(2) of this section (metric tons). CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas received at the city gate as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section (metric tons). CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to transmission pipelines or other LDCs as calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section (metric tons). CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or VerDate Sep<11>2014 * * CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas received that bypassed the city gate and is not otherwise accounted for by Equation NN–1 or NN–2 of this section (metric tons). * * CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of each fractionated NGL product ‘‘g’’ received from other fractionators (metric tons). Fuelg = Total annual volume of each NGL product ‘‘g’’ received from other fractionators (bbls). * EF = CO2 emission factor for natural gas placed into/removed from storage (MT CO2/Mscf). * (c) * * * (1) * * * (ii) * * * * * * * CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of the net change in natural gas stored on system by the LDC within the reporting year (metric tons). * oxidation of natural gas delivered to each large end-user as calculated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section (metric tons). CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of the net change in natural gas stored by the LDC within the reported year as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section (metric tons). CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas that was received by the LDC directly from sources bypassing the city gate, and is not otherwise accounted for in Equation NN–1 or NN–2 of this section, as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section (metric tons). § 98.404 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. (a) * * * (1) NGL fractionators and LDCs shall determine the quantity of NGLs and natural gas using methods in common use in the industry for billing purposes as audited under existing Sarbanes Oxley regulation. * * * * * (3) NGL fractionators shall use measurement for NGLs at custody transfer meters or at such meters that are used to determine the NGL product slate delivered from the fractionation facility. (4) If a NGL fractionator supplies a product that is a mixture or blend of two PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 or more products listed in Tables NN– 1 and NN–2 of this subpart, the NGL fractionator shall report the quantities of the constituents of the mixtures or blends separately. * * * * * ■ 76. Section 98.406 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (6), (12), and (13) introductory text; and ■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(14). The revisions read as follows: § 98.406 Data reporting requirements. (a) * * * (1) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product supplied (including fractionated NGL products received from other NGL fractionators) in the following product categories: Ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes plus (Fuelh in Equations NN– 1 and NN–2 of this subpart). (2) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product received from other NGL fractionators in the following product categories: Ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes plus (Fuelg in Equation NN–7 of this subpart). * * * * * (b) * * * (1) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas received by the LDC at its city gate stations for redelivery on the LDC’s distribution system, including for use by the LDC (Fuelh in Equations NN–1 and NN–2 of this subpart). * * * * * (6) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered to downstream gas transmission pipelines and other local distribution companies (Fuel in Equation NN–3 of this subpart). * * * * * (12) For each large end-user reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, report: (i) The customer name, address, and meter number(s). (ii) Whether the quantity of natural gas reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this section is the total quantity delivered to a large end-user’s facility, or the quantity delivered to a specific meter located at the facility. (iii) If known, report the EIA identification number of each LDC customer. (13) The annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered by the LDC (including natural gas that is not owned by the LDC) to each of the following end-use categories. For definitions of these categories, refer to EIA Form 176 (Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental Gas Supply & Disposition) and Instructions. * * * * * E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2621 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules (14) The name of the U.S. state or territory covered in this report submission. * * * * * ■ 77. Table NN–2 to subpart NN of part 98 is amended by revising the title to the table and the heading of the third column to read as follows: TABLE NN–2 TO SUBPART NN OF PART 98—DEFAULT FACTORS FOR CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 2 OF THIS SUBPART Fuel Default CO2 emission factor (MT CO2/Unit) 1 Unit * * 1 Conditions MT CO2/bbl pressure. * * * for emission value presented in are 60 °F and saturation Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases 78. Section 98.410 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: ■ tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 § 98.410 Definition of the source category. (a) The industrial gas supplier source category consists of any facility that produces fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; and any facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs. * * * * * (d) To produce a fluorinated HTF means to manufacture, from any raw material or feedstock chemical, a fluorinated GHG used for temperature control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering in processes including but not limited to certain types of electronics manufacturing production processes. Fluorinated heat transfer fluids do not include fluorinated GHGs used as lubricants or surfactants. For fluorinated heat transfer fluids under this subpart, the lower vapor pressure limit of 1 mm Hg in absolute at 25 °C in the definition of fluorinated greenhouse gas in § 98.6 shall not apply. Fluorinated heat transfer fluids include, but are not limited to, perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, tertiary perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Producing a fluorinated HTF does not include the reuse or recycling of a fluorinated HTF, the creation of intermediates, or the creation of fluorinated HTFs that are VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 released or destroyed at the production facility before the production measurement at § 98.414(a). (e) For purposes of this subpart, to destroy fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs means to cause the expiration of a previously produced (as defined at § 98.410(b) and (d)) fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF to the destruction efficiency actually achieved. Such destruction does not result in a commercially useful end product. For purposes of this subpart, such destruction does not include HFC–23 destruction as defined at § 98.150 or the dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that occurs during electronics manufacturing as defined at § 98.90. For example, such destruction does not include the dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that occurs during etch or chamber cleaning processes or during use of abatement systems that treat the fluorinated GHGs vented from such processes at electronics manufacturing facilities. ■ 79. Section 98.412 is revised to read as follows: § 98.412 GHGs to report. You must report the GHG emissions that would result from the release of the nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that you produce, import, export, transform, or destroy during the calendar year. ■ 80. Section 98.413 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; ■ b. Revising the parameters of Equation OO–1 in paragraph (a); ■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; ■ d. Revising the parameters of Equation OO–2 in paragraph (b); ■ e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; ■ f. Revising parameters ‘‘T’’ and ‘‘ET’’ of Equation OO–3 in paragraph (c); ■ g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and ■ h. Revising parameters ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘FD’’ of Equation OO–4 in paragraph (d). The revisions read as follows: § 98.413 Calculating GHG emissions. (a) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced annually, except for amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off site for destruction, by using Equation OO–1 of this section: * * * * * P = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced annually. Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over the period ‘‘p’’. (b) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 nitrous oxide produced over the period ‘‘p’’ by using Equation OO–2 of this section: * * * * * Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over the period ‘‘p’’ (metric tons). Op = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is measured coming out of the production process over the period p (metric tons). Up = Mass of used fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is added to the production process upstream of the output measurement over the period ‘‘p’’ (metric tons). (c) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed by using Equation OO–3 of this section: * * * * * T = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed annually (metric tons). * * * * * ET = The fraction of the fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process that is transformed in the process (metric tons). (d) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed by using Equation OO–4 of this section: * * * * * D = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed annually (metric tons). FD = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into the destruction device annually (metric tons). * * * * * 81. Section 98.414 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (i), (l), (n) introductory text, (n)(3) through (5), and (o) to read as follows: ■ § 98.414 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. (a) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide coming out of the production process shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If the measured mass includes more than one fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the concentrations of each of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than low-concentration constituents, shall be measured as set forth in paragraph (n) of this section. For each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the mean of the concentrations of that fluorinated GHG (mass fraction) measured under paragraph (n) of this section shall be multiplied by the mass measurement to obtain the mass of that fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF coming out of the production process. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 2622 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules (b) The mass of any used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or used nitrous oxide added back into the production process upstream of the output measurement in paragraph (a) of this section shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If the mass in paragraph (a) of this section is measured by weighing containers that include returned heels as well as newly produced fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, the returned heels shall be considered used fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs for purposes of this paragraph (b) of this section and § 98.413(b). (c) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. (d) The fraction of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process that is actually transformed shall be estimated considering yield calculations or quantities of unreacted fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide permanently removed from the process and recovered, destroyed, or emitted. (e) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide sent to another facility for transformation shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. (f) The mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs sent to another facility for destruction shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If the measured mass includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the concentration of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF shall be estimated considering current or previous representative concentration measurements and other relevant process information. This concentration (mass fraction) shall be multiplied by the mass measurement to obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF sent to another facility for destruction. (g) You must estimate the share of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 HTFs in paragraph (f) of this section that is comprised of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are not included in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) because they are removed from the production process as by-products or other wastes. (h) You must measure the mass of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is fed into the destruction device and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Such fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. You must use flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If the measured mass includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF being destroyed, you must estimate the concentrations of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF being destroyed considering current or previous representative concentration measurements and other relevant process information. You must multiply this concentration (mass fraction) by the mass measurement to obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into the destruction device. (i) Very small quantities of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are difficult to measure because they are entrained in other media such as destroyed filters and destroyed sample containers are exempt from paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section. * * * * * (l) In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs destroyed, facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs shall account for any temporary reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from any startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions of the destruction device, including departures from the operating conditions defined in state or local permitting requirements and/or oxidizer manufacturer specifications. * * * * * (n) If the mass coming out of the production process includes more than one fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, you shall measure the concentrations of all of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 low-concentration constituents, as follows: * * * * * (3) Frequency of measurement. Perform the measurements at least once by February 15, 2011 if the fluorinated GHG product is being produced on December 17, 2010. Perform the measurements within 60 days of commencing production of any fluorinated GHG product that was not being produced on December 17, 2010. For fluorinated HTF products, perform the measurements at least once by February 15, 2017, if the fluorinated HTF product is being produced on January 1, 2017. Repeat the measurements if an operational or process change occurs that could change the identities or significantly change the concentrations of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituents of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product. Complete the repeat measurements within 60 days of the operational or process change. (4) Measure all product grades. Where a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF is produced at more than one purity level (e.g., pharmaceutical grade and refrigerant grade), perform the measurements for each purity level. (5) Number of samples. Analyze a minimum of three samples of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF product that have been drawn under conditions that are representative of the process producing the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF product. If the relative standard deviation of the measured concentrations of any of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF constituents (other than lowconcentration constituents) is greater than or equal to 15 percent, draw and analyze enough additional samples to achieve a total of at least six samples of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product. (o) All analytical equipment used to determine the concentration of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, including but not limited to gas chromatographs and associated detectors, IR, FTIR and NMR devices, shall be calibrated at a frequency needed to support the type of analysis specified in the site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §§ 98.414(n) and 98.3(g)(5) of this part. Quality assurance samples at the concentrations of concern shall be used for the calibration. Such quality assurance samples shall consist of or be prepared from certified standards of the analytes of concern where available; if not available, calibration shall be performed E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules by a method specified in the GHG Monitoring Plan. * * * * * ■ 82. Section 98.416 is amended by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (a); ■ b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(6); ■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) through (6), and (c)(8) through (10); ■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(4) through (6); and ■ e. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 98.416 Data reporting requirements. tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 * * * * * (a) Each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide production facility shall report the following information: (1) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced at that facility by process, except for amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off site for destruction. (2) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed at that facility, by process. (3) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under paragraph (a)(3) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. (4) [Reserved] (5) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide sent to another facility for transformation. (6) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF sent to another facility for destruction, except fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs that are not included in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) because they are removed from the production process as by-products or other wastes. Quantities to be reported under paragraph (a)(6) of this section could include, for example, fluorinated GHGs that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore sent to another facility for destruction. (7) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 is sent to another facility for destruction and that is not included in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) because it is removed from the production process as a byproduct or other waste. (8)–(9) [Reserved] (10) Mass in metric tons of any fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process, by process. (11) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is fed into the destruction device and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under paragraph (a)(11) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. (12) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is measured coming out of the production process, by process. (13) Mass in metric tons of each used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide added back into the production process (e.g., for reclamation), including returned heels in containers that are weighed to measure the mass in § 98.414(a), by process. (14) Names and addresses of facilities to which any nitrous oxide, fluorinated GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sent for transformation, and the quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for transformation. (15) Names and addresses of facilities to which any fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs were sent for destruction, and the quantities (metric tons) of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for destruction. (16) Where missing data have been estimated pursuant to § 98.415, the reason the data were missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to estimate the missing data, and the estimates of those data. (b) By March 31, 2017 or within 60 days of commencing fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destruction, whichever is later, any facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs shall submit a one-time report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section for each destruction process. Facilities that previously submitted a one-time report under this paragraph are exempt from this requirement unless PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2623 they meet the conditions in paragraph (b)(6) of this section. * * * * * (3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed. * * * * * (6) If any process changes affect unit destruction efficiency or the methods used to record mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed, then a revised report must be submitted to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted to EPA within 60 days of the change. (c) Each bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shall submit an annual report that summarizes its imports at the corporate level, except for shipments including less than twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide, transshipments, and heels that meet the conditions set forth at § 98.417(e). The report shall contain the following information for each import: (1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk, including each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product that makes up between 0.5 percent and 100 percent of the product by mass. (2) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk and sold or transferred to persons other than the importer for use in processes resulting in the transformation or destruction of the chemical. (3) Date on which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were imported. (4) Port of entry through which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide passed. (5) Country from which the imported fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were imported. (6) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shipped. * * * * * (8) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed by the importer. (9) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and facilities to which the nitrous oxide, fluorinated GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sold or transferred for transformation, and the quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each facility for transformation. E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2 2624 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules (10) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and facilities to which the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs were sold or transferred for destruction, and the quantities (metric tons) of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each facility for destruction. (d) Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shall submit an annual report that summarizes its exports at the corporate level, except for shipments including less than twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide, transshipments, and heels. The report shall contain the following information for each export: (1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF exported in bulk. * * * * * (4) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shipped. (5) Date on which, and the port from which, the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were exported from the United States or its territories. (6) Country to which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were exported. * * * * * (i) Each facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs but does not otherwise report under this section shall report the mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as defined at § 98.410(b) or (d), as applicable. Quantities to be reported under this paragraph include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. (j) By March 31, 2017, all fluorinated HTF production facilities shall submit a one-time report that includes the concentration of each fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituent in each fluorinated HTF product as measured under § 98.414(n). If the facility commences production of a fluorinated HTF product that was not included in the initial report or performs a repeat measurement under § 98.414(n) that shows that the identities or concentrations of the fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF product have changed, then the new or changed concentrations, as well as the date of the change, must be provided in a revised report. The revised report must be submitted to EPA by the March 31st that immediately follows the new or repeat measurement under § 98.414(n). ■ 83. Section 98.418 is amended by revising the definition of ‘‘Lowconcentration constituent’’ to read as follows: § 98.418 Definitions. * * * * * Low-concentration constituent means, for purposes of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF production and export, a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product that occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.1 percent by mass. For purposes of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF import, low-concentration constituent means a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product that occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.5 percent by mass. Low-concentration constituents do not include fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are deliberately combined with the product (e.g., to affect the performance characteristics of the product). Subpart PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide 84. Section 98.425 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text to read as follows: ■ § 98.425 Procedures for estimating missing data. * * * * * (b) Whenever the quality assurance procedures in § 98.424(b) cannot be followed to determine concentration of the CO2 stream, the most appropriate of the following missing data procedures shall be followed: * * * * * Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide 85. Section 98.446 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: ■ § 98.446 Data reporting requirements. * * * * * (g) Whether the CO2 stream is being injected into subsurface geologic formations to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills 86. Table TT–1 to Subpart TT of Part 98 is amended by: ■ a. Removing the entry ‘‘Pulp and Paper (other than industrial sludge)’’; ■ b. Adding a heading entry for ‘‘Pulp and Paper Industry:’’, and subordinate entries for ‘‘Boiler Ash’’, ‘‘Wastewater Sludge’’, ‘‘Kraft Recovery Wastes’’, and ‘‘Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise listed)’’ to follow the entry for ‘‘Food Processing (other than industrial sludge)’’; ■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘Industrial Sludge’’ and footnote a; and ■ d. Adding footnote ‘‘b’’. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ TABLE TT–1 TO SUBPART TT OF PART 98—DEFAULT DOC AND DECAY RATE VALUES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILLS DOC (weight fraction, wet basis) tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Industry/Waste Type * * * * Pulp and Paper Industry: Boiler Ash ................................................................................................ Wastewater Sludge ................................................................................. Kraft Recovery Wastes b ......................................................................... Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise listed) ............................. 0.06 0.12 0.025 0.20 * * * * Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper industry sludge) ..................... 0.09 VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 k [moderate climate a] (yr¥1) k [dry climate a] (yr¥1) * * 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 * E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM * 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 * 0.02 15JAP2 k [wet climate a] (yr¥1) 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.04 * 0.04 0.06 2625 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules TABLE TT–1 TO SUBPART TT OF PART 98—DEFAULT DOC AND DECAY RATE VALUES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILLS—Continued DOC (weight fraction, wet basis) Industry/Waste Type * * * * k [moderate climate a] (yr¥1) k [dry climate a] (yr¥1) * * k [wet climate a] (yr¥1) * a The applicable climate classification is determined based on the annual rainfall plus the recirculated leachate application rate. Recirculated leachate application rate (in inches/year) is the total volume of leachate recirculated from company records or engineering estimates and applied to the landfill divided by the area of the portion of the landfill containing waste [with appropriate unit conversions]. Dry climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate less than 20 inches/year; Moderate climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate from 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive); Wet climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate greater than 40 inches/year. Alternatively, landfills that use leachate recirculation can elect to use the k value for wet climate rather than calculating the recirculated leachate rate. b Kraft Recovery Wastes include green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be referred to collectively as causticizing or recausticizing wastes. Subpart UU—Injection of Carbon Dioxide 87. Section 98.474 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:42 Jan 14, 2016 Jkt 238001 § 98.474 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) You must convert all measured volumes of CO2 to the following standard industry temperature and pressure conditions for use in Equation PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 UU–2 of this subpart: Standard cubic meters at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and at an absolute pressure of 1 atmosphere. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015–32753 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E:\FR\FM\15JAP2.SGM 15JAP2

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2535-2625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32753]

[[Page 2535]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 10

January 15, 2016

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 98

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements
Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2536]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526; FRL-9934-93-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS60

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data
Elements Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; grant of reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to
streamline and improve implementation of the rule, to improve the
quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to
clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been
the subject of questions from reporting entities. This action also
proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of certain
data elements to the program. This action also proposes action in
response to a petition to reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2016.
Public hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing
unless requested. To request a hearing, please contact the person
listed in the following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by
January 20, 2016. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on
February 1, 2016, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide
further information about the hearing on its Web site (https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/) if a hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0526, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; email address:
GHGReporting@epa.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule Helpline at: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm or Carole Cook at 202-343-9263.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of today's proposal will also be available through
the WWW. Following the Administrator's signature, a copy of this action
will be posted on the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Web site at
https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. These proposed revisions
affect entities that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports
under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98).
This proposed rule would impose on entities across the U.S. a degree of
reporting consistency for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from most sectors of
the economy and therefore is ``nationally applicable'' within the
meaning of section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the
EPA concludes that the rule is nationally applicable, the EPA is also
making a determination, for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1), that
this action is of nationwide scope and effect and is based on such a
determination. (See CAA section 307(b)(1) (a petition for review may be
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia ``if such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination'').
Further, the Administrator has determined that rules codified in 40 CFR
part 98 are subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d)
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine'').
These are proposed amendments to existing regulations. If finalized,
these amended regulations would affect owners or operators of certain
suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. Regulated categories and
entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 1 of
this preamble:

Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of affected
Category NAICS facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Stationary Fuel ............... Facilities operating
Combustion Sources. boilers, process
heaters,
incinerators,
turbines, and
internal combustion
engines.
211 Extractors of crude
petroleum and
natural gas.
321 Manufacturers of
lumber and wood
products.
322 Pulp and paper
mills.
325 Chemical
manufacturers.
324 Petroleum
refineries, and
manufacturers of
coal products.
316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of
rubber and
miscellaneous
plastic products.
331 Steel works, blast
furnaces.
332 Electroplating,
plating, polishing,
anodizing, and
coloring.
336 Manufacturers of
motor vehicle parts
and accessories.
221 Electric, gas, and
sanitary services.
622 Health services.
611 Educational
services.
Acid Gas Injection Projects...... 211111 or Projects that inject
211112 acid gas containing
CO2 underground.

[[Page 2537]]

Adipic Acid Production........... 325199 Adipic acid
manufacturing
facilities.
Aluminum Production.............. 331312 Primary aluminum
production
facilities.
Ammonia Manufacturing............ 325311 Anhydrous and
aqueous ammonia
manufacturing
facilities.
CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery 211 Oil and gas
Projects. extraction projects
using CO2 enhanced
oil and gas
recovery.
Electrical Equipment Use......... 221121 Electric bulk power
transmission and
control facilities.
Electronics Manufacturing........ 334111 Microcomputers
manufacturing
facilities.
334413 Semiconductor,
photovoltaic (solid-
state) device
manufacturing
facilities.
334419 LCD unit screens
manufacturing
facilities. MEMS
manufacturing
facilities.
Geologic Sequestration Sites..... N/A CO2 geologic
sequestration
projects.
Glass Production................. 327211 Flat glass
manufacturing
facilities.
327213 Glass container
manufacturing
facilities.
327212 Other pressed and
blown glass and
glassware
manufacturing
facilities.
HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 325120 Chlorodifluoromethan
Destruction. e manufacturing
facilities
Hydrogen Production.............. 325120 Hydrogen
manufacturing
facilities.
Iron and Steel Production........ 331111 Integrated iron and
steel mills, steel
companies, sinter
plants, blast
furnaces, basic
oxygen process
furnace shops.
Lime Production.................. 327410 Calcium oxide,
calcium hydroxide,
dolomitic hydrates
manufacturing
facilities.
Nitric Acid Production........... 325311 Nitric acid
manufacturing
facilities.
Petrochemical Production......... 32511 Ethylene dichloride
manufacturing
facilities.
325199 Acrylonitrile,
ethylene oxide,
methanol
manufacturing
facilities.
325110 Ethylene
manufacturing
facilities.
325182 Carbon black
manufacturing
facilities.
Phosphoric Acid Production....... 325312 Phosphoric acid
manufacturing
facilities.
Petroleum Refineries............. 324110 Petroleum
refineries.
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing..... 322110 Pulp mills.
322121 Paper mills.
322130 Paperboard mills.
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.. 562212 Solid waste
landfills.
221320 Sewage treatment
facilities.
Soda Ash Manufacturing........... 325181 Akalies and chlorine
manufacturing
facilities.
212391 Soda ash, natural,
mining and/or
beneficiation.
Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids 211111 Coal liquefaction at
Fuels. mine sites.
Suppliers of Petroleum Products.. 324110 Petroleum
refineries.
Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs 221210 Natural gas
distribution
facilities.
211112 Natural gas liquid
extraction
facilities.
Suppliers of Industrial 325120 Industrial gas
Greenhouse Gases. manufacturing
facilities.
Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide...... 325120 Industrial gas
manufacturing
facilities.
Underground Coal Mines........... 212113 Underground
anthracite coal
mining operations.
212112 Underground
bituminous coal
mining operations.
Industrial Wastewater Treatment.. 322110 Pulp mills.
322121 Paper mills.
322122 Newsprint mills.
322130 Paperboard mills.
311611 Meat processing
facilities.
311411 Frozen fruit, juice,
and vegetable
manufacturing
facilities.
311421 Fruit and vegetable
canning facilities.
325193 Ethanol
manufacturing
facilities.
324110 Petroleum
refineries.
Industrial Waste Landfills....... 562212 Solid waste
landfills.
221320 Sewage treatment
facilities.
322110 Pulp mills.
322121 Paper mills.
322122 Newsprint mills.
322130 Paperboard mills.
311611 Meat processing
facilities.
311411 Frozen fruit, juice
and vegetable
manufacturing
facilities.
311421 Fruit and vegetable
canning facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Other types of facilities than those listed in
the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the
relevant criteria in the sections related to industrial gas suppliers
and direct emitters of GHGs. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action

[[Page 2538]]

to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Many facilities that are
affected by 40 CFR part 98 have GHG emissions from multiple source
categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CAA Clean Air Act
CAS Chemical Abstracts Service
CBI confidential business information
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
DE destruction efficiency
EDC ethylene dichloride
e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool
EF emission factor
EGU NSPS Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric
Utility Generating Units
EIA Energy Information Administration
EO Executive Order
ER enhanced oil and gas recovery
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FR Federal Register
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
GWP Global warming potential
Hg mercury
HHV high heat value
ICR Information Collection Request
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ISBN International Standard Book Number
IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
IVT Inputs Verification Tool
kg kilograms
LDC local distribution company
LNG liquefied natural gas
mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour
mmcfd million cubic feet per day
MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration
MSW municipal solid waste
mtCO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents
N2O nitrous oxide
NGL natural gas liquid
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
ODS ozone-depleting substances
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PFC perfluorocarbon
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RY Reporting year
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
UIC Underground Injection Control
U.S. United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VCM vinyl chloride monomer

Table of Contents

I. Background
A. How is this preamble organized?
B. Executive Summary
C. Background on This Proposed Rule
D. Legal Authority
E. When would the proposed amendments apply?
F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed
rule?
G. Methods Incorporated by Reference
II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98
A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98
B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part
98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
C. Other Amendments
D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions
III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart
A. Subpart A--General Provisions
B. Subpart C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources
C. Subpart E--Adipic Acid Production
D. Subpart F--Aluminum Production
E. Subpart G--Ammonia Manufacturing
F. Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing
G. Subpart N--Glass Production
H. Subpart O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction
I. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production
J. Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing
K. Subpart V--Nitric Acid Production
L. Subpart X--Petrochemical Production
M. Subpart Y--Petroleum Refineries
N. Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production
O. Subpart AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
P. Subpart CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing
Q. Subpart DD--Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution
Equipment
R. Subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines
S. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
T. Subpart II--Industrial Wastewater Treatment
U. Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels
V. Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids
W. Subpart OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases
X. Subpart RR--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide
Y. Subpart TT--Industrial Waste Landfills
Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections
IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data
Reporting Elements
A. Overview and Background
B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations
C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or
Substantially Revised Data Reporting Elements
D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98
Data Reporting Elements for Which No Determination Has Been
Previously Established
E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN
Data Elements
F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and
Confidentiality Determinations
V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule
estimated?
B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

The first section of this preamble contains background information
regarding the origin of the proposed amendments. This section also
discusses the EPA's legal authority under the CAA to promulgate
(including subsequent amendments to) the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,
codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 98'') and
the EPA's legal authority to make confidentiality determinations for
new or revised data elements required by this amendment or for existing
data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not
previously been proposed. Section I of this preamble also discusses
when the proposed amendments would apply and provides additional
information regarding materials referenced in this rulemaking. Section
II of this preamble describes the types of amendments included in this
rulemaking, and includes the rationale for each type of proposed
change. Section III of this preamble is organized by Part 98 subpart
and contains detailed information on the proposed revisions to each
subpart and the rationale for the proposed revisions in each section.
Section IV of this preamble discusses the proposed confidentiality
determinations for new or substantially

[[Page 2539]]

revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported)
data reporting elements, as well as proposed confidentiality
determinations for certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM,
NN, PP, and RR for which the EPA has not previously made a
determination or where the EPA has determined that the current
determination is no longer appropriate. Section V of this preamble
discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments. Finally, section VI
of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order
requirements applicable to this action.

B. Executive Summary

The GHGRP is a well-known, reliable source for high-quality, timely
greenhouse gas emissions data that enables key stakeholders to
understand greenhouse gas emissions, identify emission reduction
opportunities, and take action. Since the first year of data collection
through the GHGRP, the EPA has responded to tens of thousands of
questions from reporters, engaged in stakeholder outreach through
compliance assistance webinars, solicited feedback via a public testing
process to help improve the EPA's electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Tool (e-GGRT), and learned about various site specific scenarios via
interaction with reporters during the verification of submitted data.
Through these extensive outreach efforts, the EPA has improved our
understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with
implementation of the Part 98 provisions, as well as issues that may
impact the quality of the data received. The proposed changes would
amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to
streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality
and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and clarify or
provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject
of questions and feedback from reporting entities.
The EPA is proposing amendments that can be categorized as follows:
Revisions to streamline implementation and reduce burden.
These changes reduce or simplify requirements in a manner that would
ease burden on reporters and the EPA. The changes would also improve
the usefulness of data for the public. Such revisions include revising
requirements to focus EPA and reporter resources on relevant data,
removing reporting requirements for specific facilities that report
little to no emissions, or removing reported data elements that are no
longer necessary.
Amendments to improve quality of data. These amendments
are needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the
rule and would expand monitoring or reporting requirements that are
necessary to improve verification and improve the accuracy of data used
to inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
(hereafter referred to as the ``U.S. GHG Inventory'').
Minor amendments to better reflect industry processes and
emissions. Such revisions include amendments to calculation,
monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner
or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional
flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry
processes and emissions).
Minor clarifications and corrections to improve
understanding of the rule. Such revisions include the following:
Corrections to errors in terms and definitions in certain equations;
clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to
better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to
correct cross references within and between subparts; and other
editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public's
understanding of the rule.
This action also proposes to establish confidentiality
determinations for the reporting of certain data elements added or
revised in these proposed amendments, and for certain existing data
elements for which no confidentiality determination has been previously
proposed.\1\ Finally, section III.S of this preamble describes the
proposed changes in response to a petition to reconsider specific
aspects of subpart HH, which applies to municipal solid waste
landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ During the development of Part 98, the EPA received a number
of comments from stakeholders regarding their concern that some of
the data reported consisted of confidential business information
that, if released to the public, would likely harm their competitive
position. The EPA has subsequently published a series of notices to
establish determinations for the confidentiality status of data
required to be reported under the GHGRP (i.e., ``confidentiality
determinations''). See section IV.A of this preamble for additional
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden for Part
98 reporters in cases where they would expand current applicability,
monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden for
reporters in cases where they would streamline Part 98 to remove
notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must
be reported. The estimated incremental change in burden from the
proposed amendments to Part 98 includes burden associated with: (1)
Changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing
existing reporting requirements; (2) revisions to the applicability of
subparts such that additional facilities would be required to report;
and (3) additional monitoring requirements for underground coal mines.
Many of the amendments that the EPA is proposing in this action are not
anticipated to have a significant impact on burden. As discussed in
section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to implement these
changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger
the implementation of these changes over time. The burden has
subsequently been determined based on when the proposed revisions would
be implemented in each year (e.g., the burden for RY2016 only reflects
changes to subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A (General
Provisions)). The EPA determined that one-time implementation costs
would apply for certain revisions to applicability and monitoring
requirements that would first apply in reporting year (RY) 2017 and
RY2018; therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect
the subsequent annual costs incurred by industry. As more fully
explained in section V of this preamble, the EPA has determined that
the total estimated incremental burden associated with all revisions in
this proposed rulemaking would be $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered
by the proposed rule, with an estimated annual burden of $1,081,830 per
year once all changes have been implemented. The incremental
implementation costs for each reporting year are summarized in Table 2
of this preamble.

[[Page 2540]]

Table 2--Incremental Burden for Reporting Years 2016-2019
[$/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting year 2016 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Annual Cost (all subparts)............ $9K $34K $2.0M $1.1M
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Background on This Proposed Rule

The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on
October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The final rule became effective on
December 29, 2009 and requires reporting of GHGs from various
facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161,
121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA subsequently proposed and finalized amendments to various
subparts, including subparts in this action. The amendments generally
did not change the basic requirements of Part 98, but were intended to
improve clarity and ensure consistency across the calculation,
monitoring, and data reporting requirements. The EPA issued additional
rules in 2010 finalizing the requirements for subparts T, FF, II, and
TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (75 FR
74774, December 1, 2010); and subparts RR and UU (75 FR 75060, December
1, 2010). Following the promulgation of these subparts, the EPA
finalized several technical and clarifying amendments to these and
other subparts under the GHGRP. A number of subparts have been revised
since promulgation (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR 73866,
November 29, 2011; 77 FR 10373, February 22, 2012; 77 FR 29935, May 21,
2012; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78
FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; and 79 FR
73750, December 11, 2014). The amendments in this action are a
continuation of the effort to improve the GHGRP and address issues
identified during implementation.

D. Legal Authority

The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA
authority provided in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the
2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260), CAA section 114(a)(1)
provides the EPA broad authority to require the information proposed to
be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are
relevant to the EPA's carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions.
See the preambles to the proposed and final GHG reporting rule for
further information.
In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations
for proposed new, revised, and existing data elements in Part 98 under
its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, and 307 of the CAA.
Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that the EPA make publicly available
information obtained under CAA section 114, except for information
(excluding emission data) that qualifies for confidential treatment.
The Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is subject to
the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. Generally section 307(d)
contains a set of procedures relating to the issuance and review of
certain enumerated CAA rules.

E. When would the proposed amendments apply?

In this action, the EPA is proposing: (1) Numerous amendments to
Part 98 including subpart-specific revisions that would streamline
implementation of Part 98, improve the quality of the data collected
under the rule, update certain provisions to more accurately reflect
industry processes and emissions, and other corrections, as described
in sections II and III of this preamble; and (2) new or revised
confidentiality determinations for data elements that are added or
revised in the proposed amendments or for certain existing data
elements, as described in section IV of this preamble. The EPA is
planning to phase in implementation of the proposed requirements
depending on the nature of the revision. Some of the amendments would
apply in RY2016, some in RY2017, and some in RY2018. This section
describes when each of the proposed amendments would apply.
We are proposing that amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subparts I
(Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills),
with related revisions to subpart A (General Provisions), would apply
to the RY2016 reports, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. The
remaining amendments proposed in this action would apply to annual
reports submitted for RY2017, except for amendments to V (Nitric Acid
Production), Y (Petroleum Refineries), FF (Underground Coal Mines) and
OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) which would apply to
reports for RY2018.
We are proposing to implement these revisions over reporting years
2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these
changes over time, in consideration of the types of changes being made
and the associated revisions needed to implement them, including
impacts to reporters and revisions to EPA's e-GGRT. Specifically, some
of the proposed changes include revisions to software that would need
to be updated in e-GGRT. The time phasing also allows sufficient lead
time for reporters to implement the proposed changes following the
promulgation of the final rule revisions. For example, where the
proposed changes would require reporters to collect new data that are
not readily available or that could not be determined from existing
monitoring and recordkeeping, the EPA would not apply these changes to
RY2016 reports. The proposed schedule also provides sufficient time for
new reporters who would become subject to Part 98 as a result of the
proposed amendments to acquire monitoring equipment and begin
collecting data. The amendments that would apply to RY2016, RY2017, and
RY2018 reports are discussed in sections I.E.1, I.E.2, and I.E.3 of
this preamble.
1. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2016?
Table 3 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed
changes that would apply to RY2016.

[[Page 2541]]

Table 3--Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart affected \a\ Changes applicable in RY2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--General Provisions.................. 40 CFR 98.6 (definition of
``Gas collection system or
landfill gas collection
system'' only).
I--Electronics Manufacturing........... All proposed changes in
subpart.
HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills.... All proposed changes in
subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Subpart names may also be found in the Table of Contents for this
preamble.

We are proposing that all changes to subparts I and HH, and minor
revisions to subpart A, would apply to reports for RY2016, which must
be submitted by March 31, 2017. For subpart I, we are proposing several
revisions that would improve the quality of the data collected. For
example, we are proposing to revise the requirements of the technology
triennial report in 40 CFR 98.96(y), which applies to semiconductor
manufacturing facilities with emissions from subpart I processes
greater than 40,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e)
per year. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 98.96(y)(1), facilities are
required to submit the first triennial report on March 31, 2017. The
changes we are proposing to 40 CFR 98.96(y) would clarify the types of
data and measurements to be submitted with the triennial report, but
would not fundamentally alter the data reported or require additional
data collection from reporters. Specifically, we are clarifying that
where reporters provide any utilization and by-product formation rates
and/or destruction or removal efficiency data in the triennial report,
they must also include information on the methods and conditions under
which the data were collected, where available (see section III.F of
this preamble for additional information). We are proposing to
implement the changes to subpart I in RY2016 in order to ensure that
the data submitted in the triennial reports submitted on March 31, 2017
reflects these methods and conditions, which will help the EPA to more
efficiently review the reported data. In addition to the proposed
changes to 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing revisions to improve
the methodology used to calculate the fraction of fluorinated-GHG and
fluorinated-GHG byproduct destroyed or removed in a fab using the stack
testing methodology.
Under subpart HH, we are proposing several revisions to improve the
quality of the data collected, better align the rule requirements with
industry operating practices, and streamline the reporting
requirements. We are also proposing one related change to subpart A of
Part 98 to update the definition of ``gas collection system or landfill
gas collection system'' in 40 CFR 98.6. These revisions, which are
described in section III.S of this preamble, are proposed to apply to
RY2016 reports because they provide additional clarifications and
flexibility regarding the existing regulatory requirements that address
questions raised by reporters during implementation.
We have determined that it would be feasible for existing reporters
to implement the proposed changes to subparts A, I, and HH for RY2016
because these changes are consistent with the data collection and
calculation methodologies in the current rule. The proposed revisions
would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially
affect the type of information that must be collected. The owners or
operators are not required to actually submit RY2016 reports until
March 31, 2017, which is three months or more after we expect the final
rule amendments based on this proposal to be published, thus providing
ample opportunity for reporters to adjust to the amendments.
2. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2017?
Table 4 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed
changes that would apply to RY2017. For these revisions, reporters
would submit an annual report on March 31, 2018.

Table 4--Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--General Provisions.................. Sec. 98.2; Sec. 98.3; Sec.
98.4; Sec. 98.6; Sec.
98.7(e)(33); and Tables A-3
and A-4.
C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion All proposed changes in
Sources. subpart.
E--Adipic Acid Production.............. All proposed changes in
subpart.
F--Aluminum Production................. All proposed changes in
subpart.
G--Ammonia Manufacturing............... All proposed changes in
subpart.
N--Glass Production.................... All proposed changes in
subpart.
O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 All proposed changes in
Destruction. subpart.
P--Hydrogen Production................. All proposed changes in
subpart.
Q--Iron and Steel Production........... All proposed changes in
subpart.
S--Lime Manufacturing.................. All proposed changes in
subpart.
U--Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate..... All proposed changes in
subpart.
X--Petrochemical Production............ All proposed changes in
subpart.
Z--Phosphoric Acid Production.......... All proposed changes in
subpart.
AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing....... All proposed changes in
subpart.
CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing............. All proposed changes in
subpart.
DD--Use of Electric Transmission and All proposed changes in
Distribution Equipment. subpart.
II--Industrial Wastewater Treatment.... All proposed changes in
subpart.
LL--Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid All proposed changes in
Fuels. subpart.
MM--Suppliers of Petroleum Products.... All proposed changes in
subpart.
NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and All proposed changes in
Natural Gas Liquids. subpart.
PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide........ All proposed changes in
subpart.
RR--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon All proposed changes in
Dioxide. subpart.
TT--Industrial Waste landfills......... All proposed changes in
subpart.

[[Page 2542]]

UU--Injection of Carbon Dioxide........ All proposed changes in
subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

.The changes to subparts listed in Table 4 of this preamble would
apply to the annual reports submitted for RY2017 on March 31, 2018;
these changes are proposed to apply to the 2017 reporting year in order
to allow for adequate time for the agency to integrate the revisions
through e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT), as well as
prepare to incorporate the revisions into other GHGRP datasets and
publications. The changes to subparts included in Table 4 of this
preamble would be feasible for reporters to implement for RY2017
because these changes are consistent with the data collection and
calculation methodologies in the current rule. In most cases, the
proposed revisions include minor revisions such as editorial
corrections, corrections to cross-references, and technical
clarifications regarding the existing regulatory requirements. Where
calculation equations are proposed to be modified, the changes
generally clarify terms in the emission calculation equations and do
not materially affect monitoring requirements or how emissions are
calculated. In some cases, we are adding flexibility by providing
alternative monitoring methods or missing data procedures that would
reduce burden on reporters. For example, in subpart AA (Pulp and Paper
Manufacturing), for missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor
solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, we are proposing to allow
reporters to use the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired that are
currently reported under 40 CFR 63, subpart MM (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion
Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp
Mills) as an alternative to maximum mass and flow rate values currently
required in 40 CFR 98.275(b) (see section III.O of this preamble for
additional information). Other proposed changes would reduce the type
of information that must be collected; e.g., we are proposing to revise
40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to clarify the EPA's policies allowing
reporters to cease reporting under Part 98 (see section III.A.1 of this
preamble), and we are proposing to remove reporting requirements in
subpart O (HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) (see section
III.H of this preamble) and subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid
Fuels) (see section III.U of this preamble) that are no longer needed
to support verification or other activities. Although some of the
proposed revisions included in Table 4 of this preamble would include
reporting additional data, the EPA has determined that the data we are
proposing to collect would be readily available to reporters. For
example, we are proposing to add requirements to 40 CFR part 98,
subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) and
subpart NN (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) for
reporters to include the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in
the facility's annual report. Because these revisions would not require
the collection of additional data or changes to existing monitoring
requirements, it is feasible for these revisions to be implemented for
RY2016. However, we are not implementing these changes until RY2017 to
allow the agency sufficient time to incorporate the revisions into e-
GGRT and IVT. Finally, we note that the reporters affected under the
subparts in Table 4 of this preamble are not required to actually
submit RY2017 reports until March 31, 2018. Because a final rule based
on this proposal would be finalized in late 2016, reporters will have
over a year to prepare for the amendments before they must submit
RY2017 reports.
3. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2018?
We are proposing that the revisions to the subparts listed in Table
5 of this preamble would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2018,
which must be submitted by March 31, 2019.

Table 5--Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable for RY2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A--General Provisions.................. Sec. 98.7(l)(1); Table A-5.
V--Nitric Acid Production.............. All proposed changes in
subpart.
Y--Petroleum Refineries................ All proposed changes in
subpart.
FF--Underground Coal Mines............. All proposed changes in
subpart.
OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse All proposed changes in
Gases. subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are proposing that revisions to subparts V, Y, FF, and OO, and
related changes to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) and Table A-5 of subpart A, would
apply to RY2018, with reporters following the revised rule requirements
beginning January 1, 2018. In several cases, the proposed changes would
revise the applicability of a source category to certain facilities or
significantly revise existing calculation or monitoring methodologies.
For example, we are proposing to revise the definition of the
industrial gas supplier source category in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO
to include facilities that destroy, but do not produce, fluorinated
GHGs and fluorinated HTFs. These proposed changes could expand the
applicability of Part 98 to additional facilities that were not
previously required to report under the rule; these facilities would
require more time to acquire and install monitoring equipment and begin
collecting data under Part 98. Similarly, we are proposing to revise
the calculation methodology for delayed coking units in 40 CFR part 98,
subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) to better reflect industry emissions
(see section III.M of this preamble).
As discussed in section III.R of this preamble, we are proposing
some methodological changes to subpart FF to clarify the type of
facilities included in the source category and revise the monitoring
and data collection requirements to improve the quality of the data
collected. We are proposing a related revision to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) in

[[Page 2543]]

subpart A to incorporate updated methods for sampling methane
concentration and conducting measurements of flow rate, temperature,
pressure, and moisture content. Given that the final rule revisions
would not be finalized until the second half of 2016, it is assumed
that it would not be feasible for these facilities to acquire, install,
and calibrate new monitoring equipment, or to perform more frequent
monitoring, in time for the reports submitted for RY2017. However, the
EPA is also seeking comment on whether underground coal mine facilities
would indeed be able to meet these revised requirements for RY2017.
In past rulemakings, the EPA has typically required monitoring to
begin a few months after finalization of revised rules, and has offered
Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM) to be used temporarily to
provide sufficient time for facilities to come into full compliance
with the newly finalized monitoring methods. In this action, to avoid
the need to offer the use of BAMM and to stagger the burden associated
with making revisions to e-GGRT, we are proposing that the revisions to
these subparts would apply to RY2018 reports. If finalized, subpart V,
Y, FF, and OO reporters, including new reporters, would begin following
the revised rule requirements on January 1, 2018 and submit the first
annual reports using the revised monitoring and data collection methods
on March 31, 2019. This schedule would allow at least one year for
subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate
any new monitoring equipment, as well as implement any changes to
existing monitoring methods, for the 2018 reporting year. The proposed
timeline also allows sufficient time for the agency to integrate any
associated changes to reporting requirements in the affected subparts
into e-GGRT and other GHGRP activities, such as verification.
The EPA is proposing one related change to subpart A that could
apply to certain subpart FF reporters prior to January 1, 2018. In
keeping with the proposed changes discussed in section III.A.1 of this
preamble, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to
streamline the reporting requirements for closed coal mines. These
proposed revisions would apply beginning January 1, 2017, consistent
with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.2 listed in Table 4 of this
preamble, and could affect owners and operators of abandoned
underground mines (see section III.A and III.R of this preamble for
additional information). All other proposed revisions related to
subpart FF would apply beginning January 1, 2018 for the reasons
described above.

F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule?

This preamble references several documents developed to support the
proposed rulemaking. These documents provide additional information
regarding the proposed changes to Part 98, and supplementary
information which the EPA considered in the development of the proposed
revisions. These documents are referenced in sections II through V of
this preamble and are available in the docket to this rulemaking or
other rulemaking dockets, as follows:
``Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule.'' EPA memorandum summarizing the less substantive minor
corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the proposed
rule, as discussed in section II of this preamble. Available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0526.
``Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.'' From
Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated
January 29, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart V
(Nitric Acid Production) as discussed in section III.K of this
preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process
Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at
VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X.'' Letter received
from Occidental Chemical Company, July 10, 2015, as discussed in
section III.L of this preamble. Available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting
Requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).'' From
Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI International (RTI)
to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed
revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section
III.M of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units.''
From Jeff Coburn, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015.
Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum
Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. Available
in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526.
``Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors
Based on Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly).''
Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015. Memorandum supporting
revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as discussed in
section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Use of Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health
Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation from Mine
Ventilation Shafts.'' From Clark Talkington, Advanced Resources
International, Inc. (ARI) to Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 2015.
Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines)
as discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth
in the Peer-Reviewed Literature.'' From Kate Bronstein, Meaghan
McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17,
2015, Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart HH (Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.S of this preamble.
Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Review of Site-Specific Industrial Waste Degradable
Organic Content Data'' from Jeff Coburn and Katherine Bronstein, RTI to
Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015. Memorandum supporting
proposed revisions to subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills) as
discussed in section III.Y of this preamble. Available in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality
Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions.''
Memorandum listing all proposed new, substantially revised, and
existing data elements with proposed category assignments and
confidentiality determinations, as described in Section IV of this
preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
``Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of
`Inputs to Equations' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015.''
Memorandum, September 2014. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2010-0929.

[[Page 2544]]

``Summary of Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program (GHGRP) Part 98 `Inputs to Emission Equations' Data Elements
Deferred Until 2013.'' Memorandum, December 17, 2012. Available in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0526.
``Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality
Determinations for Part 98 Reporting Elements.'' Memorandum, April 29,
2011. Available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0924.
``Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.'' Memorandum describing the costs of the
proposed revisions to Part 98, as discussed in section V of this
preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

G. Methods Incorporated by Reference

In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text for 40 CFR 98.7 that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference the following:
Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content
of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM
D6866-12), which would apply to subpart C reporters (see section
III.B.2 of this preamble). These standards are available on the ASTM
Web site (https://www.astm.org/) to everyone at a cost determined by the
ASTM ($50). The ASTM also offers memberships or subscriptions that
allow unlimited access to their methods. The cost of obtaining these
methods is not a significant financial burden, making the methods
reasonably available for reporters. The EPA will also make a copy of
these documents available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for
more information) for review purposes only.
Inspection and sampling standards from the Coal Mine
Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-
V-1 (February 2013) as published by the Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), which would apply to subpart FF reporters (see
section III.R.2 of this preamble). These standards are available free
of charge through the MSHA Web site (https://www.msha.gov). The EPA has
also made, and will continue to make, these documents available
electronically through www.regulations.gov.
Because these standards do not present a significant financial
burden to reporters, the EPA has determined that these methods are
reasonably available. The EPA has also made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA
office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).

II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98

In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise specific provisions
in Part 98 to simplify and streamline implementation of the rule,
improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the
rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions
that have been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting
entities. The EPA has identified four categories of changes that we are
proposing in this rulemaking, which include the following:
Revisions to streamline implementation of the rule by
reducing or simplifying requirements that would ease burden on
reporters and the EPA, such as revising requirements to focus GHGRP and
reporter resources on relevant data, removing reporting requirements
for specific facilities which report little to no emissions, or
removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary;
Amendments that would expand monitoring, applicability, or
reporting requirements that are necessary to enhance the quality of the
data collected, improve verification of collected data under the GHGRP,
and improve the accuracy of data included in the U.S. GHG Inventory;
Other amendments, such as amendments to calculation,
monitoring, or measurement methods that would address prior petitioner
or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional
flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry
processes and emissions).
Minor clarifications and corrections, including:
corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations;
clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to
better or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to
correct cross references within and between subparts; and other
editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the public's
understanding of the rule.
Sections II.A through II.D of this preamble describe each of the
above categories in more detail and provide rationale for the changes
included in each category.
The proposed changes in this action would advance the EPA's goal of
maximizing rule effectiveness. For example, these proposed changes
would clarify existing rule provisions, thus enabling government,
regulated entities, and the public to easily identify and understand
rule requirements. In addition, specific changes such as increasing the
flexibility given to reporting entities related to requesting
extensions for revising annual reports would make compliance easier
than non-compliance. The proposed changes also serve to clarify whether
and when reporting requirements apply to a facility, and more
specifically when a facility may discontinue reporting, thereby allowed
a regulated entity to regularly assess their compliance and prevent
noncompliance.
The proposed changes would also improve the EPA's ability to assess
compliance by adding reporting elements that allow the EPA to more
thoroughly verify GHG data and understand trends in emissions. For
example, the proposed requirement to report the date of installation of
any abatement equipment at Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production
facilities will increase the EPA and public's understanding of the use
of and trends in emissions reduction technologies. Lastly, the proposed
changes further advance the ability of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Program to provide access to quality data on greenhouse gas emissions
by adding key data elements to improve the usefulness of the data. One
example is the proposed addition of the reporting of emissions by state
for Suppliers of Natural Gas (subpart NN reporters). This data will
allow users of the GHGRP data to more easily identify the state within
which the reporter operates, which will be useful for determining state
level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply and increase
transparency and usefulness of the data reported.
Additional details for the specific amendments proposed for each
subpart are included in section III of this preamble. To reduce the
length of this preamble, we have summarized the remaining less
substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing
revisions in the memorandum, ``Table of 2015 Revisions to the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Table
of Revisions'') available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2015-0526). These changes include straightforward clarifications of

[[Page 2545]]

requirements to better reflect the EPA's intent; harmonizing changes
within subparts (such as harmonizing terminology); corrections to
calculation terms and cross-references; editorial and minor error
corrections; and removal of redundant text. The Table of Revisions
describes each proposed change within a subpart, including those
itemized in this preamble, and provides the current rule text and the
proposed correction. Where the proposed change is listed only in the
Table of Revisions, the rationale for the proposed change is also
listed there.
We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically
identified in this notice (including the changes listed in the Table of
Revisions) for the identified subparts. We are not reopening other
aspects of Part 98.

A. Revisions To Streamline Implementation of Part 98

Following implementation of Part 98, the EPA has identified several
areas of the rule which could be revised or simplified to improve the
efficiency of the requirements or to reduce the burden on reporters and
the EPA. We are consequently proposing several revisions that would
streamline the requirements as well as improve implementation of the
rule.
Several of the proposed revisions would clarify and revise the
requirements of Part 98 in order to focus the GHGRP and reporter
resources on the most relevant data. In some cases, we are proposing to
revise requirements to reduce when facilities must report emissions,
such as by clarifying requirements for facilities that may report very
little or no emissions. The EPA does not anticipate a significant
change in the overall reported emissions or a reduction in the quality
of reported carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and supply.
Removing these instances of reporting would also reduce burden on some
reporters.
As an example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 98, subpart
FF to allow an underground coal mine to cease reporting after it has
closed and its status is determined to be ``abandoned'' by MSHA. The
CO2e emissions from abandoned and sealed mines are far below
the reporting threshold. The EPA is proposing these types of changes to
reduce burden, as well as to focus the collection of data under the
GHGRP on those sources that are expected to emit, import, or export
larger amounts of greenhouse gases.
In addition, the EPA is proposing in this rulemaking that pilot
gas, which is considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the
flare tip, may be excluded from the quantity of flare gas used to
perform GHG emissions calculations for subparts Q (Iron and Steel
Production), X (Petrochemical Production), and Y (Petroleum
Refineries). The quantity of GHG emissions associated with pilot gas is
very small relative to the total GHG emissions from a flare at
petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and
steel production facilities. Eliminating the monitoring of this small
quantity of emissions will not adversely impact the quality of the
greenhouse gas data collected and may decrease the burden associated
with monitoring the flare gas. We are proposing similar revisions to
other subparts that simplify data collection for reporters and focus
the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA requires
to review, assess, and verify reported emissions.
Other proposed revisions to the rule include changes that would
streamline the rule, such as removing reported data elements that are
no longer necessary. For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL
(Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels), we are proposing to remove
requirements of 40 CFR 98.386 that are no longer needed to support
verification or other activities. In a prior notice, ``2013 Revisions
to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality
Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements'' (78 FR
71904, November 29, 2013, hereafter referred to as ``2013 Revisions
Rule''), we finalized amendments to subpart LL that removed
requirements in 40 CFR 98.386 for suppliers to report the annual
quantity of each product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the
measurement method used. Subpart LL reporters are currently only
required to report the total annual quantities of each product or
natural gas liquid in metric tons or barrels supplied. In this action,
we are proposing to remove the provisions of 40 CFR 98.386 that require
suppliers to report the methods used to measure the quantities of each
product reported. This change would harmonize with the previously
finalized revisions which removed the requirement to report products by
method and would reduce the burden on reporters.
We are also proposing certain revisions that would streamline the
reporting and verification process. These proposed changes would ease
the burden on reporters (e.g., by reducing the actions required of
reporters) and improve agency implementation of the rule. For example,
we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA's policies
allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing
provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i) provide options for reporters to
discontinue reporting when annual emissions are less than certain
thresholds, or if process operations are permanently shut down. We are
proposing to clarify when these requirements apply for suppliers,
processes or operations that cease operation in the reporting year, and
facilities where the operations are changed such that a process or
operation no longer meets the ``Definition of Source Category'' for a
subpart. These provisions are anticipated to streamline reporting by
specifying when reporters are no longer required to report for a
particular process or operation.
We are proposing similar changes to Part 98 which would improve the
efficiency of the reporting process. The specific changes that we are
proposing that are intended to streamline Part 98, as described in this
section, are described for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections
III.A through III.Y of this preamble.

B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 and
Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory

The EPA is also proposing amendments in this action that would
improve the existing applicability, monitoring, or reporting
requirements of Part 98 in order to enhance the quality and accuracy of
the data collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected
data, and provide additional data to help improve estimates included in
the U.S. GHG Inventory.
Several of the amendments in this action are being proposed to
improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. The data
collected under Part 98 are used to inform the EPA's understanding of
the relative emissions and distribution of emissions from specific
industries, the factors that influence GHG emission rates, and to
inform policy options and potential regulations. Following several
years of implementation of the rule, the EPA has identified certain
areas of the rule where clarifying amendments to source category
definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies or monitoring
methods, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements are
needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule.
For example, we are proposing revisions to subpart FF to revise the
monitoring requirements for methane liberated from ventilation systems
to remove the option to use quarterly testing by the MSHA. This change
is being proposed because we have determined that the quarterly
flowrate data gathered by

[[Page 2546]]

MSHA cannot be used to reliably estimate coal mine emissions for GHG
reporting purposes. Instead, coal mines will be required to use one of
the other existing methods to measure emissions from ventilation,
either collection of grab samples or use of continuous emissions
monitoring systems (CEMS). In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking
comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples
taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved
data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA is also seeking
comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be
taken at underground coal mines. Currently coal mines must take grab
samples on a quarterly basis and report methane liberation on a
quarterly basis. In this action, the EPA is seeking comment on
increasing the frequency of grab samples to monthly sampling in order
to provide more transparent and reliable measurement of methane
emissions from ventilation systems while more closely aligning the
monitoring requirements for mine ventilation with those for
degasification systems. The EPA also seeks comments on other monitoring
frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or monitoring
frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as
bimonthly). For comments on increasing the monitoring frequency and the
availability of other alternative monitoring methods, the EPA
encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background
information on multi-year ventilation system monitoring on a basis that
is more frequent than quarterly. This information will help determine
the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation emissions that
is needed to ensure reliable and accurate measurements.
In another case, we are proposing to revise existing reporting
requirements to collect more detailed facility data. For example, we
are proposing to amend the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98,
subpart O (HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) to require
reporting of the information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at a process level.
Currently, reporters are required to submit the annual mass of HCFC-22
produced, the annual mass of reactants fed into the process, the annual
mass of HFC-23 emitted, and additional information under 40 CFR
98.156(a) at the facility level. Collecting this information on a
process-level basis would further our understanding of emissions from
HCFC-22 production processes and provide a more accurate emissions
profile for this sector.
Some of the proposed amendments include revisions to existing
reporting requirements to clarify the data that are currently reported
or improve verification of reported data. For example, we are proposing
amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH to add a requirement for
landfills with gas collection systems to report the number of hours
active gas flow was sent to each destruction device instead of the
annual operating hours for each destruction device. This revision is
needed in order for the EPA's reporting tool to accurately calculate a
key variable in certain equations used to calculate emissions. Although
the proposed change would require different data to be reported, it
would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the number
of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer
verification errors and follow-up messages to reporters.
We are also proposing several amendments to ensure data collected
by the GHGRP adequately support the U.S. GHG Inventory. As described in
the preamble of the proposed GHG Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10,
2009), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and complement the U.S. GHG
Inventory by advancing the understanding of emission processes and
monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors.
Specifically, the GHGRP complements the U.S. GHG Inventory by providing
data from individual facilities and suppliers above certain thresholds
to improve the assumptions and emissions values used in the U.S. GHG
Inventory. The collected facility, unit, and process-level GHG data
from the GHGRP provide and confirm the national statistics and emission
estimates presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory, which are calculated
using aggregated national data. These proposed amendments include
clarifications to source category definitions, revisions to calculation
methodologies, and revisions or additions to reporting requirements
that will improve the accuracy of the data included in the U.S. GHG
Inventory and improve our ability to inform the development of GHG
policies and programs. For example, we are proposing revisions to 40
CFR part 98, subpart E (Adipic Acid Production) and 40 CFR part 98,
subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) that would require reporting of the
date of installation of any abatement systems (if applicable). The
addition of these data elements would help improve the accuracy of
trend estimates for these sectors in the U.S. GHG Inventory.
Specifically, the proposed data elements would allow the agency to
apply emission factors with and without abatement systems over the
correct time periods using the reported dates.
The specific changes that we are proposing for each subpart, as
appropriate, are described in sections III.A through III.Y of this
preamble.

C. Other Amendments

In addition to the amendments described in sections II.A and II.B
of this preamble, the EPA is proposing other amendments to certain
subparts of Part 98. Through outreach and communication with
stakeholders, the EPA has identified certain aspects of the rule that
may require substantive revision, such as amending calculation,
monitoring, or measurement methods to provide flexibility for certain
facilities, or to more accurately reflect industry processes and
emissions. These changes would respond to comments raised by
stakeholders in prior rulemakings and issues raised by petitioners for
certain subparts, and would more closely align rule requirements with
the processes conducted at specific facilities. For example, for 40 CFR
part 98, subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills), we are proposing to
add several waste types for pulp and paper, including associated
degradable organic content (DOC) and k-values, to Table TT-1 of subpart
TT to include common industrial waste subtypes. The EPA is proposing
these revisions following comments on 2013 Revisions Rule, in which
stakeholders requested the EPA add these common waste types to Table
TT-1 of subpart TT. These proposed revisions would improve the accuracy
of calculated emissions reported by these facilities.
Additional details for the amendments described in this section are
discussed for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through
III.Y of this preamble.

D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions

The EPA is proposing additional minor corrections, clarifications,
and harmonizing revisions that would improve understanding of the rule.
These revisions primarily include simple revisions of requirements to
better reflect the EPA's intent, such as clarifying changes to
definitions, calculation methodologies, monitoring and quality
assurance requirements, missing data procedures, and reporting
requirements. Some of these proposed changes result from questions
raised by reporters through the GHGRP Help Desk or e-GGRT and are
intended to resolve

[[Page 2547]]

uncertainties in the regulatory text. The proposed changes would reduce
confusion for reporters and correct inconsistencies in the rule.
In some cases, we are proposing minor amendments that would clarify
general monitoring requirements, measurement methods, or reported data
elements. These revisions include less substantive changes, such as
simple corrections to calculation terms, revisions of cross-references,
harmonizing changes (such as changes to terminology within a subpart
for consistency), simple editorial corrections, and removal of
redundant text. As discussed earlier in section II of this preamble,
these less substantive revisions are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-
0526).

III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart

This section summarizes the specific substantive amendments
proposed for each Part 98 subpart, as generally described in section II
of this preamble. Sections III.A through III.Z of this preamble also
identify where additional minor corrections to a subpart are included
in the Table of Revisions.

A. Subpart A--General Provisions

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart A of Part 98. This section
discusses the substantive changes to subpart A; additional minor
amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table
of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart A To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing several amendments that are intended to simplify and
streamline the requirements of subpart A and increase the efficiency of
the report submittal process. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR
98.2(i) to clarify the EPA's policies allowing reporters to cease
reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)
and (2) provide options for reporters to discontinue reporting if
annual emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five
reporting years or less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three
reporting years, or if process operations are permanently shut down.
There has been confusion among reporters as to whether these off-ramp
provisions apply to both direct emitters and suppliers, given the use
of the term ``emissions'' in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) since suppliers
report the quantity of product supplied into the economy and the
emissions that would occur if the products were completely released,
combusted, or oxidized when used by their customers. The EPA's original
intention was that these off-ramp provisions apply to both suppliers
(subparts LL through QQ) and direct emitters (subparts A through KK and
subparts SS and TT), as well as the Injection of Carbon Dioxide source
category (subpart UU). The EPA is adding a new paragraph to 40 CFR
98.2(i) to clarify this point. We are proposing to retain the current
language in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) (i.e., ``reported emissions'') to
continue to refer to direct emitters and to add new paragraph 40 CFR
98.2(i)(4) to clarify that the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2)
apply to suppliers (i.e., by specifying in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) that 40
CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers by substituting the term
``quantity of GHG supplied'' for ``emissions'' in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and
(2)). For example, a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might
qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an
exporter of industrial greenhouse gases because GHG exports are less
than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years (i.e., as
provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)). Further, we have clarified that, for
suppliers, these off-ramp provisions apply individually to each
importer, exporter, petroleum refinery, fractionator of natural gas
liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of carbon
dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), or fluorinated greenhouse gases.
For example, regarding the example above where a supplier of industrial
greenhouse gases qualifies under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to
discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases,
this same supplier would still be required to report as an importer if
they also report GHG imports that do not qualify under proposed 40 CFR
98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting because GHG imports are not less
than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Likewise, a
company might qualify under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting
as a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases under subpart OO
(Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) because the reported
quantity of industrial greenhouse gases supplied is less than 15,000
mtCO2e for three reporting years (i.e., as provided in 40
CFR 98.2(i)(2)), but the company might still be required to report as a
supplier of carbon dioxide under subpart PP because the reported
quantity of carbon dioxide supplied is not less than the thresholds
specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Additionally, the proposed off-
ramp requirements for suppliers would be applied separately from those
for direct emitters. This would occur whether the supplier and direct
emitter report as two separate entities in e-GGRT or, for simplicity,
as one entity in e-GGRT. For example, if a facility reports under
subpart Y (a direct emitter subpart) and subpart MM (a supplier
subpart), and the facility meets the off-ramp requirements in proposed
40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) for the GHG quantities reported under subpart MM but
does not meet the off-ramp requirements in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2) for
GHG emissions under subpart Y, then the facility may cease reporting
under subpart MM while still reporting under subpart Y. If the subpart
MM and subpart Y data were submitted in two different annual reports
under two different e-GGRT identification numbers, the facility would
discontinue submitting reports for subpart MM all together while
continuing to submit reports for subpart Y. If the subpart MM and
subpart Y data were submitted in one annual report under one e-GGRT
identification number, the facility would continue to submit reports
under that e-GGRT identification number with the subpart Y data and
without the subpart MM data.
The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) allow reporters to
discontinue reporting if all processes or operations cease operation
(e.g., plant closure). There has been confusion among reporters as to
whether there is a similar provision to cease reporting for situations
where a single process or operation ceases operation. The EPA is
proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to specify that reporting is not
required for any process or operation that ceases operation in the
reporting years following the reporting year in which the process or
operation ceased operation, provided the owner or operator submits a
notification to the Administrator and explains the reasons for the
cessation of operation. For example, if a facility previously reporting
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources)
and 40 CFR part 98, subpart T (Magnesium Production) removes all of
their combustion sources, but continues their magnesium casting
operations under subpart T, the proposed revision to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3)
would clarify that this facility is exempt from the subpart C reporting
of the combustion processes in the reporting years following the year
in which the combustion sources ceased

[[Page 2548]]

operation. Note that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or
other temporary cessation of operations, and that reporting must resume
for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting
processes or operations resume operation. A similar change is being
proposed to streamline reporting for operators of underground coal
mines subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF. Specifically, we are
proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to delete an exclusion for
abandoned underground coal mines that precludes them from the off-ramp.
Data submitted by closed and abandoned mines during the first four
years of the GHGRP have improved the EPA's understanding of emissions
from these mines and have shown that they produce GHG emissions in
quantities well below the reporting threshold. This change is further
discussed in section III.R.1 of this preamble.
In addition, there has been confusion regarding how Part 98
addresses situations where a facility no longer meets the ``Definition
of Source Category'' specified in an applicable subpart. For example,
subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) applies to
anaerobic processes that treat wastewater from either meat processing
operations (NAICS 3116) or fruit and vegetable processing (NAICS 3114).
If a facility were subject to subpart II because it processes meat
byproducts into human food, but switched its operations to producing
animal food or to processing seafood rather than meat byproducts, then
the processing plant would no longer meet the source category
definition of ``industrial wastewater treatment'' in 40 CFR 98.350
because it no longer falls under the classification of NAICS 3116. The
facility, therefore, would not be subject to reporting under subpart
II. The EPA is proposing to add a new provision in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to
clarify that if the operations of a facility or supplier are changed
such that a process or operation no longer meets the ``Definition of
Source Category'' as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner
or operator is exempt from reporting under any such subpart for the
reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided
that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator
that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation
no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. For any
future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the
``Definition of Source Category'' as specified in an applicable
subpart, the owner or operator would be required to resume reporting
for the process or operation.
Lastly, the EPA is proposing to limit resubmittal of reports to
five years prior to the current reporting year. For example, in RY2016,
resubmittal of reports from RY2011-2015 would be allowed, but a
resubmittal of a RY2010 report would no longer be permitted. The EPA
currently requires facilities to resubmit past year reports for the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in which a substantive error is
identified, and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of the
program. Based on the resubmittals to the program to date, the EPA has
determined that the number of reports that are resubmitted falls
drastically after the active verification period of 6 months, and
continues to fall over time. Because there is significant burden to the
EPA for maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to
resubmit reports for past years, the EPA is seeking comment on limiting
the resubmittals to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. The
EPA would set the limit at five years in part because there is a 5-year
recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.\3\ The EPA has determined that
this change will have minimal impact on the quality of the data set, as
resubmissions for past years to date have not impacted overall sector
or total emission trends. While this change would not require a
revision to the regulatory text, the EPA wishes to seek input from
stakeholders prior to implementing this policy. As a result, in this
action, the EPA is asking for comment on limiting resubmittal of
reports to five years before the current reporting year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ According to 40 CFR 98.3(g), facilities using the Inputs
Verification Tool are required to maintain all records at the
facility for five years. Facilities that are not required to use the
Inputs Verification Tool for any subparts under which they are
reporting are required to maintain records for three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Revisions to Subpart A To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
The EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart A that would
improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. For the
reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, these proposed
revisions are intended to collect data that would improve the EPA's
understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are anticipated to generally
result in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
First we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.3(c) to revise the
content of the annual report to include three new data elements to
uniquely identify individually reported fluorinated GHGs and
fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTF): Chemical name, CAS registry
number, and the linear chemical formula. Currently, 40 CFR
98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E) and (F) require reporting of each fluorinated GHG
and fluorinated HTF from applicable source categories, and 40 CFR
98.3(c)(5)(ii) requires the reporting of each fluorinated GHG from
suppliers. The rule, however, does not specify how to identify each
compound; instead, only the name of a GHG is required in a facility's
annual report. Generally, reporters identify the GHGs in their annual
report from Table A-1 of subpart A, which provides a list of
fluorinated GHG along with the GWP of each gas, a registry number
assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and the chemical
formula. When newly developed compounds are not listed in Table A-1 of
subpart A, reporters classify the GHG as ``other'' and provide a
chemical name. In these situations, different reporters sometimes refer
to the ``other'' gas by different names (e.g., a standard IUPAC name as
well as one or more common or trade names), especially when compounds
have more than one name that is scientifically valid. This also results
in facilities reporting the same gas under a different name from year
to year. As an example, in prior reporting years, separate facilities
under 40 CFR part 98, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) have
reported emissions of the same fluorinated GHGs under multiple common
names (e.g., octafluorotetrahydrofuran may be reported separately as
octafluorotetrahydrofuran, perfluorotetrahydrofuran, and c-
C4F8O). Further, with the fast pace of technology
development, new fluorinated chemicals are routinely being developed.
Because of the rapid pace at which new chemicals enter the marketplace,
it is not feasible for the EPA to update Table A-1 or the fluorinated
GHG and fluorinated HTF lists in the GHGRP's electronic reporting
system fast enough to keep pace with all chemicals in use at any point
in time. If a fluorinated GHG were to be reported under a different
name in a future reporting year, it could result in delays or errors in
data analysis and trends if the GHGRP dataset contains information for
the GHG associated with two different names.
To improve the usefulness of the emissions and supplier data
reported, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) and (5) to
include two additional identifiers of fluorinated

[[Page 2549]]

GHGs and fluorinated HTFs so that each compound can be identified
unambiguously. To the extent available, we propose to require chemical
identifiers provided by national consensus organizations. The
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides a
naming convention that can be used for all organic chemicals. The
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) of the American Chemical Society
assigns a chemical registry number that is widely used in industry and
academia to identify individual chemical compounds. However, even with
these two standardized services, we have learned that chemicals often
are reported under different names for a variety of reasons. Therefore,
knowing the linear chemical formula would help the EPA to classify
compounds consistently. (We are proposing to require reporting of the
linear chemical formula rather than the condensed chemical formula
because the former provides information on the structure of the
fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is useful for identifying the
compound and distinguishing it from other fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs that have the same number of atoms of each element in
different arrangements.) Accordingly, we are proposing to require
reporting all three of the following data elements to ensure that the
EPA can properly classify and identify each unique compound reported:
Chemical name. If a chemical is not included in Table A-1
of subpart A (or not listed in the Web forms in the EPA's reporting
tool), then facilities or suppliers would be required to report the
name using the chemical naming convention provided by IUPAC.
CAS Registry Number. If a CAS number is not assigned or if
the CAS number is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then reporters would report an
identification number assigned by the EPA's Substance Registry
Services.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Substance Registry Services (SRS) is the EPA's central
system for information about substances that are tracked or
regulated by EPA or other sources. It is the authoritative resource
for basic information about chemicals, biological organisms, and
other substances of interest to EPA and its state and tribal
partners. See https://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linear chemical formula.
Next, we are proposing to add a sentence to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8) to
clarify the missing data provisions. The proposed revision explains
that missing data provisions apply not only to reported parameters, but
to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. Use of missing
data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate
regardless of whether that parameter is reported. It is the EPA's
intention that the effect be documented, such that the accuracy of the
reported emissions may be better understood.
We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.4(i) to update the content
of the certificate of representation (COR). For each facility or
supplier, all GHG reports and other communications are submitted by a
``designated representative'' of the owners and operators of the
facility or supplier. The designated representative (DR) acts as a
legal representative between the facility or supplier and the agency.
The DR is appointed by submitting to the EPA a COR at least 60 days
prior to the deadline for submission of the initial annual GHG report.
Currently, 40 CFR 98.4(i) specifies that the COR must contain the
following information:
Identification of the facility or supplier;
Name and contact information for the DR;
A list of the owners and operators of the facility or
supplier;
Certification statements that the DR was appointed by a
binding agreement with the owners and operators, that the DR has the
necessary authority to carry out the duties and responsibilities on
behalf of the owners and operators, and that the owners and operators
are bound by the representations, actions, inactions, or submissions of
the DR; and
Signature of the DR.
We are proposing the addition of one item to the COR, which is a
list of all the 40 CFR 98 subparts under which the facility or supplier
intends to report. The information on the subparts anticipated to be
reported is for the EPA's internal planning and management purposes,
and would streamline the EPA's internal processes related to preparing
for upcoming reporting seasons. This new COR requirement would impose
no new burden on reporters. The revised content of the COR would apply
only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not previously
reported to the GHGRP. The DR would not be required to re-submit a
previously submitted COR to add the new information. For example, the
new information would not be required for a revised COR that is
submitted to change the DR, address, or list of owners. The information
submitted on anticipated subpart applicability would be based on
whatever applicability analysis the facility or supplier has conducted
on their own to determine that Part 98 applies, and on best engineering
judgment as to the specific subparts that apply at the time that the
COR is submitted. There would be no legal obligation to include GHG
data for a particular subpart in the annual GHG report only because
that subpart was included in the list of subparts submitted in the COR.
Rather, the annual report must include all of the subparts that the DR
determines meet the applicability requirements of 40 CFR 98.2 at any
time during a reporting year. Also, the facility or supplier is not
required to maintain any records to support the listing of subparts in
the COR.
Finally, we are proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to
include a requirement that a facility must inform the EPA whenever the
facility (or supplier) stops reporting under one e-GGRT identification
number because the emissions (or quantity supplied) are being reported
under another e-GGRT identification number. The EPA anticipates that
this would occur when one facility purchases another facility (in its
entirety) that is physically adjacent. The emissions from the purchased
process equipment would automatically become part of the facility for
the purchaser, and the facility previously reported by the seller would
no longer exist. In general, the rule currently requires a facility
reporting under an e-GGRT identification number to have a valid reason
for discontinuing reporting under that e-GGRT identification number and
to notify the EPA of that valid reason. The e-GGRT system is set up to
collect such notification from the discontinuing reporter, and the EPA
routinely follows up with all facilities that have discontinued
reporting without providing a valid reason. On several occasions, a
facility that was discontinuing reporting under its e-GGRT
identification number contacted the GHGRP Help Desk in an attempt to
notify the EPA that the emissions would be reported under another e-
GGRT identification number. In those cases, the discontinuing reporter
was looking for a formal way to transfer the reporting obligation to
the other facility and confirm that the reporter was no longer
responsible for reporting those emissions. The rule currently does not
require reporting of any information from which the EPA could ascertain
that the discontinuation of reporting was done for a valid reason or
with which the discontinuing reporter could make a formal notification.
To ensure that the EPA is aware of situations when an annual report for
a facility or supplier

[[Page 2550]]

is no longer required because the emissions will now be reported under
a different facility, we are proposing the following changes: If a
facility reported GHG emissions in the previous year, and the GHG
emissions are being reported as part of another facility in the current
reporting year, the prior facility must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT
facility identification number under which the emissions are reported
in the current reporting year. A similar requirement would apply to
suppliers. In other words, whenever a business relationship such as an
acquisition, merger, or joint venture abrogates a facility or supplier
that previously registered in e-GGRT and submitted an annual GHG
report, the designated representative for the subsumed facility or
supplier would have to report the e-GGRT identification number of the
reconstituted facility or supplier. The facility identification number
should be readily available to the reporter, and this change would
allow the EPA to better assess compliance with the Program while
providing the subsumed facility or supplier a formal method of
notifying the EPA of their valid reason for discontinuing reporting.
This provision would not include Onshore Petroleum and Natural Gas
Production Facilities reporting under subpart W, consistent with FAQ
749,\5\ which currently does not require these facilities to notify the
EPA when they discontinue reporting because of a change in ownership of
all wells and associated equipment in a basin. In proposing this
change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether requiring the
reconstituted entity to report the e-GGRT identification number of the
subsumed facility or supplier would impose less burden on the regulated
community while achieving the same objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The EPA publishes Frequently Asked Questions to provide
general and administrative information about 40 CFR part 98. FAQ 749
is available at: https://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=198705183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information on subpart A confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
3. Other Amendments to Subpart A
For reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are also
proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to simplify the process for
requesting an extension for the reporter to respond to the EPA's
questions on a submitted report or submit a revised report to correct a
reporting error identified by the EPA during report verification.
Currently, reporters are allowed a 45-day period to respond to the
EPA's questions and may request an extension of 30 days, which is
automatically granted, if needed. The Administrator may also grant an
additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension, if the
owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension at
least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day
extension. We are proposing to remove the requirement that the request
for an extension beyond the automatic 30 days must be submitted at
least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day extension.
Reporters would still be required to submit a request for the
additional extension, but they may do so closer to (but not after) the
expiration date of the automatic 30-day extension.
We are also proposing two amendments to subpart A of Part 98 to
clarify a definition in 40 CFR 98.6. We are proposing to amend the
definition of ``gas collection system'' to clarify that active venting
systems that convey landfill gas to the surface of the landfill by
mechanical convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or
thermally destroyed prior to release to the atmosphere, are not
considered a landfill gas collection system. The requirements in
subpart HH for gas collection systems are specific to landfill gas that
is recovered or destroyed, but ``active venting'' systems appear to
meet the definition of gas collection systems. The proposed revision
clarifies that ``active venting systems'' are not subject to the
monitoring and calculation requirements for landfills with gas
collection systems.
The EPA is proposing to amend the definitions for ``ventilation
hole or shaft'' in 40 CFR 98.6 to clarify that the term ``vent hole or
shaft'' for mine ventilation systems includes mine portals, adits, and
other mine entrances and exits used to move air from the ventilation
system out of the mine. The proposed change is prompted by questions
that we have received from reporters during the first four years of
implementation, seeking guidance on whether these ventilation system
components are considered part of the source category definition.
Portal and adit are terms sometimes used to describe mine entries and
shafts. The intent of the rule is to capture all points in the
ventilation system where methane emissions may exhaust to the
atmosphere. Adding these terms should provide clarity for reporters. We
do not expect this rule change to result in an additional burden to
reporters; it is a clarification to provide further guidance in
applicability. However, the EPA does expect this proposed change to
improve the accuracy of reporting.
4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart A
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor corrections and clarifications to subpart A of
Part 98, including clarifications to definitions, editorial changes,
and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are
summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

B. Subpart C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart C of Part 98. This section
discusses the substantive changes to subpart C; additional minor
amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table
of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart C To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part
98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would
improve the EPA's ability to verify data under Part 98, while generally
resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, the
EPA is proposing to require reporting of the moisture content used to
correct the default high heating value (HHV) for wood and wood
residuals (dry basis) in Table C-1, in accordance with the procedures
of footnote 5 in Table C-1. The Table C-1 default HHV for wood and wood
residuals assumes that the wood and wood residuals are dry (i.e., zero
percent moisture content). However, wood and wood residuals are often
wet when combusted. Applying the wet weight of the wood to the dry
basis HHV overestimates emissions, as a portion of the weight that is
combusted is water.
Facilities raised this concern through the GHGRP Help Desk and the
EPA responded by adding footnote 5 to Table C-1 in the 2013 Revisions
Rule, which allowed reporters to correct the default dry basis HHV to a
wet basis. Currently e-GGRT and IVT require the use of the default dry
basis HHV when reporting wood and wood residuals using Equations C-1
and C-8. For reporters that need to correct their HHV, the only option
available is to override the e-GGRT or IVT calculated value, which is
on a dry basis.

[[Page 2551]]

The EPA is proposing to add the moisture correction calculation as
a reporting element, as well as a data element that would be entered
into IVT for those reporters using IVT. This would allow the EPA to
verify the accuracy of the moisture content and resultant emissions.
Based on current reporting year data, approximately 132 facilities (167
units) would be affected by this new data element. The EPA anticipates
that the impact of this new data element will be minimal, as moisture
content is already determined by the facilities that correct the HHV of
their wood products.
Because the new data element is an input to an emission equation,
the EPA evaluated the data element to determine if its public release
would cause disclosure concerns as was done for all inputs to equations
through a previous action (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014).\6\ In the
evaluation conducted for the October 24, 2014 action, the EPA described
in section 2.2 of Part 2 of the memorandum ``Final Evaluation of
Competitive Harm from Disclosure of `Inputs to Equations' Data Elements
Deferred to March 31, 2015,'' September 2014 (available in Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) that data related to ``process design,
process performance, and/or cost to do business'' could be detrimental
to a firm's competitiveness. After considering this newly proposed data
element, we have determined that for those subpart C combustion sources
that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f),\7\ this
data element fits the description of being related to ``process design,
process performance, and/or costs to do business.'' Specifically, for
industrial facilities that produce wood and wood residuals as a
production process byproduct (e.g., pulp and paper production), the
moisture content of the wood and wood residuals affects the heating
value of the wood fuel used to produce steam for the production
process. As such, moisture content could reveal information about
process efficiency and the cost to produce a product. However, given
the wide range of industries subject to the wood and wood residuals
reporting requirements under subpart C, it is possible that there are
industries that do not have concerns disclosing the proposed new data
element. In light of the above, we propose to allow reporters to elect
under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) (for subpart C sources
that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to either
enter the moisture content into IVT or, if potential disclosure is not
a concern to the reporter, report the data.\8\ If a reporter were to
elect to enter the data into IVT, the reporter would also be required
to keep a record of the data as specified in proposed new 40 CFR
98.37(b)(37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The October 24, 2014 action used the process established in
the notice ``Change to the Reporting Date for Certain Data Elements
Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule''
(76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011, hereafter referred to as the ``Final
Deferral Notice'') and the accompanying memorandum entitled
``Process for Evaluating and Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to
Emission Equations'' (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) to
determine if there are any associated disclosure concerns. In the
``Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under the
GHGRP'' (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014, hereafter referred to as the
``Final Inputs Rule''), the EPA finalized an approach for addressing
disclosure concerns associated with inputs to emissions equations,
in which the inputs for which disclosure concerns were identified
are entered and verified in the EPA's inputs verification tool
(IVT). IVT is a software tool that verifies emissions without the
inputs being reported to EPA. Inputs to emissions equations for
which disclosure concerns have been identified are entered into the
tool. IVT uses the entered inputs to calculate emission equation
results. IVT does not retain the entered inputs but conducts certain
checks of the inputs and calculated emissions values and generates a
verification summary. The same process was used for the evaluation
of this new input to equation data element.
\7\ 40 CFR 98.36(f) specifies the following criteria for
combustion sources: (1) The stationary fuel combustion source
contains at least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired
electric generator owned or operated by an entity that is subject to
regulation of customer billing rates by the public utility
commission (excluding generators that are connected to combustion
units that are subject to subpart D of this part); and (2) the
stationary fuel combustion source is located at a facility for which
the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric generators
specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section is greater than or
equal to 1 megawatt electric output.
\8\ If a reporter elects to report the moisture content of wood
and wood residuals for a source that does not meet the criteria
specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f), e-GGRT will require the reporter to
waive the right to make confidentiality claims before reporting the
moisture content via e-GGRT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After considering whether disclosure concerns exist for those
sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), the EPA has
determined that the moisture content of the wood and wood residuals
would not reveal any proprietary information about facility or process
performance, design, and operation; cost to do business; raw material
usage; or production. Site-specific fuel characteristics do not vary
significantly from publicly-known average values. Additionally for the
electric utilities, this sector has experienced a high level of
transparency due to the practice of passing fuel costs through to
paying customers. The EPA is proposing that, for sources that meet the
criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), there are no disclosure concerns and the
moisture content of the wood and wood residuals must be reported in e-
GGRT.
For emissions reported using the aggregation of units (GP) and
common pipe (CP) configurations, the EPA does not currently have the
ability to compare emissions to the cumulative maximum rated heat input
capacity for the units in the configuration. This information is
important for verifying these emissions. The EPA is proposing to
resolve this gap in verification by requiring reporting of the
cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all units (within the
configuration) that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater
than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr).
When originally promulgated, 40 CFR 98.36(c) required the
cumulative heat input capacity for all units in GP and CP
configurations. These requirements were removed in December 2010
amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 79092, December
17, 2010). The 2010 final rule noted that for verification purposes,
``the only critical data element is the maximum rated heat input
capacity of the largest unit in the group'' (75 FR 79117). Although the
highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit in these
configurations is useful in verifying compliance with the rule
requirements, it does not provide enough information to assess the
quality of emissions reported under these configurations.
Currently over 50 percent non-biogenic CO2 reported
under subpart C is reported using GP and CP configurations. Therefore,
we have identified the need to obtain additional information on these
reporting configurations to further assess data quality for these
reported emissions. The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity
will be used to verify that emissions data are not over or under
reported for GP and CP configurations.
In the December 2010 amendments (75 FR 79117), commenters
highlighted the burden associated with determining the maximum rated
heat input capacity and maintaining an equipment count for small
domestic combustion sources (e.g., water heaters, furnaces, space
heaters) located at large industrial facilities. The EPA agrees with
the commenters' position and believes that meaningful data verification
can be achieved without requiring information on small domestic
combustions sources, as GHG emissions data are typically dominated by
larger emission units.
There were approximately 7,000 GP and CP configurations reported in
2014, out of the total 18,000 configurations reported in subpart C. Of
these, approximately 2,250 reporting configurations reported that the
highest maximum rated heat input capacity of

[[Page 2552]]

any unit in the configuration was less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The total
non-biogenic CO2 reported from these 2,250 configurations
was approximately 2 percent of the total non-biogenic CO2
reported for all 7,000 GP and CP configurations. The remaining 98
percent of non-biogenic CO2 reported came from the 4,750 GP
and CP configurations that identified the highest maximum rated heat
input capacity of any unit as greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr).
These data provide evidence that using the heat input capacity
information from units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr will allow
for meaningful data validation without mandating over-burdensome
requirements for reporters.
When reporting the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity,
reporters will not be required to account for units less than 10 mmBtu/
hr. For GP configurations, this means that the cumulative maximum rated
heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum rated
heat input capacities for all units in the group that are greater than
or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr) and less than or equal to 250 (mmBtu/hr).
Units with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/
hr are not allowed to use the GP configuration. For CP configurations,
the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as
the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served
by the pipe that are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). Note that
fuel use and corresponding emissions are still required to be reported
for units with a maximum rated heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/
hr). Emissions reporting of GHGs for GP and CP configurations will
remain unchanged.
Approximately 2,250 existing GP and CP reporting configurations
will not be affected by this new requirement. Approximately 4,750 GP
and CP reporting configurations will be required to determine and
report cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. This equates to
approximately 3,540 affected facilities (out of the roughly 5,925
reporting in subpart C). However, many of these affected facilities
will likely benefit from not having to account for units with a heat
input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The EPA believes that the
burden associated with determining the cumulative maximum rated heat
input capacity for GP and CP configurations will be minimal. Existing
air permits and compliance records for other federal and state
regulations likely contain heat input capacity data for many of the
affected sources (i.e., units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr).
The proposed requirement for reporting of the cumulative maximum rated
heat input capacity for GP and CP reporting configurations would
greatly improve the ability to verify emissions for these
configurations.
For more information on subpart C confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
2. Other Amendments to Subpart C
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are
proposing revisions to the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C
(General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) to (1) clarify the
reporting requirements when the results of HHV sampling are received
less frequently than monthly for certain sources; (2) streamline the
conversion factors used to convert short tons to metric tons; and (3)
revise Tables C-1 and C-2 to more clearly define emission factors for
certain petroleum products.
First, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to
clarify the definition of terms for Equation C-2b in cases where the
results of HHV sampling are received less frequently than monthly.
Reporters subject to 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation C-2b,
however the equation currently defines the frequency of HHV sampling as
monthly. This proposed revision will replace the term ``month'' in the
equation inputs ``(HHV)I,'' ``(Fuel)I,'' and
``n'' with the term ``samples.''
We are proposing changes to Tables C-1 and C-2 to remove
duplication and to further classify several fuels to provide clarity.
These changes are minor clarifications to existing rule requirements
and, therefore, do not impact the burden on reporters. The first change
that we are proposing to Table C-1 is to remove duplication of default
HHV and CO2 emission factors for petroleum coke. Petroleum
coke is currently listed under both the ``Petroleum products'' category
and ``Other fuels--solid'' category. To avoid confusion with the
classification of this fuel, we propose to remove petroleum coke from
both of these categories and to include the fuel under a new category
entitled ``Petroleum products--solid.''
The second change to Table C-1 proposed is to move the fuel propane
gas from the ``Other fuels--gaseous'' category into a new category
entitled ``Petroleum products--gaseous.'' Propane is also included
under the ``Petroleum products'' category, and we are not proposing to
remove propane from this category as a majority of reporters use this
fuel type when reporting use of propane. To help clarify that all fuels
in the ``Petroleum products'' category are liquid fuels, we propose to
rename this category to ``Petroleum products--liquid.'' In conjunction
with the changes to Table C-1 for propane and petroleum coke, we are
also proposing to change Table C-2 to further clarify that these fuels
are considered petroleum products and their methane (CH4)
and N2O emissions should be calculated and reported
accordingly. Therefore we propose to change the ``Petroleum (All fuel
types in Table C-1)'' category to ``Petroleum Products (All fuel types
in Table C-1),'' which will encompass all liquid, solid, and gaseous
petroleum products.
We are also proposing another change to Table C-2 to further
streamline the CH4 and N2O emission factors for
fuels in the ``Other fuels--solid'' category. With the proposed
reclassification of petroleum coke from this category to a new solid
petroleum products category, the remaining fuels are municipal solid
waste (MSW), tires and plastics. Both MSW and tires are listed in Table
C-2 and have identical CH4 and N2O emission
factors, however plastics are not included in the table. We are
proposing to combine the MSW and tire line items into an ``Other
fuels--solid'' category, which would encompass all three solid fuels
(i.e., MSW, tires and plastics).
Finally, we are proposing to update the Standard Test Methods for
Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples
using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866-08) to the current standard
(ASTM D6866-12). The proposed change would revise references to the
method in 40 CFR 98.34(d) and (e), 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2), and include a
harmonizing change to 40 CFR 98.7(e)(33).
3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart C
In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in
section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that
are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart C. These minor
revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

C. Subpart E--Adipic Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart E of Part 98
(Adipic Acid Production). This section discusses all of the proposed
amendments to subpart E.

[[Page 2553]]

1. Revisions to Subpart E To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the
requirements of subpart E and increase the efficiency of the report
submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2) to
remove the annual approval for an alternative method for determining
N2O emissions request by the reporter and the annual request
approval by the EPA if the reporter's methodology has not changed.
Reporters that are subject to subpart E are allowed to use an
alternative method to calculate N2O emissions from the
production of adipic acid. The alternative method must be approved by
the EPA before being used to comply with subpart E. Currently,
reporters who choose to use the alternative method are required to
request approval on an annual basis and provide the following
information:
The calculation method for determining annual
N2O emissions;
associated data collection procedures (parameters, how the
parameters will be determined, frequency of data collection);
initial and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance (QA)/
quality control (QC) procedures;
missing data procedures that will be applied in the event
that quality-assured parameters are unavailable (e.g., if a CEMS
malfunctions during a unit operation);
any N2O emissions abatement technology that is
being used on this unit or process;
any specific test methods or industry consensus standards
that would be applied (ASTM, EPA, etc.) for data collection or
monitoring; and
any data reporting elements, in addition to the elements
required in the rules, which would be provided to the EPA to verify the
calculated emissions using the alternative method.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to allow additional
flexibility in the use of alternative methods by removing the annual
approval request. Unless there have been changes in the reporter's
methodology. If a reporter received approval to use an alternative
method in the previous reporting year and the methodology has not
changed, the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the
alternative method be automatically approved for subsequent reporting
years. For most reporters, the alternative method is based on
innovative methodologies that are already in practice at the facility,
so the underlying monitoring, data collection, and QA/QC procedures
used are unlikely to change from one reporting year to the next. The
reporter would only need to notify the EPA that it is using an already
approved alternative method. This notification would be included in the
annual report submission. If, however, a reporter makes any changes to
the previously-approved alternative method, then it must request
permission to use the revised method as stated in 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2).
Not only would this proposed change add flexibility to the reporters,
it would also reduce the burden for reporters to comply with subpart E.
By requiring requests only for new approvals or for methodologies that
have changed since prior approval, the EPA burden required to review
and approve the methodologies would also be reduced.
2. Revisions to Subpart E To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment that is intended to improve the quality of data
collected under subpart E while generally resulting in only a slight
increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR
98.56(f) to require reporting of the date of installation of any
N2O abatement technology (if applicable). This information
is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would not
require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element
could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter
would not be required to make changes unless additional abatement
technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data
element would help improve our understanding of the use and trends in
emissions reduction technologies and the accuracy of the U.S. GHG
Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector.
Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved
analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the
applicable emission factors over specific time periods, depending on
whether the emissions were exhausted to an N2O abatement
technology during that time period. For more information on subpart E
confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions,
see section IV of this preamble.

D. Subpart F--Aluminum Production

In this action, we are proposing several technical amendments to 40
CFR part 98, subpart F (Aluminum Production). This section discusses
the substantive changes to subpart F; additional minor corrections and
clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart F To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part
98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing several amendments to 40 CFR 98, subpart F to improve the
quality of the data collected under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG
Inventory. We are proposing to require reporting of two data elements
that influence perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from aluminum
production: annual average anode effect minutes per cell-day and annual
smelter-specific slope coefficients. These proposed revisions are
intended to collect more accurate and informative data. As discussed in
section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions would allow the
EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG
emissions from aluminum production while generally resulting in only a
slight increase in burden for reporters.
The annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is a measure
of the fraction of the time during which aluminum electrolysis cells
are operating that the cells are experiencing process disturbances
known as anode effects. PFC emissions from aluminum production are
closely associated with the frequency and duration of anode effects.\9\
Smelter-specific slope coefficients are a measure of the relationship
between average anode effect minutes per cell day, aluminum production,
and PFC emissions at individual smelters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Recent research has revealed that PFC emissions may also
occur from some aluminum smelters in the absence of anode effects as
those are traditionally defined. These ``non-anode-effect
emissions'' are particularly prevalent in recently built smelters
that use very large cells, i.e., cells containing 40 or more anodes.
Most U.S. smelters do not use such large cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule. However, in the Final Deferral Notice published on
August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data elements because
they were classified as inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057).\10\
The two data elements were

[[Page 2554]]

considered inputs into Equation F-2. In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR
63750, October 24, 2014), we decided not to collect these data elements
and to include the inputs into Equation F-2 in IVT. However, after
further investigation, we have determined that for average anode effect
minutes per cell day, the actual input in Equation F-2 is a monthly
average, while the removed reporting element is an annual average.\11\
Consequently, annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is not
an input to an emission equation and, if restored as a reporting
element, would be eligible for confidential treatment. As discussed in
section IV of this preamble, we are proposing to determine that the
annual average of the anode effect minutes per cell day is CBI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See the final rule titled ``Revisions to Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements, and Confidentiality Determinations Under
the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,'' (79 FR 63753-54, October 24,
2014) for a full discussion of the history of EPA's treatment of
inputs to emission equations under the GHGRP.
\11\ Although a monthly total of metal production is used in
Equation F-2, the annual total metal production is used in Equations
F-5 and F-6; thus, we are not proposing to collect annual metal
production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IVT currently requires the entry of monthly anode effect minutes
and smelter-specific slope coefficients (along with monthly metal
production), allowing PFC emission estimates from smelters to be
verified. However, our interest in anode effect minutes and slope
coefficients goes beyond verification of emission estimates.
Specifically, the annual average of anode effect minutes is of interest
because it provides insight into one of the key drivers of PFC
emissions from primary aluminum production at the facility and U.S.
level. This data element helps us to understand why emissions have
increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods.
Thus, it is important for informing the development of future GHG
policies and programs. In addition, it is important for explaining U.S.
emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. Before the GHGRP became
effective, anode effect minutes (as well as smelter-specific slope
coefficients) had been provided to the EPA by most U.S. smelters under
the Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP), although anode
effect minutes was reported as a company-wide (rather than smelter-
specific) average by some companies in some years.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Although the VAIP program continues, GHGRP reporting
supplanted reporting under the VAIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Smelter-specific slope coefficients also influence emissions.
Because they are relatively stable over time (under subpart F, they are
required to be re-measured every ten years), they do not drive trends
in the same way that metal production and anode effect minutes do.
However, they do contribute to differences in emission rates from
different smelters and are therefore of interest for purposes of
informing GHG policies and programs.
Smelter-specific slope coefficients are inputs to emission
equations (i.e., to Equation F-2). In the analysis titled, ``Final
Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ``Inputs to
Equations'' Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015'' (September,
2014, available in docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929), we concluded that
smelter-specific slope coefficients provided data related to process
efficiency and also provided data that could be used to calculate the
mass of aluminum produced if both the anode effect minutes and reported
GHG emissions were also known. (The product of the slope coefficient,
monthly metal produced, and monthly average anode effect minutes is the
CF4 emissions from the smelter or potline.) However, we are now
revisiting this conclusion in light of our proposed determination that
the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI. Without data on
anode effect minutes, data on smelter-specific slope coefficients pose
few, if any, disclosure concerns. Most variability in process
efficiency is driven by anode effect minutes, not smelter-specific
slope coefficients, and it is not possible to back-calculate metal
production without anode effect minutes.\13\ Therefore, in conjunction
with our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode
effect minutes is CBI, we are proposing to revise the findings in the
Final Inputs Rule and to now find no disclosure concerns associated
with this input to equation, and are proposing to collect this data.
Note that we would continue to use IVT to verify the results of
Equation F-2 because we would be collecting only one of the three
inputs to this equation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ A review of the slope coefficients and anode effect minutes
provided under the VAIP showed that the relative standard deviation
of smelter-specific slope coefficients was 32 percent, while the
relative standard deviation of anode effect minutes was 95 percent.
The comparison was made for the year 2007 because that is the most
recent year for which detailed smelter-specific slope coefficients
were available.
\14\ IVT will use the data element reported to e-GGRT to
calculate the emissions value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart F
In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in
section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that
are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart F. These minor
corrections are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

E. Subpart G--Ammonia Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing multiple amendments to subpart G
of Part 98 (Ammonia Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the
proposed changes to subpart G.
1. Revisions to Subpart G To Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part
98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would
improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from ammonia
manufacturing while generally resulting in only a slight increase in
burden for reporters. Specifically, we are proposing to add three data
reporting elements. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.76(a) to
require reporting of annual ammonia production for facilities where a
CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2) to require
reporting of annual feedstock consumption, and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7) to
require reporting of annual average carbon content. These data elements
are readily available so these proposed changes would have no impact on
burden for the reporters.
The addition of these data elements would improve the EPA's ability
to verify reported GHGRP emissions, and enable the EPA to transparently
apply more advanced calculation methods \15\ (based on total fuel
requirements) for determining emissions from ammonia production within
the U.S. GHG Inventory, using aggregated facility level GHGRP data.
Currently, the annual U.S. GHG Inventory emissions estimates are based
on multiplication of a technology-feedstock type specific default
emission factor and national ammonia production. Further data on
feedstock consumption and associated carbon contents would assist the
EPA in reconciling CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels
in the energy sector and CO2 process emissions from ammonia
production. Finally, collecting annual ammonia production from
facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions
ensures data completeness if ammonia manufacturers begin employing CEMS
in the future, and enhances the EPA's ability to verify

[[Page 2555]]

reported information. Currently, annual ammonia production is collected
on a facility basis, but only for facilities without CO2
CEMS. For more information on subpart G confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See Equation 3.4 (Tier 3), p. 3.13 and 3.15. 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section
3.2: Ammonia Production; Section 4.5 (p. 4-20) of U.S. Inventory.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Amendments to Subpart G
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are
proposing multiple amendments to Subpart G to clarify the EPA's
intentions related to the reporting of annual ammonia production and
annual methanol production. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.74(f)
to read, ``You may use company records or an engineering estimate to
determine the annual ammonia production and the annual methanol
production.'' We are also proposing to clarify the requirement to
report annual methanol production for each process unit in 40 CFR
98.76(b)(15) by adding that this information must be reported
``regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented,
or sold as product.'' These amendments will clarify the original intent
of the requirements and reduce uncertainty from reporters by addressing
multiple Help Desk questions, including questions related to the
reporting of methanol that were raised during the RY2014 reporting
period.

F. Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart I of Part 98 (Electronics
Manufacturing). The reporting requirements for the electronics
manufacturing sector were initially promulgated under subpart I on
December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). Since the promulgation of that final
rule, the EPA has published several rules to amend the calculation,
monitoring, and reporting provisions of subpart I to respond to
concerns raised by reporters and representatives from the semiconductor
industry. Notably, the EPA finalized substantial amendments to
provisions in subpart I on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162). These
amendments included significant revisions to the methods for
calculating GHG emissions, including revised default emission factors
and the addition of a new stack test methodology, as well as
substantial revisions to monitoring methodologies, data reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and clarifications to terms and
definitions. These amendments became effective on January 1, 2014, and
reporters used the revised requirements in the submittal of their
annual reports for RY2014.
In this action, we are not proposing revisions that would include
significant changes to the calculation methodologies, monitoring
provisions, or data reporting and recordkeeping requirements of subpart
I. Rather, we are proposing revisions that we have identified following
implementation of the November 13, 2013 final rule and through
discussions with industry stakeholders on how to improve the emissions
estimates from the electronics manufacturing sector. These proposed
changes are needed to improve the clarity of the calculation
requirements and quality of the data collected under subpart I and to
improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from the electronics
manufacturing sector.
This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart I;
additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are
summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart I To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several amendments to subpart I that would improve the
quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. As discussed in section
II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the
EPA to collect more accurate and detailed data which would improve the
EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions, while generally resulting
in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
First, the EPA is proposing to revise Equation I-24, including
revising the name to Equation I-24A, which calculates the weighted-
average fraction of a fluorinated GHG destroyed or removed in a fab
using the stack testing methodology in 40 CFR 98.93(i), to incorporate
two changes. First, instead of calculating the weighted-average
fraction of gas destroyed or removed weighted by the consumption of
that gas in different process types, the EPA is proposing to revise the
equation so that the average fraction destroyed or removed is weighted
by the estimated uncontrolled emissions of that gas from different
process types. This change is needed to address the fact that the same
gas can have different emissions when used in different process types,
and these differences could potentially lead to errors in the
calculation of the fraction of gas destroyed or removed, especially at
facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with abatement. To
calculate the estimated uncontrolled emissions of each gas, the EPA is
proposing to use the input gas emission factors from Tables I-3 to I-7
of subpart I and the consumption of each gas in each process type for
each fab.
The second proposed change is to create a second equation (Equation
I-24B) in 40 CFR 98.93(i) to calculate the weighted-average fraction of
fluorinated GHG by-product gas ``k'' destroyed or removed in abatement
systems in each fab using the stack testing methodology. This change is
needed to clarify how the term dkf, which is used in several
other equations in subpart I, should be calculated. This second
equation would also address the fact that the same by-product gas can
be formed at different rates from different input gas and process
combinations, which could potentially lead to errors in the calculation
of the average fraction of by-product gas destroyed or removed,
especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with
abatement. The EPA is also proposing conforming changes throughout
Subpart I to the rule sections where Equation I-24A and I-24B should be
referenced.
Finally, for the triennial technology report required of certain
facilities as specified in 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing to
specify that reporters that are providing any utilization and by-
product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data
must also include information on the methods and conditions under which
the data were collected, where such information is available. The
triennial report would describe, for any utilization, by-product
formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data
submitted: the methods used for the measurements, the wafer size, film
type being manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or technology
node, process type, process subtype for chamber clean processes, the
input gases used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and the
by-product formation rates measured, where this information is
available. All of these data elements, with the exception of substrate
type and linewidth, were submitted with the emission factor
measurements provided to the EPA by semiconductor manufacturers during
the development of the 2010 and 2013 final rules. This information is
necessary to enable the EPA to better understand the data being
submitted and to better apply it in the development of new or revised
emission factors. Without collecting this data, the agency would not be
able to effectively evaluate how emissions may vary by

[[Page 2556]]

wafer size, film type, substrate type, linewidth or technology node,
and process type or process subtype. The current subpart I is based on
the recognition that emission factors vary significantly by wafer size
and process type and subtype, and given the high rate of technical
evolution in this sector, film type, substrate type, and linewidth may
also increasingly affect emission factors. Additionally, the input
gases used, methods used for measurement, and measured utilization
rates and byproduct formation rates are vital for the development of
accurate and useful emission factors.
For more information on subpart I confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart I
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor corrections and clarification to subpart I of
Part 98, including editorial changes, harmonizing changes, and
clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are
summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

G. Subpart N--Glass Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart N of Part 98
(Glass Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to
subpart N; additional minor corrections are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are
proposing amendments that are intended to clarify the rule requirements
in subpart N, while resulting in no impact on burden for reporters.
Specifically, the changes clarify that a default value of 1.0 can be
used for the fraction of calcination and the carbonate mass fraction
for each carbonate type contained in the raw materials charged to the
furnace. The current rule is unclear as to whether a reporter must
perform a chemical analysis if they select to use a default value of
1.0. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.144(b), 40 CFR 98.144(c), 40
CFR 98.144(d), 40 CFR 98.146(b)(5), and 40 CFR 98.146(b)(7) to clarify
that no further chemical analysis is required if the default value of
1.0 is selected. These amendments will clarify the original intent of
the requirements and address multiple Help Desk questions. Additional
minor editorial corrections may be found in the Table of Revisions in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

H. Subpart O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

In this action we are proposing several amendments to subpart O of
Part 98 (HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction). This section
discusses all of the changes to subpart O.
1. Revisions to Subpart O To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing several amendments to subpart O that are intended to simplify
and streamline GHGRP requirements and increase the efficiency of the
report submittal process, generally resulting in a decrease in burden
on reporters. We are proposing to revise subpart O to remove three
reporting requirements related to the revised destruction efficiency
that facilities are required to calculate in the event that the HFC-23
concentration that they annually measure at the outlet of the
destruction device exceeds the concentration measured during the
performance test that is the basis for the current destruction
efficiency. The reporting requirements are found at 40 CFR
98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4) and include, respectively, the concentration
(mass fraction) of HFC-23 at the outlet of the destruction device, the
flow rate at the outlet of the destruction device in kilograms per hour
(kg/hr), and the emission rate (in kg/hr) calculated from these two
parameters. These reporting requirements were originally intended to
allow us to verify the calculation of a revised destruction efficiency.
However, the requirements to report the revised destruction efficiency
(the result of the calculation) and the flow rate of HFC-23 being fed
into the destruction device (another input into the calculation) were
removed by the Final Inputs Rule, and verification of HFC-23 emissions,
including their destruction, is now conducted by the IVT. Thus,
reporting these data elements to the EPA is no longer needed.
2. Revisions to Subpart O To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
We are also proposing revisions to subpart O to (1) reinstate in 40
CFR 98.156(d) reporting of the method used to calculate the revised
destruction efficiency, and (2) require facilities to report HCFC-22
production and HFC-23 emissions for each HCFC-22 production process
rather than for the facility as a whole. As discussed in section II.B
of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA
to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG
emissions from HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 destruction while
generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
The requirement to report the method used to calculate the revised
destruction efficiency (not an input to emission equation) was
inadvertently removed by the Final Inputs Rule. We are proposing to
reinstate this requirement because it is useful for understanding data
quality, specifically, the rigor of the method used to revise the
destruction efficiency.
Subpart O currently requires facilities to report production and
emissions information at the facility level although these quantities
are monitored and calculated at the process level. We are proposing to
revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a) to require that
facilities report production and emissions information for each HCFC-22
production process. At the time the EPA finalized the subpart O
requirements (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), we had intended to
collect data on individual HCFC-22 processes, with the understanding
that each facility had one HCFC-22 process. We have learned since that
time that some facilities may have more than one HCFC-22 process and we
are proposing to revise the rule to require reporting for each
individual process. In the event that a facility has more than one
HCFC-22 production process, this would provide more precise information
that would allow us to better verify emissions and understand HFC-23
trends.
Reporters in this subpart already monitor, estimate, and record
process and emissions data on a process basis per 40 CFR 98.153;
therefore, these proposed rule revisions to report the production and
emissions data on a process basis are not expected to significantly
increase burden. For more information on subpart O confidentiality
determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV
of this preamble.

I. Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production

In this action we are proposing amendments to subpart Q of Part 98
(Iron and Steel Production). This section discusses one substantive
change to subpart Q; additional minor amendments, corrections, and
clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
A revision is being made to align with revisions being proposed for
subpart Y

[[Page 2557]]

(Petroleum Refineries). Under 40 CFR 98.172(b), facilities that report
to subpart Q are referred to provisions in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y
for reporting CO2 emissions from flares that burn blast
furnace gas or coke oven gas. Subpart Q reporters should refer to
section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y
that would clarify that facilities should exclude pilot gas from the
flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble,
the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease
the burden associated with monitoring the flare gas.

J. Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart S of Part 98
(Lime Manufacturing). This section discusses all the proposed
amendments to subpart S.
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several revisions to subpart S to improve the quality of
data collected under Part 98. We are proposing to require reporting of
three data elements that influence CO2 emissions from lime
manufacturing: Annual emission factors for each lime product type
produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by
lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical
composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined
byproduct/waste sold. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we
are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data to
improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from lime
manufacturing and the U.S. GHG Inventory while generally resulting in
only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
Similar data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule; however, these data elements were monthly values,
listed in 40 CFR 98.196(b)(2), 40 CFR 98.196(b)(3), and 40 CFR
98.196(b)(5). However, in a final rule published on August 25, 2011, we
deferred reporting of the data elements because they were inputs to
emission equations (76 FR 53057). In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR
63750, October 24, 2014), we identified disclosure concerns with these
data elements and therefore decided not to collect these monthly data
elements and to include the inputs from Equations S-1 and S-2 in IVT.
IVT currently requires the entry of monthly calcium oxide and
magnesium oxide content for Equation S-1, outputting the monthly
emission factor for lime type; monthly calcium oxide and magnesium
oxide content for Equation S-2, outputting the monthly emission factor
for calcined lime byproduct/waste type sold; calcium oxide and
magnesium oxide content, and annual weight or mass of calcined
byproducts or wastes for lime type that is not sold for Equation S-3,
outputting the annual CO2 emissions for calcined lime
byproduct or waste type that is not sold; and monthly weight or mass of
lime type produced, monthly weight or mass of calcined byproducts or
wastes sold for Equation S-4, outputting the annual CO2
process emissions from lime production from all lime kilns. The IVT
inputs allow us to verify CO2 emissions from lime kilns.
Collecting the annual emission factors for each lime product type
produced, annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by
lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical
composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined
byproduct/waste sold would allow us to understand why emissions have
increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer periods.
Thus, they are important for informing the development of future GHG
policies and programs. In addition, they are important for explaining
U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. These annual
values are not inputs to equations; as described in section IV of this
preamble, we are proposing that these data elements be eligible for
confidential treatment.
For more information on subpart S confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.

K. Subpart V--Nitric Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing three amendments to subpart V of
Part 98 (Nitric Acid Production). This section discusses all of the
proposed changes to subpart V.
1. Revisions to Subpart V To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the
requirements of subpart V and increase the efficiency of the report
submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.223(a)(2) to
conditionally remove the annual approval request by the reporter and
the annual request approval by the EPA. As further discussed in section
III.C of this preamble for subpart E, the EPA is proposing that the
request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for
the next reporting year if the reporter received approval to use an
alternative method in the previous reporting year and the method has
not changed.
2. Revisions to Subpart V To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing two amendments that are intended to improve the quality of
data collected under subpart V that would result in a moderate increase
in burden for reporters. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR
98.220 to change the definition of the source category to require
reporting from all reporters that produce nitric acid, regardless of
the nitric acid strength. The subpart V definition was based on the
Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants in 40 CFR part 60 (77
FR 48433, August 14, 2012) which covers the emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) from the production of weak nitric acid
(specifically between 30 percent and 70 percent in strength). Weak
nitric acid is produced through a three step process. The majority of
N2O emissions from nitric acid production occur during
ammonia oxidation, which is the first step in the process.
High-strength nitric acid is produced by two different methods. The
first method begins with producing weak nitric acid and then uses
extractive distillation to concentrate the nitric acid. Since
N2O emissions occur only during weak nitric acid production
and the production of weak nitric acid is covered by the existing
source category definition, N2O emissions from this high-
strength nitric acid production method are covered by the existing
nitric acid source category definition. The second method is an
extended version of the weak nitric acid production process, meaning
that the high-strength nitric acid is produced in a single nitric acid
train rather than two separate processes. This combined process is not
currently covered by the existing source category definition, even
though the amount of N2O emissions from the process would be
similar to the weak nitric acid production process.
When the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule was published in 2009, only
one nitric acid plant in the United States produced nitric acid greater
than 70 percent in strength. In the interim, further research has
indicated the existence of three other nitric acid trains capable of
producing high-strength nitric acid, including one existing plant and
two potential plants becoming operational as early as the end of 2015.
See the memorandum, ``Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.''
from

[[Page 2558]]

Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated
January 29, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
Because of increased usage of the high-strength nitric acid process
in the United States, we are proposing that the definition of nitric
acid be updated to apply to all nitric acid strengths to ensure that
subpart V reporting captures all N2O emissions related to
the production of nitric acid. By revising the definition, the rule
would avoid confusion and ensure that all nitric acid trains and all
N2O emissions are subject to subpart V. The applicability
change would help improve the completeness of reporting under subpart V
and further standardize Part 98 to be consistent with Intergovernmental
Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) guidance.
We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.226(h) to require
reporting of the date of installation of any N2O abatement
technology (if applicable). This date is readily available or already
collected by reporters, and would not require additional data
collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over from
one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to
make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a
later date. The addition of this data element would help improve the
accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend
estimates for this sector, while generally resulting in only a slight
increase in burden. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow
for improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more
accurately apply the applicable emission factors over specific time
periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an
N2O abatement technology during that time period. For more
information on subpart V confidentiality determinations resulting from
these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

L. Subpart X--Petrochemical Production

In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part
98, subpart X (Petrochemical Production). This section discusses the
substantive changes to subpart X; additional minor amendments,
corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart X To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing amendments to subpart X that are intended to simplify,
streamline, and align with other proposed GHGRP requirements, which
would generally result in a decrease in burden for reporters. Under 40
CFR 98.243(c), facilities that report to subpart X are referred to
provisions in subpart Y for reporting CO2, CH4,
and N2O emissions from flares. Subpart X reporters should
refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for proposed revisions to
subpart Y that would clarify that facilities have the option to exclude
pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section
II.A of this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data
collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring the
flare gas.
The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) to allow
operators of an integrated ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM) process to report either the measured quantity of EDC
produced or both the measured quantity of VCM and an estimate of the
amount of EDC produced as an intermediate in the process. We are also
proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.240(a) to indicate that a reporter may
elect to consider the entire integrated process (rather than just the
EDC operations) to be the petrochemical process for the purposes of
complying with the mass balance method.
Subpart X currently requires EDC manufacturers to perform the mass
balance around operations involved in the production of the EDC,
including situations where EDC is produced as an intermediate in the
production of VCM. In a letter received from Occidental Chemical
Company titled ``Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process
Studies and Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at
VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X,'' dated July 10,
2015, industry representatives indicated that an integrated EDC/VCM
process is a continuous process with EDC produced as an intermediate
that is not stored or measured. As an alternative to incurring the
burden of modifying the process to enable measurement of the
intermediate EDC stream, Occidental Chemical Company has requested that
subpart X reporters be allowed to perform the mass balance over the
entire integrated process and, for the quantity of petrochemical
produced, report the quantity of VCM produced instead of the amount of
EDC produced. Conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated
process is acceptable to the EPA because the CO2 process
emissions (from oxidation of ethylene in the oxychlorination process to
produce EDC) and emissions from combustion of vent gases from the EDC
operations are calculated under both methods. The alternative method
also would estimate additional CO2 emissions for combustion
of both vent gases and liquid wastes from the VCM operations.
Under the proposed optional method, carbon emitted in vent streams
from VCM operations and carbon in liquid wastes that are combusted
would be assumed to be converted to CO2. For most
facilities, using the optional method likely means either a more
complete reporting of total facility emissions or a shift from
reporting under subpart C (if the subpart C applicability criteria are
met) to reporting under subpart X. Facilities have indicated that vent
gases from the VCM operations are combusted, typically in the same
combustion unit as the vent gases from the EDC operations. Thus, the
assumption that carbon in such vent streams is converted to
CO2 is expected to be valid. Liquid waste from the VCM
operations that is not combusted would be included as a product for the
purposes of the mass balance and, thus, any carbon in such stream would
be subtracted from the total inlet carbon and not attributed to
CO2 emissions.
In addition to conducting the mass balance over the entire
integrated process, the EPA is proposing that facilities electing to
use this optional method would report both the measured amount of VCM
produced and an estimate of the amount of EDC produced as an
intermediate. Reporting the amount of VCM would help the EPA to verify
the estimate of EDC reported. Reporting the estimate of EDC produced
would enable the EPA to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference in average emissions per metric ton of EDC
between results reported by facilities that use the option for
integrated processes versus results for facilities that report only for
EDC operations.
The proposed change to 40 CFR 98.240(a) would harmonize the
proposed integrated EDC/VCM mass balance option with other requirements
related to petrochemical processes (or process units) in subpart X. For
example, the mass balance calculation requirements in 40 CFR 98.243(c)
and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a) are per petrochemical
``process unit.'' Thus, considering the entire integrated process to be
the petrochemical process unit clarifies that these calculation and
reporting requirements apply to the entire integrated process under the
option, and

[[Page 2559]]

not to just the EDC portion of the process.
It is anticipated that the proposed amendments would reduce the
compliance burden by not requiring monitoring equipment and/or sampling
and analysis of an intermediate EDC stream just for the purpose of
complying with subpart X. Instead, facilities would be allowed to
measure the final product VCM, which is likely already being measured
for other business reasons. A few facilities may have a liquid waste
stream from the VCM operations that is not combusted. Such streams
would need to be measured and included as products in the mass balance.
The potential increase in burden for measurement of such streams is
expected to be more than offset by the reduction for not measuring the
intermediate EDC stream because not all facilities will have a liquid
waste stream that is not combusted, and a waste stream is an output
that would be more readily measured than an intermediate that is not
stored.
2. Revisions to Subpart X To Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing to amend subpart X to collect additional data to help improve
estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory. The EPA is proposing to
add reporting requirements for facilities that use the mass balance
approach to determine emissions under 40 CFR 98.243(c) to report the
annual average of the measurements of the carbon content and molecular
weight of each feedstock and product reported under subpart X. Much of
these data are currently required to be determined and retained per the
recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.247, so adding the reporting
requirement to report annual averages adds very little burden to
reporters. These additional data elements will be aggregated to the
national level and used to improve national emission estimates in the
U.S. GHG Inventory for several reasons.
First, these data points will be helpful for understanding non-
energy uses of fossil fuels by the chemical industry, so they can more
accurately be allocated between the industrial process and energy
sectors of the U.S. GHG Inventory. As noted in the U.S. GHG Inventory,
currently some degree of double-counting may occur between
CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels in the energy
sector and CO2 process emissions from petrochemical
production in this sector. Complete data integration is not feasible at
this time as feedstock data from the Energy Information Administration
(EIA) used to estimate non-energy uses of fuels are aggregated by fuel
type, rather than disaggregated by both fuel type and particular
industries (e.g., petrochemical production). The EPA, through the
GHGRP, obtained complete data on quantities of fuel consumed as
feedstocks by petrochemical producers for the first time in 2015. The
carbon content and molecular weight of feedstocks will facilitate
conversion of the GHGRP feedstock quantity data (by fuel type) into
energy units for integration with EIA data to ensure appropriate
allocation of emissions across sectors in the national U.S. GHG
Inventory, including addressing issues with double-counting.
Second, having annually averaged carbon content and molecular
weight for products and feedstocks derived from facility-level GHGRP
data would enable the EPA to transparently apply the IPCC mass balance
method \16\ for determining emissions from petrochemical production in
the U.S. GHG Inventory. Currently, only the aggregated facility-level
products from application of the GHGRP mass balance are aggregated and
published in the U.S. GHG Inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See Equation 3.17, p. 3.67. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.9:
Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information on subpart X confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart X
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart X of
Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526).

M. Subpart Y--Petroleum Refineries

In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part
98, subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries). This section discusses the
substantive changes to subpart Y; additional minor amendments,
corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart Y To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing several amendments that are intended to simplify and
streamline the requirements of subpart Y. To reduce reporter burden,
the EPA is proposing to clarify in this rulemaking that pilot gas,
which is considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare
tip, may be excluded from the quantity of flare gas used to perform GHG
emissions calculations. As described below, the quantity of GHG
emissions associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total
GHG emissions from a flare at petroleum refineries, petrochemical
production facilities, and iron and steel production facilities, and
monitoring the quantity of pilot gas may impose additional burden on
some facilities.
Generally flares combust waste gas (excess gas generated by the
facility that needs disposal which the flare was designed to treat/
destroy), purge/sweep gas (gas that must be added to the flare header
system or to the base of the flare in order to prevent oxygen ingress
during periods of low waste gas flow), and pilot gas (gas used to
maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip). The majority of gas combusted
by a flare is waste gas. The remaining gas combusted by the flare is
comprised of purge/sweep and pilot gas. The amount of purge/sweep gas
needed is dependent on the complexity of the flare gas header system
and the flare diameter and tip design. As discussed in the memorandum
``Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)'' from Jeff Coburn, Leslie
Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015
(see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526), flares generally require at
least 0.1 to 0.2 foot per second (ft/s) flow velocity at the tip to
prevent oxygen ingress, but can be significantly higher for flares with
complex header systems. For a 2 foot diameter flare, this translates to
a minimum flow of 1,100 to 2,200 cubic feet per hour or 1 to 2 mmBtu/
hr. Recommended heat rate for industrial flare pilots is approximately
0.05 mmBtu/hr, so GHG emissions from flare pilot gas are typically 10
percent or less of the emissions from the flare purge/sweep gas while
the flare is on standby (i.e., no active waste gas flow). Therefore, we
expect the resultant GHG emissions from pilot gas to be low, especially
in the context of the broader flare emissions.
Further, it is difficult for facilities to estimate the quantities
of pilot gas without the use of a meter. Facilities generally measure
the flare gas, but do not always have unit-specific meters installed
for the gas used for the pilot flame (typically natural gas). The EPA
does not intend for facilities to install a separate meter to measure
the pilot gas for the purposes of reporting under this

[[Page 2560]]

rulemaking, either to include or exclude this quantity of pilot gas.
Installation of an additional meter for this purpose would be
burdensome to reporters, especially when considering the increase in
reported GHG emissions would be very low. Therefore, we are proposing
to amend the rule to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude
pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions calculations in Part 98
subparts Q, X, and Y. Purge/sweep gas would still be included in the
flare GHG emissions calculations.
Finally, the EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements
in 40 CFR 98.256(e) to add a requirement that facilities provide a yes/
no indication as to whether a flare has a flare gas recovery system.
Currently, 40 CFR 98.256(e) requires facilities to report general
information as to the type of flare (e.g., air-assisted, steam-
assisted, or non-assisted) and the flare service (e.g., general
facility flare, unit flare, or emergency flare). Several offices within
the EPA (as well as external researchers) use the GHGRP data on flares
to characterize flare emissions, assess trends, and evaluate GHG
emission reductions that could be achieved under various policies. In
using the GHGRP data for flares for these purposes, we identified a key
deficiency in the GHGRP data set is the lack of information regarding
which flares have flare gas recovery systems. Flare gas recovery is a
primary means by which owners and operators of flares may reduce flare
emissions. The inclusion of information on which flares have flare gas
recovery systems will provide useful information to characterize
emission trends in key industries using flares and provide critical
information needed by the EPA to make policy decisions. Only an
indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas
recovery system is being proposed, so this amendment would add only a
slight increase in burden to subpart Q, X, and Y reporters that have
flares. For more information on subpart Y confidentiality
determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV
of this preamble.
2. Revisions to Subpart Y To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several amendments that would improve the quality of the
data collected from subpart Y reporters while resulting in only a
slight increase in burden for reporters.
The EPA originally promulgated rules for the reporting of GHG
emissions from various source categories, including petroleum
refineries, on October 30, 2009. Since the reporting requirements were
developed, understanding of emissions from delayed coking units (DCU)
has improved. The rule originally established a methodology to estimate
methane emissions from a DCU based on a simple gas expansion model
(i.e., Equation Y-18) which the EPA is proposing to replace with a new
methodology that will more accurately determine emissions from DCU.
Recently, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) conducted a detailed information collection request (ICR) (OMB
Control No. 2060-0657) of the petroleum refining industry that gathered
information about DCU operations and the decoking process. Based on the
information collected, the EPA determined that the simple gas expansion
model did not accurately reflect the emissions source and significantly
underestimated emissions from the DCU. First, there is less gaseous
void space in the coke drum than previously thought because the coke
drum is filled with water and the void (vapor) space in the coke drum
is small. Second and more importantly, there is a significant quantity
of steam generated and released from the coke drum during the
depressurizing process because the boiling point of the water decreases
as the pressure of the vessel decreases. That is, there is a phase
change and gas generation that occurs during the venting process.
Consequently, the total quantity of gas discharged during a venting
event is actually much greater than predicted by the simple pressure
expansion (no phase change) model previously used in Equation Y-18.
Upon review of the test data collected in response to the ICR, the EPA
determined that methane emissions are a function of steam generation,
not the initial void volume in the delayed coking unit vessel. Based on
these determinations, the EPA developed and used a steam generation
model to estimate emissions from the DCU (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2010-0682-0202) and revised and incorporated this methodology as
part of the emissions factors update for petroleum refineries (see
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/index_consent_decree.html;
April 2015). We are now proposing to amend the DCU GHG emission
calculation methodology to align the GHGRP's methodology with the
methodology recently incorporated into the emission factors update and
to provide a more accurate means of estimating methane emissions from
the DCU.
The proposed methodology uses a heat balance on the DCU coke drum
vessel contents to estimate the volume of steam produced during the DCU
decoking operations (steam venting, draining, vessel deheading, and
coke cutting). Methane emissions per venting cycle is proportional to
the quantity of steam generated. Key inputs to the heat balance include
the mass of water and coke in the coke drum vessel and the average
temperature of the coke drum contents when venting first occurs. We are
proposing to allow reporters to determine the mass of coke in the coke
drum based on company records or to estimate the mass of coke in the
coke drum based on drum dimensions and drum outage (parameters already
required to be recorded under the current rule) and a new equation
provided in the rule (Equation Y-18a). We are proposing to require
reporters to determine the mass of water in the coke drum based on the
height of water in the coke drum and the mass of coke in the coke drum.
We are proposing to allow either one of two methods to estimate the
average temperature of the coke bed contents: (1) A method based on the
measured overhead temperature of the drum, and (2) a method based on
the overhead pressure using a temperature-pressure correlation equation
provided in the rule.
While the EPA generally considers the temperature method to be the
most accurate means to determine the average temperature of the coke
bed contents, the EPA understands that there are concerns that the
temperature measurements in the overhead line may be erroneously high
due to additional steam purges in the overhead line to prevent coke
build-up on the monitoring equipment, so we have provided the
temperature-pressure correlation equation as well to provide reporters
additional flexibility. Additionally, the EPA has not previously
required temperature monitoring for the DCU in subpart Y of Part 98,
but the previous methodology for delayed coking units in subpart Y
required the vessel pressure prior to venting to be monitored and used
as an input to the previous equation. Consequently, the EPA is
providing the use of the temperature-pressure correlation to allow
reporters to use current pressure monitoring and recordkeeping
practices to obtain the information needed to implement the new
methodology. As such, the new methodology will not require the
installation or use of new monitoring systems.

[[Page 2561]]

Finally, we are proposing to allow facilities that have DCU vent
gas measurements to use these measurements to develop a unit-specific
methane emissions factor for the DCU. This allows reporters that have
previously used the combined Equation Y-18/Y-19 method (as well as
other reporters) to use the measurement data available to provide an
improved, site-specific emissions estimate. If a unit-specific methane
emissions factor is not available, we are proposing that reporters use
the default methane emissions factor for DCU of 7.9 kg methane per
metric ton of steam generated. Additional background on this change is
available in the memo ``Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking
Units'' from Jeff Coburn, RTI International to Brian Cook, EPA, dated
June 4, 2015 (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
The EPA is proposing that the new methodology be used to estimate
the emissions for each DCU and the EPA is proposing to amend the
reporting requirements for DCU to only require reporting at the unit
level. This change is being proposed for several reasons. Currently,
DCU emissions are reported at the facility level. The decision was
originally made to require reporting at the facility level to allow
facilities that have two identical DCU (with same sized drums) to apply
Equation Y-18 to the set of drums one time to reduce burden. However,
the rule contains several required reporting elements be submitted on a
DCU unit-specific basis, so the burden reduction associated with this
simplification is very small, and facility-level data hindered the
EPA's ability to verify the reported data.
Facilities currently have the option to use a combination of
Equation Y-18 and Y-19 (process vent method) for estimating the
emissions from the DCU. This further splits certain reporting elements
between the DCU process unit and the process vents inputs. This split
in the DCU reporting elements has caused confusion among reporters and
made verification of the reported data challenging. For example,
facilities that did not have a DCU were required to actively report a
zero for their emissions from this source. Also, because emissions were
to be reported at the facility level, the emissions from process vents
added for DCU vents needed to be reported as zero for the DCU vent at
the process vent level. However, many reporters reported emissions at
the process vent level and may or may not have fully reported the DCU
emissions at the facility level.
Due to the difficulties associated with the split reporting
requirements, we are proposing that the new methodology be implemented
to estimate the emissions for each delayed coking unit separately. This
will simplify the reporting requirements for facilities and allow the
EPA to simplify and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements
for most reporters. Additionally, in the proposed approach, DCU vent
measurements may be used to develop a unit-specific methane emissions
factor so the available measurement data can be used within the context
of the proposed DCU methodology, rather than splitting the emissions
estimates between two different methodologies (i.e., Equations Y-18 and
Y-19). For these reasons, the EPA anticipates the burden on reporters
would be reduced by streamlining the DCU reporting requirements so that
DCU-related reporting elements are only required to be reported at the
DCU unit level.
In related revisions, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.253(j)
to delete ``CH4 emissions if you elected to use the method in paragraph
(i)(1) of this section,'' because the DCU methodology no longer
includes an option to use a combination of techniques to determine the
CH4 emissions from DCU decoking operations. We are also including
``coke produced per cycle'' in the list of quantities of petroleum
process streams that are determined using company records in 40 CFR
98.254(j), and adding a requirement that temperature and pressure
measurements associated with the DCU are to be determined ``using
process instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated according
to manufacturer's instructions.'' These revisions are included to
clarify monitoring requirements associated with the new DCU
methodology. Additionally, we are proposing to revise the recordkeeping
requirements in 40 CFR 98.257 associated with the DCU to harmonize the
recordkeeping requirements with the new DCU methodology equations.
The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2)
to clarify the appropriate equations to be used for reporters with an
asphalt blowing unit with a control device other than a vapor scrubber,
thermal oxidizer, or flare (classified as ``other (specify)'' in e-
GGRT). The current rule language in 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) only
specifies the methodology to use for these three control systems and
for uncontrolled asphalt blowing. In the proposed amendments, we are
revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) to clarify that reporters with ``asphalt
blowing operations controlled either by vapor scrubbing or by another
non-combustion control device'' must use Equations Y-14 and Y-15 to
calculate their GHG emissions. We are also revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(2)
to clarify that reporters with ``asphalt blowing operations controlled
by either a thermal oxidizer, a flare, or other vapor combustion
control device'' must use Equations Y-16a/Y-16b and Y-17 to calculate
their GHG emissions. These amendments will yield more accurate
emissions values as reporters will now be required to use the most
appropriate equations for ``other'' control systems used for asphalt
blowing operations. For more information on subpart Y confidentiality
determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV
of this preamble.
3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart Y
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart Y of
Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526).

N. Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart Z of Part 98
(Phosphoric Acid Production). This section discusses all the proposed
amendments to subpart Z. For the reasons described in section II.B of
this preamble, we are proposing to revise subpart Z of Part 98
(Phosphoric Acid Production) to allow the EPA to collect data that
would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from phosphoric
acid production while generally resulting in only a slight increase in
burden for reporters.
We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) to require that the
annual report must include the annual phosphoric acid production
capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid line, rather than
the annual permitted phosphoric acid production capacity. In a prior
technical correction to the rule (78 FR 19823, April 2, 2013) we
acknowledged that not all phosphoric acid production facilities have a
permitted production capacity, and additionally, not all facilities
produce to the permitted capacity. During that action, we removed the
word ``permitted'' from the requirement at 40 CFR 98.266(b) to report
the facility-level production capacity. We are proposing a similar
revision in this action to remove the word ``permitted'' from the
requirement to report the process-level production capacity,

[[Page 2562]]

noting similarly that not all facilities have a permitted production
capacity at the process-level or produce to the permitted capacity. We
are also proposing to clarify the units of measurement for this
reporting requirement. The current text for 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3)
requires the reporting of ``annual phosphoric acid permitted production
capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid process line
(metric tons).'' In this action, we are proposing to remove the units
of measurement ``(metric tons)'' from this text to provide further
clarity on the requirements that the unit of measurement is ``tons''
and not ``metric tons.'' The revision to the process-level capacity is
necessary to ensure that the EPA collects consistent annual production
capacity data and will provide a better characterization of the
relationship between industry production and emissions. For more
information on subpart Z confidentiality determinations resulting from
these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

O. Subpart AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart AA of Part 98 (Pulp and
Paper Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the proposed
changes to subpart AA.
1. Revisions to Subpart AA To Streamline Implementation of Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment to subpart AA that would streamline the
requirements of the rule and improve implementation, while generally
reducing burden. We are proposing to clarify that Tier 4 CEMS are not
used to report emissions under subpart AA. Subpart AA currently
requires that fossil-fuel based CO2 emissions be calculated
using subpart C methodologies. Subpart AA states that Tier 1 or a
higher tier may be used. Subpart AA reporters have not used the Tier 4
CEMS methodology during any previous reporting year, and are not
expected to do so given the mixture of biogenic and fossil-fuel
CO2 emissions in the exhaust streams from subpart AA
emission units. Therefore, we are proposing amendments to clarify that
Tier 4 is not included in 40 CFR 98.273(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1),
which refer to the subpart C calculation methodologies for
CO2 emissions from combustion of fossil-fuel. This
clarification will provide clarity to reporters and also reduce the EPA
burden and related program expense required to maintain e-GGRT CEMS web
forms and associated verification checks and documentation.
2. Other Amendments to Subpart AA
As described in section II.C of this preamble, through
communication with stakeholders, we have identified certain aspects of
the rule that may require revision, including those we are proposing in
response to comments submitted by stakeholders on prior rulemakings.
Subpart AA requires pulp mill reporters to determine the annual mass of
spent liquor solids fired in chemical recovery furnaces and chemical
recovery combustion units by either measuring the mass of spent liquor
solids annually (or more frequently) with a Technical Association of
the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) method, or using records of
measurements made with an online measurement system. Missing
measurements are currently required to be populated with either the
maximum spent liquor mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or
the maximum mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure.
Representatives of the forest products industry requested revisions to
the missing data requirements for spent liquor solids in 40 CFR
98.275(b).\17\ The industry representatives explained that use of the
maximum potential spent liquor solids firing rate or the maximum the
meter can measure can overstate GHG emissions. The industry
representatives stated that this procedure is unnecessarily burdensome
and confusing because this requirement differs from the way mills
handle spent liquor solids flow monitoring for other federal air rules,
such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in
40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. The industry representatives noted that
having a data acquisition, analysis, and reporting program that uses
one value for liquor feed rate for GHG reporting purposes and another
feed rate for all other purposes is overly complicated for both mill
personnel and regulatory agencies. The industry representatives
requested that 40 CFR 98.275(b) of subpart AA be amended to require use
of the mass of spent liquor solids reported under 40 CFR 63.866 of
subpart MM for missing measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ See docket item EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934-0058. Although this
request was received in comments on the 2013 Revisions Rule, this
request was determined to be outside the scope of the 2013 proposed
amendments and was not addressed at that time. This request is being
considered as part of these proposed amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The EPA has reviewed the industry representatives' request and
agrees that use of the daily value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1)
of subpart MM results in an acceptable missing data estimate for the
combustion unit. Thus, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.275(b)
to allow use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired reported
under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) as an alternative to maximum values. The
provisions of 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) require pulp mills to retain records
of the mass of spent liquor solids fired in megagrams (Mg) or tons per
day. This proposed amendment acknowledges that the daily value recorded
under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) may need to be adjusted to match the duration
of missing data under subpart AA. For example, the daily measurement
may need to be adjusted to represent only a few hours of monitor
downtime. We are proposing to retain the original requirements of 40
CFR 98.275(b) in addition to proposing the alternative to use the value
recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) to avoid requiring reconfiguration
of data systems in mills that may have configured their data reporting
systems to supply maximum values for subpart AA.
We are proposing one additional revision to subpart AA that is a
minor clarification and that would improve the understanding of the
rule. We are proposing a clarification to column labels in Table AA-2.
Table AA-2 contains CH4 and N2O emission factors
for ``kraft lime kilns'' and ``kraft calciners,'' both of which are
``pulp mill lime kilns'' as defined in 40 CFR 98.6. The N2O
emission factors differ for these two technologies. Because calcining
(thermal removal of carbonates from lime mud) occurs in both types of
equipment, there has been some confusion regarding which N2O
emission factors apply. To eliminate this confusion, we are proposing
minor wording changes to clarify that the columns for ``kraft lime
kilns'' in Table AA-2 refers specifically to ``kraft rotary lime
kilns.'' We are also proposing to add a footnote to Table AA-2
indicating that fluid bed calciners are an example of kraft calciners.
The majority of kraft pulp mills operate rotary lime kilns while at
least one kraft mill operates a fluidized bed calciner.

P. Subpart CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart CC of Part
98 (Soda Ash Manufacturing). This section discusses the substantive
changes to subpart CC; additional minor amendments, corrections, and
clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in
the

[[Page 2563]]

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart CC To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
We are proposing two revisions that are intended to improve the
quality of data collected under subpart CC, while only resulting in a
slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 40
CFR 98.296(a) and (b) to require reporting of the facility-level annual
consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. For the reasons
described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing the
addition of this data element to help improve the quality of the U.S.
GHG Inventory by using aggregated facility level data. These data are
already required to be reported on the manufacturing-line basis for
subpart CC reporters that report using CEMS. For non-CEMS subpart CC
reporters, the requirements to report consumption data for each
manufacturing line, previously required per 40 CFR 98.269(b)(5), was
removed in the Final Inputs Rule. This action would propose to
streamline the reporting of facility-level consumption data from both
CEMS and non-CEMS reporters on a more aggregate level. Currently, the
U.S. Inventory estimates CO2 emissions based on application
of default emissions factors to estimated trona production.\18\
Consistent collection of this data element from facilities would enable
the EPA to aggregate and integrate GHGRP emission estimates, and
transparently determine national emissions based on trona consumption
within the U.S. GHG Inventory and allow for the application of more
advanced calculation methods. For more information on subpart CC
confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions,
see section IV of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ See p. 3.52-53 (Tier 2 and 3). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.3: Natural Soda
Ash Production. See also Section 4.11 (pp. 4-40 through 4-42) of
U.S. GHG Inventory https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart CC
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing one minor correction to subpart CC of Part 98. This minor
revision is summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the
docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

Q. Subpart DD--Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart DD of Part 98 (Use of
Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment). This section
discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart DD.
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several changes to subpart DD that will improve the
quality and usefulness of the data received by the GHGRP, while
generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
A facility is defined under subpart DD at 40 CFR 98.308 as an
electric power system, comprised of all electric transmission and
distribution equipment insulated with or containing SF6 or
PFC that is linked through electric power transmission or distribution
lines and functions as an integrated unit that is owned, serviced, or
maintained by a single electric power transmission or distribution
entity (or multiple entities with a common owner), and that is located
between: (1) The point(s) at which electric energy is obtained from an
electricity generating unit or a different electric power transmission
or distribution entity that does not have a common owner; and (2) the
point(s) at which any customer or another electric power transmission
or distribution entity that does not have a common owner receives the
electric energy. The facility also includes servicing inventory for
such equipment that contains SF6 or PFC.
Given the nature of electric power systems, subpart DD facilities
generally span a geographic area, and in some cases, may cross state
boundaries. Currently, subpart DD reporters provide the EPA with the
facility address on their certificate of representation. However, this
address does not provide complete information on where the electric
power system actually lies. The EPA is proposing to add new reporting
requirements at 40 CFR 98.306(m) to make data collected under subpart
DD more useful to the public. The new data elements would require the
electric power system to provide the name of the U.S. state, states, or
territory in which the electric power system lies and the total miles
of transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or
territory. These data elements would allow users of GHGRP data to more
easily identify the state, states, or territory within which the
electric power system lies. Users of GHGRP data would also be able to
compare the miles of transmission and distribution lines in each state
or territory to the total miles of transmission and distribution lines
for the facility and then approximate the percentage of emissions that
occur within each state or territory. (As discussed in the U.S. GHG
Inventory, SF6 emissions from electric power systems are
correlated with the length of their transmission lines.) This would be
useful for determining state- and territory-level GHG emissions
associated with particular electric power systems. Although requiring
facilities to report their emissions by state or territory would
provide more precise estimates of emissions by state or territory, such
a requirement would probably significantly increase the burden of
reporting. In comparison, reporting the total miles of transmission and
distribution lines that lie in each state and territory appears likely
to be relatively straightforward for electric power systems. We request
comment on whether it would be less burdensome for facilities to report
the total transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or
territory within the facility boundary or to report the emissions for
each state or territory within the facility boundary. We also request
comment on whether miles of transmission lines alone are likely to be a
better predictor of SF6 use and emissions than combined
miles of transmission and distribution lines. If so, the EPA could
simply require reporting of the miles of transmission lines in each
state or territory.
We are also proposing to add reporting elements to subpart DD that
are related to the nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of new
and retiring equipment. Currently, electric transmission and
distribution facilities are required to include the nameplate
capacities of new and retiring hermetically sealed-pressure equipment,
along with the corresponding quantities for other electrical equipment,
in their emission calculations. They are also required to report the
total nameplate capacity of new equipment, including hermetically
sealed-pressure equipment, and the total nameplate capacity of retiring
equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. However,
they are not required to distinguish between hermetically sealed-
pressure and other equipment in these reports.
In lieu of reporting the total nameplate capacity for all
hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment, we are
proposing to require facilities to separately report the nameplate
capacities of hermetically

[[Page 2564]]

sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and
retire during the year. We are also proposing to require facilities to
report the numbers of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment
and other equipment that they install and retire during the year. These
additional requirements would not require any additional data gathering
but would enable us to better understand the quantities of
SF6 contained in hermetically sealed-pressure equipment,
which is typically used in medium voltage, distribution applications.
Currently, the GHGRP does not require reporting of the quantity of
SF6 inside such equipment or the number of pieces of such
equipment.\19\ Information on the nameplate capacities and numbers of
pieces of such equipment being installed and retired, along with the
corresponding information for other types of equipment, would provide
insight into the relative importance of the two types of equipment as
potential emission sources (e.g., upon disposal), and a rough but
useful gauge of the average charge sizes of both types of equipment,
which affects the choice of strategy for reducing emissions.
Historically, hermetically sealed-pressure equipment has been
considered to be a relatively small source of SF6 in the
U.S., but its importance is known to be growing internationally and may
also be growing domestically. These data elements represent information
that reporters are expected to have readily available and would
therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting
burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ We excluded hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from the
requirement to annually inventory the total nameplate capacity of
the facility's electrical equipment because hermetically sealed-
pressure equipment tends to have small individual charge sizes, to
be serviced only rarely or not at all, and to be spread in large
numbers throughout transmission and distribution networks, making it
relatively difficult to track after it is installed. However, it is
relatively easy (and currently required) to track this equipment
when it is installed or retired (75 FR 74803, December 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed amendments would add reporting of the nameplate
capacities of new hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40
CFR 98.306(a)(2)), new SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other
than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR
98.306(a)(3)), retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear
(proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(4)), and retired SF6- or PFC-insulated
equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed
40 CFR 98.306(a)(5)). These data elements are inputs to an emission
equation (Equation DD-1). Therefore, the EPA evaluated these data
elements to determine if their public release would cause disclosure
concerns, using the process established in the Final Deferral Notice
(76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011). The EPA determined that facilities
reporting under this subpart consist of public utilities, including
electric cooperatives, public supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee
Valley Authority), federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power
Administration), and municipally-owned electric utilities. These are
public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by
competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. The
reported data relates to maintenance activities and installation of
new/replacement of existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g., circuit
breakers, switchgear, power transformers, etc.) and amounts of
SF6 and PFC used or recovered in servicing or replacing such
equipment. These data elements do not disclose any information about a
manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be
proprietary. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that there are no
disclosure concerns with these proposed data elements, and they must be
reported in e-GGRT.
Because we recognize that the range of charge sizes can be large
(e.g., greater than an order of magnitude) for both types of equipment,
we are requesting comment on an alternative approach in which
facilities would report the numbers of pieces of each type of equipment
that are newly installed or retired and that fall into particular
nameplate capacity ranges. One possible set of ranges is shown in Table
6 of this preamble:

Table 6--Nameplate Capacity Ranges for Reporting Numbers of Pieces of
New and Retiring Equipment
[Pounds of SF6]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 0.5.
>0.5 to 1.
>1 to 15.
>15 to 30.
>30 to 100.
>100 to 500.
>500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

While this approach would require more effort than providing the
total numbers of pieces of equipment newly installed and retired for
hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and for all other equipment, it
would provide more precise data. For example, it would enable us to
distinguish between situations in which most newly installed,
hermetically sealed-pressure equipment had a charge size of 1 or 2
pounds, and situations in which most such equipment had a charge size
of one or two ounces, but the average charge size was inflated by a few
outliers with charge sizes of ten pounds or more.
For more information on subpart DD confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.

R. Subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground
Coal Mines). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart
FF; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are
summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart FF To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing three changes to subpart FF that will streamline reporting
of GHG emissions under subpart FF.
First, for the reasons described in section III.A.1 of this
preamble, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), which
provides that an owner or operator of a facility that has reported to
the GHGRP can stop reporting to the program if all applicable GHG-
emitting processes and operations permanently cease to operate.
Facilities may take advantage of this provision beginning in the year
after the cessation of operations. However, paragraph (i)(3) expressly
precludes owners and operators of underground coal mines from using
this off-ramp even after a mine is closed and abandoned. Underground
coal mines may only cease reporting after meeting the other criteria in
40 CFR 98.2(i): (1) If GHG emissions fall below 25,000
mtCO2e for five consecutive years, or (2) if GHG emissions
fall below 15,000 mtCO2e for three consecutive years. The
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to give owners and
operators of abandoned underground mines the opportunity to use the
off-ramp provided by paragraph (i)(3). Specifically, we are proposing
to amend paragraph (i)(3) to state that paragraph (i)(3) does not apply
to underground coal mines, except those whose status is determined to
be ``abandoned'' by MSHA. In keeping with the proposed changes to 40
CFR 98.2(i) discussed in section III.A.1 of this preamble, these
proposed revisions would apply beginning on January 1,

[[Page 2565]]

2017. All other proposed revisions to subpart FF, as discussed in this
section, would apply beginning January 1, 2018 (see section I.E of this
preamble for additional information).
In proposing this change, the EPA recognizes that non-flooded
underground coal mines continue to liberate methane even after the
mining operations cease. However, methane liberation from closed mines
occurs on a rapidly declining basis until the mine is sealed and
declared abandoned by MSHA, and sealed shafts emit virtually no methane
to the atmosphere. This is supported by the EPA's work in developing a
methodology for calculating emissions from abandoned underground
mines.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane Emissions
from Abandoned Coal Mines in the United States: Emission Inventory
Methodology and 1990-2002 Emissions Estimates. Washington, DC, April
2004. https://epa.gov/cmop/docs/amm_final_report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed change will streamline reporting under subpart FF by
limiting reporting to facilities actively emitting measurable volumes
of methane. Reports submitted by closed and abandoned mines during the
first four years of the GHGRP show that abandoned and sealed mines
produce quantities of GHG emissions far below the reporting threshold,
and the data are of limited value for the GHGRP and U.S. GHG Inventory
while resulting in additional reporting burden for facilities.
With respect to defining when a mine is considered abandoned, the
EPA is proposing to rely on the MSHA determination of a mine's
operational status as ``abandoned,'' because it is a transparent,
publicly available indicator of mine operational activity. The
operational status of any mine can be found using MSHA's on-line Mine
Data Retrieval System (MDRS) https://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm.
Moreover, the MSHA abandoned status provides confidence that closed
mines are sealed, and are, therefore, not emitting methane. MSHA
regulations require operators to seal any mine that has been
permanently closed or abandoned for more than 90 days.\21\ The MSHA
operating procedures require an MSHA district manager to inspect and
certify that the mine is sealed as part of the abandonment process.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ See 30 CFR 75.1711.
\22\ U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety & Health
Administration. Coal Mine Safety And Health General Inspection
Procedures Handbook. Handbook Number: PH13-V-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, the EPA believes that this proposed change has the
added benefit of removing a perceived conflict with 40 CFR 98.320(c),
``Definition of the source category'', in subpart FF. This provision
exempts abandoned and closed underground coal mines as source
categories required to report to the GHGRP. Some reporters are
uncertain which provision, 40 CFR 98.2(i) or 40 CFR 98.320(c), takes
precedence when formerly operating and reporting mines change status to
abandoned and sealed mines. The EPA believes the proposed modification
would remove any ambiguity and uncertainty, clarifying when underground
coal mines may cease reporting to the GHGRP and streamlining
implementation of the GHGRP.
Second, the EPA is proposing several amendments to clarify when
moisture content is to be reported. The first several amendments apply
to 40 CFR 98.326, which lists the data reporting requirements for
subpart FF. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326(o) to require
reporting of moisture content only in those cases where the volumetric
flow rate and CH4 concentration from a specific mine
ventilation or degasification monitoring point are not measured on the
same dry or wet basis, and in the case that flow rate is measured with
a flow meter that does not automatically correct for moisture content.
For example, if the volumetric flow rate at a specified monitoring
point is measured on a dry basis but CH4 concentration at
that monitoring point is measured on a wet basis, then the reporter
must report moisture content for the monitoring point unless using a
flow meter that automatically corrects for moisture content. The EPA is
proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326 (f) through (i) to require reporters
to specify whether volumetric flow rate and CH4
concentration measurements for ventilation and degasification systems
are determined on a wet or dry basis. The proposed changes would also
amend 40 CFR 98.326(f) and (h) to specify that where a flow meter is
used, the reporter must indicate whether the flow meter automatically
corrects for moisture content. This information will provide the
necessary information for the reporter and for the EPA to determine if
moisture content should be reported for an individual facility.
Third, the EPA is proposing several amendments related to moisture
content in 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324, which lists the
requirements for calculating GHG emissions. The EPA is proposing to
amend 40 CFR 98.323(a)(2) to read, ``Values of V, C, T, P, and, if
applicable, (fH2O), . . .'' so that ``if applicable'' more
explicitly applies to the moisture content term, (fH2O). The
EPA is proposing the same change for 40 CFR 98.323(b)(1) and 40 CFR
98.324(b)(1). The changes to 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324 are being
proposed to ensure consistency with the proposed change to 40 CFR
98.326(o).
2. Revisions to Subpart FF To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing two changes to subpart FF that will improve the quality of
data received by the GHGRP and seeking comment on a third. First, the
EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.324(b) to no longer allow MSHA
quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for
monitoring methane liberated from ventilation systems. Instead, the
facility will be required to use either of the two other methods set
forth in the rule to monitor methane released from mine ventilation
systems: CEMS or independently collected grab samples. Second, the EPA
is proposing to add annual coal production to the list of data
reporting requirements outlined in 40 CFR 98.326. Third, the EPA is
seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples
must be taken, from quarterly to monthly.
Under 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) through (3), reporters may choose to
monitor methane liberated from mine ventilation systems using any one
or a combination of three approved methods: 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1)--
quarterly grab samples; 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2)--data from MSHA quarterly
inspection reports; or 40 CFR 98.324(b)(3)--use of a CEMS. MSHA
conducts health and safety inspections at all operating mines at least
once every quarter. Each inspection includes a methane survey of the
ventilation system to ensure that the mines are operating within
prescribed safety limits. To obtain methane measurements, an MSHA
inspector takes grab samples using sealed test tubes. The samples are
analyzed at an MSHA laboratory. A handheld anemometer is used to
determine ventilation air flow. Approximately 50 percent of the 125
mines reporting to the GHGRP use MSHA quarterly reports as the basis
for reporting methane liberation from ventilation.
The EPA is proposing to remove the option of using MSHA quarterly
inspection reports as an accepted methodology for monitoring methane
liberation in mine ventilation systems. Reporters would be required to
collect grab samples or use a CEMS to monitor mine ventilation systems.
This change will remove 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2). We are

[[Page 2566]]

proposing this change because we have determined, through several
reporting cycles and a review of MSHA quarterly inspection reports for
30 of the highest emitting mines, that the quarterly flow rate data
gathered by MSHA cannot reliably be used for GHG reporting purposes.
MSHA regulations and inspections are intended to ensure mine worker
health and safety rather than to quantify specific mine operating
parameters. MSHA inspections provide important data for assessing mine
safety, and if complete, MSHA data may provide a reasonable estimate of
methane emissions from underground coal mines. However, the EPA found
that for many facilities the MSHA data can result in too many data gaps
to meet the objectives of the GHGRP, adding considerable uncertainty to
the calculation of facility and sector-wide GHG emissions. One common
example is the occasional inconsistency in the locations within
specific mines where MSHA inspectors take volumetric flow measurements
and methane grab samples. Sampling locations are not fixed and, from
quarter to quarter, inspectors may use more than one name for a single
approach. In addition, approaches and even shafts may not appear in
every quarterly report. For more information on the EPA's review of the
MSHA data see the memorandum titled ``Use of Inspection Data from the
Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane
Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts'' from Clark Talkington, ARI to
Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526. Although this rule change will increase the burden on
facilities that currently use MSHA data to meet the requirements of 40
CFR 98.324(b), the EPA has determined that the proposed amendment is
necessary to improve the quality of data consistent with the intended
purpose of Part 98. In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking
comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples
taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved
data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA encourages
commenters to submit studies, data, and background information that can
support additional analysis.
The second proposal to improve data quality under subpart FF adds a
new provision 40 CFR 98.326(u). The EPA is proposing to require
reporters to report the total volume of coal produced, in short tons,
during the reporting period. An important approach for verifying the
accuracy of subpart FF annual reports is a comparison of year to year
changes in methane liberation and methane emissions for each facility.
To support report verification, the EPA is proposing to add coal
production to the list of required data to be reported under subpart
FF. In many instances, an increase or decrease in coal production is a
reasonable explanation for a corresponding increase or decrease in
methane liberation. Obtaining annual coal production data with the
annual subpart FF report would allow the EPA to review year-to-year
changes in methane emissions in light of changes in coal production.
These data are expected to reduce the burden on reporters and the EPA
in verifying the annual reports. This change will not result in
additional reporting burden for the mine because coal companies closely
track coal production and report quarterly production totals to MSHA.
MSHA makes quarterly and annual coal production publicly available
through MSHA's Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) at https://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. Total annual coal production for the
reporting year is publicly available by the March 31st GHGRP submission
date in the year following the reporting year.
Third, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the sampling
frequency for reporters using grab samples from quarterly to monthly in
order to provide more accurate and reliable data. Currently, mines that
monitor methane liberation from grab samples must take at least one
grab sample per quarter for each ventilation monitoring point (40 CFR
98.324(b)(1)), and report methane liberation on a quarterly basis.
Mine-specific daily and weekly data sets show that significant day-to-
day and week-to-week variation in methane emissions can occur depending
on operating and geologic conditions at a mine. According to the IPCC
Guidelines, frequent measurements of underground coal mine emissions
can account for such variability and also reduce the intrinsic errors
in the measurement techniques. As emissions vary over the course of a
year due to variations in coal production rate and associated drainage,
good practice is to collect measurement data as frequently as
practical, preferably biweekly or monthly to smooth out variations.\23\
Preliminary analysis of high frequency ventilation air emissions at
underground coal mines shows that uncertainty decreases as sampling
frequency increases. Therefore, increasing the frequency with which
grab samples are taken from quarterly to monthly could improve the
accuracy of ventilation data reported to the GHGRP. In considering this
change, the EPA analyzed high-frequency datasets of ventilation air
methane (VAM) emissions at three mines (Mines ``A'', ``B'', and ``C'')
to examine the uncertainty associated with weekly, monthly, and
quarterly sampling based on using a random day selection approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ From 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories, Chapter 4. See: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using VAM emissions data recorded daily and weekly from the three
underground coal mines (one with daily sampling and two with weekly
sampling), the EPA analyzed the average daily VAM emissions rate by
randomly selecting the sampling day or week during a 12 month reporting
period. Mine A had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 1 to 4
million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) with an average of ~2.5 million
cubic feet per day mmcfd. Mine B had daily CH4 emissions
ranging from 4 to 18 mmcfd (avg. ~10.1 mmcfd). Mine C had daily
CH4 emissions ranging from 1 to 7 mmcfd (averaging. ~3.6
mmcfd).
To assess the variability in emissions, each case was run for a
weekly, monthly, and quarterly sampling frequency over a 12 month
reporting period. For Mine A, the results showed that weekly sampling
produced a small standard deviation of 1.6% compared to daily sampling.
For all three mines, the results showed the standard deviations
increased to 4.3-5.2% when sampling frequency decreased from weekly to
monthly sampling. Finally, the results showed the standard deviations
increased to 12.1-13.4% when sampling frequency decreased from monthly
sampling to quarterly sampling. Due to the day-to-day variability in
VAM emissions, ranges of maximum possible errors are also greater with
decreased sampling frequency. Deviations from the actual value for
monthly sampling ranged from 8.8-10.7%, while deviations for quarterly
sampling ranged from 20.6-35.1%.
This analysis demonstrates that uncertainty decreases as sampling
frequency increases, most noticeably when the frequency decreases from
quarterly to monthly. Although the EPA considered requiring weekly
sampling, it appears that monthly sampling strikes the most appropriate
balance between improving data quality while limiting the additional
burden on reporters for more frequent sampling. The EPA also notes that
a number of mines reporting to the GHGRP already take grab samples on a
more frequent basis than the quarterly MSHA sampling requirements.

[[Page 2567]]

In addition, based on published papers the EPA understands that many
mining operations conduct ventilation surveys on a monthly and possibly
more frequent basis as a critical element of good practice health and
safety. Air samples are taken as part of the ventilation survey to
confirm levels of hazardous gases. Therefore, the EPA believes an
amendment to increase monitoring frequency is feasible for the
industry. The EPA is also seeking comment on other monitoring
frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or monitoring
frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as
bimonthly).
For additional information regarding the EPA's preliminary analysis
for increasing monitoring frequency, see the memorandum entitled
``Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based on
Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly),'' Ruby
Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526. The EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and
background information demonstrating multi-year VAM monitoring on a
basis that is more frequent than quarterly. This information will help
determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation
emissions that is needed to ensure accurate and reliable measurements.
Finally, we are also proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) to
require use of the most recent edition of the MSHA Handbook for
inspections and sampling procedures entitled, Coal Mine Safety and
Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-V-1,
February 2013.
In addition to improving the quality of data reported to the GHGRP,
and, in turn, the quality of emissions data aggregated and reported to
the public by the GHGRP, the proposed changes to monitoring methods for
mine ventilation systems, as well as the addition of annual coal
production to the data reporting requirement, would improve the
emissions estimates for coal mines reported in the U.S. GHG Inventory.
For more information on subpart FF confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
3. Other Amendments to Subpart FF
As described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing
revisions to Part 98 to respond to issues raised by reporters and to
more closely align rule requirements with the processes conducted at
specific facilities. The following proposed revisions to subpart FF are
in response to comments and questions we have received since reporting
under subpart FF began in 2011.
In 40 CFR 98.323(a) and (b), we are proposing to clarify for
Equations FF-1 and FF-3 the method for determining the number of days
in a month or week (n) where active ventilation and degasification are
taking place. In both equations, the definition of Number of Days (n)
is being clarified to note that (n) is determined by taking the number
of hours in the monitoring period and dividing by 24 hours per day.
In 40 CFR 98.323(a)(3) and 40 CFR 98.323(b)(2), the text is being
amended to state that the quarterly sum of CH4 liberated from
ventilation and degasification systems, respectively, ``must be''
rather than ``should be'' determined as the sum of the CH4 liberated at
each monitoring point during that quarter. This change is being
proposed because calculating the quarterly sum of CH4 liberated is
required rather than being optional.
The EPA is proposing to remove ``If applicable'' in 40 CFR
98.324(h) to clarify that the provision requiring the owner or operator
to document the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of gas flow
rate, gas composition, temperature, pressure, and moisture content
measurements is a requirement for all reporters, because grab samples
and CEMS would be the only acceptable monitoring methods if the
amendments to 40 CFR 98.324(b) are finalized as proposed.
In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(2), we are proposing to clarify the start date
and end date for a well, shaft, or vent hole. This requirement has
caused confusion for some reporters. The start date of a well, shaft,
or vent hole is the date of actual initiation of operations and may
begin in a year prior to the reporting year. For purposes of reporting,
we are amending paragraph (r)(2) to state that the end date of a well,
shaft, or vent hole is the last day of the reporting year if the well,
shaft, or vent hole is operating on that date.
In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(3), we are proposing to add language clarifying
the method for determining and reporting the number of days a well,
shaft, or vent hole was in operation during the reporting year. The
number of days is determined by dividing the total operating hours in
the reporting year by 24 hours per day. This change is consistent with
similar changes to the method for determining number of days in
Equations FF-1 and FF-3, discussed earlier in this section.
4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart FF
In addition to the substantive changes proposed, for the reasons
described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor
revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in subpart
FF. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2015-0526).

S. Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart HH of Part 98. This section
discusses the substantive changes to subpart HH; additional minor
amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table
of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart HH To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the
requirements of subpart HH and focus the provisions of the rule on the
essential data that the EPA requires to review, assess, and verify
reported emissions. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(f) to
remove the requirement to report the surface area for each type of
cover material used at the facility. The surface area for each cover
material used has not been useful in assessing or verifying reported
emissions and therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement
to report this data. The proposed amendment will still require the
reporting of the total surface area of the landfill containing waste
(in square meters) and an identification of the type(s) of cover
material used. This information is used during verification to check
the consistency of the collection efficiency reported by the landfill.
However, when multiple cover types are used, reporters will no longer
be required to report the surface area of the landfill containing waste
associated with each cover type. The proposed change would reduce the
burden to reporters and the agency as described in section II.A of this
preamble.
2. Revisions to Subpart HH To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several amendments to

[[Page 2568]]

subpart HH that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve
the EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions while generally
resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
First, we are seeking comment on whether revisions should be made
to Table HH-3 to allow landfill owners or operators to determine the
weighted average collection efficiency for their landfill using either
an area-based weighting approach, as has been required in previous
reporting years, or a volume-based weighting approach. We are also
seeking comment on whether reporters should be given the option to use
either approach, or if one approach should be required if reporters
meet certain landfill characteristics and if so, what those landfill
characteristics should be. We have received comments from reporters
stating that the area weighted average does not accurately reflect the
overall efficiency of the gas collection system due to differences in
the waste depth or age in different portions of their landfill. We
considered allowing reporters to define subareas of the landfill and
perform all of the subpart HH calculations and report the equation
inputs for each subarea. This approach would consider the effects of
waste age, composition, and quantity for the different landfill
subareas, but it would essentially double or triple the number of
reporting elements, depending on the number of subareas defined. We
next considered providing a volume-based weighting approach for
calculating collection efficiency. This approach only considers some of
the variables that influence methane generation rate, but these are
variables already reported, namely the depths for each waste area
defined in Table HH-3. If the option to use the area weighted approach
or the volume-based weighting approach is finalized, no new reporting
elements beyond an indication of which weighting approach is used would
be required. This revision would allow us to use the data previously
reported to develop a consistent time line, if necessary, without
requiring reporters to revise previously submitted reports. If a
requirement to use one approach over another for reporters with certain
landfill characteristics is finalized, one or more new reporting
elements may be required depending on what the certain landfill
characteristics are.
Consequently, we are seeking comment on (1) whether reporters
should be given the option to calculate the collection efficiency; (2)
whether reporters should be allowed to use and report the option of
either the area weighted average or the volume weighted average
approach; (3) whether reporters should be required to use one approach
over the other depending on specific landfill characteristics (e.g.,
reporters with drastically different wastes depths in portions of their
landfill should be required to use the volume weighted approach); and
(4) what those specific landfill characteristics should be. We expect
that the many landfills that have similar waste depths in different
areas of their landfill (or a single area) will maintain their existing
data collection and calculation procedures by using the area weighted
average. In contrast, we expect reporters with different waste depths
in portions of their landfill to use the volume weighted average
approach, thereby improving the accuracy of the data reported for those
landfills. If finalized, these changes would be effective beginning
with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive.
We are proposing to broaden the description of area type A5 in
Table HH-3 to include alternative final covers. Currently, facilities
with landfill gas collection and approved alternative final covers are
not allowed to use the 95 percent collection efficiency in their
emissions calculations because an alternative final cover does not fit
the exact language in the definition for area type A5 in Table HH-3.
This proposed revision would allow facilities with alternative final
covers to use a collection efficiency greater than 75 percent.
Alternative final covers may include, but are not limited to,
evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier covers, asphalt covers, or
concrete covers. The state, local, or other agency responsible for
permitting the landfill determines whether an alternative final cover
meets the applicable regulatory requirements and has been shown to
adequately protect human health and the environment. This rule does not
intend to provide details of the design or implementation of
alternative final covers and solely relies on the agency responsible
for permitting the landfill to approve an alternative final cover at
the facility. For clarity, we are also proposing a definition for
alternative final covers to this effect in 40 CFR 98.348.
We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to require
reporting of the annual hours that active gas flow was sent to each
destruction device instead of reporting the annual operating hours for
each destruction device associated with a given measurement location.
The proposed revision refers to the fraction of hours the destruction
device was operating (fDest), which is a term used in
Equations HH-6 and HH-8. The term fDest is defined as the
``fraction of hours the destruction device associated with the nth
measurement location was operating during active gas flow calculated as
the annual operating hours for the destruction device divided by the
annual hours flow was sent to the destruction device as measured at the
nth measurement location . . .'' Although no changes are being made to
the definition or calculation of fDest, there is currently no reporting
requirement for the ``. . . hours . . . operating during active gas
flow . . .'' in the rule. By collecting these data, the proposed
revision would allow the EPA's reporting tool to accurately calculate
fDest, as well as the results of Equations HH-6 and HH-8. More accurate
calculation by e-GGRT would improve verification of the existing data
by reducing the number of reporters that override their equation
results, resulting in fewer potential errors identified during the
verification process. The removal of the current requirement to report
the annual operating hours for each destruction device associated with
a given measurement location would not impede verification of reported
data, as this parameter is not used in the subpart calculations. We are
also proposing to move the requirement to report the annual operating
hours of the gas collection system for each measurement location in 40
CFR 98.346(i)(7) to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to consolidate all reporting
requirements that are associated with each measurement location to the
same paragraph, consistent with reporting organization used in e-GGRT.
Finally, landfills with active gas collection systems must
calculate and report their GHG emissions in two ways. Equation HH-6 is
designed to be driven by the modeled methane generation (i.e., Equation
HH-1), whereas Equation HH-8 is driven by methane recovery (i.e.
Equation HH-4). For a landfill with an active gas collection system,
where the quantity of recovered methane is greater than the modeled
methane generation (i.e., the result of Equation HH-4 is greater than
the result of Equation HH-1), we are proposing that the facility must
report the results of Equation HH-8 as the final subpart HH methane
emissions instead of the value for Equation HH-6.
We allowed the term GCH4 in Equation HH-6 to be
substituted with the greater of the Equation HH-4 or Equation HH-1
value to avoid a negative result when the quantity of recovered methane
is greater than the modeled methane generation. We reviewed several
years

[[Page 2569]]

of facility data and found a few cases where the amount of methane
recovered by the gas collection system was greater than the amount of
modeled methane generation. After reviewing the reports where this
occurs, as well as examining the difference in net emissions between
Equation HH-6 and HH-8 at these facilities, we concluded that the value
of Equation HH-6 is not reliable for use as the final subpart HH
emissions when the amount of methane recovered is greater than the
amount of modeled methane generation. The substitution of Equation HH-4
for GCH4 was only done to prevent a negative value of
methane emissions for Equation HH-6. The EPA did not intend for that
value to then be used as the total subpart HH emissions since it is not
possible to recover more methane from the landfill than was generated.
To prevent inaccurate values from being reported as the final subpart
HH methane emissions, we are proposing to expressly add the ``methane
emissions for the landfill'' as a reporting element in 40 CFR
98.346(i)(13). This proposed new paragraph directs reporters to
``Choose the methane emissions from either Equation HH-6 of this
subpart or Equation HH-8 of this subpart that best represents the
emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of recovered
CH4 from Equation HH-4 of this subpart is used as the value
of GCH4 in Equation HH-6 of this subpart, use the methane
emissions calculated using Equation HH-8 of this subpart as the methane
emissions for the landfill.''
For more information on subpart HH confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
3. Other Amendments to Subpart HH and Grant of Petition for
Reconsideration
We are proposing two amendments for subpart HH for the reasons
described in section II.C of this preamble. These proposed amendments
are anticipated to have minimal or no impact on burden for reporters.
On April 2, 2013, the EPA proposed flux-dependent oxidation fractions
based on data provided by industry representatives (78 FR 19802). While
we proposed the use of these oxidation fractions with no minimum soil
cover requirement, we received comments on the proposed soil oxidation
fractions noting that soil oxidation only occurs with soil of adequate
depth, porosity, temperature and microbes. To respond to this comment,
we reviewed the soil depths present in the peer-reviewed studies upon
which the data were based and determined that the studies supporting
the higher flux-dependent oxidation fractions were performed on soils
with an average depth across all of the studies reviewed of 24 inches
or more of soil cover. We finalized the proposed flux dependent soil
oxidation fractions, and also included a requirement that these flux
dependent soil oxidation fractions could only be used if the majority
of the landfill area that contains waste has a soil cover of at least
24 inches (78 FR 71971, November 29, 2013). We subsequently received an
administrative petition for reconsideration from Waste Management, Inc.
(hereafter referred to as ``Petitioner'') on January 28, 2014 regarding
the inclusion of this minimum soil cover requirement in order to use
the flux-dependent soil oxidation fractions, titled ``Waste
Management's Petition for Reconsideration of 2013 Revisions to
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations
for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements Docket I.D. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0934'' (hereafter referred to as the ``Petition for
Reconsideration,'' available in the docket for this rulemaking). This
section of this preamble discusses the specific issue raised in the
Petition for Reconsideration that is addressed in this action, the
review and analysis that was undertaken since the Petition for
Reconsideration was received, and the changes the EPA is proposing in
response to the petition. The EPA intends to complete its response to
the Petition for Reconsideration through this rulemaking.
In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA re-
evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature (27 studies) at the
time of proposal regarding soil oxidation fractions. This review found
that 85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane
oxidized and cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches
or more. This investigation confirmed that the vast majority of the
soil oxidation studies were performed on landfills with cover depths of
24 inches or more, which was the basis for the 24 inch soil depth
requirement in the final rule (78 FR 71927, November 29, 2013).
However, several of these studies investigated the oxidation profile
within the cover soil and several of these studies indicated that the
majority of soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of the
soil cover. While some of the data support the idea that the bulk of
the oxidation may occur in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil, it is
unclear whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if
only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover were present. For further details on
the review of the soil oxidation literature, see the memorandum
entitled ``Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in
the Peer-Reviewed Literature'' from Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath,
and Jeff Coburn, RTI International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June
17, 2015, in Docket Id. Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
We also reviewed the codified state standards from all 50 states
for requirements regarding intermediate or interim cover depth and
found that the depth requirements are not consistent from state to
state, and for some states depth requirements are not specified (e.g.,
Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire). Most states require a minimum
intermediate cover thickness of 12 inches. Some states include a
minimum intermediate cover depth in their regulations that is inclusive
of the federally-mandated 6 inches of daily cover depth. For example,
Massachusetts requires a minimum intermediate cover depth of 12 inches,
including 6 inches of daily cover. Other states, such as Florida,
require 12 inches of intermediate cover in addition to the 6 inches of
initial cover, thereby requiring 18 inches of intermediate cover in
total.
After reviewing the literature on the soil oxidation studies and
the codified state standards for intermediate soil cover, we determined
that while the literature studies are not conclusive regarding the
minimum soil cover necessary for oxidation to occur, they do show that
oxidation generally occurs with at least 12 inches of soil cover.
Further, most states require at least 12 inches of intermediate soil
cover. As a result, we are proposing to revise and clarify the soil
cover requirements as follows. First, we are proposing to revise the
phrase ``. . . for a majority of the landfill area containing waste . .
.'' to read ``. . . for at least 50 percent of the landfill area
containing waste . . .'' to clarify that we intended the majority of
the landfill to mean 50 percent or more. Second, we are proposing to
revise the requirement for ``. . . a soil cover of at least 24 inches .
. .'' to read ``. . . intermediate or interim soil cover . . .'' Third,
we propose to define intermediate or interim soil cover in 40 CFR
98.348 to mean ``the placement of material over waste in a landfill for
a period of time prior to disposal of additional waste and/or final
closure as defined by state regulation, permit, guidance or written
plan, or state accepted best management practice.'' In the case where a
landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate

[[Page 2570]]

or interim soil cover requirement as proposed to be defined, we are
proposing to add a footnote to Table HH-4 stating that the landfill
must have a soil cover of 12 inches or greater to use an oxidation
fraction of 0.25 or 0.35.
Lastly, in our review of the oxidation studies, we noted that some
investigators observed that soil methane flux near passive vent
locations was low. Most of the landfills where methane flux and soil
oxidation were measured occurred at landfills with active gas
collection systems. For landfills with passive gas collection, a
significant portion of the generated methane can be released via these
passive vents and bypass diffusion through the cover soil. That is,
landfill gas that is lost through the passive vents would not undergo
any soil oxidation. The GHGRP does not currently require, nor are we
proposing to require, direct measurement of passive vent flows; thus, a
facility is unable to determine the fraction of the generated landfill
gas that bypasses the soil cover and it is therefore not possible to
estimate a weighted average soil oxidation fraction for landfills with
passive vents. It is important to note that the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change 2006 Guidelines \24\ recommends the use of oxidation
fractions ranging from 0 to 10 percent largely due to the fact that
landfill gas will flow primarily through channels of least flow
resistance, which one would expect the passive vents to be. If there
are fissures in the soil cover (or passive vent systems), a significant
portion of the landfill gas will be released without any oxidation
occurring. However, we are not proposing to require the use of an
oxidation fraction of zero for landfills with passive or active venting
because a small portion of the generated landfill gas will pass through
the soil cover and undergo soil oxidation. Because we would expect a
larger portion of the generated landfill gas to be released via the
passive vents, for the portion of the landfill gas that does diffuse
through the soil cover the methane flux rate is expected to be small,
resulting in a fraction of methane oxidized that is expected to be
greater than 10 percent. Considering the gas released through the
passive or active vents and the methane that remains to be oxidized in
the soil cover, while not precise, the overall oxidation fraction could
be expected to average approximately 10 percent. Therefore, we are
proposing revisions to Table HH-4 to require landfills that have
passive or active vent systems that service greater than 50-percent of
the landfill area containing waste or landfills that have only passive
or active vent systems to use the default 10 percent oxidation fraction
in their emission calculations. The EPA is seeking comment on whether
landfills with only passive or active vent systems or landfills with
such systems on greater than 50 percent of the landfill area containing
waste should be required to use the 10 percent oxidation fraction. If
finalized, these changes to Table HH-4 would be effective beginning
with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive. The table as it
appeared before these proposed revisions applies to the relative
earlier reporting years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe
K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan. Available at: https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

While we are proposing to lower the minimum amount of soil cover
required to use certain oxidation fractions, we are proposing to
require the use of a 10 percent oxidation fraction for landfills with
passive or active venting, or for landfills with less than 12 inches of
soil cover (that do not also have a geomembrane cover) because
application of higher soil oxidation fractions would be inappropriate
at landfills with limited cover soils or passive vent systems because a
significant portion of the landfill gas may be released through
channels or vents with little to no soil oxidation occurring.
We are also proposing to add definitions of ``passive vent'' and
``active venting'' to further clarify the rule requirements as they
pertain to landfill gas collection system flow and composition
monitoring and the use of soil oxidation fractions. Specifically, we
are proposing ``Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that
allows landfill gas to flow naturally, without the use of a fan or
similar mechanical draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill
where an opening or pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill
gas to the atmosphere or to a passive vent flare without diffusion
through the top layer of surface soil.'' ``Active venting means a pipe
or a system of pipes used with a fan or similar mechanical draft
equipment (forced convection) used to actively assist the flow of
landfill gas to the surface of the landfill where the landfill gas is
discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to a non-combustion
control device (such as a carbon absorber) and then to the
atmosphere.'' As described previously, we are proposing to require
landfills with passive vents or active venting to use a default
oxidation fraction of 0.1. Providing these definitions clarifies the
meaning of these terms and thereby clarifies the reporters that must
use the 0.1 oxidation fraction.
4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart HH
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor corrections and clarifications to subpart HH of
Part 98, including editorial changes and clarifications to reporting
requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

T. Subpart II--Industrial Wastewater Treatment

We are proposing amendments to subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial
Wastewater). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart
II; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are
summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart II To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing amendments to subpart II reporting requirements that would
provide additional data to support estimates included in the U.S. GHG
Inventory, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in
burden for reporters.
We are proposing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.356 to require
facilities that perform ethanol production to indicate if their
facility uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process. To
clarify this requirement, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 98.358
to add definitions of ``wet milling'' and ``dry milling.'' The EPA
intends to use the data on the numbers of facilities with wet versus
dry milling processes and their respective wastewater characteristics
to update assumptions used in the U.S. GHG Inventory and thereby
improve the estimates of U.S. emissions from wastewater treatment at
ethanol production facilities. In addition, the EPA intends to update
the U.S. GHG Inventory using data on the level of biogas recovery in
use at wet milling facilities and at dry milling facilities. For more
information on subpart II confidentiality determinations resulting from
these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

[[Page 2571]]

2. Other Amendments to Subpart II
For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several clarifying amendments to subpart II; these
proposed changes would have no impact on burden for reporters. In order
to resolve uncertainties in the reporting requirements in 40 CFR
98.356(b)(1) and 40 CFR 98.356(d)(3) through (d)(6) regarding how to
calculate weekly averages for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and 5-day
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentration,
CH4 concentration, biogas temperature, biogas moisture
content, and biogas pressure, the EPA is proposing an amendment to 40
CFR 98.358 to add a definition of the term ``weekly average.''
3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart II
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor clarifications to subpart II of Part 98. These
minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

U. Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels

In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart LL
of Part 98 (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels). This section
discusses the substantive changes to subpart LL; additional minor
amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table
of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart LL To Streamline Implementation
For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are
proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of
Coal-based Liquid Fuels) to clarify requirements and amend data
reporting requirements, resulting in a decrease in burden for
reporters.
As described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing to
remove the requirements of 40 CFR 98.386(a)(4), (a)(8), (a)(15),
(b)(4), and (c)(4) for each facility, importer, and exporter to report
the annual quantity of each coal-based liquid fuel on the basis of the
measurement method used. Reporters would continue to report the annual
quantities of each coal-based liquid fuel in metric tons or barrels at
40 CFR 98.386(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and (c)(2). We are also
proposing to clarify that the quantity of bulk natural gas liquids
(NGLs) reported under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(20) should not include NGLs
already reported as individual products under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2).
These changes not only clarify the reporting requirements, but also
harmonize subpart LL requirements with those of subpart MM.
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart LL
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing several minor clarifications to subpart LL of Part 98. These
minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in
the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

V. Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

In this action, we are proposing several amendments,
clarifications, and corrections to subpart NN of Part 98 (Suppliers of
Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids). This section discusses the
substantive changes to subpart NN; additional minor amendments,
corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart NN To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are
proposing one amendment to subpart NN that would improve the quality of
the data collected under Part 98 while generally resulting in only a
slight increase in burden for reporters. Each local distribution
company (LDC) reporting under subpart NN is defined in 40 CFR 98.400(b)
as a company that owns or operates distribution pipelines that
physically deliver natural gas to end users that are within a single
state. LDCs provide the EPA with a corporate address on their
certificate of representation which may or may not be within the state
where the LDC operates.
The EPA is proposing to add a new reporting requirement at 40 CFR
98.406(b)(14) to support data verification and make the data more
useful to the public. The new data element would require LDCs to
provide the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the report.
This data element will improve the EPA's ability to compare reported
data to information contained in outside data sets (such as those from
the EIA). Adding this requirement will enable the EPA to identify a
larger portion of LDCs in the EIA data set which will lead to improved
data quality in both the EPA and the EIA data sets. This data element
will also allow users of GHGRP data to more easily identify the state
within which the LDC operates, which will be useful for determining
state level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply.
For more information on subpart NN confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart NN
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several changes to subpart NN that are corrections,
editorial changes, and minor clarifications to improve understanding of
the rule. These additional minor corrections to subpart NN are
discussed in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

W. Subpart OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart OO
of Part 98 (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). This section
discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart OO.
As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing
revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve
the EPA's understanding of industrial GHG supplies while generally
resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are
proposing three amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 (Suppliers of
Industrial Greenhouse Gases) that would improve the quality of the data
collection under Part 98 and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory.
We are proposing two revisions to the definition of the source
category to include facilities that (1) destroy 25,000
mtCO2e or more of industrial greenhouse gases and/or
fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually; or (2) produce, import, or
export fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs) that are not also
fluorinated greenhouse gases. We are also proposing to expand the scope
of monitoring and reporting to include production, transformation,
destruction, imports, and exports of fluorinated HTFs that are not also
fluorinated GHGs.
Revisions to Include Facilities that Destroy Fluorinated GHGs and
Fluorinated HTFs. To develop an accurate estimate of the U.S. supply of
fluorinated GHGs, it is necessary to track all significant additions to
and

[[Page 2572]]

subtractions from that supply. Additions to the U.S. supply include
production and import, while subtractions include transformation,
destruction, and export. Currently, subpart OO requires producers and
importers to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that they
produce, import, transform, destroy, or send to another facility for
destruction. (Exporters are required to report the quantities of
fluorinated GHGs that they export.) While this reporting accounts for
destruction by producers and importers, it does not account for
destruction by other entities. This may result in a significant
underestimate of the quantities destroyed because the fluorinated GHG
market includes participants who neither produce nor import industrial
GHGs but may end up destroying them, such as refrigerant reclaimers who
clean used HFCs for reuse. On occasion, these reclaimers may destroy
fluorinated GHGs that are found to be irretrievably contaminated.
Alternatively, they may send such fluorinated GHGs to a facility other
than a fluorinated gas producer or importer for destruction. In other
cases, fluorinated GHG users may themselves recognize that recovered
fluorinated GHGs are irretrievably contaminated and send them directly
to a destruction facility.
By requiring facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs to report
that destruction, we would capture such destruction and thereby
eliminate a potential overestimate of the U.S. supply of fluorinated
GHGs. To avoid covering the destruction of very small quantities of
fluorinated GHGs that do not have a material impact on the
CO2e fluorinated GHG supply, we are also proposing to
require facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs (and are not otherwise
covered by subpart OO) to report that destruction only if they destroy
25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated GHGs annually. This is
consistent with the thresholds currently applied to facilities that
destroy HFC-23 under subpart O and to importers and exporters of
industrial GHGs under subpart OO.
This expansion of the definition of the subpart OO source category
would apply to facilities that destroy previously produced fluorinated
GHGs and that are not already required to report any residual emissions
of the destroyed fluorinated GHGs under another subpart. For example,
cement kilns that annually accept and destroy a total of 25,000
mtCO2e or more of irretrievably contaminated HFCs or
SF6 recovered from air-conditioning or electrical equipment
would be covered, but electronics manufacturing facilities that
dissociate fluorinated GHGs during and/or after etching and chemical
vapor deposition chamber cleaning processes would not be covered.
Electronics facilities are currently required to report both their
emissions and their effective destruction efficiencies under subpart I,
and we therefore already receive data to account for the impacts of
electronics manufacturing on fluorinated GHG supplies and emissions.
We estimate that five to ten destruction facilities would be newly
covered by subpart OO under this amendment. This estimate is based on
the number of facilities that report destruction of ozone-depleting
substances (ODSs) to the EPA under the Stratospheric Protection
Program. Because fluorinated GHGs are chemically similar to ODSs, are
manufactured and imported by many of the same facilities and companies
that manufacture and import ODSs, and are used in many of the same
applications as ODSs, the set of facilities destroying fluorinated GHGs
is likely to be similar to the set of facilities destroying ODSs. These
facilities include hazardous waste treatment facilities that use a
variety of different destruction technologies such as plasma arc and
combustion. Facilities destroying very small quantities of ODSs were
excluded from the total because similar quantities of fluorinated GHGs
appeared unlikely to equal or exceed the proposed 25,000
mtCO2e threshold (using an average GWP of 2000).
The same rationale applies to destruction of fluorinated HTFs;
reporting by suppliers of fluorinated HTFs is discussed below.
Revisions to Include Facilities that Produce, Import, Transform,
Export or Destroy Fluorinated Heat Transfer Fluids and to Require
Reporting of these Activities. We are also proposing to revise subpart
OO to include entities that produce, import, transform, export, or
destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs under the
subpart A definition, and to require monitoring and reporting of these
activities from all suppliers that engage in them. Currently, the
Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gas source category includes
suppliers of, and requires reporting of, nitrous oxide and fluorinated
GHGs. The definition of fluorinated GHG excludes compounds whose vapor
pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C, because in applications
where temperatures are near or below 25 degrees C, such compounds are
not likely to evaporate and enter the atmosphere (74 FR 56348, October
30, 2009). However, fluorinated HTFs are used in electronics
manufacturing applications where temperatures can be much higher.
Consequently, even compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg
at 25 degrees C can enter the atmosphere when used in these
applications. For this reason, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing)
defines fluorinated HTFs to include compounds whose vapor pressures
fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C (as well as above this level) and
that are used in temperature control, device testing, cleaning
substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering; and subpart I
requires electronics manufacturing facilities to report emissions of
these compounds. We are proposing to use essentially the same
definition for subpart OO.
Collecting information on the U.S. supply of fluorinated HTFs would
enable us to compare reported supplies to the demand for fluorinated
HTFs that we calculate based on the emissions (1) reported under
subpart I, and (2) estimated for electronics facilities that do not
report under subpart I (e.g., because they fall below the threshold).
Large differences would imply that emissions are being over- or
underestimated, for example because some users and emitters of
fluorinated HTFs are not being accounted for.\25\ Because many
fluorinated HTFs are composed of fully-fluorinated GHGs and have GWPs
near 10,000, it is important to ensure that we are accurately
accounting for fluorinated HTF emissions on a national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Such differences have been seen for other fluorinated GHGs;
a recent comparison between the U.S. supply of SF6
reported under OO and the demand for SF6 calculated based
on reporting under subparts I, T (Magnesium Production), DD
(Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use), and SS
(Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment) found that in
2012, supplies exceeded the calculated demand by more than half.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be subject to the same
thresholds as suppliers of fluorinated GHGs. That is, there would be no
threshold for producers of fluorinated HTFs, but the threshold for
importers, exporters, and destroyers of fluorinated HTFs would be
25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated HTFs or GHGs. We anticipate
that few, if any, suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be required to
begin reporting under this provision because all suppliers of
fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already. (One
possible exception is facilities that destroy but do not produce or
import fluorinated HTFs, but this group of facilities is included in
the set of destruction facilities discussed above.) The incremental
burden associated with

[[Page 2573]]

reporting production, import, export, and destruction of fluorinated
HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs is expected to be modest, e.g.,
it may involve reporting supplies of one to twelve additional compounds
by two to three suppliers of fluorinated HTFs.
For more information on subpart OO confidentiality determinations
resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this
preamble.

X. Subpart RR--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart RR of Part
98 (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). This section discusses
all of the proposed changes to subpart RR.
As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing
revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve
the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from geologic sequestration,
while generally resulting in a minimal increase in burden for
reporters. The EPA is proposing to add a data reporting element to 40
CFR 98.446 to indicate whether the facility is injecting a
CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations to enhance the
recovery of oil or natural gas. This additional data element will also
allow the EPA to make categorical confidentiality determinations on
data elements related to CO2 received and CO2
produced that currently have a confidentiality status that is evaluated
on a case-by-case basis (77 FR 48072, 48081-48083; August 13, 2012).
For more information on subpart RR confidentiality determinations
resulting from this proposed revision, see section IV of this preamble.

Y. Subpart TT--Industrial Waste Landfills

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart TT of Part
98 (Industrial Waste Landfills). This section discusses the substantive
changes to subpart TT; one additional correction is summarized in the
Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket
Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
1. Revisions to Subpart TT To Improve the Quality of Data Collected
Under Part 98
For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA
is proposing several amendments to Table TT-1 to subpart TT of Part 98
that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP
and improve the EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are
anticipated to either have no impact on the burden for reporters or may
reduce burden for some facilities currently using site-specific
factors. During the development of subpart TT, we received several
comments regarding the need to provide more default DOC values for
specific industrial waste streams, particularly from the pulp and paper
industry. Additionally, on May 17, 2013, we received written comments
from the American Forest and Paper Association and the American Wood
Council, with input from the National Council for Air and Stream
Improvement, on the proposed 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determination for New or
Substantially Revised Data Elements (78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013). These
comments stated that the current DOC values in Table TT-1 overstate
substantially the GHG emissions from landfills at pulp and paper mills.
(See Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). One suggested resolution was
for the EPA to create separate categories of wastes that would include
largely inorganic waste streams and assign a lower DOC value in Table
TT-1. At that time, the information provided in the comments was
considered new, the comments contained only limited data on which to
base any changes, and they did not address items that were not part of
the proposal. The EPA also did not have data to develop more waste
specific DOC values for any of the industrial waste categories.
Instead, we provided methods in the rule that allowed reporters to
develop site-specific DOC values for wastes that may not be well-
characterized by the default values provided in Table TT-1. While we
still maintain that site-specific DOC values are preferable to the
Table TT-1 defaults, we reviewed the site-specific DOC values reported
under subpart TT from 2011 to 2013 to determine if we had adequate data
to develop more specific industry default DOC values for inclusion in
Table TT-1. For most industries, we did not have enough data from site-
specific DOC estimates to establish new or revise default DOC values
for inclusion in Table TT-1. However, we had site-specific DOC data for
over 100 waste streams at pulp and paper manufacturing facilities. We
note that the pulp and paper industry accounts for approximately 55
percent of the subpart TT reporters and accounts for 62 percent of the
emissions reported during the 2013 reporting year. Within the data, we
found four general pulp and paper waste types for which reporters
commonly developed site-specific DOC values. These are: Boiler ash,
kraft recovery (causticizing) wastes, wastewater treatment sludges, and
other (which included hydropulper rejects, bark wastes, and digester
knots). We found that our general pulp and paper waste (other than
industrial sludge) default DOC value was reasonable for the ``other''
waste category, but overestimated DOC content for other pulp and paper
waste streams. Boiler ash and kraft recovery wastes had very low DOC
values, but not low enough to be considered ``inerts.'' We also found
that wastewater treatment sludges for the pulp and paper industry had,
on average, a slightly higher DOC content than the default for
``industrial sludge.'' See memorandum, ``Review of Site-Specific
Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data'' from Jeff Coburn and
Katherine Bronstein, RTI International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated
June 17, 2015 in Docket Id. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
Based on the available site-specific DOC values for these different
pulp and paper industry wastes, we consider it appropriate to provide
additional default DOC values for the pulp and paper industry for the
purposes of improving the accuracy of the methane emissions estimates
reported under subpart TT. Specifically, we are proposing to provide
default DOC values for the four specific pulp and paper industry waste
types previously listed. The proposed default DOC value for boiler ash
is 0.06; the proposed default DOC value for kraft recovery wastes is
0.025. As proposed, these values, rather than the previous ``pulp and
paper waste (other than industrial sludge)'' default value of 0.20 or
the ``Inert Waste [i.e., waste listed in 40 CFR 98.460(c)(2)]'' default
value of 0, should be used for these specific waste streams. The
proposed default DOC value for pulp and paper wastewater sludge is
0.12, which would be required, as proposed, for pulp and paper
wastewater treatment sludges rather than the generic ``Industrial
Sludge'' default value of 0.09. The fourth category being proposed is
``Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise listed)'' and is to be
used for all other pulp and paper wastes not included in the three
other pulp and paper categories; the proposed default DOC value for
this category is 0.20, which is consistent with the previous default
for general pulp and paper wastes. In addition, we are adding a
footnote to Table TT-1 to explain that kraft recovery wastes include
green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be
referred to collectively as causticizing or recausticizing wastes.

[[Page 2574]]

Reporters used any and all of these terms in their submitted reports to
refer to these waste types.
While we are proposing to provide these specific defaults for
different types of waste in the pulp and paper industry, we do not
intend to prevent the pulp and paper industry from using the other
default values in Table TT-1 that may apply. For example, if
construction and demolition wastes are disposed of in a landfill at a
pulp and paper manufacturing facility, the reporter may still use the
construction and demolition waste default DOC value for these waste
streams. However, to clarify, we intend to require the pulp and paper
industry to use the industry-specific wastewater sludge default DOC
value, and are therefore proposing to revise the ``Industrial Sludge''
category to be ``Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper industry
sludge).''
2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart TT
For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are
proposing one minor correction to subpart TT of Part 98 that is an
editorial change. This minor revision is summarized in the Table of
Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections

In addition to the substantive amendments proposed in sections
III.A through III.Y of this preamble, for the reasons described in
section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions,
clarifications, and corrections to subparts P, U, MM, PP, and UU of
Part 98. The proposed changes to these subparts are provided in the
Table of Revisions for this rulemaking, available in Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526, and include clarifying requirements to better
reflect the EPA's intent, corrections to calculation terms or cross-
references that do not revise the output of calculations, harmonizing
changes within a subpart (such as changes to terminology), simple
typographical errors, and other minor corrections (e.g., removal of
redundant text).

IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data
Reporting Elements

A. Overview and Background

In this notice we are proposing confidentiality determinations for
new or substantially revised reporting data elements (i.e., the data
required to be reported would change under the proposed revision) in
the proposed subpart rule amendments. We are also proposing
confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements for
which a confidentiality determination has not previously been proposed
or finalized, or where the EPA has determined that the current
determination is no longer appropriate.
In this action, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for
117 new or substantially revised data reporting requirements in 21
subparts. We are not proposing new confidentially determinations for
data reporting elements where the change does not require an additional
or different data element to be reported. The final confidentiality
determinations the EPA has previously made for these minimally revised
data elements are unaffected by this proposed amendment and continue to
apply.
We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for 27
existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR that are
not revised in the proposed amendments. These include 22 data elements
in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR for which the EPA had not made previous
confidentiality determinations under Part 98, as well as two data
elements in subpart NN for which a previous confidentiality
determination is proposed to be revised because of new information
indicating the data element is not entitled to confidential treatment
under the provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. We are also proposing
confidentiality determinations for three data elements in subpart PP
that were included in the finalized ``Standards of Performance for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units'' (EGU NSPS)
(Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495).
These proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized
before the end of 2016 based on public comment. The confidentiality
determinations for new and substantially revised data elements would
apply at the same time as the proposed rule amendments described in
sections II and III of this preamble, as described in section I.E of
this preamble. The confidentiality determinations for the existing Part
98 data elements would apply to reports submitted in RY2016 as well as
all prior reporting years in which the data elements applied. This
proposal is one of a series of rulemakings dealing with confidentiality
determinations for data reported under Part 98. For more information on
previous confidentiality determinations for Part 98 data elements, see
the following notices:
75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010; hereafter referred to as the
``July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.'' Describes the data categories and
category-based determinations the EPA developed for the Part 98 data
elements.
76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; hereafter referred to as the
``2011 Final CBI Rule.'' Assigned data elements to data categories and
published the final CBI determinations for the data elements in 34 Part
98 subparts, except for those data elements that were assigned to the
``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category.
77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012, hereafter referred to as
``2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule.'' Finalized confidentiality
determinations for data elements reported under nine subparts I, W, DD,
QQ, RR, SS, UU; except for those data elements that are inputs to
emission equations. Also finalized confidentiality determinations for
new data elements added to subparts II and TT in the November 29, 2011
Technical Corrections Notice (76 FR 73886).
78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013; hereafter referred to as
the ``2013 Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for
Electronics Manufacturing.'' Finalized confidentiality determinations
for new data elements added to subpart I.
78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013; hereafter referred to as
the ``2013 Revisions Rule.'' Finalized determinations for new and
revised data elements in 15 subparts, except for those data elements
assigned to the ``Inputs to Emission Equations'' data category.
79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; Final Inputs Rule. Revised
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for 23 subparts and finalized
confidentiality determinations for new data elements in 11 subparts.

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations

To make the determinations proposed in this notice, we applied the
same approach as previously used for making confidentiality
determinations for data elements reported under the GHGRP, which
consisted of assigning data elements to an appropriate data category
and then either assigning the previously determined category-based
confidentiality determination or making an individual determination if
the data element is assigned to a category for which no category-based
determination was previously made. The data categories used were those
finalized in the 2011 Final CBI Rule.

[[Page 2575]]

In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, the EPA made categorical
confidentiality determinations for data elements assigned to eight
direct emitter data categories and eight supplier data categories. For
two direct emitter data categories (``Unit/Process `Static'
Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/
Process Operating Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission
Equations,'') and three supplier data categories (``GHGs Reported,''
``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition,'' and ``Unit/
Process Operating Characteristics''), the EPA did not make categorical
CBI determinations; instead the EPA determined that none of the data
elements were emissions data (as defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)) and
made CBI determinations for each individual data elements based on the
criteria in 40 CFR 2.208. In subsequent amendments to Part 98,\26\ the
EPA assigned each new or substantially revised data element to an
appropriate data category created in the 2011 Final CBI Rule and
applied the categorical confidentiality determination if one was
established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. If a data element was assigned
to one of the two direct emitter or three supplier data categories
identified above that do not have categorical determinations, the EPA
made individual CBI determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\See, e.g., FR 48072 (August 13, 2012) and 77 FR 51477
(August 24, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this action, we are proposing to assign new and substantially
revised data elements in the proposed amendments, as well as certain
existing data elements in subparts I, Z, II, MM, NN, PP, and RR, to the
appropriate direct emitter or supplier data category.\27\ For new,
substantially revised, or existing data elements being assigned to
categories with categorical confidentiality determinations, we propose
to apply the categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI Rule
to the assigned data elements. For new, substantially revised, or
existing reporting elements assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static'
Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and the
``Unit/Process `Operating' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to
Emission Equations'' direct emitter data categories or the
``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'' and ``Unit/Process
Operating Characteristics'' supplier data categories, consistent with
our approach toward data elements previously assigned to these data
categories, we propose that these data elements are not emission data,
and are making individual CBI determinations for the data elements in
these categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ With the exception of subpart RR, the EPA inadvertently did
not proposed CBI determinations for these data elements. For subpart
RR, the EPA initially proposed that all data elements were not CBI
(see Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under
the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, 77 FR 1434; January 10,
2012). We then received comment that in certain cases, for enhanced
recovery of oil or natural gas (ER), the data would be CBI. In the
2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule, the EPA did not have a subpart
RR data element to distinguish between the ER and non-ER facilities.
Therefore, the EPA did not finalize the CBI determinations for those
certain cases, but rather noted that the EPA would evaluate the
confidentiality status on a case-by-case basis. The remaining
subpart RR data elements (including monitoring, reporting, and
verification (MRV) plans, annual mass of CO2 emitted by
surface leakage, and annual mass of CO2 sequestered) were
determined not to be CBI in the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule.
In this action, we are proposing to add a new data element to
indicate whether a facility is conducting ER, which now enables
proposed confidentiality determinations to be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although the EPA grouped similar data into categories and made
categorical confidentiality determinations for a number of data
categories, the EPA also recognized in previous rulemakings that
similar data elements may not always have the same confidentiality
status\28\. In these cases, the EPA made individual instead of
categorical determinations for the data elements. In this action, for
the reasons explained below in section IV.C of this preamble, we are
proposing to make an individual CBI determination for one data element
for which we are not assigning a data category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ See, e.g., ``Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions
and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems'' (79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the memorandum titled ``Proposed Data Category
Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the
Proposed 2015 Revisions'' in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526 for a
list of the proposed new, substantially revised, and existing data
elements, their proposed category assignments, and their proposed
confidentiality determinations (whether categorical or individual).\29\
Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the proposed CBI determinations
and supporting rationale for new or substantially revised data
elements. Section IV.D of this preamble describes the proposed CBI
determinations and supporting rationale for existing data elements for
which we have not previously proposed a confidentiality determination.
Finally, section IV.E of this preamble discusses the proposed changes
to the determinations and rationale for two existing data elements in
subpart NN for which a confidentiality determination was previously
established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ Excludes data elements assigned to the ``Inputs to
Emissions Equations'' data category. ``Inputs to Emissions
Equations'' are considered emissions data. This memorandum includes
the data element that is not being assigned to a data category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially
Revised Data Reporting Elements

In this action, the EPA is proposing to assign each of the 117 new
or substantially revised data reporting requirements to the appropriate
direct emitter or supplier data category. New and substantially revised
data elements assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality
determinations are summarized in the memorandum ``Proposed Data
Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data
Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions,'' available in Docket Id. No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. For new and substantially revised reporting
elements assigned to direct emitter or supplier data categories without
a categorical determination, we are proposing that these data elements
are not emission data and are making individual CBI determinations for
each data element. We are proposing individual CBI determinations for
48 data elements assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static'
Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/
Process `Operating' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission
Equations'' direct emitter data categories and the ``Production/
Throughput Quantities and Composition'' and ``Unit/Process Operating
Characteristics'' supplier data categories. These data elements consist
of 17 new data elements in the direct emitter subparts C, E, F, I, S,
V, X, Y, DD, II, and subpart RR, and 27 new data elements in the
supplier subpart OO. We are also proposing individual CBI
determinations for four substantially revised data elements in subparts
Y, DD, HH, and II. Table 7 of this preamble provides the category
assignment and proposed rationale for the proposed determinations.

[[Page 2576]]

Table 7--New and Revised Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to Data Categories Without Categorical Determinations and Proposed CBI Determinations
(Subparts C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, and RR)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation in 40 CFR
Subpart part 98 (new or Data element Confidentiality Rationale for the proposed CBI
revised) determination determination
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' Direct Emitter Data
Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C................................. 98.36(c)(1)(iii) Cumulative maximum rated Not CBI.................. These data elements consist of
(new). heat input capacity of descriptions of the cumulative heat
the group, excluding input capacity for an aggregated group
units less than 10 of stationary combustion units. These
(mmBtu/hr). data elements do not reveal any
proprietary information or any other
information that could provide insight
for competitors to gain an advantage
because they do not provide specific
design details. Further, these data
elements provide information that that
is generally already available to the
public through other sources (e.g.,
operating permits). Therefore, we are
proposing that these data elements are
not CBI.
C................................. 98.36(c)(3)(ii) Cumulative maximum rated Not CBI ........................................
(new). heat input capacity of
the units served by the
common pipe, excluding
units less than 10
(mmBtu/hr).
E................................. 98.56(f) (new)...... Date of installation of Not CBI.................. These data elements do not provide
abatement technology. insight into current production rates,
raw material consumption, or other
information that competitors could use
to discern market share and other
sensitive information. Information
regarding the date of installation of
abatement devices constitute general
information that is already available
to the public through other sources
(e.g., construction permits).
Therefore, we are proposing that this
data element is not CBI.
I................................. 98.96(y)(2)(iv) The report must include Not CBI.................. The data element for the triennial
(new). the information technology review report is being
described in paragraphs revised to request additional
(y)(2)(i) through (v) of information to be submitted as part of
this section. (iv) . . . the report, if facilities are
For any utilization, by- submitting data from utilization and
product formation rate, byproduct formation rate measurements
and/or destruction or conducted in the prior three years. The
removal efficiency data EPA previously made a determination
submitted, the report that 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) was
must describe, where emission data and, therefore, not CBI.
available: Wafer size. Several of the data elements that we
are proposing to clarify should be
included are already reported under 40
CFR 98.96 (e.g., wafer diameter) and
the EPA is proposing the same category
assignment and confidentiality
determination for these data elements,
including: the wafer size
substrate type. Wafer size and
substrate type are data elements that
are published in datasets available
from the World Fab Forecast.
Furthermore, for the purposes of the
triennial report, these data elements
may be reported by one or multiple
semiconductor manufacturing facilities,
and may include measurements made by
tool manufacturers or other fabs in
lieu of fab-specific information.
Therefore, we have concluded that the
release of these data elements would
not cause substantial competitive harm.
For these reasons, we are proposing to
assign a determination of not CBI.
I................................. 98.96(y)(2)(iv) The report must include Not CBI ........................................
(new). the information
described in paragraphs
(y)(2)(i) through (v) of
this section. (iv) . . .
For any utilization, by-
product formation rate,
and/or destruction or
removal efficiency data
submitted, the report
must describe, where
available: substrate
type.

[[Page 2577]]

I................................. 98.96(y)(2)(iv) The report must include CBI...................... This data element for the triennial
(new). the information technology review report is being
described in paragraphs revised to request additional
(y)(2)(i) through (v) of information to be submitted as part of
this section. (iv) . . . the report, if facilities are
For any utilization, by- submitting data from utilization and
product formation rate, byproduct formation rate measurements
and/or destruction or conducted in the prior three years. We
removal efficiency data are proposing that the ``film type'' is
submitted, the report CBI because this data element could
must describe, where potentially provide insight into
available: Film type facility operating practices or
being manufactured. proprietary device designs that are
considered sensitive by the reporter.
Information provided by semiconductor
manufacturers in prior rulemakings
indicates that this data element is
closely guarded and protected as
sensitive business information.
I................................. 98.96(y)(2)(iv) The report must include Not CBI.................. The data element for the triennial
(new). the information technology review report is being
described in paragraphs revised to request additional
(y)(2)(i) through (v) of information to be submitted as part of
this section. (iv) . . . the report, if facilities are
For any utilization, by- submitting data from utilization and
product formation rate, byproduct formation rate measurements
and/or destruction or conducted in the prior three years. We
removal efficiency data are proposing that the ``linewidth or
submitted, the report technology node'' be categorized as
must describe, where ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics
available: Linewidth or That are Not Inputs to Emission
technology node. Equations'' because this data elements
describes basic characteristics of the
products and processes in the facility
that do not vary with time. We are
proposing that the ``the linewidth or
technology node'' are Not CBI because
this data is publicly available.
Specifically, these data elements are
published in datasets available from
the World Fab Forecast. We have
therefore concluded that the release of
this data will not cause substantial
competitive harm.
V................................. 98.226(h) (new)..... Date of installation of Not CBI.................. This data element does not provide
abatement technology. insight into current production rates,
raw material consumption, or other
information that competitors could use
to discern market share and other
sensitive information. Information
regarding the date of installation of
abatement devices constitute general
information that is already available
to the public through other sources
(e.g., construction permits).
Therefore, we are proposing that this
data element is not CBI.
Y................................. 98.256(e)(3) (new).. An indication of whether Not CBI.................. The proposed data element, which
or not the flare is describes whether the flare is serviced
serviced by a flare gas by a flare gas recovery system, is
recovery system. similar to: 40 CFR 98.256(e)(3)
(description of flare gas service) and
40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual operating
hours of gas collection system), for
which we have previously assigned a
``Not CBI'' designation. Descriptions
of flare gas service are not CBI
because describing the type of flare or
whether a flare is serviced by a flare
gas recovery system does not reveal any
confidential information because flares
are commonly used in the industry and
no detailed specifications are required
to be reported (see 75 FR 39113, July
7, 2010).

[[Page 2578]]

DD................................ 98.306(m) (new)..... Total miles of Not CBI.................. This data element is the same type of
transmission and data that must be reported by these
distribution lines companies in 40 CFR 98.306(b) and (c),
located within each which requires reporting of the
state or territory. aggregate length all transmission lines
carrying voltages above 35 kilovolt and
the aggregate length all distribution
lines carrying voltages above 35
kilovolt, for which we previously
assigned a determination of not CBI. We
had determined that the length of
distribution lines and length of
transmission lines are basic
characteristics of equipment, and that
facility-specific lines that do not
vary with time or with the operations
of the process. Moreover, facilities
reporting under this subpart consist of
public utilities, including electric
cooperatives, public supply
corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley
Authority), Federal agencies (e.g.,
Bonneville Power Administration), and
municipally owned electric utilities.
These are public or publicly-regulated
utilities that are not affected by
competitive market conditions that may
apply to other industries. Further,
data on transmission and distribution
miles is publicly available in the
Platts UDI Directory of Electric Power
Producers and Distributers, which can
be purchased by any interested party.
Disclosure of this proposed new data
element by the EPA would not provide
any additional insight into facility-
specific operating conditions or
process design or to any other
proprietary or sensitive information
that would give insight for competitors
to gain an advantage over the reporter.
DD................................ 98.306(n) (new)..... The following numbers of Not CBI.................. Facilities reporting under this subpart
pieces of equipment:. consist of public utilities, including
(1) New hermetically electric cooperatives, public supply
sealed-pressure corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley
switchgear during the Authority), Federal agencies (e.g.,
year. Bonneville Power Administration), and
(2) New SF6- or PFC- municipally owned electric utilities.
insulated equipment These are public or publicly-regulated
other than hermetically utilities that are not affected by
sealed-pressure competitive market conditions that may
switchgear during the apply to other industries. The reported
year. data relate to maintenance activities
(3) Retired hermetically and installation of new/replacement of
sealed-pressure existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g.,
switchgear during the circuit breakers, switchgear, power
year. transformers, etc.) and amounts of SF6
(4) Retired SF6- or PFC- and PFC used or recovered in servicing
insulated equipment or replacing such equipment. These data
other than hermetically elements do not disclose any
sealed-pressure information about a manufacturing
switchgear during the process or operating conditions that
year. would be proprietary. Therefore, we are
proposing that these data elements are
not CBI.
II................................ 98.356(a) (revised). The average depth in Not CBI.................. For the industries with industrial
meters of each anaerobic wastewater treatment, the types of
lagoon. information that are considered
proprietary or have previously been
determined to be CBI in the May 26,
2011 final CBI determination notice
include information on quantities and
composition of raw materials used in
the manufacturing processes and
information on quantities and
compositions of manufactured products.
We are proposing that this data element
is not CBI because this data element
would not provide detailed insight into
the design and operation of the
facility's manufacturing processes, raw
materials, or products.

[[Page 2579]]

II................................ 98.356(a) (revised). Indicate whether biogas Not CBI.................. For these industries, the types of
generated by each information that are considered
anaerobic process is proprietary or have previously been
recovered. determined to be CBI in the May 26,
2011 final CBI determination notice
include information on quantities and
composition of raw materials used in
the manufacturing processes and
information on quantities and
compositions of manufactured products.
We are proposing that this data element
is not CBI because indicating whether
biogas is recovered from an anaerobic
process would not provide detailed
insight into the design and operation
of the facility's manufacturing
processes, raw materials, or products,
and provides only general information
about the wastewater treatment system
that is not considered sensitive by
manufacturers.
II................................ 98.356(b)(6) (new).. For each anaerobic Not CBI.................. For the industries with industrial
wastewater treatment wastewater treatment, the types of
process (reactor, deep information that are considered
lagoon, or shallow proprietary or have previously been
lagoon) you must report: determined to be CBI in the May 26,
If the facility performs 2011 final CBI determination notice
an ethanol production include information on quantities and
processing operation as composition of raw materials used in
defined in Sec. 98.358 the manufacturing processes and
of this subpart, you information on quantities and
must indicate if the compositions of manufactured products.
facility uses a wet We are proposing that this data element
milling process or a dry is not CBI because this data element
milling process. would not provide detailed insight into
the design and operation of the
facility's manufacturing processes raw
materials, or products that is
considered sensitive by reporters. This
data element indicates only that the
facility uses wet and/or dry milling,
which is information that would be
available from the facility's
construction and Title V operating
permits. This data element combined
with the volume of wastewater entering
the treatment plant (reported under 40
CFR 98.356(b)(2)) provides information
on the quantities of wastewater
generated by wet and dry milling
activities. However, this information
does not provide insight into any
sensitive information, such as the
amount of grain processed through the
wet and dry milling processes, the
amount of ethanol produced, plant
production efficiency, or production
costs.
RR................................ 98.446(g) (new)..... Whether the CO2 stream is Not CBI.................. This data element would identify whether
being injected into a facility is performing enhanced oil
subsurface geologic recovery. We are proposing that this
formations to enhance data element is not CBI because this
the recovery of oil or data element does not reveal any
natural gas. significant details regarding the
activities at the facility, the
quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2
utilization rates of the facility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2580]]

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Operating' Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' Direct Emitter Data
Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F................................. 98.66(c)(2) (new)... The following PFC- CBI...................... While the proposed new data elements
specific information on share characteristics with data
an annual basis: Anode elements previously assigned to the
effect minutes per cell- ``Production/Throughput Data that are
day (AE-mins/cell-day), Not Inputs to Equations'' data
anode effect frequency categories, we have determined that
(AE/cell-day), anode they do not share the same
effect duration characteristics or confidentiality
(minutes). (Or anode status as the data elements already
effect overvoltage assigned to this data category. These
factor ((kg CF4/metric data elements are not inputs to
ton Al)/(mV/cell day)), emissions equations. Annual anode
potline overvoltage (mV/ effect minutes per cell day, anode
cell day), current effect frequency, anode effect duration
efficiency (%).). (or annual anode effect overvoltage
factor, potline overvoltage, and
current efficiency) describe operating
characteristics associated with
aluminum production. Our review of
these data elements shows that they
qualify for confidential treatment. We
are proposing to classify annual
average anode effect minutes, anode
effect frequency, and anode effect
duration as CBI because these data
elements are an important measure of
process efficiency (which provides
insight into a firm's operational
strengths and weaknesses) and are not
otherwise publicly available.
S................................. 98.196(b)(21) (new). Annual average results of CBI...................... The proposed data elements describe the
chemical composition material composition of the products
analysis of each type of manufactured. These values are not used
lime product produced as inputs to emissions equations,
and calcined product or rather, they are annual average values
waste sold. for the purposes of QA/QC of the
composition data used as inputs to the
emissions calculations. We are
proposing these data elements as CBI
because the reported data provides
information on the composition of lime
produced or raw material. Disclosing
information revealing a facility's
product compositions could give
competitors insight into a firm's local
and regional market conditions and
expansion plans, enabling competitors
to devise strategies to prevent
expansion and to steal market share in
specific locations.
X................................. 98.246(a)(14) (new). Annual average of the CBI...................... The proposed data elements describe the
measurements of the carbon content and annually averaged
carbon content of each weight of feedstocks. This information
feedstock and product: could disclose a facility's feedstock
(i) For feedstocks and composition, which could provide
products that are insight into its operational strengths
gaseous or solid, report and weaknesses, expose its competitive
this quantity in kg and marketing strategies, or reveal its
carbon per kg of suppliers and sourcing strategies.
feedstock or product. Therefore, we are proposing that these
(ii) For liquid data element qualify as CBI.
feedstocks and products,
report this quantity
either in units of kg
carbon per kg of
feedstock or production
or kg C per gallon of
feedstock or product..
X................................. 98.246(a)(15) (new). For each gaseous CBI ........................................
feedstock and product,
the annual average of
the measurements of
molecular weight in
units of kg per kg mole.

[[Page 2581]]

Y................................. 98.256(e)(6) Annual mass of flare gas Not CBI.................. The proposed data element, which
(revised). combusted (in kg/yr). describes the annual mass of flare gas
combusted, is similar to: 40 CFR
98.256(e)(3) (description of flare gas
service) and 40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual
operating hours of gas collection
system), for which we have previously
assigned a ``Not CBI'' designation.
Descriptions of flare gas service are
not CBI. Describing the annual mass of
flare gas combusted during the
reporting year does not reveal any
confidential information because flares
are commonly used in the industry and
no detailed specifications are required
to be reported (see 75 FR 39113, July
7, 2010).
HH................................ 98.346(i)(5)(iii)(B) The annual operating Not CBI.................. This data element describes the
(revised). hours where active gas operating characteristics of a
flow was sent to each destruction device. Although the
destruction device. proposed data element is similar to the
prior data element in 40 CFR
98.346(i)(5) ``Annual operating hours
for each destruction device associated
with a given measurement location,''
this data element reflects a separate
operating parameter. This data element
is not an input to an emissions
equation. We are proposing that this
data element is Not CBI. This data
element would not reveal any
information about landfill fees,
revenues, costs, or contracts. Such
information does not reveal any trade
secrets or other sensitive business
information regarding the design or
operation of an aeration system or the
landfill. Further, this type of data on
landfills is generally already publicly
available from the municipalities
operating landfills. We have therefore
concluded that the release of this data
will not cause substantial competitive
harm.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'' Supplier Data Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OO................................ 98.416(a)(1) (new).. Mass in metric tons of CBI...................... These data elements describe production
OO................................ 98.416(a)(2) (new).. each . . . fluorinated CBI...................... and throughput quantities and product
HTF . . . produced at compositions (including products
that facility by produced, imported, or exported). These
process, except for data elements are the same type of data
amounts that are that must be reported for fluorinated
captured solely to be GHGs, for which we have previously
shipped off site for assigned a determination of CBI. The
destruction. disclosure of annual production
Mass in metric tons of quantities and composition of products
each . . . fluorinated (i.e., quantities sold and/or
HTF . . . transformed at delivered), could provide insight into
that facility, by a firm's market strength and position.
process. Disclosure of facility-level production/
throughput quantities and product
compositions could give competitors
insight into a firm's local and
regional market conditions and
expansion plans, enabling competitors
to devise strategies to prevent
expansion and to steal market share in
specific locations. Therefore, the EPA
proposes to determine that these data
elements are CBI.

[[Page 2582]]

OO................................ 98.416(a)(3) (new).. Mass in metric tons of . CBI ........................................
. . fluorinated HTF that
is destroyed at that
facility and that was
previously produced as
defined at Sec.
98.410(b). Quantities to
be reported under this
paragraph (a)(3) of this
section include but are
not limited to
quantities that are
shipped to the facility
by another facility for
destruction and
quantities that are
returned to the facility
for reclamation but are
found to be
irretrievably
contaminated and are
therefore destroyed.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(5) (new).. Total mass in metric tons CBI ........................................
of each . . .
fluorinated HTF . . .
sent to another facility
for transformation.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(6) (new).. Total mass in metric tons CBI ........................................
of each . . .
fluorinated HTF sent to
another facility for
destruction, except . .
. fluorinated HTFs that
are not included in the
mass produced in Sec.
98.413(a) because they
are removed from the
production process as by-
products or other
wastes. Quantities to be
reported under this
paragraph (a)(6) could
include, for example,
fluorinated GHGs that
are returned to the
facility for reclamation
but are found to be
irretrievably
contaminated and are
therefore sent to
another facility for
destruction.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(7) (new).. Total mass in metric tons CBI ........................................
of each . . .
fluorinated HTF that is
sent to another facility
for destruction and that
is not included in the
mass produced in Sec.
98.413(a) because it is
removed from the
production process as a
byproduct or other waste.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(11) (new). Mass in metric tons of . CBI ........................................
. . fluorinated HTF that
is fed into the
destruction device and
that was previously
produced as defined at
Sec. 98.410(b).
Quantities to be
reported under this
paragraph (a)(11) of
this section include but
are not limited to
quantities that are
shipped to the facility
by another facility for
destruction and
quantities that are
returned to the facility
for reclamation but are
found to be
irretrievably
contaminated and are
therefore destroyed.

[[Page 2583]]

OO................................ 98.416(a)(12) (new). Mass in metric tons of . CBI ........................................
. . fluorinated HTF . .
. that is measured
coming out of the
production process, by
process.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(14) (new). Quantities (metric tons) CBI ........................................
of . . . of each . . .
fluorinated HTF that
were sent to each for
transformation.
OO................................ 98.416(a)(15) (new). Quantities (metric tons) CBI ........................................
of each . . .
fluorinated HTF that
were sent to each for
destruction.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(1) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (1) Total mass in
metric tons of . . .
each . . . fluorinated
HTF imported in bulk,
including each . . .
fluorinated HTF
constituent of the . . .
fluorinated HTF product
that makes up between
0.5 percent and 100
percent of the product
by mass.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(2) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (2) Total mass in
metric tons of . . .
fluorinated HTF imported
in bulk and sold or
transferred to persons
other than the importer
for use in processes
resulting in the
transformation or
destruction of the
chemical.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(6) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (6) Commodity code
of the . . . fluorinated
HTFs . . . shipped.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(8) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (8) Total mass in
metric tons of each . .
. fluorinated HTF
destroyed by the
importer.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(9) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (9) Quantities of
fluorinated HTFs sold or
transferred to each
facilities for
transformation.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(10) (new). Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (10) If applicable,
the quantities (metric
tons) of each . . .
fluorinated HTF that
were sold or transferred
to each facility for
destruction.

[[Page 2584]]

OO................................ 98.416(d)(1) (new).. Each bulk exporter of CBI ........................................
fluorinated GHGs,
fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide . . . at
the corporate level . .
. (1) Total mass in
metric tons of . . .
each . . . fluorinated
HTF exported in bulk.
OO................................ 98.416(d)(4) (new).. Each bulk exporter of CBI ........................................
fluorinated GHGs,
fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide . . . at
the corporate level . .
. (4) Commodity code of
the . . . fluorinated
HTFs . . . shipped.
OO................................ 98.416(i) (new)..... . . . quantities that are CBI ........................................
shipped to the facility
by another facility for
destruction and
quantities that are
returned to the facility
for reclamation but are
found to be
irretrievably
contaminated and are
therefore destroyed.
OO................................ 98.416(j) (new)..... . . . the identities or CBI ........................................
concentrations of the
fluorinated HTF or
fluorinated GHG
constituents of a
fluorinated HTF product
have changed, then the
new or changed
concentrations . ..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics'' Supplier Data Category
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OO................................ 98.416(b)(1) (new).. Any facility that Not CBI The proposed data elements, which apply
destroys . . . to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type
fluorinated HTFs shall of data that must be reported for
submit: (1) Destruction fluorinated GHGs, for which we have
efficiency (DE). previously assigned a determination of
not CBI. The EPA previously determined
that the destruction efficiency of each
fluorinated GHG destruction unit, the
chemical identity of the fluorinated
GHG(s) used in the performance test
conducted to determine the destruction
efficiency, and the name of all
applicable federal and state
regulations that may apply to the
destruction process are not CBI. The
proposed data elements do not reveal
sensitive business information about
the process, nor do they reveal the
technology used for fluorinated GHG
destruction, or the operating
conditions for a particular technology.
OO................................ 98.416(b)(4) (new).. Any facility that Not CBI ........................................
destroys . . .
fluorinated HTFs shall
submit: (4) Chemical
identity of the
fluorinated GHG(s) used
in the performance test
conducted to determine
DE.
OO................................ 98.416(b)(5) (new).. Any facility that Not CBI ........................................
destroys . . .
fluorinated HTFs shall
submit: (5) Name of all
applicable federal or
state regulations that
may apply to the
destruction process.

[[Page 2585]]

OO................................ 98.416(c)(3) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI These data elements describe the dates
. fluorinated HTFs . . . of import and export shipments, and the
at the corporate level . ports of entry or exit. The proposed
. . (3) Date on which data elements, which apply to
the . . . fluorinated fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of
HTFs . . . were imported. data that must be reported for
fluorinated GHGs, for which we have
previously assigned a determination of
CBI. Release of these data elements to
the public could allow competitors to
link customs records on quantities and
product composition with the import and
export data reported under Part 98,
thus allowing competitors to determine
market share and devise marketing
strategies to undermine or weaken a
competitor's position. Because
disclosure of these data elements is
likely to cause harm, we have
determined that these data elements
qualify as CBI.
OO................................ 98.416(c)(4) (new).. Each bulk importer of . . CBI ........................................
. fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (4) Port of entry
through which the . . .
fluorinated HTFs . . .
passed
OO................................ 98.416(d)(5) (new).. Each bulk exporter of CBI ........................................
fluorinated GHGs,
fluorinated HTFs . . .
at the corporate level .
. . (5) Date on which,
and the port from which,
the . . . fluorinated
HTFs . . . were exported
from the United States
or its territories
OO................................ 98.416(j) (new)..... If . . . identities or Not CBI The proposed data elements, which apply
concentrations of the to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type
fluorinated HTF or of data that must be reported for
fluorinated GHG fluorinated GHGs under 40 CFR
constituents of a 98.416(f), for which we have previously
fluorinated HTF product assigned a determination of not CBI.
have changed, the date The date on which changes were made to
of the change . . . the composition of a fluorinated HTF
product does not disclose the actual
composition of the product, the raw
materials used to make the product, the
method of manufacture, or the
efficiency of the manufacturing
process. Therefore, we are proposing
that this data element is not CBI.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are proposing to assign one revised data element in subpart Z
(Phosphoric Acid Production) to the ``Unit/Process `Static'
Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emissions Equation Category''
but are not making a confidentiality determination for this data
element. The provision 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires reporting the
annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-process
phosphoric acid process line (metric tons). The EPA reviewed the
available capacity information and determined that the situation may
vary for individual facilities. While the production capacity data
elements are generally publicly available through construction and
Title V permits, there may be facilities where these data are not
public. Further, the information publicly available for facilities may
not necessarily be the same as the data elements required under Part
98. For example, capacity data available in the Title V permit may be a
plant-wide throughput capacity rather than the capacity of the
individual process line reported under Part 98. For this reason, we
have decided not to make a confidentiality determination for this
revised data element, but instead determinations for this data element
will be made on a case-by-case basis. This decision not to propose a
determination for this data element is consistent with our treatment of
other capacity data (e.g., capacity of process lines or production
units) (see 2011 Final CBI Rule).
We are also proposing to make an individual confidentiality
determination for one data element in subpart FF without assigning it
to a data category. While our general approach for making
confidentiality determination is to assign each data element to a data
category and apply the categorical confidentiality determination where
one has been made, we are not doing so here for the following reason.
The data element at issue is in provision 40 CR 98.326(u), which
requires the annual coal production in short tons for the reporting
year. The proposed data element shares characteristics with data
elements previously assigned to the

[[Page 2586]]

``Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations'' data
category, which the EPA has categorically determined to be CBI.
However, unlike data elements assigned to that data category, the
proposed data element is publicly available and therefore does not
qualify as CBI. Coal production data are currently published quarterly
and annually by MSHA and annually by the EIA.\30\ We are therefore not
assigning this proposed data element to the ``Production/Throughput
Data that are Not Inputs to Equations'' data category. Because these
data are already publically available, we are proposing a determination
of ``Not CBI.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ MSHA Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) (available at:
https://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm) and U.S. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration Mine Level Data (available at:
https://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser/#/topic/38?agg=1,0&rank=g&geo=g0000000000003ms&mntp=g&freq=A&start=2001&end=2012&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=b&rse=0&pin=&maptype=0)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data
Reporting Elements for Which No Determination has Been Previously
Established

We are proposing categorical determinations for 22 data elements
currently in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR for which no determination has
been previously proposed or finalized under Part 98, as well as for
three data elements that were proposed to be included in subpart PP in
the finalized EGU NSPS. For subpart I, the affected data element was
revised in final subpart I rule amendments on November 13, 2013 (78 FR
68162) following public comment. In this case, the EPA had not proposed
a confidentiality determination for the revised data element and
therefore did not finalize a determination in the final rule. For
subpart Z, we are proposing to clarify the original determination for a
data element in which it is unclear how to apply the final
determination assigned in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. For subpart MM, we
are proposing a determination for one data element where the EPA
inadvertently failed to finalize a determination in the 2013 Revisions
Rule. We are proposing confidentiality determinations for three data
elements in subpart PP which were added to Part 98 in the EGU NSPS.
Finally, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for 16 data
elements in subpart RR. In the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule (77
FR 48072, August 13, 2012), we did not finalize a confidentiality
determination for these data elements, which relate to facility-level
and flow meter-level quantities of CO2 received onsite, because the
sensitivity of these data elements was dependent on whether the
reporter conducted enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) activities or
non-ER activities. In this action, we are proposing to require that
facilities report whether they are conducting ER activities. As such,
the proposed amendments would allow the submitted reports to indicate
that the facility is conducting ER activities and therefore would allow
for categorical confidentiality determinations for these data elements.
Of these data elements, we are proposing to assign one data element
in subpart MM to the ``Amount and Composition of Materials Received''
supplier data category, which has a categorical confidentiality
determination of CBI. We are proposing to assign the remaining data
elements in subparts I, Z, PP, and RR to the ``Unit/Process `Operating'
Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/
Process `Static' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission
Equations'' direct emitter data categories and the ``Production/
Throughput Quantities and Composition'' supplier data categories, and
are proposing individual confidentiality determinations for these data
elements. For 16 data elements in subpart RR, we are proposing separate
determinations for each data element for facilities conducting ER
operations and facilities conducting non-ER operations.
Table 8 of this preamble provides the category assignment and
proposed rationale for the proposed determinations for the existing
data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR.

[[Page 2587]]

Table 8--Proposed CBI Determinations for Other Data Elements in Part 98
[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale for the
Subpart Citation in 40 Data element Confidentiality proposed CBI
CFR part 98 Determination determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Static' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to
Emission Equations'' Direct Emitter Data Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................. 98.96(a)........ Annual manufacturing CBI............. The EPA revised this
capacity of each fab data element in the
at your facility final rule published
used to determine on November 13, 2013
the annual (78 FR 68162), to
manufacturing apply at the fab
capacity of your level instead of at
facility in Equation the facility level
I-5 of this subpart. to be consistent
with other revised
data reporting
requirements, but
did not make a
proposed or final
confidentiality
determination for
the revised data
element in the final
rule. The EPA is now
proposing to revise
the confidentiality
determination for
this data element,
and to consider it
as CBI. This data
element describes
the annual product
production capacity
of individual fabs,
and could cause
competitive harm if
released.
Specifically, this
data element could
provide insight into
facility operating
practices that are
considered sensitive
by the reporter and
could provide a
competitor with a
competitive
advantage over other
facilities.
Additional
information provided
by industry
indicates that this
data element is
closely guarded and
protected by nearly
all industry members
as sensitive
business
information.
Z............................. 98.266(a)....... Origin of the CBI............. In the ``Final Data
phosphate rock. Category Assignments
and Confidentiality
Determinations for
Part 98 Reporting
Elements''
memorandum issued
April 29, 2011, we
categorized the
subpart Z data
element ``Annual
phosphoric acid
production by origin
of the phosphate
rock'' at 40 CFR
98.266(a) to be
production/
throughput data that
are not inputs to
emission equations,
and therefore
considered to be
confidential
business
information. To
clarify this
determination, we
are proposing to
specify that both
the annual
phosphoric acid
production and the
origin of the
phosphate rock are
both considered to
be confidential
business
information. This
data element
describes operating
parameters related
to the operating
processes at the
facility and is
assigned to the
``Unit/Process
'Operating'
Characteristics That
are Not Inputs to
Emission Equations''
data category. We
are proposing that
this data element is
CBI because the data
element could reveal
information on the
source and
composition of raw
materials used in
the manufacturing
processes, which
could provide
insight into the
facility's raw
material suppliers,
production costs and
manufacturing
processes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2588]]

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Unit/Process `Operating' Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to
Emission Equations'' Direct Emitter Data Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................. 98.96(q)(2)..... For all abatement Not CBI......... In the final rule
systems through amendments published
which fluorinated on November 13, 2013
GHGs or N2O flow at (78 FR 68162), the
your facility, for EPA revised 40 CFR
which you are 98.96(q) into four
reporting controlled paragraphs and added
emissions, the paragraphs (q)(2) to
following: (q)(4) to address
(2) If you use comments received on
default destruction the proposal related
or removal to abatement
efficiency values in systems. However,
your emissions because the EPA
calculations under proposed no
Sec. 98.93(a), confidentiality
(b), or (i), determination for
certification that these three new
the site maintenance paragraphs, the EPA
plan for abatement made no final CBI
systems for which determination. These
emissions are being data elements are
reported contains similar to data
manufacturer's element 40 CFR
recommendations and 98.96(q)(1). For 40
specifications for CFR 98.96(q)(1), the
installation, EPA made a final
operation, and determination that
maintenance for each this data element
abatement system. should be in the
category for ``Unit/
Process 'Operating'
Characteristics That
are Not Inputs to
Emission Equations''
and that that this
data element was not
CBI. Similar to 40
CFR 98.96(q)(1),
paragraphs (q)(2) to
(q)(4) are
certification
statements that do
not provide detailed
information on
sensitive business
information of a
competitive nature.
Moreover, the EPA
certification
statements are the
same language in 40
CFR 98.96(q)(2)
through (4) and do
not include any
facility- or process-
specific information
that could be
considered
exclusive.
Therefore, the EPA
is proposing that
these three data
elements should also
be assigned to the
category for ``Unit/
Process 'Operating'
Characteristics That
are Not Inputs to
Emission
Equations,'' and the
EPA is proposing
that these three
data elements also
be classified as
``not CBI.''
I............................. 98.96(q)(3)..... For all abatement Not CBI.........
systems through
which fluorinated
GHGs or N2O flow at
your facility, for
which you are
reporting controlled
emissions, the
following:
(3) If you use
default destruction
or removal
efficiency values in
your emissions
calculations under
Sec. 98.93(a),
(b), and/or (i),
certification that
the abatement
systems for which
emissions are being
reported were
specifically
designed for
fluorinated GHG or
N2O abatement, as
applicable. You must
support this
certification by
providing abatement
system supplier
documentation
stating that the
system was designed
for fluorinated GHG
or N2O abatement, as
applicable.
I............................. 98.96(q)(4)..... For all abatement Not CBI.........
systems through
which fluorinated
GHGs or N2O flow at
your facility, for
which you are
reporting controlled
emissions, the
following:
(4) For all stack
systems for which
you calculate
fluorinated GHG
emissions according
to the procedures
specified in Sec.
98.93(i)(3),
certification that
you have included
and accounted for
all abatement
systems and any
respective downtime
in your emissions
calculations under
Sec. 98.93(i)(3).

[[Page 2589]]

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Amount and Composition of Materials Received'' Supplier Data
Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MM............................ 98.396(a)(20)... For all crude oil CBI............. In rule amendments
that enters the published on
refinery, report the November 29, 2013
annual quantity in (78 FR 71904), we
barrels. revised this data
element from ``the
batch volume of
crude oil that
enters the refinery
in barrels'' to
``the annual
quantity of crude
oil that enters the
refinery in
barrels.'' However,
we did not make a
confidentiality
determination for
this revised data
element at that
time. We are
proposing that the
revised data element
be assigned to the
``Amount and
Composition of
Materials Received''
category, which has
a categorical
confidentiality
determination of
CBI.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ``Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition'' Supplier Data
Category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PP............................ 98.426(h)(1).... If you capture a CO2 Not CBI......... This data element
stream from an identifies subpart D
electricity facilities that
generating unit that transfer CO2 to any
is subject to facilities that are
subpart D of this subject to subpart
part and transfer RR of this part.
CO2 to any This information
facilities that are does not reveal any
subject to subpart significant details
RR of this part, you regarding production
must report the or production and
facility import/export data
identification that may be
number associated considered CBI.
with the annual GHG Therefore, we are
report for the proposing that this
subpart D facility. data element is not
CBI.
PP............................ 98.426(h)(2).... If you capture a CO2 Not CBI......... This data element
stream from an identifies subpart
electricity RR facilities to
generating unit that which CO2 streams
is subject to are transferred from
subpart D of this subpart PP. This
part and transfer information does not
CO2 to any reveal any
facilities that are significant details
subject to subpart regarding production
RR of this part, you or production and
must report each import/export data
facility that may be
identification considered CBI.
number associated Therefore, we are
with the annual GHG proposing that this
reports for each data element is not
subpart RR facility CBI.
to which CO2 is
transferred.
PP............................ 98.426(h)(3).... If you capture a CO2 Not CBI......... This data element
stream from an describes the
electricity quantity of CO2 that
generating unit that is captured at an
is subject to electric generating
subpart D of this unit that is subject
part and transfer to subpart D and
CO2 to any transferred to
facilities that are subpart RR
subject to subpart facilities. This
RR of this part, you information does not
must report the reveal any
annual quantity of significant details
CO2 in metric tons regarding production
that is transferred or production and
to each subpart RR import/export data
facility. that may be
considered CBI.
Therefore, we are
proposing that this
data element is not
CBI.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(1).... For enhanced oil and CBI............. We are proposing that
gas recovery (ER) these data elements
Activities: If you are CBI when
receive CO2 by reported by
pipeline, report the facilities
following for each conducting enhanced
receiving flow oil or natural gas
meter: Total net recovery, on the
mass of CO2 received basis that they are
(metric tons) not publicly
annually. available and cannot
be derived from
publicly available
data. Further, the
EPA has previously
determined for
subpart UU that the
quantities of CO2
reported as received
by specific ER
facilities could
enable CO2 suppliers
and pipeline
transportation
companies to use the
information to their
advantage in price
negotiations on
future contracts
with the CO2
purchasers, which
would lead to an
economic
disadvantage for
these facilities.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(i). For ER Activities: If CBI.............
a volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
Volumetric flow
through a receiving
flow meter at
standard conditions
(in standard cubic
meters) in each
quarter.

[[Page 2590]]

RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(ii) For ER Activities: If CBI.............
a volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
The volumetric flow
through a receiving
flow meter that is
redelivered to
another facility
without being
injected into your
well (in standard
cubic meters) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(iii For ER Activities: If CBI.............
). a volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
CO2 concentration in
the flow (volume
percent CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(i). For ER Activities: If CBI.............
a mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
mass flow through a
receiving flow meter
(in metric tons) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(ii) For ER Activities: If CBI.............
a mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
mass flow through a
receiving flow meter
that is redelivered
to another facility
without being
injected into your
well (in metric
tons) in each
quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(iii For ER Activities: If CBI.............
). a mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
CO2 concentration in
the flow (weight
percent CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(1).... For ER Activities: If CBI.............
you receive CO2 in
containers, report:
The mass (in metric
tons) or volume at
standard conditions
(in standard cubic
meters) of contents
in containers in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(2).... For ER Activities: If CBI.............
you receive CO2 in
containers:
Concentration of CO2
of contents in
containers (volume
or wt. % CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(3).... For ER Activities: If CBI.............
you receive CO2 in
containers, report:
The mass (in metric
tons) or volume (in
standard cubic
meters) of contents
in containers that
is redelivered to
another facility
without being
injected into your
well in each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(4).... For ER Activities: If CBI.............
you receive CO2 in
containers: Net mass
of CO2 received
(metric tons)
annually.
RR............................ 98.446(c)....... For ER Activities: If CBI.............
you use more than
one receiving flow
meter: Total net
mass of CO2 received
(metric tons)
through all flow
meters annually.

[[Page 2591]]

RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(i). For ER Activities: If CBI............. We are proposing that
the date specified these data elements,
in Sec. 98.446(e) which are related to
is during the the quantity of
reporting year for produced CO2
this annual report, measured at a
report the following separator meter, are
starting on the date CBI when reported by
specified in Sec. facilities
98.446(e): For each performing enhanced
separator flow meter oil and gas
(mass or recovery.
volumetric), report Previously,
CO2 mass produced commenters have
(metric tons) noted31 that
annually. although some data
from ER wells is
publicly available,
the total mass of
produced CO2 by well
or within a field is
not already in the
public domain.
Publication of
produced CO2 data,
when coupled with
publicly available
information on oil
and gas production
by well, could
enable competitors
to calculate CO2
utilization rates
for both individual
wells and fields and
possibly track
changes in CO2
utilization over
time. This data
could be used to
gain insight into
production costs and
reservoir
performance, which
could result in
competitive harm.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(ii) For ER Activities: If CBI.............
the date specified
in Sec. 98.446(e)
is during the
reporting year for
this annual report,
report the following
starting on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): For each
separator flow meter
(mass or
volumetric), report
CO2 concentration in
flow (volume or wt.
% CO2 expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(iii For ER Activities: If CBI.............
). the date specified
in Sec. 98.446(e)
is during the
reporting year for
this annual report,
report the following
starting on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): If a
volumetric flow
meter is used,
volumetric flow rate
at standard
conditions (standard
cubic meters) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(iv) For ER Activities: If CBI.............
the date specified
in Sec. 98.446(e)
is during the
reporting year for
this annual report,
report the following
starting on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): If a mass
flow meter is used,
mass flow rate
(metric tons) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(1).... For Non-ER Not CBI......... For non-ER
Activities: If you facilities, we are
receive CO2 by proposing that these
pipeline, report the data elements are
following for each not eligible for CBI
receiving flow treatment because
meter: Total net these data elements
mass of CO2 received are publicly
(metric tons) available or can be
annually. derived from
publicly available
data. These data can
be derived from
Underground
Injection Control
(UIC) permits, which
are issued for each
injection well by
the EPA or by states
that have assumed
primary enforcement
authority for
permitting Class II
injection wells.
Unlike ER
facilities, the CO2
received at non-ER
facilities is not
recycled and re-
injected. The amount
of CO2 received at
non-ER facilities is
equivalent to the
amount of CO2
injected (which is
reported per UIC
permit conditions).
Information related
to the permits is
reported to EPA or
States at least
annually and made
available to the
public upon request.
Because this
information is
publicly available,
the EPA finds that
disclosure of these
data elements is not
likely to cause
substantial
competitive harm to
reporters who
conduct non-ER
activities. The EPA
proposes to
determine that these
data elements are
not CBI.

[[Page 2592]]

RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(i). For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If a
volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
Volumetric flow
through a receiving
flow meter at
standard conditions
(in standard cubic
meters) in each
quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(ii) For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If a
volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
The volumetric flow
through a receiving
flow meter that is
redelivered to
another facility
without being
injected into your
well (in standard
cubic meters) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(2)(iii For Non-ER Not CBI.........
). Activities: If a
volumetric flow
meter is used to
receive CO2 report
the following unless
you reported yes to
Sec. 98.446(a)(4):
CO2 concentration in
the flow (volume
percent CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(i). For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If a
mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
mass flow through a
receiving flow meter
(in metric tons) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(ii) For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If a
mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
mass flow through a
receiving flow meter
that is redelivered
to another facility
without being
injected into your
well (in metric
tons) in each
quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(a)(3)(iii For Non-ER Not CBI.........
). Activities: If a
mass flow meter is
used to receive CO2
report the following
unless you reported
yes to Sec.
98.446(a)(4): The
CO2 concentration in
the flow (weight
percent CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(1).... For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If you
receive CO2 in
containers, report:
The mass (in metric
tons) or volume at
standard conditions
(in standard cubic
meters) of contents
in containers in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(2).... For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If you
receive CO2 in
containers:
Concentration of CO2
of contents in
containers (volume
or wt. % CO2
expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(3).... For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If you
receive CO2 in
containers, report:
The mass (in metric
tons) or volume (in
standard cubic
meters) of contents
in containers that
is redelivered to
another facility
without being
injected into your
well in each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(b)(4).... For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If you
receive CO2 in
containers: Net mass
of CO2 received
(metric tons)
annually.
RR............................ 98.446(c)....... For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If you
use more than one
receiving flow
meter: Total net
mass of CO2 received
(metric tons)
through all flow
meters annually.

[[Page 2593]]

RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(i). For Non-ER Not CBI......... For non-ER
Activities: If the facilities, we are
date specified in proposing that these
Sec. 98.446(e) is data elements are
during the reporting not eligible for CBI
year for this annual treatment because
report, report the these data elements
following starting are publicly
on the date available or can be
specified in Sec. derived from
98.446(e): For each publicly available
separator flow meter data. These data can
(mass or be derived from UIC
volumetric), report permits, which are
CO2 mass produced issued for each
(metric tons) injection well by
annually. the EPA or by states
that have assumed
primary enforcement
authority for
permitting Class II
injection wells.
Unlike ER
facilities, the CO2
received at non-ER
facilities is not
recycled and re-
injected. The amount
of CO2 received at
non-ER facilities is
equivalent to the
amount of CO2
injected (which is
reported per UIC
permit conditions).
Information related
to the permits is
reported to EPA or
States at least
annually and made
available to the
public upon request.
Because this
information is
publicly available,
the EPA finds that
disclosure of these
data elements is not
likely to cause
substantial
competitive harm to
reporters who
conduct non-ER
activities. The EPA
proposes to
determine that these
data elements are
not CBI.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(ii) For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If the
date specified in
Sec. 98.446(e) is
during the reporting
year for this annual
report, report the
following starting
on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): For each
separator flow meter
(mass or
volumetric), report
CO2 concentration in
flow (volume or wt.
% CO2 expressed as a
decimal fraction) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(iii For Non-ER Not CBI.........
). Activities: If the
date specified in
Sec. 98.446(e) is
during the reporting
year for this annual
report, report the
following starting
on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): If a
volumetric flow
meter is used,
volumetric flow rate
at standard
conditions (standard
cubic meters) in
each quarter.
RR............................ 98.446(f)(4)(iv) For Non-ER Not CBI.........
Activities: If the
date specified in
Sec. 98.446(e) is
during the reporting
year for this annual
report, report the
following starting
on the date
specified in Sec.
98.446(e): If a mass
flow meter is used,
mass flow rate
(metric tons) in
each quarter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data
Elements

We are proposing revised confidentiality determinations for two
existing data elements in subpart NN. Under subpart NN, local
distribution companies report the volume of natural gas withdrawn from
on-system storage and the annual volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG)
withdrawn from storage and vaporized for delivery on the distribution
system (40 CFR 98.406(b)(3)). The EPA previously assigned these data
elements to the ``Amount and Composition of Materials Received''
category, which has a confidentiality determination of CBI. The EPA is
proposing to change these data elements' status from CBI to non-CBI.
These data elements are reported to the EPA by LDCs subject to subpart
W of Part 98 (Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems) in addition to subpart
NN. In support of a recent subpart W rulemaking (79 FR 70352, November
25, 2014), review of publicly available data found that gas withdrawals
from underground storage are reported to the EIA on form EIA-176
(Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition).
As we noted in the proposed version of that rule, the EIA considers all
information submitted on EIA-176 to be non-proprietary information and
publishes the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage on their
Web site. Data that are already in the public domain are not entitled
to confidential treatment under the provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. Since
the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage is publicly
available, the EPA proposes to assign the confidentiality determination
for 40 CFR 98.406(b)(3) to ``not CBI.''

F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and
Confidentiality Determinations

For the CBI component of this rulemaking, we are soliciting comment
on the following specific issues. We

[[Page 2594]]

specifically seek comment on the proposed data category assignment for
each of the new and substantially revised data elements in the proposed
amendments, for the existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP,
and RR for which no determination was previously made, and the two data
elements in subpart NN for which we are revising the prior
confidentiality determination.
If you believe that the EPA has improperly assigned certain new,
substantially revised, or existing data elements in these subparts to
any of the data categories established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule,
please provide specific comments identifying which of the data elements
may be wrongly assigned along with a detailed explanation of why you
believe them to be incorrectly assigned and in which data category you
believe they belong. In addition, if you believe that a data element
should be assigned to one of the five categories that do not have a
categorical confidentiality determination, please also provide specific
comment along with detailed rationale and supporting information on
whether such data element does or does not qualify as CBI. We also seek
comment on the proposed confidentiality status of the new,
substantially revised, or existing data elements in the direct emitter
data categories ``Unit/Process `Operating' Characteristics that Are Not
Inputs to Emission Equations'' and ``Unit/Process `Static'
Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations'' and the
supplier data categories ``Production/Throughput Quantities and
Composition'' and ``Unit/Process Operating Characteristics.''
By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting
through this proposal and rulemaking process, we provide potential
reporters an opportunity to submit comments, particularly comments
identifying data they consider sensitive and their rationales and
supporting documentation. This opportunity to submit comments is the
same opportunity that is afforded to submitters of information in case-
by-case confidentiality determinations. In addition, it provides an
opportunity to rebut the agency's proposed determinations prior to
finalization. We will evaluate the comments on our proposed
determinations, including claims of confidentiality and information
substantiating such claims, before finalizing the confidentiality
determinations. Please note that this will be reporters' only
opportunity to substantiate a confidentiality claim. Upon finalizing
the confidentiality determinations of the data elements identified in
this rule, the EPA will release or withhold these data in accordance
with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains special provisions governing the
treatment of Part 98 data for which confidentiality determinations have
been made through rulemaking.
When submitting comments regarding the confidentiality
determinations we are proposing in this action, please identify each
individual proposed new, revised, or existing data element you do or do
not consider to be CBI or emission data in your comments. Please
explain specifically how the public release of that particular data
element would or would not cause a competitive disadvantage to a
facility. Discuss how this data element may be different from or
similar to data that are already publicly available. Please submit
information identifying any publicly available sources of information
containing the specific data elements in question. Data that are
already available through other sources would likely be found not to
qualify for CBI protection. In your comments, please identify the
manner and location in which each specific data element you identify is
publicly available, including a citation. If the data are physically
published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal
agency publication, provide the title, volume number (if applicable),
author(s), publisher, publication date, and International Standard Book
Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a Web site,
provide the address of the Web site, the date you last visited the Web
site and identify the Web site publisher and content author.
If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data
element to discern sensitive information, specifically describe the
pathway by which this could occur and explain how the discerned
information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe
any unique process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if
the particular proposed new or revised data element you consider
sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you
identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other
publicly available data, then describe the other data, identify the
public source(s) of these data, and explain how the combination of data
could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures
currently taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and
unsubstantiated statements, or general assertions regarding potential
harm. Please be as specific as possible and include all information
necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

The EPA is proposing amendments to Part 98 that would streamline
and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and
consistency of the data collected under the rule, and clarify certain
provisions. The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden
in cases where the proposed amendments would expand current
applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to
decrease burden in cases where the proposed amendments would streamline
Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify
the data that must be reported. For most subparts, we are proposing
both revisions that would result in an increase in burden and revisions
that would result in a decrease in burden. In several cases, we are
proposing changes where we anticipate a decrease in burden, but are
unable to quantify this decrease. This conservative approach means that
the impacts for this proposed rule generally reflect an increase in
burden for most subparts. For example, as discussed in section II.C and
II.K of this preamble, we are proposing amendments to add new reporting
requirements to subpart E and subpart V to improve the quality of the
data collected under the rule, as well as amendments that would
streamline the rule by conditionally removing the annual approval
request for an alternative method for determining N2O
emissions currently required by reporters and the annual request
approval by the EPA. The proposed changes for the annual approval
request are anticipated to add flexibility for reporters and reduce the
burden for subpart E and subpart V reporters using the alternative
method. Additionally, we anticipate that the EPA burden required to
review and approve the alternative methods would also be reduced.
However, because the proposed changes would apply to an optional
calculation method and are not required for compliance with Part 98, we
have not included this reduction in burden in our analysis, and have
only quantified the increase in burden associated with the proposed new
reporting requirements.
As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to
implement these changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in
order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time and
provide time for needed software revisions. The burden has subsequently
been determined

[[Page 2595]]

based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in each year
(e.g., the burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I
(Electronics Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills),
and related changes to subpart A (General Provisions)). One-time
implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to applicability
and monitoring provisions that would be finalized in RY2017 and RY2018;
therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the
subsequent year costs incurred by industry. The incremental
implementation costs for all subparts for each reporting year are
summarized in Table 9 of this preamble. The estimated incremental
burden is $2,049,478 for all proposed revisions implemented between
RY2016 through RY2018, including $9,359 from revisions implemented in
RY2016, $33,782 from revisions implemented in RY2017, and $2,006,337
from revisions implemented in RY2018. The estimated annual burden is
$1,081,830 per year following implementation of all changes. The
incremental burden by subpart is shown in Table 10 of this preamble.
One-time implementation costs are incorporated into first year costs,
while subsequent year costs represent the annual burden that will be
incurred in total by all impacted reporters.

Table 9--Incremental Burden for Reporting Years 2016-2019
[$/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost summary 2016 2017 2018 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Costs.................. \a\$9,359 $25,650 b c$1,972,555 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent Year Annual Costs for Changes Implemented in:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016.............................. .............. 8,132 8,132 \a\9,359
2017.............................. .............. .............. 25,650 25,650
2018.............................. .............. .............. ............................ 1,046,821
Total Costs by Year (all 9,359 33,782 2,006,337 \a\1,081,830
subparts)....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes annual labor costs of $1,226 for reporting additional data elements for subpart I for a triennial
report submitted once every three years.
\b\ Includes one-time implementation costs for new monitoring under subpart FF.
\c\ Includes one-time implementation costs for new reporters under subparts V and OO.

Table 10--Incremental Burden by Subpart
[$2011]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs for additional Costs for revisions to Costs for revisions to Total cost
reporters reporting monitoring provisions -------------------------------
Subpart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent- Subsequent- Subsequent- First-year Subsequent-
First-year year First-year year First-year year year
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Implemented in RY2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I............................................................... $0 $0 $1,226 \a\ $0 $0 $0 $1,226 \a\ $0
HH.............................................................. 0 0 8,132 8,132 0 0 8,132 8,132
-----------------------------------------------
Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2016............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 9,359 8,132
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Implemented in RY2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................................................... 0 0 4,906 4,906 0 0 4,906 4,906
C............................................................... 0 0 12,139 12,139 0 0 12,139 12,139
E............................................................... 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10
F............................................................... 0 0 73 73 0 0 73 73
G............................................................... 0 0 228 228 0 0 228 228
N \b\........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O............................................................... 0 0 106 106 0 0 106 106
P \b\........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q \b\........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S............................................................... 0 0 744 744 0 0 744 744
U \b\........................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
X............................................................... 0 0 1,074 1,074 0 0 1,074 1,074
Z............................................................... 0 0 40 40 0 0 40 40
AA \b\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CC.............................................................. 0 0 33 33 0 0 33 33
DD.............................................................. 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000
II.............................................................. 0 0 2,562 2,562 0 0 2,562 2,562
LL \c\.......................................................... 0 0 -17 -17 0 0 -17 -17
MM \b\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NN.............................................................. 0 0 1,752 1,752 0 0 1,752 1,752
PP \b\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RR \d\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TT \b\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UU \b\.......................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------------------------------------

[[Page 2596]]

Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2017............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 25,650 25,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Implemented in RY2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V............................................................... 83,544 66,403 129 129 0 0 83,673 66,531
Y............................................................... 0 0 1,448 1,448 0 0 1,448 1,448
FF.............................................................. 0 0 2,066 2,066 1,848,571 949,582 1,850,638 951,648
OO.............................................................. 36,215 26,612 582 582 0 0 36,797 27,194
-----------------------------------------------
Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2018............... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 1,972,555 1,046,821
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (All Subparts).................................... 119,759 93,015 39,234 38,007 1,848,571 949,582 2,006,337 1,081,830
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Costs for subpart I include new data elements related to the triennial technology report required by Sec. 98.96(y). The first report must be submitted with RY2016 reports on March 31,
2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with the data elements were included in the total incremental estimates for RY2016
and RY2019 (see Table 9 of this preamble) and not for RY2017 or RY2018.
\b\ The proposed changes to this subpart include only minor revisions, clarifications, and corrections that have no impact on the burden to reporters.
\c\ This entry is a negative value because certain reporting requirements were removed from subpart LL and no new reporting requirements were added for the subpart, resulting in a net cost
savings for this source category.
\d\ There is no increase in costs under subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide) because there are no facilities currently reporting, or projected to report, under this source
category in the next three years.

A full discussion of the impacts may be found in the memorandum,
``Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule,'' available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated?

The estimated incremental change in burden from the proposed
amendments to Part 98 include burden associated with: (1) Changes to
the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing existing
reporting requirements (21 subparts); (2) revisions to the
applicability of subparts such that additional facilities would be
required to report under Part 98 (subparts V and OO); and (3)
additional monitoring requirements (subpart FF).
1. Burden Associated With the Revision of Reporting Requirements
Section III of this preamble describes proposed amendments to each
subpart of Part 98 that improve the quality and accuracy of the data
collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected data, and
provide additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S.
GHG Inventory. In general, these proposed amendments would add
reporting requirements or revise existing reporting requirements to
collect more detailed facility data. The proposed amendments would
collectively add or revise data elements in 21 subparts of Part 98,
including 97 data elements that were not previously required to be
collected. With the exception of revisions to subpart FF (Underground
Coal Mines), the collection of these new and revised data elements
would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially
affect the type of information that must be collected. For all of these
additional data elements, the EPA has estimated a nominal additional
cost to report the data element and fulfill the recordkeeping
requirements. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data elements in
subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and LL. For these data elements, the EPA has
estimated a nominal reduction in cost, since reporters would no longer
be required to report the data element. The total incremental costs
from the addition, revision, and removal of these reporting
requirements are anticipated at $39,234 annually ($2011). This includes
$9,359 from revisions implemented in RY2016, $25,650 from revisions
first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions first
implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in the
proposed rule pertain to the triennial technology report required under
40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with RY2016 reports on
or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the
purposes of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with these
data elements ($1,226) would apply in RY2016 only. For RY2017 and
RY2018, the estimated incremental cost associated with reporting the
new, revised, and removed data elements for all affected source
categories is $33,782 and $38,007, respectively.
All costs to the regulated industry resulting from changes to the
reporting requirements for the GHGRP are labor costs (i.e., the cost of
labor by facility staff to meet the rule's information collection
requirements). For each subpart, the EPA determined the incremental
change in annual hourly labor estimates by multiplying the number of
data elements that were added, revised, or removed in each subpart by
the number of hours required to review each data element and the number
of affected reporters for each subpart. Where data elements were
removed in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and LL, a reduction in the annual
hourly labor estimate was assumed. Labor costs were applied to the
total annual hour estimates for each labor category to obtain the total
costs for each subpart.
2. Burden Associated With Revisions That Affect Applicability
The EPA is proposing revisions that would affect the applicability
of two subparts of Part 98: Subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) and
subpart OO

[[Page 2597]]

(Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). The proposed changes would
apply beginning in RY2018. These proposed changes are anticipated to
require reporting for four additional reporters under subpart V, and
five to ten additional reporters under subpart OO. (For the purposes of
estimating burden, an average of eight additional reporters were
assumed to be required to report under subpart OO of Part 98). The
majority of facilities within these industries already report under
Part 98; specifically, all four of the affected reporters under subpart
V already submit annual reports. The total incremental burden from
changes to applicability is $119,759 in the first year and $93,015 in
subsequent years ($2011). The incremental burden for the additional
reporters for subpart V includes first-year costs of $83,544 ($20,866
per facility) and subsequent year costs of $66,403 ($16,601 per
facility). The incremental burden for the additional reporters for
subpart OO includes first-year costs of $36,215 ($4,527 per facility)
and subsequent year costs of $26,612 ($3,327 per facility).
To estimate the cost impacts for additional reporters, the recent
information collection request for the GHG reporting program \32\ was
used to obtain the first year average cost per facility that is
incurred from reporting under subparts V and OO (updated to $2011) and
the subsequent year burden. These average costs per facility include
labor costs, capital costs, and operation and maintenance costs. We
determined total reporting costs for each subpart by assigning these
costs to model facilities that are representative of each industry
sector. The total cost for each subpart was determined by multiplying
the model facilities cost by the number of affected facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ See Supporting Statement Part A: Information Collection
Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (U.S. EPA, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Burden Associated With Revisions to Monitoring Requirements for
Underground Coal Mines
As discussed in section III.R.2 of this preamble, we are proposing
changes to the monitoring requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 to
remove the option to allow MSHA quarterly inspection reports to be used
as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation
systems. Instead, facilities would be required to independently collect
their own grab samples or to use CEMS. The incremental increase in
costs for subpart FF reporters who would no longer have the option to
use MSHA data (and would need to collect monthly grab samples) are
$28,440 per facility in the first year and $14,609 per facility in
subsequent years ($2011); these revisions would affect approximately 65
reporters anticipated to use MSHA data annually. The proposed revisions
would have an industry-wide incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first
year and $949,582 in subsequent years. The proposed changes would apply
beginning in RY2018.
The incremental costs to the regulated industry resulting from
changes to the monitoring requirements for Underground Coal Mines are
based on the collection of independent grab samples in ventilation air.
Currently, about 50 percent of subpart FF reporters collect quarterly
gas samples. For mines that currently use MSHA data, the annual
incremental costs for taking grab samples was estimated as the cost of
taking the samples, less the avoided cost of obtaining, interpreting
and reporting MSHA data. We assumed that facilities would not install a
CEMS as a result of the monitoring changes.
The costs resulting from removing the use of MSHA quarterly data
and requiring facilities to collect quarterly grab samples include
additional labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility staff to
meet the rule's information collection requirements), capital costs
(e.g., the costs of anemometers or sample kits, for reporters that are
not currently conducting sampling), and operating and maintenance costs
(e.g., the cost associated with gas sample analysis). Hourly labor
costs were estimated based on the number of labor hours for developing
the sampling methodology and purchasing the devices, and the number of
hours required for sampling.

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98

In addition to amendments that would revise the existing
applicability, monitoring, or reporting requirements of Part 98, the
EPA is proposing additional technical revisions and other
clarifications to several subparts in Part 98 that are not anticipated
to have a significant impact on burden. These include revisions
discussed in section III of this preamble that are intended to
streamline the rule requirements, including proposed revisions to
clarify and revise the requirements of Part 98 in order to focus GHGRP
and reporter resources on relevant data, to expand and clarify the
conditions under which a facility can cease reporting, or to clarify
requirements for facilities that report very little or no emissions,
and revisions that would improve the efficiency of the reporting and
verification process. These changes are anticipated to minimally reduce
burden for reporters.
The EPA is also proposing revisions that are intended to improve
the quality of the rule but that would not impact burden, such as
amending calculation methods to improve the accuracy of the emissions
estimate (e.g., subparts I and Y); these proposed amendments would
increase the accuracy of reported emissions, but do not require
additional monitoring or data collection by reporters, and would have
no additional impact on burden.
We are proposing, for certain subparts, to amend monitoring or
measurement methods to more closely align rule requirements with
different operating scenarios in the industry. Other proposed
amendments would provide flexibility for reporters and clarify
reporting requirements, as described in section II.C of this preamble.
These proposed amendments are anticipated to have no impact or
minimally decrease burden for reporters.
The proposed revisions also include minor amendments, corrections,
and clarifications, including simple revisions of requirements such as
clarifying changes to definitions, calculation methodologies,
monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing data procedures,
and reporting requirements. These proposed changes clarify Part 98 to
better reflect the EPA's intent, and would not present any additional
burden on reporters.
A full discussion of the burden associated with the proposed
revisions for each subpart may be found in the memorandum, ``Assessment
of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule,'' available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review because the
proposed amendments raise novel legal or policy issues. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. A copy of the analysis is
available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-

[[Page 2598]]

OAR-2015-0526 and is briefly summarized in section V of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been
assigned EPA ICR number 2300.18. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This action is proposing to amend specific provisions in the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation
of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected
under the rule, and to clarify or propose minor updates to certain
provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting
entities. These proposed amendments would improve the quality and
consistency of the data collected, as well as improve the efficiency of
the reporting process for both the EPA and reporters. The proposed
amendments are anticipated to increase burden in cases where the
proposed amendments would expand current applicability, monitoring, or
reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden in cases where the
proposed amendments would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or
reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported.
Specifically, this action proposes to amend the reporting
requirements to add or revise 118 data elements in 21 subparts of Part
98. These revisions are necessary to improve the quality of the data
collected under the GHGRP. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data
elements in five subparts, which would streamline rule requirements.
This action also proposes amendments that would affect the
applicability of two subparts of Part 98: subparts V (Nitric Acid
Production) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). These
amendments could increase the number of facilities required to report
under Part 98. Finally, this action proposes to revise the monitoring
requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines). The
proposed amendments would remove the option to allow Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) quarterly inspection reports to be used as
a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from ventilation
systems, and require facilities to independently collect their own grab
samples or to use continuous emissions monitoring. Impacts associated
with the proposed changes to the applicability, monitoring, and
reporting requirements are detailed in the memorandum ``Assessment of
Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule''
(see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
The total estimated incremental burden and cost associated with the
proposed revisions is 23,456 hours and $2,049,478 over the 3 years
covered by the information collection. These costs include $9,359 in
RY2016, $33,782 in RY2017, and $2,006,337 in RY2018, averaging $683,159
per year over the three years. The total estimated number of reporters
affected by the proposed amendments is 8,240. The proposed frequency of
response for these changes is once annually, with the exception of
certain data elements for subpart I which would be submitted once every
three years.
The estimated incremental costs and hour burden associated with the
addition and revision of 118 data elements and the removal of 18 data
elements in 21 subparts is 682 hours and $39,234 annually ($2011),
including $9,359 from revisions first implemented in RY2016, $25,650
from revisions first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions
first implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in
the proposed rule pertain to the triennial technology report required
under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with RY2016
reports on or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter.
For the purposes of estimating burden for the three years covered by
the information collection, the annual burden and costs associated with
these data elements (21 hours and $1,226) would apply for RY2016 only.
Therefore, the estimated incremental burden and cost associated with
reporting the new, revised, and removed data elements for all affected
source categories is 588 hours and $33,782 in RY2017, and 661 hours and
$38,007 for RY2018. The annual reporting burden associated with these
changes is estimated to average 0.17 hour per response, and the
estimated number of reporters affected is 7,127.
The estimated incremental cost burden associated with additional
reporters to subparts V and OO is $119,759 in the first year (RY2018)
and $93,015 in subsequent years. The incremental burden for the
additional reporters for subpart V includes first-year costs of $83,544
and subsequent year costs of $66,403. The incremental burden for the
additional reporters for subpart OO includes first-year costs of
$36,215 and subsequent year costs of $26,612. The estimated number of
likely new respondents that would result from these amendments is 12,
including four additional reporters under subpart V, and an average of
eight additional reporters for subpart OO. The annual hourly burden for
these additional reporters is based on the annual average hourly burden
for existing reporters under subparts V and OO, which is 191 hours and
55 hours per reporter, respectively.
The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters from the
revised monitoring requirements are $28,440 per facility in the first
year (RY2018) and $14,609 in subsequent years ($2011). The proposed
revisions are estimated to affect 65 respondents and would have an
industry incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first year (RY2018) and
$949,582 in subsequent years. The annual hourly burden associated with
these monitoring costs are 320 hours per reporter in the first year and
165 hours in subsequent years.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
Submit your comments on the agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to
oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than
February 16, 2016. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in
the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The impacts to small entities due to the
revisions was evaluated for each subpart. The EPA conducted a screening
assessment

[[Page 2599]]

comparing compliance costs for revisions to reporting requirements,
applicability to new reporters, and monitoring revisions under subparts
V, FF, and OO to specific receipts data for establishments owned by
small businesses in each industry. This ratio constitutes a ``sales''
test that computes the annualized compliance costs of this rule as a
percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio exceeds 1 percent.
The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the establishment level
(average reporting program costs per establishment/average
establishment receipts) for several business size ranges. We determined
that the cost-to-sales ratios are less than 1 percent for all
establishments in all business size ranges for subparts V, OO, and FF,
except the ratio for the 1-19 employee size range for facilities in
subpart FF was greater than 1 percent and less than 2 percent. The
sales test for this size category was also exceeded in the original EIA
\33\ and the EPA noted that mines owned by enterprises with less than
19 employees would be unlikely to be covered by this rule. Therefore,
we do not anticipate any impacts on small entities for subpart FF
reporters, and we have determined that there will not be a significant
economic impact to small entities for these three subparts. For all
other subparts, which are only affected by revisions for adding,
revising, or removing reporting requirements, we determined that these
facilities will experience annual impacts of approximately $11 per
facility. Because this cost is minimal, no small entity impacts are
anticipated for the remaining subparts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ U.S. EPA. Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory
reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subparts T, FF, TT, and II.
See Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2313. June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although there are no small entity impacts associated with these
proposed revisions, in the development of Part 98, the EPA took several
steps to reduce the impact on small entities. For example, the EPA
determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of small
businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA conducted several meetings
with industry associations to discuss regulatory options and the
corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping and reporting.
The proposed rule amendments are minor technical corrections,
clarifying, and other amendments that will not impose any new
requirement on small entities that are not currently required by the
regulation of Part 98. We have therefore concluded that this action
will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small
entities. The EPA continues to conduct significant outreach on the
GHGRP and maintains an ``open door'' policy for stakeholders to help
inform the EPA's understanding of key issues for the industries. We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
amendments on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set
forth in CAA section 114(a)(1) without the exercise of any policy
discretion by the EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule amendments would not result in
any changes to the requirements that are not currently required for 40
CFR part 98. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials during the
development of the rules for Part 98. A summary of that consultation is
provided in sections VIII.E and VIII.F of the preamble to the October
30, 2009 final GHG reporting rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. Part 98 relates to monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping and does not impact energy supply,
distribution, or use. This final rule amends monitoring, calculation,
and reporting requirements for the GHGRP. In addition, the EPA is
proposing confidentiality determinations for new and revised data
elements proposed in this rulemaking and for certain existing data
elements for which a confidentiality determination has not previously
been proposed, or where the EPA has determined that the current
determination is no longer appropriate. These proposed amendments and
confidentiality determinations do not make any changes to the existing
monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements under Part 98 that
affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment because it is a
rule addressing information collection and reporting procedures.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Suppliers.

Dated: December 21, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency proposes to amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

[[Page 2600]]

PART 98--MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING

0
1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart A--General Provision

0
2. Section 98.2 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);
0
b. Revising paragraph (i)(1) through (3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (i)(4) through (6).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.2 Who must report?

(a) * * *
(1) A facility that contains any source category that is listed in
Table A-3 of this subpart. For these facilities, the annual GHG report
must cover stationary fuel combustion sources (subpart C of this part),
miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U of this part), and all
applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 of this
subpart.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) If reported emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons
CO2e per year for five consecutive years, then the owner or
operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the
owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that
announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the
reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later
than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive
year of emissions less than 25,000 tons CO2e per year. The
owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required
under Sec. 98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years prior to
notification of discontinuation of reporting and retain such records
for three years following the year that reporting was discontinued. The
owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any
future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per
year or more.
(2) If reported emissions are less than 15,000 metric tons
CO2e per year for three consecutive years, then the owner or
operator may discontinue complying with this part provided that the
owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that
announces the cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the
reduction in emissions. The notification shall be submitted no later
than March 31 of the year immediately following the third consecutive
year of emissions less than 15,000 tons CO2e per year. The
owner or operator must maintain the corresponding records required
under Sec. 98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive years and retain
such records for three years prior to notification of discontinuation
of reporting following the year that reporting was discontinued. The
owner or operator must resume reporting if annual emissions in any
future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per
year or more.
(3) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such
that all applicable processes and operations subject to paragraphs
(a)(1) through (4) of this section cease to operate, then the owner or
operator may discontinue complying with this part for the reporting
years following the year in which cessation of such operations occurs,
provided that the owner or operator submits a notification to the
Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and certifies
to the closure of all applicable processes and operations no later than
March 31 of the year following such changes. If one or more processes
or operations subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section
at a facility or supplier cease to operate, but not all applicable
processes or operations cease to operate, then the owner or operator is
exempt from reporting for any such processes or operations in the
reporting years following the reporting year in which cessation of the
process or operation occurs, provided that the owner or operator
submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the
cessation of reporting for the process or operation no later than March
31 of the year following such changes. This paragraph (i)(3) does not
apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations. This
paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to facilities with municipal solid
waste landfills or industrial waste landfills, or to underground coal
mines except those with abandoned status as determined by the U.S. Mine
Safety & Health Administration. The owner or operator must resume
reporting for any future calendar year during which any of the GHG-
emitting processes or operations resume operation.
(4) The provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section
apply to suppliers subject to subparts LL through QQ of this part by
substituting the term ``quantity of GHG supplied'' for ``emissions.''
For suppliers, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this
section apply individually to each importer and exporter and
individually to each petroleum refinery, fractionator of natural gas
liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of
CO2, N2O, or fluorinated greenhouse gases (e.g.,
a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might qualify to discontinue
reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases but still be
required to report as an importer; or a company might qualify to
discontinue reporting as a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases
under subpart OO of this part but still be required to report as a
supplier of carbon dioxide under subpart PP of this part).
(5) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such
that a process or operation no longer meets the ``Definition of Source
Category'' as specified in an applicable subpart, then the owner or
operator may discontinue complying with any such subpart for the
reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided
that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator
that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or operation
no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. The owner or
operator must resume complying with this part for the process or
operation starting in any future calendar year during which the process
or operation meets the ``Definition of Source Category'' as specified
in an applicable subpart.
(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another
facility or supplier that is already reporting GHG data under this
part, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this
part for the facility or supplier, provided that the owner or operator
submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the
discontinuation of reporting and the e-GGRT identification number of
the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year following
such changes.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 98.3 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(G); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(8), (d)(1)(i), and (h)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping
and verification requirements of this part?

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Annual emissions from each applicable source category,
expressed in metric tons of each applicable GHG

[[Page 2601]]

listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of this section.
* * * * *
(G) For each reported fluorinated GHG and fluorinated heat transfer
fluid, report the following identifying information:
(1) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A-1 of
this subpart, then use the method of naming organic chemical compounds
as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC).
(2) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts
Registry Service. If a CAS registry number is not assigned or is not
associated with a single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat transfer
fluid, then report an identification number assigned by EPA's Substance
Registry Services.
(3) Linear chemical formula.
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) Quantity of each GHG from each applicable supply category in
Table A-5 to this subpart, expressed in metric tons of each GHG. For
each reported fluorinated GHG, report the following identifying
information:
(A) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A-1 of
this subpart, then use the method of naming organic chemical compounds
as recommended by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry
(IUPAC).
(B) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts
Registry Service. If a CAS registry number is not assigned or is not
associated with a single fluorinated GHG, then report an identification
number assigned by EPA's Substance Registry Services.
(C) Linear chemical formula.
* * * * *
(8) Each parameter for which a missing data procedure was used
according to the procedures of an applicable subpart and the total
number of hours in the year that a missing data procedure was used for
each parameter. Parameters include not only reported data elements, but
any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not
meet the specifications of a relevant subpart.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section, upon
request by the owner or operator, the Administrator may provide
reasonable extensions of the 45-day period for submission of the
revised report or information under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this
section. If the Administrator receives a request for extension of the
45-day period, by email to an address prescribed by the Administrator
prior to the expiration of the 45-day period, the extension request is
deemed to be automatically granted for 30 days. The Administrator may
grant an additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension if
the owner or operator submits a request for an additional extension and
the request is received by the Administrator prior to the expiration of
the automatic 30-day extension, provided the request demonstrates that
it is not practicable to submit a revised report or information under
paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section within 75 days. The
Administrator will approve the extension request if the request
demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that it is not
practicable to collect and process the data needed to resolve potential
reporting errors identified pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) or (2) of
this section within 75 days.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 98.4 is amended by adding paragraph (i)(6) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.4 Authorization and responsibilities of the designated
representative.

* * * * *
(i) * * *
(6) A list of the subparts that the owners and operators anticipate
will be included in the annual GHG report. The list of potentially
applicable subparts is required only for an initial certificate of
representation that is submitted after [date of publication of the
final rule in the Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility or supplier
that previously was not registered under this part). The list of
subparts is not required for a revised COR.
* * * * *
0
5. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definition for ``Gas
collection system or landfill gas collection system'', adding a
definition for ``Reporting year'' in alphabetical order, and revising
the definition for ``Ventilation hole or shaft'' to read as follows:

Sec. 98.6 Definitions.

* * * * *
Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system means a
system of pipes used to collect landfill gas from different locations
in the landfill by means of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment
(forced convection) to a single location for treatment (thermal
destruction) or use. Landfill gas collection systems may also include
knock-out or separator drums and/or a compressor. A single landfill may
have multiple gas collection systems. Landfill gas collection systems
do not include ``passive'' systems, whereby landfill gas flows
naturally (without forced convection) to the surface of the landfill
where an opening or pipe (vent) is installed to allow for the flow of
landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a remote flare installed to
combust landfill gas that is passively emitted from the vent. Landfill
gas collection systems also do not include ``active venting'' systems,
whereby landfill gas is conveyed to the surface of the landfill using
forced convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally
destroyed prior to release to the atmosphere.
* * * * *
Reporting year means the calendar year during which the GHG data
are required to be collected for purposes of the annual GHG report. For
example, reporting year 2014 is January 1, 2014 through December 31,
2014, and the annual report for reporting year 2014 is submitted to EPA
on March 31, 2015.
* * * * *
Ventilation hole or shaft means a vent hole, shaft, mine portal,
adit or other mine entrance or exits employed at an underground coal
mine to serve as the outlet or conduit to move air from the ventilation
system out of the mine.
* * * * *
0
6. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(33) and (l)(1) to
read as follows:

Sec. 98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference
into this part?

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(33) ASTM D6866-12 Standard Test Methods for Determining the
Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using
Radiocarbon Analysis, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 98.34(d), 98.34(e),
and 98.36(e).
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(1) Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures
Handbook, Handbook Number: PH13-V-1, February 2013, IBR approved for
Sec. 98.324(b).
* * * * *
0
7. Table A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries
``Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years'' and
``Additional Source Categories Applicable in 2011 and Future Years'' to
read as follows:

[[Page 2602]]

Table A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98--Source Category List for Sec.
98.2(a)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Categories \a\ Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Source Categories \a\ Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and
Future Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart.

0
8. Table A-4 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries
``Source Categories Applicable in 2010 and Future Years'' and
``Additional Source Categories Applicable in 2011 and Future Years'' to
read as follows:

Table A-4 to Subpart A--Source Category List for Sec. 98.2(a)(2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Categories \a\ Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *
Additional Source Categories \a\ Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and
Future Years
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Source categories are defined in each applicable subpart.

0
9. Table A-5 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry ``Supplier Categories Applicable in 2010 and
Future Years'';
0
b. Revising the entries associated with ``Industrial greenhouse gas
suppliers (subpart OO)''; and
0
c. Revising the entry ``Additional Supplier Categories Applicable in
2011 and Future Years.''
The revisions read as follows:

Table A-5 to Subpart A--Supplier Category List for Sec. 98.2(a)(4)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplier Categories \a\ Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future
Years

* * * * * * *
Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart OO):
(A) All producers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated
heat transfer fluids.
(B) Importers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat
transfer fluids with annual bulk imports of N2O, fluorinated GHG,
fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in combination are
equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.
(C) Exporters of industrial greenhouse gases with annual bulk
exports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids,
and CO2 that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons
CO2e or more.
(D) Facilities that destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated
GHGs or fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually.

* * * * * * *
Additional Supplier Categories Applicable \a\ in Reporting Year 2011 and
Future Years

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Suppliers are defined in each applicable subpart.

Subpart C--General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

0
10. Section 98.33 is amended by revising parameters
``(HHV)I,'' ``(Fuel)I,'' and ``n'' of Equation C-
2b in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) and revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(C),
(a)(5)(ii)(C), and (a)(5)(iii)(C) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.33 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) * * *
* * * * *

(HHV)I = Measured high heat value of the fuel, for sample
period ``i'' (which may be the arithmetic average of multiple
determinations), or, if applicable, an appropriate substitute data
value (mmBtu per mass or volume).
(Fuel)I = Mass or volume of the fuel combusted during the
sample period ``i,'' (e.g., monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or by
lot) from company records (express mass in short tons for solid
fuel, volume in standard cubic feet (e.g., for gaseous fuel, and
volume in gallons for liquid fuel).
n = Number of sample periods in the year.

* * * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions
value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions
value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons.
(iii) * * *
(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions
value by 1.1023 to convert it to metric tons.
* * * * *
0
11. Section 98.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:

[[Page 2603]]

Sec. 98.34 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(d) Except as otherwise provided in Sec. 98.33(b)(1)(vi) and
(vii), when municipal solid waste (MSW) is either the primary fuel
combusted in a unit or the only fuel with a biogenic component
combusted in the unit, determine the biogenic portion of the
CO2 emissions using ASTM D6866-12 Standard Test Methods for
Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples
Using Radiocarbon Analysis (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7)
and ASTM D7459-08 Standard Practice for Collection of Integrated
Samples for the Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) and Fossil-Derived
Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Stationary Emissions Sources (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 98.7). Perform the ASTM D7459-08 sampling and
the ASTM D6866-12 analysis at least once in every calendar quarter in
which MSW is combusted in the unit. Collect each gas sample during
normal unit operating conditions for at least 24 total (not necessarily
consecutive) hours, or longer if the facility deems it necessary to
obtain a representative sample. Notwithstanding this requirement, if
the types of fuels combusted and their relative proportions are
consistent throughout the year, the minimum required sampling time may
be reduced to 8 hours if at least two 8-hour samples and one 24-hour
sample are collected under normal operating conditions, and arithmetic
average of the biogenic fraction of the flue gas from the 8-hour
samples (expressed as a decimal) is within 5 percent of the
biogenic fraction from the 24-hour test. There must be no overlapping
of the 8-hour and 24-hour test periods. Document the results of the
demonstration in the unit's monitoring plan. If the types of fuels and
their relative proportions are not consistent throughout the year, an
optional sampling approach that facilities may wish to consider to
obtain a more representative sample is to collect an integrated sample
by extracting a small amount of flue gas (e.g., 1 to 5 cc) in each unit
operating hour during the quarter. Separate the total annual
CO2 emissions into the biogenic and non-biogenic fractions
using the average proportion of biogenic emissions of all samples
analyzed during the reporting year. Express the results as a decimal
fraction (e.g., 0.30, if 30 percent of the CO2 is biogenic).
When MSW is the primary fuel for multiple units at the facility, and
the units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only one of the
units is sufficient.
(e) For other units that combust combinations of biomass fuel(s)
(or heterogeneous fuels that have a biomass component, e.g., tires) and
fossil (or other non-biogenic) fuel(s), in any proportions, ASTM D6866-
12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7) and ASTM D7459-08
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7) may be used to determine
the biogenic portion of the CO2 emissions in every calendar
quarter in which biomass and non-biogenic fuels are co-fired in the
unit. Follow the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section. If the
primary fuel for multiple units at the facility consists of tires, and
the units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only one of the
units is sufficient.
* * * * *
0
12. Section 98.36 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and
(c)(3)(ii) and revising paragraphs (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(x) introductory
text, and (e)(2)(xi) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.36 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group
(mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be
determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for
all units in the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the units
served by the common pipe (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat
input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum rated heat
input capacities for all units served by the common pipe, excluding
units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) For the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology, report:
(A) The total quantity of each type of fuel combusted in the unit
or group of aggregated units (as applicable) during the reporting year,
in short tons for solid fuels, gallons for liquid fuels and standard
cubic feet for gaseous fuels, or, if applicable, therms or mmBtu for
natural gas.
(B) If applicable, the moisture content used to calculate the wood
and wood residuals wet basis HHV for use in Equations C-1 and C-8, in
percent.
* * * * *
(x) When ASTM methods D7459-08 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7) and D6866-12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7)
are used to determine the biogenic portion of the annual CO2
emissions from MSW combustion, as described in Sec. 98.34(d), report:
* * * * *
(xi) When ASTM methods D7459-08 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec. 98.7) and D6866-12 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7)
are used in accordance with Sec. 98.34(e) to determine the biogenic
portion of the annual CO2 emissions from a unit that co-
fires biogenic fuels (or partly-biogenic fuels, including tires if you
are electing to report biogenic CO2 emissions from tire
combustion) and non-biogenic fuels, you shall report the results of
each quarterly sample analysis, expressed as a decimal fraction (e.g.,
if the biogenic fraction of the CO2 emissions is 30 percent,
report 0.30).
* * * * *
0
13. Section 98.37 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraph (b)(37) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.37 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
(a) The applicable records specified in Sec. Sec. 98.34(f),
98.35(b), and 98.36(e).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(37) Moisture content used to calculate the wood and wood residuals
wet basis HHV (percent), if applicable (Equations C-1 and C-8).
0
14. Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entries ``Petroleum Coke'' under ``Petroleum
products'', ``Petroleum Coke'' under ``Other fuels--solid'', and
``Propane Gas'' under ``Other fuels--gaseous'';
0
b. Removing the heading ``Petroleum products'' in the ``Fuel type''
column and adding in its place the heading ``Petroleum products--
liquid''; and
0
c. Adding heading ``Petroleum products--solid'' and its entry
``Petroleum Coke'',and heading ``Petroleum products--gaseous'', and its
entry ``Propane Gas'' after the entry ``Crude Oil''.
The revisions, and additions read as follows:

[[Page 2604]]

Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98--Default CO[ihel2] Emission Factors
and High Heat Values for Various Types of Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default high heat Default CO2
Fuel type value emission factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum products--liquid...... mmBtu/gallon...... kg CO2/mmBtu

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum products--solid....... mmBtu/short ton... kg CO2/mmBtu
Petroleum Coke.................. 30.00............. 102.41
Petroleum products--gaseous..... mmBtu/scf......... kg CO2/mmBtu
Propane Gas..................... 2.516 x 10-\3\.... 61.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
15. Table C-2 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry ``Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)'' and
adding in its place the entry ``Petroleum Products (All fuel types in
Table C-1)'';
0
b. Removing the entry ``Municipal Solid Waste'' and adding in its place
the entry '' Other Fuels--Solid'';
0
c. Removing the entry ``Tires''.
The additions read as follows:

Table C-2 to Subpart C of Part 98--Default CH[ihel4] and N[ihel2]O
Emission Factors for Various Types of Fuel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default CH[ihel4] Default N[ihel2]O
emission factor emission factor
Fuel type (kg CH[ihel4]/ (kg N[ihel2]O/
mmBtu) mmBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Products (All fuel 3.0 x 10-\03\..... 6.0 x 10-\04\
types in Table C-1).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Fuels--Solid.............. 3.2 x 10-\02\..... 4.2 x 10-\03\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Subpart E--Adipic Acid Production

0
16. Section 98.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.53 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
(2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of
determining N2O emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative
method of determining N2O emissions in the previous
reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative
method is automatically approved for the next reporting year.
(ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved
alternative method in your annual report.
(iii) Otherwise, you must submit the request within 45 days
following promulgation of this subpart or within the first 30 days of
each subsequent reporting year.
(iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested
alternative method within 150 days of the end of the reporting year,
you must determine the N2O emissions for the current
reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
0
17. Section 98.56 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.56 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(f) Types of abatement technologies used and date of installation
for each (if applicable).
* * * * *

Subpart F--Aluminum Production

0
18. Section 98.65 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and Equation F-8 to read as follows:

Sec. 98.65 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *
(a) Where anode or paste consumption data are missing,
CO2 emissions can be estimated from aluminum production by
using Equation F-9 of this section.

[[Page 2605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.000

* * * * *
0
19. Section 98.66 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(2) and revising
paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.66 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) Anode effect minutes per cell-day (AE-mins/cell-day), anode
effect frequency (AE/cell-day), anode effect duration (minutes). (Or
anode effect overvoltage factor ((kg CF4/metric ton Al)/(mV/cell day)),
potline overvoltage (mV/cell day), current efficiency (%).)
(3) Smelter-specific slope coefficients (or overvoltage emission
factors) and the last date when the smelter-specific slope coefficients
(or overvoltage emission factors) were measured.
* * * * *

Subpart G--Ammonia Manufacturing

0
20. Section 98.74 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.74 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(f) You may use company records or an engineering estimate to
determine the annual ammonia production and the annual methanol
production.
* * * * *
0
21. Section 98.76 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (7), and revising paragraph (b)(15).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.76 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, then you
must report the relevant information required under Sec. 98.36 for the
Tier 4 Calculation Methodology and the information in paragraphs (a)(1)
through (3) of this section:
* * * * *
(3) Annual ammonia production (metric tons, sum of all process
units reported within subpart G of this part).
(b) * * *
(2) Annual quantity of each type of feedstock consumed for ammonia
manufacturing (scf of feedstock or gallons of feedstock or kg of
feedstock).
* * * * *
(7) Annual average carbon content of each type of feedstock
consumed.
* * * * *
(15) Annual methanol production for each process unit (metric
tons), regardless of whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed,
vented, or sold as product.

Subpart I--Electronics Manufacturing

0
22. Section 98.93 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Revising parameters ``Nil'' and ``Fil'' of
Equation I-12 in paragraph (d);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iv);
0
d. Revising Equation I-17 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii);
0
e. Revising parameter ``dif'' of Equation I-19 in paragraph
(i)(3)(ii);
0
f. Revising parameter ``dkf'' of Equation I-20 in paragraph
(i)(3)(iv);
0
g. Revising parameter ``dif'' of Equation I-21 in paragraph
(i)(3)(v);
0
h. Revising parameter ``dkf'' of Equation I-22 in paragraph
(i)(3)(vi); and
0
i. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(viii) and paragraph (i)(4) introductory
text.
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
(1) If you manufacture semiconductors, you must adhere to the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You
must calculate annual emissions of each input gas and of each by-
product gas using Equations I-6 and I-7 of this subpart, respectively.
If your fab uses less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting
year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your fab's annual
consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation I-11 of
this subpart, plus any by-product emissions of that gas calculated
under paragraph (a) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
* * * * *

Nil = Number of containers of size and type l used at
the fab and returned to the gas distributor containing the standard
heel of input gas i.
Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l
containing input gas i (kg).

* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) You must use representative data from the previous reporting
year to estimate the consumption of input gas i as calculated in
Equation I-13 of this subpart and the fraction of input gas i and by-
product gas k destroyed in abatement systems for each stack system as
calculated by Equations I-24A and I-24B of this subpart. If you were
not required to submit an annual report under subpart I for the
previous reporting year and data from the previous reporting year are
not available, you may estimate the consumption of input gas i and the
fraction of input gas i destroyed in abatement systems based on
representative operating data from a period of at least 30 days in the
current reporting year. When calculating the consumption of input gas i
using Equation I-13 of this subpart, the term ``fij'' is
replaced with the ratio of the number of tools using input gas i that
are vented to the stack system for which you are calculating the
preliminary estimate to the total number of tools in the fab using
input gas i, expressed as a decimal fraction. You may use this approach
to determining fij only for this preliminary estimate.
* * * * *
(iv) If you anticipate an increase or decrease in annual
consumption or emissions of any fluorinated GHG, or the number of tools
connected to abatement systems greater than 10 percent for the current
reporting year compared to the previous reporting year, you must
account for the anticipated change in your preliminary estimate. You
may account for such a change using a quantifiable metric (e.g., the
ratio of the number of tools that are expected to be vented to the
stack system in the current year as compared to the previous reporting
year, ratio of the expected number of wafer starts in the current
reporting year as compared to the previous reporting year), engineering
judgment, or other industry standard practice.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) * * *

[[Page 2606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.001

* * * * *
(iii) * * *
* * * * *
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i
destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools
in fab f, as calculated in Equation I-24A of this subpart (expressed
as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not have abatement
systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of this
parameter is zero.
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
* * * * *
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k
destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools
in fab f, as calculated in Equation I-24B of this subpart (expressed
as decimal fraction).
* * * * *
(v) * * *
* * * * *
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i
destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools
in fab f that are included in the stack testing option, as
calculated in Equation I-24A of this subpart (expressed as decimal
fraction).
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
* * * * *
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k
destroyed or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools
in fab f that are included in the stack testing option, as
calculated in Equation I-24B of this subpart (expressed as decimal
fraction).
* * * * *
(viii) When using the stack testing option described in paragraph
(i) of this section, you must calculate the weighted-average fraction
of each fluorinated input gas i and each fluorinated by-product gas k
destroyed or removed in abatement systems for each fab f, as
applicable, by using Equation I-24A (for input gases) and Equation I-
24B (for by-product gases) of this subpart.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.002

Where:
dif = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated
GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f
(expressed as a decimal fraction).
dkf = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated
GHG by-product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems in
fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction).
Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i
consumed for process type j fed into abatement systems in fab f as
calculated using Equation I-13 of this subpart (kg).
(1--Uij) = The default emission factor for input gas
i used in process type j, from applicable Table I-3 to I-7 of this
subpart.
Bijk = The default by-product gas formation rate
factor for by-product gas k from input gas i used in process type j,
from applicable Table I-3 to I-7 of this subpart.
DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for
fluorinated GHG input gas i in abatement systems connected to
process tools where process type j is used (expressed as a decimal
fraction) determined according to Sec. 98.94(f).
DREjk = Destruction or removal efficiency for
fluorinated GHG by-product gas k in abatement systems connected to
process tools where input gas i is used in process type j (expressed
as a decimal fraction) determined according to Sec. 98.94(f).
f = fab.
i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.
j = Process type.
(4) Method to calculate emissions from stack systems that are not
tested. You must calculate annual fab-level emissions of each
fluorinated GHG input gas and by-product gas for those fluorinated GHG
listed in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using default
utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Tables I-11, I-
12, I-13, I-14, or I-15 of this subpart, as applicable, and by using
Equations I-8, I-9, and I-13 of this subpart. When using Equations I-8,
I-9, and I-13 of this subpart to fulfill the requirements of this
paragraph, you must use, in place of the term Cij in each
equation, the total consumption of each fluorinated GHG meeting the
criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section or that is used in
tools vented to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph
(i)(4)(ii) of this section. You must use, in place of the term
aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in
paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section used in tools with abatement
systems or that is used in tools with abatement systems that are vented
to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of
this section. You also must use the results of Equations I-24A and I-
24B of this subpart in place of the terms dij in Equation I-
8 of this subpart and djk in Equation I-9 of this subpart,
respectively, and use the results of Equation I-23 of this subpart in
place of the results of Equation I-15 of this subpart for the term
UTij.
* * * * *
0
23. Section 98.94 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory
text and paragraph (j)(5)(ii) introductory text to read as follows:

Sec. 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(f) If your fab employs abatement systems and you elect to reflect
emission reductions due to these systems, or if your fab employs
abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHG abatement and you elect
to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack test method
under Sec. 98.93(i), you must comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this section. If you use an average of
properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for a gas and
process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, in your
emission calculations under Sec. 98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), you must
also adhere to procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) * * *

[[Page 2607]]

(5) * * *
(ii) Criteria to test less frequently. After the first 3 years of
annual testing, you may calculate the relative standard deviation of
the emission factors for each fluorinated GHG included in the test and
use that analysis to determine the frequency of any future testing. As
an alternative, you may conduct all three tests in less than 3 calendar
years for purposes of this paragraph (j)(5)(ii), but this does not
relieve you of the obligation to conduct subsequent annual testing if
you do not meet the criteria to test less frequently. If the criteria
specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are met,
you may use the arithmetic average of the three emission factors for
each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product for the current
year and the next 4 years with no further testing unless your fab
operations are changed in a way that triggers the re-test criteria in
paragraph (j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year following the last
stack test included in the previous average, you must test each of the
stack systems for which testing is required and repeat the relative
standard deviation analysis using the results of the most recent three
tests (i.e., the new test and the two previous tests conducted prior to
the 4 year period). If the criteria specified in paragraphs
(j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are not met, you must use the
emission factors developed from the most recent testing and continue
annual testing. You may conduct more than one test in the same year,
but each set of emissions testing for a stack system must be separated
by a period of at least 2 months. You may repeat the relative standard
deviation analysis using the most recent three tests, including those
tests conducted prior to the 4 year period, to determine if you are
exempt from testing for the next 4 years.
* * * * *
0
24. Section 98.96 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and (e);
0
b. Revising parameters ``dif'' and ``dkf'' of Equation I-28 in
paragraph (r)(2); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (y)(2)(iv).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.96 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) When you use the procedures specified in Sec. 98.93(a), each
fluorinated GHG emitted from each process type or process sub-type as
calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 of this subpart, as applicable.
* * * * *
(d) The method of emissions calculation used in Sec. 98.93 for
each fab.
(e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g.,
silicon, PV-cell, glass) for each fab, including specification of the
substrate.
* * * * *
(r) * * *
(2) * * *
* * * * *
dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed
in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as
calculated from Equation I-24A of this subpart, which you used to
calculate total emissions according to the procedures in Sec.
98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
* * * * *
dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed
or removed in abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f,
as calculated from Equation I-24B of this subpart, which you used to
calculate total emissions according to the procedures in Sec.
98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).
* * * * *
(y) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) It must provide any utilization and by-product formation rates
and/or destruction or removal efficiency data that have been collected
in the previous 3 years that support the changes in semiconductor
manufacturing processes described in the report. For any utilization,
by-product formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency
data submitted, the report must describe, where available: methods used
for the measurements, wafer size, film type being manufactured,
substrate type, the linewidth or technology node, process type, process
subtype for chamber clean processes, the input gases used and measured,
the utilization rates measured, and the by-product formation rates
measured.
* * * * *
0
25. Section 98.97 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) introductory
text and (d)(7) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.97 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) In addition to the inventory specified in Sec. 98.96(p), the
information in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:
* * * * *
(7) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made to
determine the average weighted fraction of each gas destroyed or
removed in the abatement systems for each stack system using Equations
I-24A and I-24B of this subpart, if applicable. The inputs should
include an indication of whether each value for destruction or removal
efficiency is a default value or a measured site-specific value.
* * * * *
0
26. Table I-3 of subpart I is amended to read as follows:

Table I-3 to Subpart I of Part 98--Default Emission Factors (1-Uij) for Gas Utilization Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for
Semiconductor Manufacturing for 150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process gas i
Process type/sub-type --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui............................... 0.81 0.72 0.51 0.13 0.064 0.70 NA 0.14 0.19 0.55 0.17 0.072 NA
BCF4............................... NA 0.10 0.085 0.079 0.077 NA NA 0.11 0.0040 0.13 0.13 NA NA
BC2F6.............................. 0.046 NA 0.030 0.025 0.024 0.0034 NA 0.037 0.025 0.11 0.11 0.014 NA
BC4F6.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC4F8.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF8............................... 0.0012 NA 0.0012 NA NA NA NA 0.0086 NA NA NA NA NA
BCHF3.............................. 0.10 0.047 NA 0.049 NA NA NA 0.040 NA 0.0012 0.066 0.0039 NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAMBER CLEANING
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ plasma cleaning:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui............................... 0.92 0.55 NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA NA NA 0.14

[[Page 2608]]

BCF4............................... NA 0.19 NA NA NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.050 NA NA NA 0.13
BCF6............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.045
BC3F8.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remote plasma cleaning:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.017 NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.015 NA NA NA NA
BCF6............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In situ thermal cleaning:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Ui............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BCF4............................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC2F6.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
BC3F8.............................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a
particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.

Subpart N--Glass Production

0
27. Section 98.144 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d)
to read as follows:

Sec. 98.144 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(b) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must measure
carbonate-based mineral mass fractions at least annually to verify the
mass fraction data provided by the supplier of the raw material; such
measurements shall be based on sampling and chemical analysis using
consensus standards that specify X-ray fluorescence. For measurements
made in years prior to the emissions reporting year 2014, you may also
use ASTM D3682-01 (Reapproved 2006) Standard Test Method for Major and
Minor Elements in Combustion Residues from Coal Utilization Processes
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7) or ASTM D6349-09 Standard
Test Method for Determination of Major and Minor Elements in Coal,
Coke, and Solid Residues from Combustion of Coal and Coke by
Inductively Coupled Plasma--Atomic Emission Spectrometry (incorporated
by reference, see Sec. 98.7).
(c) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine the
annual average mass fraction for the carbonate-based mineral in each
carbonate-based raw material by calculating an arithmetic average of
the monthly data obtained from raw material suppliers or sampling and
chemical analysis.
(d) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine on
an annual basis the calcination fraction for each carbonate consumed
based on sampling and chemical analysis using an industry consensus
standard. If performed, this chemical analysis must be conducted using
an x-ray fluorescence test or other enhanced testing method published
by an industry consensus standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API,
etc.).
0
28. Section 98.146 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5)
introductory text and (b)(7) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.146 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the
carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw
material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, as specified in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section.
* * * * *
(7) Method used to determine decimal fraction of calcination,
unless you used the default value of 1.0.
* * * * *
0
29. Section 98.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4)
introductory text, (d)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.147 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Data on carbonate-based mineral mass fractions provided by the
raw material supplier for all raw materials consumed annually and
included in calculating process emissions in Equation N-1 of this
subpart, if applicable.
(4) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the
carbonate-based mineral mass fraction for each carbonate-based raw
material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, including the
data specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this section.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Annual amount of each carbonate-based raw material charged to
each continuous glass melting furnace (tons) (Equation N-1 of this
subpart).
(3) Decimal fraction of calcination achieved for each carbonate-
based raw material for each continuous glass melting furnace (specify
the default value, if used, or the value determined according to Sec.
98.144) (percentage, expressed as a decimal) (Equation N-1 of this
subpart).

Subpart O--HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

0
30. Section 98.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text and (d) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.156 Data reporting requirements.

(a) In addition to the information required by Sec. 98.3(c), the
HCFC-22 production facility shall report the following information for
each HCFC-22 production process:
* * * * *
(d) If the HFC-23 concentration measured pursuant to Sec.
98.154(l) is greater than that measured during the performance test
that is the basis for the destruction efficiency (DE), the facility
shall report the method used to calculate the revised destruction
efficiency, specifying whether

[[Page 2609]]

Sec. 98.154(l)(1) or (2) has been used for the calculation.
* * * * *

Subpart P--Hydrogen Production

0
31. Section 98.163 is amended by revising parameter ``CO2''
of Equation P-3 in paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.163 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
* * * * *
CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from fuel and
feedstock consumption (metric tons/yr).
* * * * *
0
32. Section 98.164 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.164 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Calibrate all oil and gas flow meters that are used to measure
liquid and gaseous fuel and feedstock volumes (except for gas billing
meters) according to the monitoring and QA/QC requirements for the Tier
3 methodology in Sec. 98.34(b)(1). Perform oil tank drop measurements
(if used to quantify liquid fuel or feedstock consumption) according to
Sec. 98.34(b)(2). Calibrate all solids weighing equipment according to
the procedures in Sec. 98.3(i).
* * * * *
0
33. Section 98.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (d), and
(e) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.166 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Annual quantity of ammonia intentionally produced as a desired
product, if applicable (metric tons).
* * * * *
(d) Annual quantity of carbon other than CO2 collected
and transferred off site in either gas, liquid, or solid forms (kg
carbon), excluding methanol.
(e) Annual quantity of methanol intentionally produced as a desired
product, if applicable, (metric tons) for each process unit.

Subpart Q--Iron and Steel Production

0
34. Section 98.173 is amended by revising Equation Q-5 in paragraph
(b)(1)(v) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.173 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.003

* * * * *
0
35. Section 98.176 is amended by revising Equation Q-10 in paragraph
(e)(6)(ii), Equation Q-11 in paragraph (e)(6)(iii), Equation Q-12 in
paragraph (e)(6)(iv), and the parameter ``n'' of Equation Q-12 in
paragraph (e)(6)(iv) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.176 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.004

* * * * *
(iii) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.005

* * * * *
(iv) * * *
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.006

* * * * *
n = Number of gaseous, liquid, and solid fuel inputs to each process
unit as used in Equation Q-9 of this subpart.
* * * * *

Subpart S--Lime Manufacturing

0
36. Section 98.196 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text and adding paragraphs (b)(19) through (21) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.196 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(b) If a CEMS is not used to measure CO2 emissions, then
you must report the information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(21) of this section.
* * * * *
(19) Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced.
(20) Annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by
lime type that is sold.
(21) Annual average results of chemical composition analysis of
each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold.

[[Page 2610]]

Subpart U--Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate

0
37. Section 98.216 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory
text to read as follows:

Sec. 98.216 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(e) If you followed the calculation method of Sec. 98.213(a), you
must report the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this
section.
* * * * *

Subpart V--Nitric Acid Production

0
38. Section 98.220 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.220 Definition of source category.

A nitric acid production facility uses one or more trains to
produce nitric acid. A nitric acid train produces nitric acid through
the catalytic oxidation of ammonia.
0
39. Section 98.223 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.223 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
(2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of
determining N2O emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
through (iv) of this section.
(i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative
method of determining N2O emissions in the previous
reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative
method is automatically approved for the next reporting year.
(ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved
alternative method in your annual report.
(iii) Otherwise, if you have not received Administrator approval
for an alternative method of determining N2O emissions in a
prior reporting year or your methodology has changed, you must submit
the request within the first 30 days of each subsequent reporting year.
(iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested
alternative method within 150 days of the end of the reporting year,
you must determine the N2O emissions for the current
reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of
this section.
* * * * *
0
40. Section 98.226 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.226 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(h) Abatement technologies used (if applicable) and date of
installation of abatement technology.
* * * * *

Subpart X--Petrochemical Production

0
41. Section 98.240 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.240 Definition of the source category.

(a) The petrochemical production source category consists of
processes as described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(1) The petrochemical production source category consists of all
processes that produce acrylonitrile, carbon black, ethylene, ethylene
dichloride, ethylene oxide, or methanol, except as specified in
paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section.
(2) The petrochemical production source category includes processes
that produce the petrochemical as an intermediate in the on-site
production of other chemicals as well as processes that produce the
petrochemical as an end product for sale or shipment off site.
(3) When ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer are
produced in an integrated process, you may consider the entire
integrated process to be the petrochemical process for the purpose of
complying with the mass balance option in Sec. 98.243(c). If you elect
to consider the integrated process to be the petrochemical process,
then the mass balance must be performed over the entire integrated
process.
* * * * *
0
42. Section 98.243 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4)
introductory text, and (c)(4)(i) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.243 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) Collect a sample of each feedstock and product at least once
per month and determine the molecular weight (for gaseous materials
when the quantity is measured in scf) and carbon content of each sample
according to the procedures of Sec. 98.244(b)(4). If multiple valid
molecular weight or carbon content measurements are made during the
monthly measurement period, average them arithmetically. However, if a
particular liquid or solid feedstock is delivered in lots, and if
multiple deliveries of the same feedstock are received from the same
supply source in a given calendar month, only one representative sample
is required. Alternatively, you may use the results of analyses
conducted by a feedstock supplier, or product customer, provided the
sampling and analysis is conducted at least once per month using any of
the procedures specified in Sec. 98.244(b)(4).
(4) If you determine that the monthly average concentration of a
specific compound in a feedstock or product is greater than 99.5
percent by volume or mass, then as an alternative to the sampling and
analysis specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, you may
determine molecular weight and carbon content in accordance with
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Calculate the molecular weight and carbon content assuming 100
percent of that feedstock or product is the specific compound.
* * * * *
0
43. Section 98.246 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6)(ii), and (a)(6)(iii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) and (15); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (8).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.246 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(5) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from
each process unit (metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an
integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer process,
report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric tons)
or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production
(metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride production
(metric tons).
(6) * * *
(ii) Description of each type of measurement device (e.g., flow
meter, weighing device) used to determine volume or mass in accordance
with Sec. 98.244(b)(1) through (3).
(iii) Identification of each method (i.e., method number, title, or
other description) used to determine volume or mass in accordance with
Sec. 98.244(b)(1) through (3).
* * * * *
(14) Annual average of the measurements of the carbon content of
each feedstock and product.
(i) For feedstocks and products that are gaseous or solid, report
this quantity in kg carbon per kg of feedstock or product.
(ii) For liquid feedstocks and products, report this quantity
either in units of kg carbon per kg of feedstock or production, or kg C
per gallon of feedstock or product.

[[Page 2611]]

(15) For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of
the measurements of molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole.
(b) * * *
(2) For CEMS used on stacks that include emissions from stationary
combustion units that burn any amount of off-gas from the petrochemical
process, report the relevant information required under Sec.
98.36(c)(2) and (e)(2)(vi) for the Tier 4 calculation methodology.
Section 98.36(c)(2)(ii), (ix) and (x) does not apply for the purposes
of this subpart.
(3) For CEMS used on stacks that do not include emissions from
stationary combustion units, report the information required under
Sec. 98.36(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii) and (e)(2)(vi).
* * * * *
(8) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from
each process unit (metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an
integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer process,
report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric tons)
or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production
(metric tons) and an estimate of the ethylene dichloride product
(metric tons).
* * * * *
0
44. Section 98.247 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.247 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
(a) If you comply with the CEMS measurement methodology in Sec.
98.243(b), then you must retain under this subpart the records required
for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in Sec. 98.37, records of the
procedures used to develop estimates of the fraction of total emissions
attributable to petrochemical processing and combustion of
petrochemical process off-gas as required in Sec. 98.246(b), and
records of any annual average HHV calculations.
* * * * *
0
45. Section 98.248 is amended by revising the definition for
``Product'' to read as follows:

Sec. 98.248 Definitions.

* * * * *
Product means each of the following carbon-containing outputs from
a process: the petrochemical, recovered byproducts, and liquid organic
wastes that are not combusted onsite. Product does not include process
vent emissions, fugitive emissions, or wastewater.

Subpart Y--Petroleum Refineries

0
46. Section 98.253 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii)(B), (h)(1)
introductory text, and (h)(2) introductory text;
0
b. Revising parameters ``0.98'' of Equations Y-16a and Y-16b and
``0.02'' of Equation Y-17 in paragraph (h)(2); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) introductory text.
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.253 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
(b) For flares, calculate GHG emissions according to the
requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section. All gas
discharged through the flare stack must be considered for the flare GHG
emissions calculations with the exception of gas used for the flare
pilots, which may be excluded.
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) For periods of normal operation, use the average higher heating
value measured for the fuel gas used as flare sweep or purge gas for
the higher heating value of the flare gas. If higher heating value of
the fuel gas is not measured, the higher heating value of the flare gas
under normal operations may be estimated from historic data or
engineering calculations.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) For uncontrolled asphalt blowing operations or asphalt blowing
operations controlled either by vapor scrubbing or by another non-
combustion control device, calculate CO2 and CH4
emissions using Equations Y-14 and Y-15 of this section, respectively.
* * * * *
(2) For asphalt blowing operations controlled by either a thermal
oxidizer, a flare, or other vapor combustion control device, calculate
CO2 using either Equation Y-16a or Equation Y-16b of this
section and calculate CH4 emissions using Equation Y-17 of
this section, provided these emissions are not already included in the
flare emissions calculated in paragraph (b) of this section or in the
stationary combustion unit emissions required under subpart C of this
part (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).
* * * * *

(Eq. Y-16a) * * *
* * * * *
0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device.
* * * * *

(Eq. Y-16b) * * *
* * * * *
0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device.
* * * * *

(Eq. Y-17) * * *
* * * * *
0.02 = Fraction of methane uncombusted in the controlled stream based
on assumed 98% combustion efficiency.
* * * * *
(i) For each delayed coking unit, calculate the CH4
emissions from delayed decoking operations (venting, draining,
deheading, and coke-cutting) according to the requirements in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this section.
(1) Determine the typical dry mass of coke produced per cycle from
company records of the mass of coke produced by the delayed coking
unit. Alternatively, you may estimate the typical dry mass of coke
produced per cycle based on the delayed coking unit vessel (coke drum)
dimensions and typical coke drum outage at the end of the coking cycle
using Equation Y-18a of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.007

Where:

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking
unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle).
[rho]bulk = Bulk coke bed density (metric tons per cubic
feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0191 mt/ft3.
Hdrum = Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel
(feet).
Houtage = Typical distance from the top of the delayed
coking unit vessel to the top of the coke bed (i.e., coke drum
outage) at the end of the coking cycle (feet) from

[[Page 2612]]

company records or engineering estimates.
D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet).

(2) Determine the typical mass of water in the delayed coking unit
vessel at the end of the cooling cycle prior to venting to the
atmosphere using Equation Y-18b of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.008

Where:

Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel
at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting
(metric tons/cycle).
[rho]water = Density of water at average temperature of
the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle just
prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3).
Use the default value of 0.0270 mt/ft3.
Hwater = Typical distance from the bottom of the coking
unit vessel to the top of the water level at the end of the cooling
cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (feet) from company records
or engineering estimates.
Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking
unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as
determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
[rho]particle = Particle density of coke (metric tons per
cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0382 mt/ft3.
D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet).

(3) Determine the average temperature of the delayed coking unit
vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere using either
Equation Y-18c or Y-18d of this section, as appropriate, based on the
measurement system available.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.009

Where:

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit
vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere ([deg]F).
Toverhead = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel
overhead line measured as near the coking unit vessel as practical
just prior to venting to the atmosphere. If the temperature of the
delayed coking unit vessel overhead line is less than
216[emsp14][deg]F, use Toverhead = 216[emsp14][deg]F.
Tbottom = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel
near the bottom of the coke bed. If the temperature at the bottom of
the coke bed is less than 212[emsp14][deg]F, use Tbottom
= 212[emsp14][deg]F.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.010

Where:

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit
vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere ([deg]F).
Poverhead = Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel
just prior to opening the atmospheric vent (pounds per square inch
gauge, psig).

(4) Determine the typical mass of steam generated and released per
decoking cycle using Equation Y-18e of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.011

Where:

Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per
decoking cycle (metric tons/cycle).
fConvLoss = fraction of total heat loss that is due to
convective heat loss from the sides of the coke vessel (unitless).
Use the default value of 0.10.
Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel
at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting
(metric tons/cycle).
Cp,water = Heat capacity of water (British thermal units
per metric ton per degree Fahrenheit; Btu/mt-[deg]F). Use the
default value of 2,205 Btu/mt-[deg]F.
Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking
unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as
determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
Cp,coke = Heat capacity of petroleum coke (Btu/mt-
[deg]F). Use the default value of 584 Btu/mt-[deg]F.
Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit
vessel when the drum is first vented to the atmosphere ([deg]F) as
determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
Tfinal = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel
when steam generation stops ([deg]F). Use the default value of
212[emsp14][deg]F.
[Delta]Hvap = Heat of vaporization of water (British
thermal units per metric ton; Btu/mt). Use the default value of
2,116,000 Btu/mt.

(5) Calculate the CH4 emissions from decoking operations at
each delayed coking unit using Equation Y-18f of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.012

[[Page 2613]]

Where:

CH4 = Annual methane emissions from the delayed coking
unit decoking operations (metric ton/year).
Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per
decoking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(3)
of this section.
EmFDCU = Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit
(kilograms CH4 per metric ton of steam; kg
CH4/mt steam) from unit-specific measurement data. If you
do not have unit-specific measurement data, use the default value of
7.9 kg CH4/metric ton steam.
N = Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles)
for all delayed coking unit vessels associated with the delayed
coking unit during the year.
0.001 = Conversion factor (metric ton/kg).

(j) For each process vent not covered in paragraphs (a) through (i)
of this section that can reasonably be expected to contain greater than
2 percent by volume CO2 or greater than 0.5 percent by
volume of CH4 or greater than 0.01 percent by volume (100
parts per million) of N2O, calculate GHG emissions using Equation Y-19
of this section. You must also use Equation Y-19 of this section to
calculate CH4 emissions for catalytic reforming unit
depressurization and purge vents when methane is used as the purge gas,
and CO2 and/or CH4 emissions, as applicable, if
you elected this method as an alternative to the methods in paragraphs
(f), (h), or (k) of this section.
* * * * *
0
47. Section 98.254 is amended by revising paragraph (j), redesignating
paragraph (k) as paragraph (l), and adding new paragraph (k) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.254 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(j) Determine the quantity of petroleum process streams using
company records. These quantities include the quantity of coke produced
per cycle, asphalt blown, quantity of crude oil plus the quantity of
intermediate products received from off site, and the quantity of
unstabilized crude oil received at the facility.
(k) Determine temperature or pressure of delayed coking unit vessel
using process instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated
according to the manufacturer's instructions.
* * * * *
0
48. Section 98.256 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3) and (6),
(h)(5)(ii)(A), and (k) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.256 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) A description of the flare service (general facility flare,
unit flare, emergency only or back-up flare) and an indication of
whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system.
* * * * *
(6) If you use Equation Y-1a in Sec. 98.253, an indication of
whether daily or weekly measurement periods are used, annual average
carbon content of the flare gas (in kg carbon per kg flare gas), and,
either the annual volume of flare gas combusted (in scf/year) and the
annual average molecular weight (in kg/kg-mole), or, the annual mass of
flare gas combusted (in kg/yr).
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(5) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) The annual volume of recycled tail gas (in scf/year).
* * * * *
(k) For each delayed coking unit, the owner or operator shall
report:
(1) The unit ID number (if applicable).
(2) Maximum rated throughput of the unit, in bbl/stream day.
(3) Annual quantity of coke produced in the unit during the
reporting year, in metric tons.
(4) The calculated annual CH4 emissions (in metric tons
of CH4) for the delayed coking unit.
(5) The total number of delayed coking vessels (or coke drums)
associated with the delayed coking unit.
(6) The basis for the typical dry mass of coke in the delayed
coking unit vessel at the end of the coking cycle (mass measurements
from company records or calculated using Equation Y-18a of this
subpart).
(7) An indication of the method used to estimate the average
temperature of the coke bed, Tinitial (overhead temperature
and Equation Y-18c of this subpart or pressure correlation and Equation
Y-18d of this subpart).
(8) An indication of whether a unit-specific methane emissions
factor or the default methane emission factor was used for the delayed
coking unit.
* * * * *
0
49. Section 98.257 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(41) through (45);
0
b. Removing paragraph (b)(46)
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) through (67) as paragraphs (b)(53)
through (73);
0
d. Adding new paragraphs (b)(46) through (52); and
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(65).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.257 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
(b) Verification software records. You must keep a record of the
file generated by the verification software specified in Sec. 98.5(b)
for the applicable data specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (73) of
this section. Retention of this file satisfies the recordkeeping
requirement for the data in paragraphs (b)(1) through (73) of this
section.
* * * * *
(41) Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at
the end of the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) from company records or
calculated using Equation Y-18a of this subpart (Equations Y-18a, Y-18b
and Y-18e in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking unit.
(42) Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equation
Y-18a in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking unit.
(43) Typical distance from the top of the delayed coking unit
vessel to the top of the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at the end
of the coking cycle (feet) from company records or engineering
estimates (Equation Y-18a in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking
unit.
(44) Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equations Y-18a
and Y-18b in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking unit.
(45) Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of
the cooling cycle prior to atmospheric venting (metric ton/cycle)
(Equations Y-18b and Y-18e in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking
unit.
(46) Typical distance from the bottom of the coking unit vessel to
the top of the water level at the end of the cooling cycle just prior
to atmospheric venting (feet) from company records or engineering
estimates (Equation Y-18b in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking
unit.
(47) Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle
(metric tons/cycle) (Equations Y-18e and Y-18f in Sec. 98.253) for
each delayed coking unit.
(48) Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the
drum is first vented to the atmosphere ([deg]F) (Equations Y-18c, Y-
18d, and Y-18e in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking unit.
(49) Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line
measured as near the coking unit vessel as practical just prior to
venting the atmosphere (Equation Y-18c in Sec. 98.253) for each
delayed coking unit.
(50) Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel just prior to
opening the atmospheric vent (psig) (Equation Y-18d in Sec. 98.253)
for each delayed coking unit.

[[Page 2614]]

(51) Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit (kilograms
CH4 per metric ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam)
(Equation Y-18f in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed coking unit.
(52) Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles)
for all delayed coking unit vessels associated with the delayed coking
unit during the year (Equation Y-18f in Sec. 98.253) for each delayed
coking unit.
* * * * *
(65) Specify whether the calculated or default loading factor L
specified in Sec. 98.253(n) is entered, for each liquid loaded to each
vessel (methods specified in Sec. 98.253(n)).
* * * * *

Subpart Z--Phosphoric Acid Production

0
50. Section 98.266 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.266 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) Annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-
process phosphoric acid process line.
* * * * *

Subpart AA--Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

0
51. Section 98.273 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1),
and (c)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.273 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
(1) Calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions from
direct measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default emissions
factors according to the Tier 1 methodology for stationary combustion
sources in Sec. 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from Sec. 98.33(a)(2) or
(3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions
if the respective monitoring and QA/QC requirements described in Sec.
98.34 are met.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Calculate fossil CO2 emissions from fossil fuels
from direct measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default emissions
factors according to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology for stationary
combustion sources in Sec. 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from Sec.
98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based
CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC
requirements described in Sec. 98.34 are met.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Calculate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel from direct
measurement of fossil fuels consumed and default HHV and default
emissions factors, according to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology for
stationary combustion sources in Sec. 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from
Sec. 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based
CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC
requirements described in Sec. 98.34 are met.
* * * * *
0
52. Section 98.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.275 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *
(b) For missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or
spent pulping liquor flow rates, use the lesser value of either the
maximum mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or the maximum
mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure. Alternatively,
records of the daily spent liquor solids firing rate obtained to comply
with Sec. 63.866(c)(1) of this chapter may be used, adjusting for the
duration of the missing measurements, as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
53. Table AA-2 to Subpart AA of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the column headings for ``Kraft lime kilns'' and ``Kraft
calciners'';
0
b. Revising the entry for ``Petroleum coke''; and
0
c. Revising the footnotes.
The revisions read as follows:

Table AA-2 to Subpart AA of Part 98--Kraft Lime Kiln and Calciner Emissions Factors for CH4 and N2O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil fuel-based emissions factors (kg/mmBtu HHV)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Kraft rotary lime kilns Kraft calciners \a\
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CH4 N2O CH4 N2O
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Petroleum coke.............................. 0.0027 0 \b\ NA \b\ NA

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes, for example, fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills.
\b\ Emission factors for kraft calciners are not available.

Subpart CC--Soda Ash Manufacturing

0
54. Section 98.294 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.294 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Measure the mass of trona input to each soda ash manufacturing
line on a monthly basis using belt scales or methods used for
accounting purposes.
* * * * *
0
55. Section 98.296 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding
paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.296 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the
facility level (tons).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the
facility level (tons).
* * * * *

[[Page 2615]]

Subpart DD--Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

0
56. Section 98.306 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and
adding paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (m), and (n) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.306 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.
(3) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.
(4) Retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the
year.
(5) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.
* * * * *
(m) State(s) or territory in which the facility lies and total
miles of transmission and distribution lines located within each state
or territory.
(n) The following numbers of pieces of equipment:
(1) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.
(2) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.
(3) Retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the
year.
(4) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than
hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.

Subpart FF--Underground Coal Mines

0
57. Section 98.323 is amended by:
0
a. Revising parameter ``n'' of Equation FF-1 in paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text and paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising parameter ``CH4D'' and ``n'' of Equation FF-3 in
paragraph (b); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph (b)(2) introductory text.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.323 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
* * * * *
n = The number of days in the quarter where active ventilation of
mining operations is taking place at the monitoring point. To obtain
the number of days in the quarter, divide the total number of hours
in the quarter where active ventilation is taking place by 24 hours
per day.
* * * * *
(1) The quarterly periods are:
* * * * *
(2) Values of V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O),
must be based on measurements taken at least once each quarter with no
fewer than 6 weeks between measurements. If measurements are taken more
frequently than once per quarter, then use the average value for all
measurements taken that quarter. If continuous measurements are taken,
then use the average value over the time period of continuous
monitoring.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
* * * * *
CH4D = Weekly CH4 liberated from the
monitoring point (metric tons CH4).
* * * * *
n = The number of days in the week that the system is operational at
that measurement point. To obtain the number of days in the week,
divide the total number of hours that the system is operational by
24 hours per day.
* * * * *
(1) Values for V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O),
must be based on measurements taken at least once each calendar week
with at least 3 days between measurements. If measurements are taken
more frequently than once per week, then use the average value for all
measurements taken that week. If continuous measurements are taken,
then use the average values over the time period of continuous
monitoring when the continuous monitoring equipment is properly
functioning.
(2) Quarterly total CH4 liberated from degasification
systems for the mine must be determined as the sum of CH4
liberated determined at each of the monitoring points in the mine,
summed over the number of weeks in the quarter, as follows:
* * * * *
0
58. Section 98.324 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (h).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.324 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Collect quarterly or more frequent grab samples (with no fewer
than 6 weeks between measurements) for methane concentration and make
quarterly measurements of flow rate, temperature, pressure, and, if
applicable, moisture content. The sampling and measurements must be
made at the same locations as Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) inspection samples are taken, and should be taken when the mine
is operating under normal conditions. You must follow MSHA sampling
procedures as set forth in the MSHA Handbook entitled, Coal Mine Safety
and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-V-1,
February 2013 (incorporated by reference, see Sec. 98.7). You must
record the date of sampling, flow, temperature, pressure, and moisture
measurements, the methane concentration (percent), the bottle number of
samples collected, and the location of the measurement or collection.
* * * * *
(h) The owner or operator shall document the procedures used to
ensure the accuracy of gas flow rate, gas composition, temperature,
pressure, and moisture content measurements. These procedures include,
but are not limited to, calibration of flow meters, and other
measurement devices. The estimated accuracy of measurements and the
technical basis for the estimated accuracy shall be recorded.
0
59. Section 98.326 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) through (i),
(o), (r)(2) and (r)(3), and adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.326 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(f) Quarterly volumetric flow rate for each ventilation monitoring
point and units of measure (scfm or acfm), date and location of each
measurement, and method of measurement (quarterly sampling or
continuous monitoring), used in Equation FF-1 of this subpart. Specify
whether the volumetric flow rate measurement at each ventilation
monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis; or, if a flow meter is
used, indicate whether or not the flow meter automatically corrects for
moisture content.
(g) Quarterly CH4 concentration for each ventilation
monitoring point, dates and locations of each measurement, and method
of measurement (sampling or continuous monitoring). Specify whether the
CH4 concentration measurement at each ventilation monitoring
point is on dry basis or wet basis.
(h) Weekly volumetric flow rate used to calculate CH4
liberated from degasification systems and units of measure (acfm or
scfm), and method of measurement (sampling or continuous monitoring),
used in Equation FF-3 of this subpart. Specify whether the volumetric
flow rate measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on dry
basis or wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, indicate whether or
not

[[Page 2616]]

the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture content.
(i) Quarterly CH4 concentration (%) used to calculate
CH4 liberated from degasification systems, and if the data
is based on CEMS or weekly sampling. Specify whether the CH4
concentration measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on
dry basis or wet basis.
* * * * *
(o) Temperature ([deg]R), pressure (atm), moisture content (if
applicable), and the moisture correction factor (if applicable) used in
Equations FF-1 and FF-3 of this subpart; and the gaseous organic
concentration correction factor, if Equation FF-9 of this subpart was
required. Moisture content is required to be reported only if
CH4 concentration is measured on a wet basis and volumetric
flow is measured on a dry basis, if CH4 concentration is
measured on a dry basis and volumetric flow is measured on a wet basis;
or, if a flow meter is used, the flow meter does not automatically
correct for moisture content.
* * * * *
(r) * * *
(2) Start date and close date of each well, shaft, and vent hole.
If the well, shaft, or vent hole is operating through the end of the
reporting year, December 31st of the reporting year shall be the close
date for purposes of reporting.
(3) Number of days the well, shaft, or vent hole was in operation
during the reporting year. To obtain the number of days in the
reporting year, divide the total number of hours that the system was in
operation by 24 hours per day.
* * * * *
(u) Annual coal production in short tons for the reporting year.

Subpart HH--Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

0
60. Section 98.346 is amended by revising paragraphs (f), (i)(5), and
(i)(7), and adding paragraph (i)(13) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.346 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(f) The surface area of the landfill containing waste (in square
meters), identification of the type(s) of cover material used (as
either organic cover, clay cover, sand cover, or other soil mixtures).
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(5) An indication of whether destruction occurs at the landfill
facility, off-site, or both. If destruction occurs at the landfill
facility, also report for each measurement location:
(i) The number of destruction devices associated with the
measurement location.
(ii) The annual operating hours of the gas collection system
associated with the measurement location,
(iii) For each destruction device associated with the measurement
location, report:
(A) The destruction efficiency (decimal).
(B) The annual operating hours where active gas flow was sent to
the destruction device.
* * * * *
(7) A description of the gas collection system (manufacturer,
capacity, and number of wells), the surface area (square meters) and
estimated waste depth (meters) for each area specified in Table HH-3 to
this subpart, the estimated gas collection system efficiency for
landfills with this gas collection system and an indication of whether
the gas collection efficiency was determined on an area-weighted
average basis (Option 1) or a volume-weighted average basis (Option 2),
and an indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares (vents
or flares that are not considered part of the gas collection system as
defined in Sec. 98.6) are present at the landfill.
* * * * *
(13) Methane emissions for the landfill (i.e., the subpart HH total
methane emissions). Choose the methane emissions from either Equation
HH-6 of this subpart or Equation HH-8 of this subpart that best
represents the emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of
recovered CH4 from Equation HH-4 of this subpart is used as
the value of GCH4 in Equation HH-6 of this subpart, use the
methane emissions calculated using Equation HH-8 of this subpart as the
methane emissions for the landfill.
0
61. Section 98.348 is amended by adding definitions for ``Active
venting,'' ``Alternative final cover,'' ``Intermediate or interim
cover,'' and ``Passive vent'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec. 98.348 Definitions.

* * * * *
Active venting means a pipe or a system of pipes used with a fan or
similar mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) used to actively
assist the flow of landfill gas to the surface of the landfill where
the landfill gas is discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to
a non-combustion control device (such as a carbon absorber) and then to
the atmosphere.
Alternative final cover means materials, other than soil, used at a
landfill that meets final closure regulations of the competent federal,
state, or local authority. Alternative final covers may include, but
are not limited to, evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier
covers, asphalt covers, or concrete covers. The state, local, or other
agency responsible for permitting the landfill determines whether an
alternative final cover meets the applicable regulatory requirements
and has been shown to adequately protect human health and the
environment.
* * * * *
Intermediate or interim cover means the placement of material over
waste in a landfill for a period of time prior to the disposal of
additional waste and/or final closure as defined by state regulation,
permit, guidance or written plan, or state accepted best management
practice.
* * * * *
Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that allows landfill
gas to flow naturally, without the use of a fan or similar mechanical
draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill where an opening or
pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere
or to a passive vent flare without diffusion through the top layer of
surface soil.
* * * * *
0
62. Table HH-3 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``A5'';
0
b. Removing the entry ``Area weighted average collection efficiency for
landfills''; and
0
c. Adding heading ``Weighted average collection efficiency for
landfills'' and entries for ``Option 1'' and ``Option 2'' after the
entry for ``A5''.
The revision and additions read as follows:

Table HH-3 to Subpart HH of Part 98--Landfill Gas Collection
Efficiencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landfill gas collection
Description efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2617]]

* * * * * * *
A5: Area with a final soil cover of 3 CE5: 95%.
feet or thicker of clay or alternative
final cover (as approved by the
relevant agency) and/or geomembrane
cover system and active gas collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1: Area weighted average CEave1 = (A2*CE2 + A3*CE3 +
collection efficiency for landfills. A4*CE4 + A5*CE5)/(A2 + A3 + A4
+ A5).
Option 2: Volume weighted average CEave1 = (A2*D2*CE2 + A3*D3*CE3
collection efficiency for landfills, + A4*D4*CE4 + A5*D5*CE5)/
where D2, D3, D4 and D5 are the waste (A2*D2 + A3*D3 + A4*D4 +
depths for areas A2, A3, A4 and A5, A5*D5).
respectively, as described in this
table..
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
63. Table HH-4 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entries ``C2'' through ``C7'';
0
b. Redesignating footnote ``a'' as footnote ``b''; and
0
c. Adding new footnote ``a''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Table HH-4 to Subpart HH of Part 98--Landfill Methane Oxidation
Fractions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Use this landfill
Under these conditions: methane oxidation
fraction:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
C2: For landfills that have an alternative final 0.0
cover (approved by the relevant agency) and/or a
geomembrane (synthetic) cover with less than 12
inches of cover soil for greater than 50% of the
landfill area containing waste......................
C3: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in 0.10
C2 above and for which you elect not to determine
methane flux, or for landfills with passive vents/
passive flares that service greater than 50% of the
landfill area containing waste, or for landfills
with only passive vents/passive flares or active
venting.............................................
C4: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in 0.10
C2 above and that do not have intermediate or
interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill
area containing waste...............................
C5: For landfills that have intermediate or interim 0.35
cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area
containing waste and for which the methane flux rate
b is less than 10 grams per square meter per day (g/
m2/d)...............................................
C6: For landfills that have intermediate or interim 0.25
cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area
containing waste and for which the methane flux rate
b is 10 to 70 g/m2/d................................
C7: For landfills that have intermediate or interim 0.10
cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area
containing waste and for which the methane flux rate
b is greater than 70 g/m2/d.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Where a landfill is located in a state that does not have an
intermediate or interim cover requirement, the landfill must have soil
cover of 12 inches or greater in order to use an oxidation fraction of
0.25 or 0.35.
\b\ Methane flux rate (in grams per square meter per day; g/m2/d) is the
mass flow rate of methane per unit area at the bottom of the surface
soil prior to any oxidation and is calculated as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA16.013

[[Page 2618]]

Where:

MF = Methane flux rate from the landfill in the reporting year
(grams per square meter per day, g/m\2\/d).
K = unit conversion factor = 10\6\/365 (g/metric ton per days/year)
or 10\6\/366 for a leap year.
SArea = The surface area of the landfill containing waste at the
beginning of the reporting year (square meters, m\2\).
GCH4 = Modeled methane generation rate in reporting year
from Equation HH-1 of this subpart or Equation TT-1 of subpart TT of
this part, as applicable, except for application with Equation HH-6
of this subpart (metric tons CH4). For application with
Equation HH-6 of this subpart, the greater of the modeled methane
generation rate in reporting year from Equation HH-1 of this subpart
or Equation TT-1 of this part, as applicable, and the quantity of
recovered CH4 from Equation HH-4 of this subpart (metric
tons CH4).
CE = Collection efficiency estimated at landfill, taking into
account system coverage, operation, and cover system materials from
Table HH-3 of this subpart. If area by soil cover type information
is not available, use default value of 0.75 (CE4 in table HH-3 of
this subpart) for all areas under active influence of the collection
system.
N = Number of landfill gas measurement locations (associated with a
destruction device or gas sent off-site). If a single monitoring
location is used to monitor volumetric flow and CH4
concentration of the recovered gas sent to one or multiple
destruction devices, then N = 1.
Rn = Quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation
HH-4 of this subpart for the nth measurement location (metric tons).
fRec,n = Fraction of hours the recovery system associated
with the nth measurement location was operating (annual operating
hours/8760 hours per year or annual operating hours/8784 hours per
year for a leap year).

Subpart II--Industrial Wastewater Treatment

0
64. Section 98.356 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory
text and adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.356 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) Identify the anaerobic processes used in the industrial
wastewater treatment system to treat industrial wastewater and
industrial wastewater treatment sludge, provide a unique identifier for
each anaerobic process, indicate the average depth in meters of each
anaerobic lagoon, and indicate whether biogas generated by each
anaerobic process is recovered. Provide a description or diagram of the
industrial wastewater treatment system, identifying the processes used,
indicating how the processes are related to each other, and providing a
unique identifier for each anaerobic process. Each anaerobic processes
must be identified as one of the following:
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) If the facility performs an ethanol production processing
operation as defined in Sec. 98.358, you must indicate if the facility
uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process.
* * * * *
0
65. Section 98.358 is amended by adding definitions for ``Dry
milling,'' ``Wet milling,'' and ``Weekly average'' in alphabetical
order to read as follows:

Sec. 98.358 Definitions.

* * * * *
Dry milling means the process in which shelled corn is milled by
dry process, without an initial steeping step.
* * * * *
Wet milling means the process in which shelled corn is steeped in a
dilute solution of sulfurous acid (sulfur dioxide dissolved in water)
prior to further processing.
Weekly average means the sum of all values measured in a calendar
week divided by the number of measurements.

Subpart LL--Suppliers of Coal-Based Liquid Fuels

0
66. Section 98.382 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.382 GHGs to report.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must report the CO2
emissions that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation
of fossil-fuel products (besides coal or crude oil) produced, used as
feedstock, imported, or exported during the calendar year.
Additionally, producers must report CO2 emissions that would
result from the complete combustion or oxidation of any biomass co-
processed with fossil fuel-based feedstocks.
0
67. Section 98.383 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.383 Calculating GHG emissions.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the calculation
methods of Sec. 98.393 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-
liquid product supplier (i.e., calculation methods for refiners apply
to producers of coal-to-liquid products and calculation methods for
importers and exporters of petroleum products apply to importers and
exporters of coal-to-liquid products).
(a) In calculation methods in Sec. 98.393 for petroleum products
or petroleum-based products, suppliers of coal-to-liquid products shall
also include coal-to-liquid products.
(b) In calculation methods in Sec. 98.393 for non-crude feedstocks
or non-crude petroleum feedstocks, producers of coal-to-liquid products
shall also include coal-to-liquid products that enter the facility to
be further processed or otherwise used on site.
(c) In calculation methods in Sec. 98.393 for petroleum
feedstocks, suppliers of coal-to-liquid products shall also include
coal and coal-to-liquid products that enter the facility to be further
processed or otherwise used on site.
0
68. Section 98.384 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.384 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the monitoring and
QA/QC requirements in Sec. 98.394 as if they applied to the
appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier. Any monitoring and QA/QC
requirement for petroleum products in Sec. 98.394 also applies to
coal-to-liquid products.
0
69. Section 98.385 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.385 Procedures for estimating missing data.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the procedures for
estimating missing data in Sec. 98.395 as if they applied to the
appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier. Any procedure for
estimating missing data for petroleum products in Sec. 98.395 also
applies to coal-to-liquid products.
0
70. Section 98.386 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4) and (8);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(9) introductory text, (a)(10) introductory
text, and (a)(11) introductory text;
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(15);
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(20);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(6) introductory
text;
0
g. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and
0
h. Revising paragraphs (c)(5) introductory text and (c)(6) introductory
text.
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.386 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(9) For every feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section for which Calculation Method 2 in

[[Page 2619]]

Sec. 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(10) For every non-solid feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of
this section for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) was
used to determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(11) For every product reported in paragraph (a)(6) of this section
for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) was used to
determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(20) Annual quantity of bulk NGLs in metric tons or barrels
received for processing during the reporting year. Report only
quantities of bulk NGLs not reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(b) * * *
(5) For each product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) used was used to
determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) was used
to determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) For each product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) was used to
determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
(6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section for which Calculation Method 2 in Sec. 98.393(f)(2) used was
used to determine an emissions factor, report:
* * * * *
0
71. Section 98.387 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.387 Records that must be retained.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must retain records according
to the requirements in Sec. 98.397 as if they applied to the
appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier (e.g., retaining copies of
all reports submitted to EPA under Sec. 98.386 and records to support
information contained in those reports). Any records for petroleum
products that are required to be retained in Sec. 98.397 are also
required for coal-to-liquid products.

Subpart MM--Suppliers of Petroleum Products

Sec. 98.395 [Amended]

0
72. Section 98.395 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

Subpart NN--Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

0
73. Section 98.401 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.401 Reporting threshold.

Any supplier of natural gas and natural gas liquids that meets the
requirements of Sec. 98.2(a)(4) must report GHG emissions associated
with the products they supply.
0
74. Section 98.403 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-1 in paragraph
(a)(1) and adding in its place a parameter for ``CO2i'';
0
c. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-2 in paragraph
(a)(2) and adding in its place a parameter for ``CO2i'';
0
e. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-3 in paragraph
(b)(1) and adding in its place a parameter for ``CO2j'';
0
f. Revising parameter ``Fuel'' of Equation NN-3 in paragraph (b)(1);
0
g. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-4 in paragraph
(b)(2)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for ``CO2k'';
0
g. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-5a in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) and adding in its place a parameter for
``CO2l'';
0
h. Revising parameter ``EF'' of Equation NN-5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i);
0
i. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-5b in
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for
``CO2n'';
0
j. Revising the parameters of Equation NN-6 in paragraph (b)(4);
0
k. Removing parameter ``CO2.'' of Equation NN-7 in paragraph
(c)(1)(ii) and adding in its place a parameter for ``CO2m'';
0
l. Revising parameter ``Fuelg'' of Equation NN-7 in
paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and
0
m. Revising the parameters of Equation NN-8 in paragraph (c)(2).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.403 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *
(1) Calculation Methodology 1. NGL fractionators shall estimate
CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion
or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using Equation NN-1 of this
section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall
include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or
more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The
annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall exclude any amount of
that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated
by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs). LDCs
shall estimate CO2 emissions that would result from the
complete combustion or oxidation of the natural gas received at the
city gate (including natural gas that is transported by, but not owned
by, the reporter) using Equation NN-1 of this section. For each
product, use the default value for higher heating value and
CO2 emission factor in Table NN-1 of this subpart.
Alternatively, for each product, a reporter-specific higher heating
value and CO2 emission factor may be used, in place of one
or both defaults provided they are developed using methods outlined in
Sec. 98.404. For each product, you must use the same volume unit
throughout the equation.
* * * * *
CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of each product ``h'' for
redelivery to all recipients (metric tons).
* * * * *
(2) Calculation Methodology 2. NGL fractionators shall estimate
CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion
or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using Equation NN-2 of this
section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied
(Fuelh) shall include any amount of that NGL supplied in a
mixture or blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2
of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall
exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the
facility not fractionated by the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and
other bulk NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2 emissions that
would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the natural
gas received at the city gate (including natural gas that is
transported by, but not owned by, the reporter) using Equation NN-2 of
this section. For each product, use the default CO2 emission
factor found in Table NN-2 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each
product, a reporter-specific CO2 emission factor may be used
in place of the default factor, provided it is developed using methods
outlined in Sec. 98.404. For each

[[Page 2620]]

product, you must use the same volume unit throughout the equation.
* * * * *
CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of each product ``h''
(metric tons)
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * *
CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas for
redelivery to transmission pipelines or other LDCs (metric tons).
Fuel = Total annual volume of natural gas supplied to downstream gas
transmission pipelines and other local distribution companies (Mscf
per year).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
* * * * *
CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to
each large end-user k, as defined in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section (metric tons).
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
* * * * *
CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of the net change in natural
gas stored on system by the LDC within the reporting year (metric
tons).
* * * * *
EF = CO2 emission factor for natural gas placed into/
removed from storage (MT CO2/Mscf).

(ii) * * *
* * * * *
CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas received that
bypassed the city gate and is not otherwise accounted for by
Equation NN-1 or NN-2 of this section (metric tons).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
* * * * *
CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to
LDC end-users not covered in paragraph (b)(2) of this section
(metric tons).
CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas received at
the city gate as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this
section (metric tons).
CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to
transmission pipelines or other LDCs as calculated in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section (metric tons).
CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas delivered to
each large end-user as calculated in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section (metric tons).
CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of the net change in natural
gas stored by the LDC within the reported year as calculated in
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section (metric tons).
CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of natural gas that was
received by the LDC directly from sources bypassing the city gate,
and is not otherwise accounted for in Equation NN-1 or NN-2 of this
section, as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section
(metric tons).

(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
* * * * *
CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of each fractionated NGL
product ``g'' received from other fractionators (metric tons).
Fuelg = Total annual volume of each NGL product ``g''
received from other fractionators (bbls).
* * * * *
(2) * * *
* * * * *
CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs
delivered to customers or on behalf of customers less the quantity
received from other fractionators (metric tons).
CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs
delivered to all customers or on behalf of customers as calculated
in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section (metric tons).
CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would
result from the combustion or oxidation of fractionated NGLs
received from other fractionators and calculated in paragraph (c)(1)
of this section (metric tons).

0
75. Section 98.404 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory
text and paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.404 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) * * *
(1) NGL fractionators and LDCs shall determine the quantity of NGLs
and natural gas using methods in common use in the industry for billing
purposes as audited under existing Sarbanes Oxley regulation.
* * * * *
(3) NGL fractionators shall use measurement for NGLs at custody
transfer meters or at such meters that are used to determine the NGL
product slate delivered from the fractionation facility.
(4) If a NGL fractionator supplies a product that is a mixture or
blend of two or more products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this
subpart, the NGL fractionator shall report the quantities of the
constituents of the mixtures or blends separately.
* * * * *
0
76. Section 98.406 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (6), (12), and (13) introductory text;
and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(14).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.406 Data reporting requirements.

(a) * * *
(1) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product supplied
(including fractionated NGL products received from other NGL
fractionators) in the following product categories: Ethane, propane,
normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes plus (Fuelh in
Equations NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart).
(2) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product received from
other NGL fractionators in the following product categories: Ethane,
propane, normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes plus (Fuelg
in Equation NN-7 of this subpart).
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas received by the LDC at its
city gate stations for redelivery on the LDC's distribution system,
including for use by the LDC (Fuelh in Equations NN-1 and NN-2 of this
subpart).
* * * * *
(6) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered to downstream
gas transmission pipelines and other local distribution companies (Fuel
in Equation NN-3 of this subpart).
* * * * *
(12) For each large end-user reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this
section, report:
(i) The customer name, address, and meter number(s).
(ii) Whether the quantity of natural gas reported in paragraph
(b)(7) of this section is the total quantity delivered to a large end-
user's facility, or the quantity delivered to a specific meter located
at the facility.
(iii) If known, report the EIA identification number of each LDC
customer.
(13) The annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered by the LDC
(including natural gas that is not owned by the LDC) to each of the
following end-use categories. For definitions of these categories,
refer to EIA Form 176 (Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental
Gas Supply & Disposition) and Instructions.
* * * * *

[[Page 2621]]

(14) The name of the U.S. state or territory covered in this report
submission.
* * * * *
0
77. Table NN-2 to subpart NN of part 98 is amended by revising the
title to the table and the heading of the third column to read as
follows:

Table NN-2 to Subpart NN of Part 98--Default Factors for Calculation
Methodology 2 of This Subpart
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Default CO2
emission factor
Fuel Unit (MT CO2/Unit) 1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Conditions for emission value presented in MT CO2/bbl are
60[emsp14][deg]F and saturation pressure.

Subpart OO--Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

0
78. Section 98.410 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding
paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

Sec. 98.410 Definition of the source category.

(a) The industrial gas supplier source category consists of any
facility that produces fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide; any bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide; any bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs,
or nitrous oxide; and any facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs.
* * * * *
(d) To produce a fluorinated HTF means to manufacture, from any raw
material or feedstock chemical, a fluorinated GHG used for temperature
control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts,
and soldering in processes including but not limited to certain types
of electronics manufacturing production processes. Fluorinated heat
transfer fluids do not include fluorinated GHGs used as lubricants or
surfactants. For fluorinated heat transfer fluids under this subpart,
the lower vapor pressure limit of 1 mm Hg in absolute at 25 [deg]C in
the definition of fluorinated greenhouse gas in Sec. 98.6 shall not
apply. Fluorinated heat transfer fluids include, but are not limited
to, perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, tertiary
perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Producing a fluorinated
HTF does not include the reuse or recycling of a fluorinated HTF, the
creation of intermediates, or the creation of fluorinated HTFs that are
released or destroyed at the production facility before the production
measurement at Sec. 98.414(a).
(e) For purposes of this subpart, to destroy fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs means to cause the expiration of a previously produced
(as defined at Sec. 98.410(b) and (d)) fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF to the destruction efficiency actually achieved. Such destruction
does not result in a commercially useful end product. For purposes of
this subpart, such destruction does not include HFC-23 destruction as
defined at Sec. 98.150 or the dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that
occurs during electronics manufacturing as defined at Sec. 98.90. For
example, such destruction does not include the dissociation of
fluorinated GHGs that occurs during etch or chamber cleaning processes
or during use of abatement systems that treat the fluorinated GHGs
vented from such processes at electronics manufacturing facilities.
0
79. Section 98.412 is revised to read as follows:

Sec. 98.412 GHGs to report.

You must report the GHG emissions that would result from the
release of the nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF that you produce, import, export, transform, or destroy during the
calendar year.
0
80. Section 98.413 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text;
0
b. Revising the parameters of Equation OO-1 in paragraph (a);
0
c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
0
d. Revising the parameters of Equation OO-2 in paragraph (b);
0
e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
0
f. Revising parameters ``T'' and ``ET'' of Equation OO-3 in paragraph
(c);
0
g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and
0
h. Revising parameters ``D'' and ``FD'' of Equation OO-4 in paragraph
(d).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 98.413 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated
HTF, or nitrous oxide produced annually, except for amounts that are
captured solely to be shipped off site for destruction, by using
Equation OO-1 of this section:
* * * * *
P = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide
produced annually.
Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous
oxide produced over the period ``p''.

(b) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated
HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over the period ``p'' by using Equation
OO-2 of this section:
* * * * *
Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous
oxide produced over the period ``p'' (metric tons).
Op = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous
oxide that is measured coming out of the production process over the
period p (metric tons).
Up = Mass of used fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or
nitrous oxide that is added to the production process upstream of
the output measurement over the period ``p'' (metric tons).

(c) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated
HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed by using Equation OO-3 of this
section:
* * * * *
T = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide
transformed annually (metric tons).
* * * * *
ET = The fraction of the fluorinated GHG, fluorinated
HTF, or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process that is
transformed in the process (metric tons).

(d) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF destroyed by using Equation OO-4 of this section:
* * * * *
D = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed annually
(metric tons).
FD = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into
the destruction device annually (metric tons).
* * * * *
0
81. Section 98.414 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (i),
(l), (n) introductory text, (n)(3) through (5), and (o) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.414 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide coming out of the production process shall be measured using
flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density
measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full
scale or better. If the measured mass includes more than one
fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the concentrations of each of the
fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than low-concentration
constituents, shall be measured as set forth in paragraph (n) of this
section. For each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the mean of the
concentrations of that fluorinated GHG (mass fraction) measured under
paragraph (n) of this section shall be multiplied by the mass
measurement to obtain the mass of that fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF coming out of the production process.

[[Page 2622]]

(b) The mass of any used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
used nitrous oxide added back into the production process upstream of
the output measurement in paragraph (a) of this section shall be
measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric
and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent
of full scale or better. If the mass in paragraph (a) of this section
is measured by weighing containers that include returned heels as well
as newly produced fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, the returned
heels shall be considered used fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs for
purposes of this paragraph (b) of this section and Sec. 98.413(b).
(c) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide fed into the transformation process shall be measured using
flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density
measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full
scale or better.
(d) The fraction of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process that is actually
transformed shall be estimated considering yield calculations or
quantities of unreacted fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide permanently removed from the process and recovered, destroyed, or
emitted.
(e) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide sent to another facility for transformation shall be measured
using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and
density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of
full scale or better.
(f) The mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs sent to
another facility for destruction shall be measured using flowmeters,
weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements
with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better.
If the measured mass includes more than trace concentrations of
materials other than the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the
concentration of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF shall be
estimated considering current or previous representative concentration
measurements and other relevant process information. This concentration
(mass fraction) shall be multiplied by the mass measurement to obtain
the mass of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF sent to another
facility for destruction.
(g) You must estimate the share of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs in paragraph (f) of this section that is comprised of
fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are not included in the mass
produced in Sec. 98.413(a) because they are removed from the
production process as by-products or other wastes.
(h) You must measure the mass of each fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF that is fed into the destruction device and that was
previously produced as defined at Sec. 98.410(b). Such fluorinated
GHGs or fluorinated HTFs include but are not limited to quantities that
are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and
quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are
found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. You
must use flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and
density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of
full scale or better. If the measured mass includes more than trace
concentrations of materials other than the fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF being destroyed, you must estimate the concentrations
of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF being destroyed considering
current or previous representative concentration measurements and other
relevant process information. You must multiply this concentration
(mass fraction) by the mass measurement to obtain the mass of the
fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into the destruction device.
(i) Very small quantities of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs
that are difficult to measure because they are entrained in other media
such as destroyed filters and destroyed sample containers are exempt
from paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(l) In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs destroyed, facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs shall account for any temporary reductions in the
destruction efficiency that result from any startups, shutdowns, or
malfunctions of the destruction device, including departures from the
operating conditions defined in state or local permitting requirements
and/or oxidizer manufacturer specifications.
* * * * *
(n) If the mass coming out of the production process includes more
than one fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, you shall measure the
concentrations of all of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs,
other than low-concentration constituents, as follows:
* * * * *
(3) Frequency of measurement. Perform the measurements at least
once by February 15, 2011 if the fluorinated GHG product is being
produced on December 17, 2010. Perform the measurements within 60 days
of commencing production of any fluorinated GHG product that was not
being produced on December 17, 2010. For fluorinated HTF products,
perform the measurements at least once by February 15, 2017, if the
fluorinated HTF product is being produced on January 1, 2017. Repeat
the measurements if an operational or process change occurs that could
change the identities or significantly change the concentrations of the
fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituents of the fluorinated GHG
or fluorinated HTF product. Complete the repeat measurements within 60
days of the operational or process change.
(4) Measure all product grades. Where a fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF is produced at more than one purity level (e.g.,
pharmaceutical grade and refrigerant grade), perform the measurements
for each purity level.
(5) Number of samples. Analyze a minimum of three samples of the
fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF product that have been drawn under
conditions that are representative of the process producing the
fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF product. If the relative standard
deviation of the measured concentrations of any of the fluorinated GHGs
or fluorinated HTF constituents (other than low-concentration
constituents) is greater than or equal to 15 percent, draw and analyze
enough additional samples to achieve a total of at least six samples of
the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product.
(o) All analytical equipment used to determine the concentration of
fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, including but not limited to gas
chromatographs and associated detectors, IR, FTIR and NMR devices,
shall be calibrated at a frequency needed to support the type of
analysis specified in the site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under
Sec. Sec. 98.414(n) and 98.3(g)(5) of this part. Quality assurance
samples at the concentrations of concern shall be used for the
calibration. Such quality assurance samples shall consist of or be
prepared from certified standards of the analytes of concern where
available; if not available, calibration shall be performed

[[Page 2623]]

by a method specified in the GHG Monitoring Plan.
* * * * *
0
82. Section 98.416 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(6);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) through (6), and
(c)(8) through (10);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(4)
through (6); and
0
e. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j).
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec. 98.416 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(a) Each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide
production facility shall report the following information:
(1) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF,
or nitrous oxide produced at that facility by process, except for
amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off site for
destruction.
(2) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF,
or nitrous oxide transformed at that facility, by process.
(3) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF
that is destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as
defined at Sec. 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under paragraph
(a)(3) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that
are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and
quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are
found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed.
(4) [Reserved]
(5) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated
HTF, or nitrous oxide sent to another facility for transformation.
(6) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF sent to another facility for destruction, except
fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs that are not included in the mass
produced in Sec. 98.413(a) because they are removed from the
production process as by-products or other wastes. Quantities to be
reported under paragraph (a)(6) of this section could include, for
example, fluorinated GHGs that are returned to the facility for
reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are
therefore sent to another facility for destruction.
(7) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF that is sent to another facility for destruction and
that is not included in the mass produced in Sec. 98.413(a) because it
is removed from the production process as a byproduct or other waste.
(8)-(9) [Reserved]
(10) Mass in metric tons of any fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF,
or nitrous oxide fed into the transformation process, by process.
(11) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF
that is fed into the destruction device and that was previously
produced as defined at Sec. 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported under
paragraph (a)(11) of this section include but are not limited to
quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for
destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for
reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are
therefore destroyed.
(12) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF,
or nitrous oxide that is measured coming out of the production process,
by process.
(13) Mass in metric tons of each used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated
HTFs, or nitrous oxide added back into the production process (e.g.,
for reclamation), including returned heels in containers that are
weighed to measure the mass in Sec. 98.414(a), by process.
(14) Names and addresses of facilities to which any nitrous oxide,
fluorinated GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sent for transformation, and
the quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of each fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for transformation.
(15) Names and addresses of facilities to which any fluorinated
GHGs or fluorinated HTFs were sent for destruction, and the quantities
(metric tons) of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sent
to each for destruction.
(16) Where missing data have been estimated pursuant to Sec.
98.415, the reason the data were missing, the length of time the data
were missing, the method used to estimate the missing data, and the
estimates of those data.
(b) By March 31, 2017 or within 60 days of commencing fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF destruction, whichever is later, any facility
that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs shall submit a one-
time report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6)
of this section for each destruction process. Facilities that
previously submitted a one-time report under this paragraph are exempt
from this requirement unless they meet the conditions in paragraph
(b)(6) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF destroyed.
* * * * *
(6) If any process changes affect unit destruction efficiency or
the methods used to record mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF
destroyed, then a revised report must be submitted to reflect the
changes. The revised report must be submitted to EPA within 60 days of
the change.
(c) Each bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide shall submit an annual report that summarizes its imports
at the corporate level, except for shipments including less than
twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide, transshipments, and heels that meet the conditions set forth at
Sec. 98.417(e). The report shall contain the following information for
each import:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk, including each fluorinated GHG
or fluorinated HTF constituent of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF product that makes up between 0.5 percent and 100 percent of the
product by mass.
(2) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk and sold or transferred to
persons other than the importer for use in processes resulting in the
transformation or destruction of the chemical.
(3) Date on which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide were imported.
(4) Port of entry through which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated
HTFs, or nitrous oxide passed.
(5) Country from which the imported fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated
HTFs, or nitrous oxide were imported.
(6) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide shipped.
* * * * *
(8) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF destroyed by the importer.
(9) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and
facilities to which the nitrous oxide, fluorinated GHGs, or fluorinated
HTFs were sold or transferred for transformation, and the quantities
(metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of each fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each facility for
transformation.

[[Page 2624]]

(10) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and
facilities to which the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs were sold
or transferred for destruction, and the quantities (metric tons) of
each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred
to each facility for destruction.
(d) Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide shall submit an annual report that summarizes its exports
at the corporate level, except for shipments including less than
twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous
oxide, transshipments, and heels. The report shall contain the
following information for each export:
(1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF exported in bulk.
* * * * *
(4) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide shipped.
(5) Date on which, and the port from which, the fluorinated GHGs,
fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were exported from the United States
or its territories.
(6) Country to which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or
nitrous oxide were exported.
* * * * *
(i) Each facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated
HTFs but does not otherwise report under this section shall report the
mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is
destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as defined
at Sec. 98.410(b) or (d), as applicable. Quantities to be reported
under this paragraph include but are not limited to quantities that are
shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and
quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are
found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed.
(j) By March 31, 2017, all fluorinated HTF production facilities
shall submit a one-time report that includes the concentration of each
fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituent in each fluorinated HTF
product as measured under Sec. 98.414(n). If the facility commences
production of a fluorinated HTF product that was not included in the
initial report or performs a repeat measurement under Sec. 98.414(n)
that shows that the identities or concentrations of the fluorinated HTF
or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF product have
changed, then the new or changed concentrations, as well as the date of
the change, must be provided in a revised report. The revised report
must be submitted to EPA by the March 31st that immediately follows the
new or repeat measurement under Sec. 98.414(n).
0
83. Section 98.418 is amended by revising the definition of ``Low-
concentration constituent'' to read as follows:

Sec. 98.418 Definitions.

* * * * *
Low-concentration constituent means, for purposes of fluorinated
GHG or fluorinated HTF production and export, a fluorinated GHG or
fluorinated HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF
product that occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.1 percent
by mass. For purposes of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF import,
low-concentration constituent means a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated
HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product that
occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.5 percent by mass. Low-
concentration constituents do not include fluorinated GHGs or
fluorinated HTFs that are deliberately combined with the product (e.g.,
to affect the performance characteristics of the product).

Subpart PP--Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide

0
84. Section 98.425 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory
text to read as follows:

Sec. 98.425 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *
(b) Whenever the quality assurance procedures in Sec. 98.424(b)
cannot be followed to determine concentration of the CO2
stream, the most appropriate of the following missing data procedures
shall be followed:
* * * * *

Subpart RR--Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

0
85. Section 98.446 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.446 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *
(g) Whether the CO2 stream is being injected into
subsurface geologic formations to enhance the recovery of oil or
natural gas.

Subpart TT--Industrial Waste Landfills

0
86. Table TT-1 to Subpart TT of Part 98 is amended by:
0
a. Removing the entry ``Pulp and Paper (other than industrial
sludge)'';
0
b. Adding a heading entry for ``Pulp and Paper Industry:'', and
subordinate entries for ``Boiler Ash'', ``Wastewater Sludge'', ``Kraft
Recovery Wastes'', and ``Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise
listed)'' to follow the entry for ``Food Processing (other than
industrial sludge)'';
0
c. Revising the entry ``Industrial Sludge'' and footnote a; and
0
d. Adding footnote ``b''.
The revisions and additions read as follows:

Table TT-1 to Subpart TT of Part 98--Default DOC and Decay Rate Values for Industrial Waste Landfills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOC (weight k [moderate
Industry/Waste Type fraction, wet k [dry climate climate a] (yr- k [wet climate
basis) a] (yr-1) 1) a] (yr-1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Pulp and Paper Industry:
Boiler Ash.................................. 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.04
Wastewater Sludge........................... 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.06
Kraft Recovery Wastes b..................... 0.025 0.02 0.03 0.04
Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise 0.20 0.02 0.03 0.04
listed)....................................

* * * * * * *
Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper 0.09 0.02 0.04 0.06
industry sludge)...............................

[[Page 2625]]

* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The applicable climate classification is determined based on the annual rainfall plus the recirculated
leachate application rate. Recirculated leachate application rate (in inches/year) is the total volume of
leachate recirculated from company records or engineering estimates and applied to the landfill divided by the
area of the portion of the landfill containing waste [with appropriate unit conversions]. Dry climate =
precipitation plus recirculated leachate less than 20 inches/year; Moderate climate = precipitation plus
recirculated leachate from 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive); Wet climate = precipitation plus recirculated
leachate greater than 40 inches/year. Alternatively, landfills that use leachate recirculation can elect to
use the k value for wet climate rather than calculating the recirculated leachate rate.
\b\ Kraft Recovery Wastes include green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be referred to
collectively as causticizing or recausticizing wastes.

Subpart UU--Injection of Carbon Dioxide

0
87. Section 98.474 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec. 98.474 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) You must convert all measured volumes of CO2 to the following
standard industry temperature and pressure conditions for use in
Equation UU-2 of this subpart: Standard cubic meters at a temperature
of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and at an absolute pressure of 1 atmosphere.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-32753 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.