2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements

Federal RegisterApr 2, 2013

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934; FRL-9789-1]

RIN 2060-AR52

2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements

AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:

The EPA is proposing to amend the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and to clarify or change specific provisions. Particularly, the EPA is proposing to amend a table in the General Provisions, to reflect revised global warming potentials of some greenhouse gases that have been published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and to add global warming potentials for certain fluorinated greenhouse gases not currently listed in the table. This action also proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of new or substantially revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data elements contained in these proposed amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

DATES:

Comments.

Comments must be received on or before May 17, 2013.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble by April 9, 2013. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on April 17, 2013, in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide further information about the hearing on its Web page if a hearing is requested.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 by any of the following methods:

•

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.

•

Email:

MRR_Corrections@epa.gov

. Include Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 or RIN No. 2060-AR52 in the subject line of the message.

•

Fax:

(202) 566-1741.

•

Mail:

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode 6102T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004.

•

Hand/Courier Delivery:

EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are accepted only during the normal hours of operation of the Docket Center, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Additional Information on Submitting Comments:

To expedite review of your comments by agency staff, you are encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Climate Change Division, Mail Code 6207-J, Washington, DC, 20460, telephone (202) 343-9263, email address:

GHGReporting@epa.gov.

Instructions:

Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934, 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at

http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Should you choose to submit information that you claim to be CBI, clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For information that you claim to be CBI in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI to only the mail or hand/courier delivery address listed above, attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through

http://www.regulations.gov

or email. The

http://www.regulations.gov

Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through

http://www.regulations.gov

your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket:

All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in

http://www.regulations.gov

or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.

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:

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov.

For technical information, please go to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Program Web site

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

To submit a question, select Rule Help Center, followed by “Contact Us.”

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 EPA's greenhouse gas reporting rule Web site at

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities.

The Administrator determined that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA 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 certain owners and operators of facilities that directly emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) as well as certain suppliers. Regulated categories and examples of affected entities include those listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

Table 1—Examples of Affected Entities by Category

Category

NAICS

Examples of affected facilities

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

Facilities operating 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.

Electricity Generation

221112

Fossil-fuel fired electric generating units, including units owned by federal and municipal governments and units located in Indian Country.

Acid Gas Injection Projects

211111 or 211112

Projects that inject natural gas containing CO

2

underground.

Adipic Acid Production

325199

Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.

Aluminum Production

331312

Primary Aluminum production facilities.

Ammonia Manufacturing

325311

Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities.

Cement Production

327310

Portland cement manufacturing plants.

CO

2

Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Projects

211

Oil and gas extraction projects using CO

2

enhanced oil and gas recovery.

Electrical Equipment Use

221121

Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.

Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

33531

Power transmission and distribution switchgear and specialty transformers manufacturing facilities.

Electronics Manufacturing

334111

Microcomputers manufacturing facilities.

334413

Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities.

334419

LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities. MEMS manufacturing facilities.

Ethanol Production

325193

Ethyl alcohol manufacturing facilities.

Ferroalloy Production

331112

Ferroalloys manufacturing facilities.

Fluorinated GHG Production

325120

Industrial gases manufacturing facilities.

Food Processing

311611

Meat processing facilities.

311411

Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities.

311421

Fruit and vegetable canning facilities.

Glass Production

327211

Flat glass manufacturing facilities.

327213

Glass container manufacturing facilities.

327212

Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing facilities.

GS Sites

NA

CO

2

geologic sequestration projects.

HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

325120

Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities.

Hydrogen Production

325120

Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.

Importers and Exporters of Pre-charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams

423730

Air-conditioning equipment (except room units) merchant wholesalers.

333415

Air-conditioning equipment (except motor vehicle) manufacturing.

423620

Air-conditioners, room, merchant wholesalers.

443111

Household Appliance Stores.

326150

Polyurethane foam products manufacturing.

335313

Circuit breakers, power, manufacturing.

423610

Circuit breakers merchant wholesalers.

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.

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.

Iron and Steel Production

331111

Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace shops.

Lead Production

331419

Primary lead smelting and refining facilities.

331492

Secondary lead smelting and refining facilities.

Lime Production

327410

Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities.

Magnesium Production

331419

Primary refiners of nonferrous metals by electrolytic methods.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

562212

Solid waste landfills.

221320

Sewage treatment facilities.

Nitric Acid Production

325311

Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.

Oil and Natural Gas Systems

486210

Pipeline transportation of natural gas.

221210

Natural gas distribution facilities.

325212

Synthetic rubber 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.

Petroleum Refineries

324110

Petroleum refineries.

Phosphoric Acid Production

325312

Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities.

Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems

486210

Pipeline transportation of natural gas.

221210

Natural gas distribution facilities.

211

Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas.

211112

Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.

Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

322110

Pulp mills.

322121

Paper mills.

322130

Paperboard mills.

Soda Ash Manufacturing

325181

Alkalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities.

Silicon Carbide Production

327910

Silicon carbide abrasives manufacturing facilities.

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF

6

) from Electrical Equipment

221121

Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities.

Titanium Dioxide Production

325188

Titanium dioxide manufacturing facilities.

Underground Coal Mines

212113

Underground anthracite coal mining operations.

212112

Underground bituminous coal mining operations.

Zinc Production

331419

Primary zinc refining facilities.

331492

Zinc dust reclaiming facilities, recovering from scrap and/or alloying purchased metals.

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

325120

Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.

Suppliers of Petroleum Products

324110

Petroleum refineries.

Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

221210

Natural gas distribution facilities.

211112

Natural gas liquid extraction facilities.

Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide (CO

2

)

325120

Industrial gas manufacturing 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 suppliers and direct emitters of GHGs. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT

Section.

Acronyms and Abbreviations.

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this document.

AF&PA American Forest & Paper Association

AR4 Fourth Assessment Report

BAMM best available monitoring methods

CAA Clean Air Act

CBI confidential business information

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CEMS continuous emissions monitoring system

CFC chlorofluorocarbon

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH

4

methane

CO

2

carbon dioxide

CO

2

e carbon dioxide equivalent

DOC degradable organic carbon

EAF electric arc furnace

e-GGRT Electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool

EF emission factor

EIA Energy Information Administration

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

°F degrees Fahrenheit

FR

Federal Register

GHG greenhouse gas

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

GWP global warming potential

HFC hydrofluorocarbon

HHV high heat value

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISBN International Standard Book Number

F-GHG fluorinated greenhouse gas

F-HTF fluorinated heat transfer fluid

kg kilograms

LDC Local Distribution Company

Mscf thousand standard cubic feet

MSW municipal solid waste

N

2

O nitrous oxide

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement

NGL natural gas liquid

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ORIS Office of the Regulatory Information System

PFC perfluorocarbon

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SAR Second Assessment Report

SF

6

sulfur hexafluoride

SNAP Significant New Alternative Policy

TAR Third Assessment Report

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

U.S. United States

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Organization of This Document.

The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

B. Background on the Proposed Action

C. Legal Authority

II. Technical Corrections and Other Amendments

A. Subpart A—General Provisions

B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

C. Subpart H—Cement Production

D. Subpart K—Ferroalloy Production

E. Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production

F. Subpart N—Glass Production

G. Subpart O—HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

H. Subpart P—Hydrogen Production

I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production

J. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production

K. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries

L. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production

M. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

N. Subpart BB—Silicon Carbide Production

O. Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

P. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines

Q. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

R. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

S. Subpart MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products

T. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

U. Subpart PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide

V. Subpart QQ—Importers and Exporters of Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment or Closed-Cell Foams

W. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

X. Subpart SS—Electrical Equipment Manufacture or Refurbishment

Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills

Z. Subpart UU—Injection of Carbon Dioxide

AA. Other Technical Corrections

III. Schedule for the Proposed Amendments

A. When would the proposed amendments become effective?

B. Options Considered for Revision and Republication of Emissions Estimates for Prior Year Reports

IV. Confidentiality Determinations

A. Overview and Background

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Individual Data Elements in Two Direct Emitter Data Categories and Two Supplier Data Categories

D. Proposed New Inputs to Emission Equations

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

V. Impacts of the Proposed Rule

A. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments to Global Warming Potentials

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Technical Corrections and Other Amendments

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

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 EPA's legal authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to promulgate (including subsequent amendments to) 40 CFR part 98 of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (hereinafter referred to as “Part 98”). Section II of this preamble is organized by Part 98 subpart and contains detailed information on the proposed revisions to the GHG Reporting Rule and the rationale for the proposed amendments. Section III of this preamble discusses the effective date of the proposed revisions for new and existing reporters and the options EPA is considering for revising and republishing emissions estimates for the reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Section IV of this preamble discusses the proposed confidentiality determinations for new or substantially revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data reporting elements. Section V of this preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments, primarily for current and new reporters of gases proposed to have revised or new global warming potentials (GWPs) listed in Part 98. Finally, Section VI of this preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action.

B. Background on the Proposed Action

Part 98 was published in the

Federal Register

on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). Part 98 became effective on December 29, 2009, and requires reporting of GHGs from certain facilities and suppliers. Subsequent notices were published in 2010 promulgating 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). 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 51477, August 24, 2012). The EPA is proposing to further revise Part 98. This proposed revision includes technical corrections, clarifying revisions, and additional amendments to Part 98.

Changes proposed in this notice for certain source categories include, among other things, clarifying the data reporting requirements for certain facilities; correcting ambiguities or minor inconsistencies in greenhouse gas monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements; amending monitoring and quality assurance methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities; and making other corrections identified as a result of working with the affected sources during rule implementation and outreach. In conjunction with this action, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for the new and substantially revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data elements under this proposed amendment.

In the first two years of implementation of Part 98, the EPA responded to thousands of questions from reporters and engaged in a stakeholder and public testing process to help improve development of EPA's electronic reporting system. Through these extensive outreach efforts, the EPA has improved our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of Part 98 provisions. The proposed changes would improve the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) by clarifying compliance obligations and reducing confusion for reporters, improving the consistency of the data collected, and ensuring that data collected through the GHGRP is representative of industry and comparable to other inventories.

The EPA is also proposing amendments to Table A-1 to Subpart A, General Provisions, of Part 98 to revise the values for the GWP of some GHGs and adding some GHGs (with associated GWP values) that are not currently included in the table.

1

The newly added GWP values are from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report

2

(AR4) and EPA assessments of data supporting GWP estimates for certain GHGs identified since promulgation. Data supporting the proposed GWP estimates include information provided by chemical manufacturers currently reporting under the GHGRP as well as published literature. The EPA is proposing these changes to ensure comparability of data collected in the GHGRP to the

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks

(hereinafter referred to as “Inventory”) that the EPA compiles annually to meet international commitments and to GHG inventories prepared by other countries; to reflect improved scientific understanding; and to promote consistency across the estimation methods used in the rule.

1

The GWP, a metric that incorporates both the heat-trapping ability and atmospheric lifetime of each GHG, can be used to develop comparable numbers by adjusting all GHGs relative to the GWP of CO

2

. When quantities of the different GHGs are multiplied by their GWPs, the different GHGs can be compared on a CO

2

basis. The GWP of CO

2

is 1.0, and the GWP of other GHGs are expressed relative to CO

2

. IPCC GWP values are based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon. See 74 FR 16448, 53 (April 10, 2009).

2

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007.

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

C. 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, October 30, 2009), 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 (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009) and final Part 98 (74 FR 56260) for further information.

In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for certain new or substantially revised data elements required under the proposed GHG Reporting Rule under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301 and 307 of the CAA. As mentioned above, CAA section 114 provides the EPA authority to obtain the information in Part 98. Section 114(c) requires that EPA make publicly available information obtained under section 114 except for information (excluding emission data) that qualify for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this action (proposed amendments and confidentiality determinations) is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA.

II. Technical Corrections and Other Amendments

The EPA is proposing to revise Part 98 to introduce technical corrections, clarifying revisions, and other amendments to Part 98 to improve the

quality and consistency of the data collected by the EPA in response to feedback received from stakeholders during program implementation. The proposed amendments include the following types of changes:

• Revising GWPs for GHGs defined in Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98 for consistency with the Inventory, and adding GWPs for fluorinated greenhouse gases (F-GHGs) used by Part 98 facilities that are not currently included in Table A-1 to reflect industry practices.

• Changes to clarify the applicability of calculation methods to certain sources at a facility.

• Corrections to terms and definitions in certain equations to provide clarity or better reflect actual operating conditions.

• Changes to correct typographical errors or cross references within and between subparts.

• Amending monitoring and quality assurance methods to provide flexibility for certain facilities.

• Corrections to data reporting requirements so that they more closely conform to the information used to perform emission calculations.

• Adding readily available data reporting requirements that would allow the EPA to verify the data submitted and assess the reasonableness of the data reported.

• Other amendments or corrections related to certain issues identified during rule implementation and outreach.

Sections II.A through II.AA of this preamble describe the more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments we are proposing for each subpart. The proposed amendments discussed in this preamble include: Changes that affect the applicability of a subpart, changes that affect the applicability of a calculation method to a specific source at a facility, changes or corrections to calculation methods that substantially revise the calculation method or output of the equation, revisions to data reporting requirements that would substantively clarify the reported data element or introduce a new data element, clarifications of general monitoring and quality assurance requirements, and new terms and definitions. To reduce the length of this preamble, we have summarized less substantive corrections for each subpart in the memorandum, “Table of 2013 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-2012-0934). The proposed changes discussed in the Table of Revisions are straightforward clarifications of requirements to better reflect the EPA's intent, simple corrections to calculation terms or cross-references that do not affect the output of calculations, harmonizing changes within a subpart (such as changes to terminology), simple editorial and minor error corrections, or 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. You may comment on those proposed technical corrections, clarifying and other amendments identified in the Table of Revisions as well as any other part of this proposal.

A. Subpart A—General Provisions

1. Proposed Amendments to Subpart A—Global Warming Potentials

In today's action, we are proposing to revise Table A-1 of subpart A of Part 98 (hereafter referred to as “Table A-1”) by updating the GWP values of certain compounds and adding certain F-GHGs and their GWPs not previously included in Table A-1. These proposed changes relate to facilities and suppliers under Part 98 reporting the following greenhouse gases: methane (CH

4

), nitrous oxide (N

2

O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF

6

), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and other F-GHGs.

3

3

Fluorinated greenhouse gases,

as defined in 40 CFR 98.6, include sulfur hexafluoride, nitrogen trifluoride, and any fluorocarbon except for controlled substances as defined at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A and substances with vapor pressures of less than 1 mm of Hg absolute at 25 degrees C.

The changes are being proposed for two reasons. First, we propose to revise GWPs for GHGs currently in Table A-1 to ensure continued consistency with the Inventory as the Inventory begins to use GWPs from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Second, we propose to add GWPs for F-GHGs that are not currently included in Table A-1 but that are emitted in significant quantities or for which newly available data or literature supports the establishment of a GWP in Table A-1. The background and general rationale for these proposed amendments are discussed in Section II.A.1.a of this preamble. The proposed changes to the GWPs currently in Table A-1 and the GWP determinations for new proposed compounds in Table A-1 are discussed in Sections II.A.1.b and II.A.1.c of this preamble. The schedule for the proposed amendments is discussed in Section III.A of this preamble.

The EPA is also considering options for revising and republishing emissions estimates for the reporting years 2010, 2011, and 2012 using the revised GWPs in Table A-1. The EPA is seeking comment on these options, which are discussed in Section III.B of this preamble. Because reporters affected by the GHG reporting rule use the GWPs in Table A-1 to calculate annual GHG emissions (or GHGs supplied, as applicable), and, for source categories with a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO

2

e)-based threshold, to determine whether they are required to report, the proposed new and revised GWPs could change the number of reporters and the magnitude of emissions reported for some source categories. If these amendments are finalized, some facilities to which the rule did not previously apply may be required to report based on increases in calculated GHG quantities that affect applicability (see Section V of this preamble for additional information). These impacts and the potential compliance costs of the proposed amendments for affected subparts are discussed in Section V of this preamble.

a. Background and General Rationale for GWP Revisions

U.S. GHG reporting programs and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

As a party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United States participates in ongoing negotiations with the international community to promote global cooperation on climate change. The UNFCCC treaty, ratified by the U.S. in 1992, sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to address the challenges posed by climate change.

4

As part of its commitment to the UNFCCC, the U.S. submits the

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks

to the Secretariat of the UNFCCC as an annual reporting requirement.

5

The Inventory is a comprehensive assessment of U.S. GHG emissions based on national-level data and is prepared by EPA's Office of Air and

Radiation in coordination with other federal agencies. To ensure consistency and comparability with national inventory data submitted by other UNFCCC Parties, the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC uses internationally-accepted methods agreed upon by the Parties (including the United States) to develop and characterize emission estimates.

4

See United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992. Available at:

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf.

For more information about the UNFCCC, please refer to:

http://www.unfccc.int.

5

See Articles 4 and 12 of the Convention on Climate Change. Parties to the Convention, by ratifying, “shall develop, periodically update, publish and make available * * * national inventories of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, using comparable methodologies * * *.”

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 existing U.S. government programs related to climate policy and research, including the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC. The GHGRP provides data to develop and inform inventories and other U.S. climate programs by advancing the understanding of emission processes and monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. Specifically, the GHGRP complements the Inventory and other U.S. programs by providing data from individual facilities and suppliers above certain thresholds.

Collected facility, unit, and process-level GHG data from the GHGRP will provide or confirm the national statistics and emission estimates presented in the Inventory, which are calculated using aggregated national data. The EPA has received encouragement from stakeholders to use GHG data from the GHGRP to complement the Inventory, such as from EPA's stakeholder workshop for natural gas systems.

6

6

Stakeholder Workshop on the U.S. GHG Inventory for Natural Gas Systems. September 13-14, 2012, Washington, DC. See

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/Sept2012stakeholderworkshop.html.

During the development of the GHG Reporting Rule, the EPA generally proposed and finalized estimation methodologies and reporting metrics that were based on recent scientific data and that were consistent with the international reporting standards under the UNFCCC. This approach allows the data collected under the GHGRP to be easily compared to the data in the Inventory and to data from other national and international programs. Specifically, the EPA generally promulgated GWP values published in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (hereinafter referred to as “SAR GWP values”) to convert mass emissions (or supply) of each GHG into a common unit of measure, CO

2

e, for final reporting. At the time that Part 98 was finalized, in order to comply with international reporting standards under the UNFCCC, official emission estimates were to be reported by the United States and other parties using SAR GWP values. Although the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) prior to publication of the final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260), the UNFCCC continued to require the use of SAR GWP values for reporting. For consistency and comparability of the data collected between the GHGRP and the Inventory, the EPA adopted the SAR GWP values in Table A-1 to subpart A of Part 98, with the exception of GWPs for certain F-GHGs adopted from the IPCC AR4.

7

7

For certain F-GHGs that were not addressed by the SAR but were included in Part 98 (e.g., NF

3

), the EPA promulgated up-to-date GWPs from the IPCC AR4. (The one exception was sevoflurane, whose GWP was based on a study by Langbein et al. as explained in the February 6, 2009

Technical Support Document for Industrial Gas Supply: Production, Transformation, and Destruction of Fluorinated GHGs and N

2

O.

) This approach was consistent with the GWP values used for F-GHGs in the Inventory prepared by the EPA as part of the U.S. commitment to the UNFCCC.

The IPCC AR4 was published in 2007 and is among the most current and comprehensive peer-reviewed assessments of climate change. The AR4 provides revised GWPs of several GHGs relative to the values provided in previous assessment reports, following advances in scientific knowledge on the radiative efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes of these GHGs and of CO

2

. Because the GWPs provided in the AR4 reflect an improved scientific understanding of the radiative effects of these gases in the atmosphere, the values provided are more appropriate for supporting the overall goal of the reporting program to collect GHG data than the SAR GWP values currently included in Table A-1. While we recognize that GWPs reflecting further scientific advances may become available in the near future (e.g., the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, currently in development), it is not now EPA's intent to revise the GWPs in Table A-1 each time new data are published. Rather, we understand that it is also important for stakeholders to have consistent, predictable requirements to avoid confusion and additional burden. As discussed below, we are not proposing to adopt GWP values from the Fifth Assessment Report because it is our intent to have the GHGRP complement the requirements of the Inventory.

On March 15, 2012, the UNFCCC published a decision, reached by UNFCCC member parties, to require countries submitting an annual report in 2015 and beyond to use GWP values from the IPCC AR4 (hereinafter referred to as the “AR4 GWP values”).

8

Accordingly, the United States has a commitment to submit the Inventory for 2015 and future years using the revised AR4 GWP values. The Inventory for 2015 will contain national level estimates of emissions for each year from 1990-2013. In order to ensure that the GHGRP continues to complement and inform the Inventory submitted to the UNFCCC and relies on recent scientific data, we are proposing to revise the GWP values in Table A-1 of Part 98 to reflect the updated AR4 GWP values. The proposed changes would keep the reporting metrics in Part 98 consistent with the updated international reporting standards followed by the Inventory. Additionally, the proposed changes would allow for improved understanding of the radiative forcing from reported GHG emissions and supply, based on GWP values that are more up-to-date relative to the values currently provided in Table A-1. The proposed changes to Table A-1 would also ensure that the data collected in the GHGRP can be compared to other national and international inventories. These proposed changes are in keeping with the Agency's decision to use methods consistent with UNFCCC guidelines in the development of the October 30, 2009 GHG Reporting Rule.

8

Please refer to

http://unfccc.int/.

See Decision 15/CP.17, Revision of the UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories for Parties included in Annex I to the Convention. Parties of the Convention “* * *

Decide[s] that,

from 2015 until a further decision by the Conference of the Parties, the global warming potentials used by Parties to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases shall be those listed in the column entitled “Global warming potential for given time horizon” in table 2.14 of the errata to the contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change * * *.”

We recognize that some other EPA programs use the GWP values in Table A-1 to determine applicability of the program to direct emitters or suppliers above certain thresholds. For example, EPA's Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514; June 3, 2010) cross-references Table A-1 for calculating GHG emissions under the PSD and title V permitting programs. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(ii)(a). Because the permitting applicability is based partly on CO

2

e emissions, which are calculated using the GWP values codified in Table A-1, an amendment to Table A-1 may affect program applicability for a source. As a result, a source that is assessing applicability under the PSD or title V permitting program should be aware of the

proposed changes to Table A-1 that may affect the CO

2

e emissions of the source once the Table A-1 amendment is promulgated and effective.

9

To the extent that a Table A-1 amendment raises permitting implementation questions or concerns, EPA's regional offices and the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which manage the PSD and title V programs, will work with permitting authorities and other stakeholders as necessary to provide guidance on their issues and concerns. While we are seeking comments on specific GWP values proposed in this action, we are not reopening for comment the decision made in the Tailoring Rule, or any other rules or programs, to reference Table A-1.

9

This reliance of other EPA programs on Table A-1 promotes implementation consistency and avoids having to revise the other rules each time a GWP revision occurs. As noted in the Tailoring Rule preamble, “[a]ny changes to Table A-1 of the mandatory GHG reporting rule regulatory text must go through an appropriate regulatory process. In this manner, the values used for the permitting programs will reflect the latest values adopted for usage by EPA after a regulatory process and will be consistent with those values used in the EPA's mandatory GHG reporting rule.” (75 FR at 31522; June 3, 2010).

Use of the AR4 GWPs is also in keeping with other EPA programs. For example, the Agency decided to use these values in rules published jointly with the Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards” (75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010).

10

10

While we are seeking comments on specific GWP values proposed in this action, we are not reopening for comment the decision made in the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, or any other rules or programs, to use AR4 GWPs.

Section II.A.1.b of this preamble lists the changes we are proposing to incorporate as a result of the updated AR4 GWPs.

Identification of GWPs in the scientific literature.

During implementation of Part 98, the EPA has collected data on the range and volume of F-GHGs emitted and supplied in the U.S. market by various F-GHG producers, importers, exporters, and manufacturers using F-GHGs in their production processes (e.g., electronics manufacturing, magnesium production).

11

The EPA reviewed available production and usage data for existing and newly synthesized gases and assessed available data substantiating the GWP calculation for gases for which a GWP value was not included in Table A-1 in the October 30, 2009 final rule. In this action, we are proposing to amend Table A-1 to add F-GHGs emitted or supplied by reporters under subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing), L (Fluorinated Gas Production), T (Magnesium Production), OO (Industrial GHG Suppliers), and QQ (Importers and Exporters of G-GHGs Contained in Pre-Charged Equipment and Closed-Cell Foams). Section II.A.1.c of this preamble lists the changes we are proposing to incorporate the additional F-GHGs into Table A-1.

11

Fluorinated heat transfer fluids

are defined as F-GHGs used for temperature control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering in certain types of electronics manufacturing production processes. Under subpart I, the lower vapor pressure limit of 1 mm Hg in absolute at 25 °C in the definition of

fluorinated greenhouse gas

in 40 CFR 98.6 does not apply.

The EPA is proposing to amend Table A-1 to subpart A of Part 98 to add 26 F-GHGs for which we have identified a GWP based on an assessment of recent scientific literature. Table A-1 to subpart A is a compendium of GWP values of select GHGs that are required to be reported under one or more subparts of Part 98, and where the EPA has identified the GWP in the IPCC AR4 report or other sources. As acknowledged in the preamble to the final Part 98 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), Table A-1 is not a complete listing of current or potential compounds, but reflects only those GWPs for listed materials that had been synthesized, their atmospheric properties investigated, and the results published and reviewed prior to promulgation of the final rule. Currently, some Part 98 source categories provide calculation methodologies and reporting requirements for F-GHGs for which GWP values were not available in the IPCC SAR, TAR, AR4, or other scientific assessments at promulgation. As noted in the preamble to the final Part 98 (74 FR 56260), it is the EPA's intent to periodically update Table A-1 as GWPs are evaluated or re-evaluated by the scientific community.

b. Proposed Revisions From the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

The proposed amendments to Table A-1 would revise the GWPs for 23 GHGs to reflect the 100-year GWP values adopted by the UNFCCC and published in the IPCC AR4. Table 2 of this preamble lists the GHGs whose GWP values we are proposing to revise, along with the GWP values currently listed in Table A-1 and the proposed revised GWP values from the IPCC AR4.

Table 2—GHGs With Proposed Revised GWPs for Table A-1

Name

CAS No.

Current global warming potential

a

Proposed global warming potential

b

Methane

74-82-8

21

25

Nitrous oxide

10024-97-2

310

298

HFC-23

75-46-7

11,700

14,800

HFC-32

75-10-5

650

675

HFC-41

593-53-3

150

92

HFC-125

354-33-6

2,800

3,500

HFC-134

359-35-3

1,000

1,100

HFC-134a

811-97-2

1,300

1,430

HFC-143

430-66-0

300

353

HFC-143a

420-46-2

3,800

4,470

HFC-152a

75-37-6

140

124

HFC-227ea

431-89-0

2,900

3,220

HFC-236fa

690-39-1

6,300

9,810

HFC-245ca

679-86-7

560

693

HFC-43-10mee

138495-42-8

1,300

1,640

Sulfur hexafluoride

2551-62-4

23,900

22,800

PFC-14 (Perfluoromethane)

75-73-0

6,500

7,390

PFC-116 (Perfluoroethane)

76-16-4

9,200

12,200

PFC-218 (Perfluoropropane)

76-19-7

7,000

8,830

PFC-3-1-10 (Perfluorobutane)

355-25-9

7,000

8,860

Perfluorocyclobutane

115-25-3

8,700

10,300

PFC-4-1-12 (Perfluoropentane)

678-26-2

7,500

9,160

PFC-5-1-14 (Perfluorohexane)

355-42-0

7,400

9,300

a

From Table A-1 to subpart A of the October 30, 2009 GHG Reporting Rule.

b

From Table 2.14 of the errata to Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4.

We are proposing to adopt only GWP values based on a 100-year time horizon, although other time horizons are available in the IPCC AR4 (e.g., 20-year or 500-year GWPs). As acknowledged in the April 10, 2009 proposed GHG reporting rule (74 FR 16448), the parties to the UNFCCC agreed to use GWPs based upon a 100-year time horizon. Therefore, 100-year GWPs are used as the metric in the Inventory. Because the proposed changes are intended to make the GHGRP reporting methods more consistent with the Inventory, we are not considering the use of GWPs based on other time horizons.

As noted above, Table A-1 already includes AR4 GWPs for chemicals for which GWPs were not presented in the SAR (e.g., fluorinated ethers); the EPA is therefore proposing to retain the current GWPs for these chemicals (and for sevoflurane, which has not been included in any IPCC assessment but already is included in Table A-1). A complete listing of the current GWPs in Table A-1 to subpart A and the AR4 GWP values may be found in the memorandum, “Assessment of Emissions and Cost Impacts of 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule” (hereafter referred to as “Impacts Analysis”) (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

For one set of chemicals, fluorinated ethers and alcohols, the EPA is seeking comment on adopting GWPs from an international scientific assessment published more recently than AR4, the WMO (World Meteorological Organization)

Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2010

(Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 52, 516 pp., Geneva, Switzerland, 2011). Like the IPCC Assessment Reports, the WMO Scientific Assessments include regularly updated international reviews of the scientific findings on the lifetimes and impacts of trace gases in the atmosphere. While the primary focus of the WMO Scientific Assessments is depletion of stratospheric ozone, they have also included estimated GWPs for a number of fluorocarbons that do not deplete stratospheric ozone (many of which are substitutes for ozone-depleting substances) since 1989.

The current Table A-1 includes AR4 GWPs for several fluorinated ethers and alcohols, including several hydrofluoroethers (HFEs), which could be updated through the WMO Scientific Assessments. These fluorinated ethers and alcohols are not required to be included in national GHG inventories reported under the UNFCCC. In general, the compounds required to be reported under the GHGRP go beyond the minimum reporting requirements of the UNFCCC (e.g., NF

3

or fluorinated heat transfer fluids). These compounds were included in Part 98 because they are long-lived in the atmosphere, have high GWPs, and, in many cases, are used in expanding industries or as substitutes for HFCs (see 74 FR 16464, April 10, 2009). Thus, adopting GWPs for these compounds from an international assessment that is more recent than the AR4 would not conflict with UNFCCC reporting.

The 2010 WMO Scientific Assessment includes significant updates to the GWPs for several HFEs in commerce, reflecting improved understanding of the atmospheric lifetimes and radiative efficiencies of these chemicals. In a number of cases, estimated 100-year GWPs for HFEs have approximately doubled; in one, (for HFE-338mmz1), the estimated 100-year GWP rose by over a factor of six, from 380 to 2570. (The changes to the estimated GWPs of other fluorinated GHGs, such as the HFCs and PFCs, were far smaller.) To ensure consistency between the GHGRP and UNFCCC reporting, the EPA is not proposing to adopt GWPs from the 2010 WMO Scientific Assessment for chemicals other than fluorinated ethers and alcohols. However, the EPA requests comment on adopting GWPs from the 2010 WMO Scientific Assessment for a subset of chemicals, fluorinated ethers and alcohols, that are not reported under the Inventory.

We are not proposing to include GWPs for ozone-depleting substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol

12

and by Title VI of the CAA (e.g., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons) in Table A-1, although the IPCC AR4 includes updated GWPs for them. These controlled substances are specifically excluded from the definition of GHG, F-GHG, and F-HTF under Part 98 (and thus not required to be reported under Part 98), as these substances are already effectively reported under 40 CFR part 82. Furthermore, the reduction of these substances is controlled under the Montreal Protocol. The UNFCCC does not cover these substances or require reporting of these substances by UNFCCC parties,

13

so collecting data on these substances is unnecessary to complement or supplement the Inventory.

12

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

is an international treaty that controls and phases out various ozone-depleting substances including chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons and halons. These compounds are regulated in the U.S. under Title VI of the CAA. The UNFCCC does not cover these substances, and instead defers their treatment to the Montreal Protocol.

13

Refer to:

http://www.unfccc.int

. See Article 4 of the Convention on Climate Change.

c. Proposed Additional F-GHGs and GWPs for Table A-1

We are proposing to include 26 new F-GHGs in Table A-1 of subpart A for which the EPA has identified scientific assessments of the GWPs. These F-GHGs were not included in AR4 for a variety of reasons.

14

As discussed in Section II.A.1.a of this preamble, the F-GHGs we are proposing to include in Table A-1 are emitted or supplied by reporters under subparts I, L, T, OO, and QQ. Including GWP values in Table A-1 for these compounds would ensure that their atmospheric impacts are accurately reflected in annual reports, threshold determinations, or other calculations, as appropriate for each subpart in Part 98. In general, those F-

GHGs whose GWPs are currently not listed in Table A-1 are not currently included in threshold calculations for applicability or in the CO

2

e totals reported by facilities and suppliers

15

(although they are currently reported in metric tons of substance emitted or supplied (40 CFR 98.3(c)(4))). Where their GWPs are low, these compounds may have little effect on facility CO

2

e totals. However, where their GWPs are high, they may have a large effect on those totals.

14

In some cases, the F-GHGs had not been developed or had not become commercially important in time for inclusion in AR4; in others, the F-GHGs were known to have short atmospheric lifetimes and/or low GWPs.

15

The one exception to this is F-GHGs reported under subpart L. Under a final rule published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477), fluorinated gas producers are required for RY 2011 and RY 2012 to report total annual emissions in CO

2

e and to use either default or best-estimate GWPs for fluorinated GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in Table A-1.

In some cases, the proposed additions to Table A-1 would help to ensure that all Part 98 facilities emitting or supplying the identified F-GHGs would use consistent GWPs to calculate emissions of CO

2

e. For example, GWPs are used in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1), a provision of subpart L of Part 98 (Fluorinated Gas Production), to determine the emission estimation method for continuous process vents.

16

Under 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(v), subpart L reporters must use the GWPs in Table A-1 to convert F-GHG emissions to CO

2

e for a preliminary estimate of emissions. For F-GHGs whose GWPs are not listed in Table A-1, subpart L reporters must use a default GWP of 2,000 unless they submit a request to use provisional GWPs for those F-GHGs following the requirements of 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(vi) and the EPA approves the request. Provisional GWPs may be used only in the calculations in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1) and only by the facilities for which they have been approved.

17

Therefore, although the EPA may have reviewed and substantiated provisional GWP values for select F-GHGs for certain producers to use in determining the emission estimation method for continuous process vents under subpart L, the provisional GWPs may not be used by other Part 98 facilities. Including the proposed F-GHGs in Table A-1 would reduce burden for facilities that may otherwise be required to perform stack testing based on the default GWP (e.g., if the default GWP overstates the radiative efficiency of the F-GHG). Additionally, including these F-GHGs in Table A-1 would provide more accurate reporting than the use of the default GWPs under subpart L.

16

This is part of the provision of subpart L that allows facilities to request to use provisional GWPs to calculate a preliminary estimate of emissions from each process vent. If the preliminary estimate indicates that a vent emits 10,000 metric tons CO

2

e or more, the subpart L reporter is required to use stack testing to establish an emission factor for the continuous process vent. If the preliminary estimate indicates that the vent emits less than 10,000 metric tons CO

2

e, the subpart L reporter may use engineering calculations or assessments to develop an emission calculation factor.

17

For reporting years 2011 and 2012, subpart L reporters may use a best estimate of the GWP meeting the data requirements for provisional GWPs in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) as part of their facility-wide reported emissions.

The proposed F-GHGs include F-GHGs for which the EPA has previously reviewed scientific assessments from requests for provisional GWPs, F-GHGs submitted by a fluorinated GHG producer with suggested GWPs and supporting data and analysis on August 21, 2012, and F-GHGs for which evaluations of the GWPs were performed by the EPA (e.g., as part of evaluations associated with EPA's Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) program), or published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

18

Specifically, the compounds we are proposing to add to Table A-1 of subpart A include:

18

The SNAP program is EPA's program to evaluate substitutes for the ozone-depleting substances that are being phased out under the stratospheric ozone protection provisions of the Clean Air Act (as implemented in 40 CFR part 82). As part of EPA's assessment of a substitute's overall risk to human health and the environment, the EPA reviews scientific assessments of the GWP and considers this, among other criteria, in evaluating a substitute.

• Seven compounds for which the EPA has approved provisional GWPs for purposes of the calculations in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1). The EPA reviewed scientific assessments of the GWPs for these F-GHGs as provided with provisional GWP requests received from Honeywell International (“Honeywell”) and DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (“DuPont”) and published in the February 3, 2012 Notice of Data Availability (77 FR 5514). The EPA approved provisional GWPs for one F-GHG for Honeywell, and for six F-GHGs for DuPont. The EPA finalized its determinations for these compounds on February 24, 2012 (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273). Based on EPA's review of the GWP estimation methods for these compounds, we are proposing to amend Table A-1 to include these seven gases.

• Four compounds submitted with provisional GWP requests for which the EPA did not approve provisional GWPs (including three F-GHGs for DuPont, and one F-GHG for Honeywell). The companies submitted scientific data supporting the GWPs of these four compounds, which was made available in the February 3, 2012 Notice of Data Availability (77 FR 5514). (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0256 for further discussion of the scientific assessments reviewed). The EPA did evaluate the GWPs of these F-GHGs, but not for the purposes of the calculations in 40 CFR 98.123(c) because the calculated emission rates of these chemicals, when using the default GWP, did not exceed the 10,000 metric tons CO

2

e threshold and did not meet the conditions of 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1)(v). The fact that the EPA did not approve the GWPs for purposes of the calculations in 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1) was not due to disagreement with the companies' suggested GWPs. Therefore, the EPA is also proposing to amend Table A-1 to include these four gases.

• Ten F-GHGs submitted by DuPont on August 21, 2012, with supporting data and analysis (see Table 3 of this preamble). We are proposing to include the ten compounds in Table A-1. For each compound, DuPont included peer-reviewed scientific data supporting the suggested GWP.

• Five F-GHGs which were identified from the EPA's review of industrial gases produced for or used in the electronics manufacturing, fluorinated gas production, magnesium production, electrical equipment manufacture or refurbishment, and industrial gas supplier source categories and for which scientific assessments or other documentation of the GWPs were identified through the EPA's SNAP Program or peer-reviewed literature. These compounds are identified under the common names FK-5-1-12 (Novec

TM

612), FK-6-1-12 (Novec

TM

774), trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene, PFC-6-1-12, and PFC-7-1-18.

Determination of proposed GWPs.

To determine the proposed GWPs for each compound, the EPA reviewed the scientific literature for each compound and evaluated the accuracy of the estimation methods and assumptions used to derive the GWP.

19

A detailed description of the EPA's analysis may be found in the memorandum, “GWP

Determinations for Proposed Additional F-GHGs for Table A-1”, Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934. The proposed GWP for each of the 26 compounds is included in Table 3 of this preamble; Table 3 also includes how each compound was identified for inclusion in Table A-1 of subpart A.

19

The key component of the GWP calculation is the time-integrated radiative forcing of a one-kg emission of the compound over a 100-year time horizon. The accuracy of the radiative forcing calculation depends on the accuracies of the infrared absorption spectrum and the atmospheric lifetime of the compound. The lifetime is affected by the compound's reaction rates through reaction with atmospheric oxidants (e.g., ozone or hydroxyl radicals) or through photolysis (destruction by light). These rates, as well as the radiative efficiency of the compound, depend on the distribution of the compound in the atmosphere with altitude, latitude and longitude. The factors affecting GWPs are discussed in more detail in

Supporting Analysis for Mandatory Reporting Of Greenhouse Gases: Notice Of Preliminary Determinations Regarding Requests to Use Provisional Global Warming Potentials Under the Fluorinated Gas Production Category of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule

(January 23, 2011), which is available in Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

Table 3—Proposed F-GHGs With GWPs for Table A-1

Chemical designation or common name

CAS No.

Chemical formula

Proposed GWP

Origin of compound and GWP assessments

HFC-1234ze(E)

29118-24-9

C

3

H

2

F

4

6

Approved as provisional GWP for Honeywell International (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

hexafluoropropylene (HFP)

116-15-4

C

3

F

6

0.25

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

perfluoromethyl vinyl ether (PMVE)

1187-93-5

CF(CF

3

)OCF

3

3

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

tetrafluoroethylene (TFE)

116-14-3

C

2

F

4

0.02

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

trifluoro propene (TFP)

677-21-4

C

3

H

3

F

3

3

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

vinyl fluoride (VF)

75-02-5

C

2

H

3

F

0.7

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

vinylidine Fluoride (VF2)

75-38-7

C

2

H

2

F

2

0.9

Approved as provisional GWP for DuPont de Nemours (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

carbonyl fluoride

353-50-4

COF

2

2

Submitted with provisional GWP request for DuPont de Nemours, no provisional GWP approved (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

perfluoropropyl vinyl ether

1623-05-8

C

5

F

10

O

3

Submitted with provisional GWP request for DuPont de Nemours, no provisional GWP approved (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

perfluoroethyl vinyl ether

10493-43-3

C

4

F

8

O

3

Submitted with provisional GWP request for DuPont de Nemours, no provisional GWP approved (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

HFC-1234yf

754-12-1

C

3

H

2

F

4

4

Submitted with provisional GWP request for Honeywell International, no provisional GWP approved (see EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0273, February 24, 2012).

perfluorethyl iodide (2-I)

354-64-3

C

2

F

5

I

3

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

perfluorbutyl iodide (PFBI, 42-I)

423-39-2

C

4

F

9

I

3

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

perfluorhexyl iodide (6-I)

355-43-1

CF

3

CF

2

CF

2

CF

2

CF

2

CF

2

IC

6

F

13

I

2

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

perfluoroctyl iodide (8-I)

507-63-1

C

8

F

17

I

2

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

1,1,1,2,2-pentafluoro-4-iodo butane (22-I)

40723-80-6

C

4

H

4

F

5

I

2

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-6-iodo hexane (42-I)

2043-55-2

C

6

H

4

F

9

I

2

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

perfluorobutyl ethene (42-U)

19430-93-4

C

6

H

3

F

9

2

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours

perfluorohexyl ethene (62-U)

25291-17-2

C

8

H

3

F

13

1

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

perfluorooctyl ethene (82-U);

21652-58-4

C

10

H

3

F

17

1

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

1H,1H, 2H,2H-perfluorohexan-1-ol (42-AL)

2043-47-2

C

6

H

5

F

9

O

5

Submitted in August 2012 by DuPont de Nemours.

FK-5-1-12; Novec

TM

612; FK-5-1-12myy2; n-Perfluorooctane; Octanedecafluorooctane

756-13-8

CF

3

CF

2

C(O)CF(CF

3

)

2

1.8

Published under EPA's SNAP Program (40 CFR part 82) and identified in manufacturer's literature.

FK-6-1-12/Novec

TM

774, C7 Fluoroketone

813-44-5 and 813-45-6

C

7

F

14

O Chemical Blend

1

Published under EPA's SNAP Program (40 CFR part 82).

trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene

2730-43-0

C

3

H

2

ClF

3

7

Published under EPA's SNAP Program (40 CFR part 82) and identified in peer reviewed literature.

PFC-6-1-16; Hexadecafluoroheptane

335-57-9

C

7

F

16

7930

Identified in peer reviewed literature.

PFC-7-1-18; Octadecafluorooctane

307-34-6

C

8

F

18

8340

Identified in peer reviewed literature.

For the first 11 compounds in Table 3 (seven with approved provisional GWPs and the four without approved provisional GWPs), the EPA determined that the methods used to estimate the GWPs were likely to overestimate the GWPs by an order of magnitude or more (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927-0256). These compounds are all relatively short-lived, and the analyses to determine the GWP for these compounds used the simplifying assumptions that the compounds are well-mixed in the atmosphere. In general, the assumption that short-lived compounds are well-mixed overestimates the radiative forcing of these gases and may affect estimates of the atmospheric lifetime. Because of this simplifying assumption, the proposed GWPs are likely to be overestimates. However, the EPA has determined that the proposed GWPs for these short-lived gases represent the most current, peer-reviewed, scientific knowledge of the radiative properties and lifetimes of these gases. For subpart L reporters, the proposed GWPs would provide a more accurate calculation of CO

2

e emissions than the default GWPs required under 40 CFR 98.123(a). Furthermore, because the GWP of each of these 11 F-GHGs is very low (i.e., between 0.02 and 6, as shown in Table 3 of this preamble), the EPA has determined that the proposed GWPs would not significantly overestimate source category emissions or supply and are acceptable for the purposes of calculating emissions under Part 98.

For the ten F-GHGs submitted by DuPont on August 21, 2012, the radiative efficiency of each compound is derived using a constant mixing ratio of the compounds in the troposphere (i.e., the methods assume that the compounds are well-mixed). These compounds are all anticipated to be short-lived in the atmosphere. Therefore, the constant mixing ratio likely overestimates the share of these compounds that reside higher in the atmosphere and consequently overestimates the radiative efficiency (and GWP). For four of the 10 compounds, the approach used to calculate the atmospheric lifetimes likely underestimates the lifetimes of these compounds.

20

However, the radiative efficiency calculation is likely to outweigh the underestimated lifetimes. The EPA reviewed recent research that suggests the approach used to determine the radiative efficiency for these compounds can result in overestimates of the 100-year GWP of 49 to 233 percent (see “GWP Determinations for Proposed Additional F-GHGs for Table A-1,” Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934 for additional information on this analysis). The available estimates for these GWPs are likely upper bounds, because these are short-lived, low-GWP gases. We are proposing to include the GWPs for these ten F-GHGs in Table A-1 of subpart A. Because the GWP of each F-GHG is very low (i.e., between 1 and 5, as shown in Table 3), the EPA has determined that the proposed GWPs would not significantly overestimate source category emissions or supply and are acceptable for the purposes of calculating emissions under Part 98.

20

The methods used assumed that these gases were well-mixed; this underestimates the concentration of O

3

and overestimates the concentration of OH to which the compound is actually exposed. The overestimate of the OH concentration has a greater effect on the reaction rate and estimated lifetime of the compound.

For the five F-GHGs identified through scientific assessments published through EPA's SNAP program or in peer-reviewed literature, the EPA evaluated the estimation methods used to determine the GWP for each compound. The EPA's determination for each compound (identified by common name) and the proposed GWPs are as follows:

•

FK-5-1-12

(Novec

TM

612, Novec

TM

1230). FK-5-1-12 is a fluorinated ketone; it is known under the trade name Novec

TM

612 when used as a magnesium cover gas and as Novec

TM

1230 when used as a fire suppression agent. Product information provided by the manufacturer provides a GWP estimate of 1 for a 100-year integration using IPCC 2007 calculation methods.

21

An analysis of the GWP of FK-5-1-12 was also performed through EPA's SNAP Program.

22

The SNAP analysis considered two scientific reports that provided estimates of atmospheric lifetime and radiative efficiency, and determined that the total GWP of FK-5-1-12 (integrated over a 100-year time horizon and calculated using the IPCC approach) would likely have a value between 0.6 and 1.8. The total GWP comprises a direct value of less than 1 but greater than zero plus an indirect GWP of 0.56 to 0.84, based on 4 to 6 carbons available for conversion to CO

2

. The EPA is conservatively proposing a GWP of 1.8. For the upper-bound value, the methods used to evaluate the radiative efficiency for FK-5-1-12 assumed a constant mixing ratio for the compound, which likely overestimated the radiative efficiency and the GWP. Because the proposed GWP of the compound is so low, we do not anticipate that the proposed value would result in substantial over-reporting for the magnesium production source category.

21

3M Company. “3M

TM

Novec

TM

1230 Fire Protection Fluid.” 2009. Available online at:

http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?mwsId=66666UF6EVsSyXTtlXfyn8TEEVtQEVs6EVs6EVs6E666666-&fn=prodinfo_novec1230.pdf

.

22

See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

•

FK-6-1-12

(Novec

TM

774, C7 Fluoroketone).

The compound FK-6-1-12 (also produced under the trade name Novec

TM

774), is a blend of two isomers: 3-pentanone,1,1,1,2,4,5,5,5-octafluoro-2,4-bis(trifluoromethyl) and 3-

hexanone,1,1,1,2,4,4,5,5,6,6,6-undecafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl). The GWP of FK-6-1-12 was previously evaluated and published under EPA's SNAP Program.

23

The SNAP analysis provided a 100-year integrated GWP of approximately 1, therefore, we are proposing to include a GWP value of 1 in Table A-1. The compound also has a chemical structure similar to that of FK-5-1-12, therefore, we anticipate a similar lifetime and GWP for these compounds.

23

See “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 27 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

•

trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene.

The compound trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (trade name Solstice

TM

1233zd(E)) is a polyurethane foam blowing agent useful in applications such as thermal insulation in appliances and residential and commercial buildings. An analysis of the GWP of trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene was previously performed through EPA's SNAP Program.

24

As part of the SNAP analysis, the EPA considered two studies, Anderson et al. (2008)

25

and Wang et al. (2011),

26

and established a GWP of between 4.7 and 7 and an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 26 to 31 days. In its evaluation, the EPA has given weight to the peer-reviewed analysis by Anderson et al. (2008), which calculates a GWP of 7. We are also considering research by Wang et al. (In draft)

27

which calculates a lifetime of 30.5 days and estimates a GWP of 4.7. The model used by Wang et al. accounts for the shorter lifetime and reduced mixing of the trans-1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene compound, and may provide a more accurate estimate of the GWP. Although the latter two of the studies cited (from the same author) give a GWP of 4.7, the EPA has determined that it is more appropriate to use the GWP from the first study, as it comes from a peer-reviewed journal article. Also, consistent with the reasoning for choosing possibly upper-bound GWPs for other chemicals in Table 3 of this preamble, the EPA has concluded that using the GWP of 7 rather than 4.7 would not significantly overestimate source category emissions or supply and is acceptable for the purposes of calculating emissions under Part 98.

24

See “Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Determination 27 for Significant New Alternatives Policy Program,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

25

Andersen, M.P.S., E.J.K. Nilsson, O.J. Nielsen, M.S. Johnson, M.D. Hurley, and T.J. Wallington. 2008. Atmospheric chemistry of trans-CF3CH CHCl: Kinetics of the gas-phase reactions with Cl atoms, OH radicals, and O3. J. Photochem. Photobiol. A: Chemistry 199: 92-97.

26

Wang D., Olsen S., Wuebbles D. 2011. “Preliminary Report: Analyses of tCFP's Potential Impact on Atmospheric Ozone.” Department of Atmospheric Sciences. University of Illinois, Urbana, IL. September 26, 2011.

27

Wang, D., Wuebbles, D.J., Patten, K.O., and Olsen, S.C. In draft. Climate advantages of proposed short-lived compounds as replacements for longer-lived HCFCs and HFCs. Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. Draft report, undated.

•

PFC 6-1-16 and PFC 7-1-18.

The perfluorocarbons (PFCs) C

7

F

16

and C

8

F

18

are used as heat transfer fluids and in vapor phase reflow soldering in the electronics manufacturing industry. There are no previous estimates of the GWPs for these gases. Ivy et al. (2012)

28

have recently provided emission estimates and measured infrared spectra of these PFCs to estimate the GWPs. These compounds have an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 3,000 years and are expected to be well-mixed in the atmosphere. Because the expected lifetimes of these PFCs are much longer than the 100-year time horizon used to calculate the GWP, they are relatively insensitive to the estimated lifetime. Furthermore, the methods and assumptions used by Ivy et al. (2012) are generally considered reliable for long-lived gases. Therefore, we are proposing the GWPs for these two compounds as presented by Ivy et al., as listed in Table 3 of this preamble.

28

Ivy, D.J., M. Rigby, M. Baasandorj, J. B. Burkholder, and R. G. Prinn. 2012. Global emission estimates and radiative impact of C4F10, C5F12, C6F14, C7F16 and C8F18. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12: 7635-7645. DOI:10.5194/acp-12-7635-2012.

A complete analysis of each of these compounds and the proposed GWPs are included in the memorandum, “GWP Determinations for Proposed Additional F-GHGs for Table A-1,” Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

Request for additional information.

The GWPs we are proposing in Table A-1 are based on the data available to the EPA at the time of this proposed rulemaking. We specifically solicit comment on the proposed GWPs for the 26 compounds we are proposing in Table A-1, including submittal of additional data or analyses that may support more accurate estimates of the GWP or that support the GWP estimation methods that are currently provided.

For commenters providing new estimates of GWPs for the proposed compounds for inclusion in Table A-1, we request that the commenter submit the following types of scientific data and analyses to support the estimated GWP:

(1) Data and analysis related to the low-pressure gas phase infrared absorption spectrum of the compound;

(2) Data and analysis related to reaction mechanisms and rates such as photolysis and reaction with atmospheric components such as hydroxyl radicals (OH), ozone (O

3

), carbon monoxide (CO), and water;

(3) Radiative transfer analyses that integrate the lifetime and infrared absorption spectrum data to calculate the GWP; or,

(4) Published or unpublished studies of the GWP of the compound.

The EPA intends to review and consider additional information submitted during the public comment period to assess the proposed GWPs and consider other accurate estimates of the GWP for each compound. We anticipate requesting comment on additional compounds in a separate action.

2. Other Technical Corrections and Proposed Amendments to Subpart A

In addition to the proposed amendments to global warming potentials in Table A-1, we are also proposing corrections and other clarifications to certain provisions of subpart A of Part 98. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart A are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

The EPA is proposing to revise the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 98.3(c)(1). Section 98.3(c)(1) requires reporting of the physical address of the facility where the emissions occur (not the parent company address). Some facilities do not have a physical street address assigned to them and their mailing address is not co-located with their facility operations. In order to more accurately report the physical location of these facilities, the EPA is proposing that those without a physical address at their operations site provide latitude and longitude coordinates instead. This proposed addition is not intended as an option for any facility whose physical address coincides with their facility operations. It also is not intended for use by suppliers and importers and/or exporters covered by Part 98, or facilities reporting under subpart W in the natural gas distribution (40 CFR 98.230(a)(8)) or onshore petroleum and natural gas production (40 CFR 98.230(a)(2)) industry segments.

We are proposing to add a requirement to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(13) for all facilities with a power generating unit to report the facility Office of the Regulatory Information System (ORIS)

code for each power generation unit. The proposed amendment would facilitate the verification of emissions information received by the EPA. The EPA is also proposing to add the following definition for ORIS code in 40 CFR 98.6 for clarity, “ORIS Code” means the unique identifier assigned to each power plant in the National Electric Energy Data System (NEEDS). The ORIS code is a four digit number assigned by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) at the U.S. Department of Energy to power plants owned by utilities.”

We are proposing to add a provision to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(11) to include instructions for the reporting of a United States parent company legal name and address. The proposed amendment would specify that a facility or supplier must use the reporting instructions found in e-GGRT when reporting a parent company. The proposed amendment would facilitate verification of the emissions reported by allowing the EPA to provide a common naming convention through e-GGRT that would be used to easily identify parent companies and to accurately attribute GHG emissions to the correct parent companies. Instructions regarding reporting of parent company name and address have been posted to the docket for this action (See docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

Additionally, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to clarify the provisions for requesting an extension of the 45-day period for submission of revised reports in 40 CFR 98.3(h)(1) and (2). Specifically, we are clarifying the timing requirements for approval or denial of the automatic 30-day extension and any subsequent extensions provided in 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4). The proposed amendments would require reporters to submit a request for any additional extension beyond the 30-day automatic extension at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the initial 30-day extension. If the request demonstrates that it is not practicable to submit the data or information needed to resolve a potential reporting error following the 30-day automatic extension, the Administrator may approve an additional extension request. The proposed amendment would provide a reasonable timeline for reporters to submit extension requests and for the EPA's collection and verification of reported data.

We are proposing to add a definition of fluidized bed combustor (FBC) to 40 CFR 98.6. The definition is necessary to be consistent with the proposed addition of FBC-specific N

2

O emission factors for coal, waste anthracite (culm), and waste bituminous (gob) to Table C-2.

Finally, we are proposing revisions to the definitions of three terms in subpart A: degasification system, ventilation well or shaft, and ventilation system. These terms are used only in subpart FF, Underground Coal Mines, and are proposed to be revised to more closely align with common terminology used in the coal mining industry.

B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

We are proposing revisions to the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) to clarify the use of the Tier methodologies and to update high heat value (HHV) and emission factors. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart C are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

First, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1) to expand the use of the Tier 1 methodology in one situation that currently requires the use of the Tier 3 methodology. Generally, subpart C requires the use of the Tier 3 methodology for combustion units that are greater than 250 million Btus per hour for all fuels listed in Table C-1, and, for fuels not listed in Table C-1 if the fuel provides 10 percent or more of the annual heat input to the unit. To reduce the monitoring burden of determining carbon content of Table C-1 fuels that are used in relatively small amounts annually, we are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1) that will allow the Tier 1 methodology to be used for Table C-1 fuels that are combusted in a unit with a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than 250 million Btus per hour, if the fuel provides less than 10 percent of the annual heat input to the unit.

We are proposing changes to Table C-1 to update the HHV and emission factors for several fuels and to add emission factors for culm and gob. The EPA received a number of comments and questions through the GHGRP Help Desk with suggestions for improvements to these factors. We researched these factors to ensure the most scientifically valid values were reflected. An analysis of the proposed changes to Table C-1 as a result of this research can be found in the memorandum “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO

2

Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45,” available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

In response to a Petition for Rulemaking (“Sierra Club Petition”),

29

the EPA evaluated establishing separate (from the parent coal) CO

2

emission factors for culm and gob in Table C-1. The EPA is proposing the addition of culm and gob to Table C-1. These separate entries have been added to clarify that the Table C-1 CO

2

emission factors for anthracite coal and bituminous coal should be used for culm and gob, respectively. Because the heating value of culm or gob is variable and quite different from the parent anthracite or bituminous coals, the EPA is proposing that the default heating values in Table C-1 for anthracite and bituminous may not be used for culm and gob. The changes to Table C-1 specify that the HHV for culm or gob must be measured according to the Tier 2 Methodology. Our analysis and development of emission factors can be found in the memorandum “Emission Factor Updates for Fluidized Bed Boilers and Other Revisions to Tables C-1 and C-2 of 40 CFR Part 98—Summary” available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934. Because the Tier 1 Methodology allows the use of default HHVs from Table C-1, we

propose revising 40 CFR 98.33(b)(1) to prohibit use of the Tier 1 Methodology when estimating the emissions from combustion of culm or gob. With these revisions and those proposed with respect to fluidized bed combustors in this Section II.B.,

infra,

we believe that we have fully addressed the Petition for Rulemaking.

29

Letter from Craig Holt Segall, Sierra Club Environmental Law Program, on behalf of the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Wisconsin, the Kentucky Environmental Foundation, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and the Natural Resources Defense Council to Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA. Petition for Rulemaking To Correct Emission Factors in the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. October 28, 2010.

Table 4 of this preamble shows a summary of the proposed Table C-1 revisions, and major changes are explained below.

Table 4—Proposed Changes to Table C-1 to Subpart C—Default CO

2

Emission Factors and High Heat Values for Various Types of Fuel

Fuel type

Coal and coke

Current values

Default high heat value

mmBtu/short ton

Default CO

2

emission factor

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Proposed values

Default high heat value

Default CO

2

emission factor

Anthracite

25.09

103.54

No change

103.69

Waste Anthracite (Culm)

See footnote 1

103.69

Bituminous

24.93

93.40

No change

93.28

Waste Bituminous (Gob)

See footnote 1

93.28

Subbituminous

17.25

97.02

No change

97.17

Lignite

14.21

96.36

No change

97.72

Coal Coke [Fuel type changed from “coke”]

24.80

102.04

No change

113.67

Mixed (Commercial sector)

21.39

95.26

No change

94.27

Mixed (Industrial coking)

26.28

93.65

No change

93.90

Mixed (Industrial sector)

22.35

93.91

No change

94.67

Mixed (Electric Power sector)

19.73

94.38

No change

95.52

Natural gas

mmBtu/scf

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

(Weighted U.S. Average)

1.028 × 10

−3

53.02

1.026 × 10

−3

53.06

Petroleum products

mmBtu/gallon

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Used Oil

0.135

74.00

0.138

No change

Liquefied petroleum gases (LPG)

0.092

62.98

No change

61.71

Propane

0.091

61.46

No change

62.87

Propylene

0.091

65.95

No change

67.77

Ethane

0.069

62.64

0.068

59.60

Ethylene

0.100

67.43

0.058

65.96

Isobutane

0.097

64.91

0.099

64.94

Isobutylene

0.103

67.74

No change

68.86

Butane

0.101

65.15

0.103

64.77

Butylene

0.103

67.73

0.105

68.72

Natural Gasoline

0.110

66.83

No change

66.88

Petrochemical Feedstocks

0.129

70.97

0.125

71.02

Unfinished Oils

0.139

74.49

No change

74.54

Heavy Gas Oils

0.148

74.92

No change

No change

Crude Oil

0.138

74.49

No change

74.54

Other fuels-solid

mmBtu/short ton

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Tires

26.87

85.97

28.00

No change

Biomass fuels—solid

mmBtu/short ton

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Wood and Wood Residuals(dry basis) [Fuel Type description changed from Wood and Wood Residuals]

15.38

93.80

17.48

No change

Solid Byproducts

25.83

105.51

10.39

No change

Biomass fuels—gaseous

mmBtu/scf

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Landfill Gas [Fuel type description changed from Biogas (captured methane)

0.841 × 10

−3

52.07

0.485 × 10

−3

No change

Other Biomass Gases [New Fuel type added]

0.655 ×

10−3

52.07

Biomass Fuels—Liquid

mmBtu/gallon

kg CO

2

/mmBtu

Biodiesel

0.128

73.84

Deleted Duplicate

Note: “No change” indicates no changes to the current value. Additional footnotes have been added to the table.

The changes include a change to the HHV for wood and wood residuals. The HHV in Table C-1 for Wood and Wood Residuals is a wet basis value that assumes a moisture content of 12 percent. GHGRP reporters have indicated that they use wood fuel with highly variable moisture content, and so the existing factor results in calculation inaccuracies of CO

2

emissions from burning this fuel. These reporters have requested that the EPA provide HHVs for a range of moisture contents for wood fuel. In order to address this issue, we are proposing an addition to Table C-1 for “Wood and Wood Residuals on a dry basis,” with a footnote containing an equation that can be used to adjust the value for any moisture content. Reporters can then calculate a HHV for use in Equation C-1 using the moisture content of their facility specific fuel. We are also proposing a change to Table C-1 that replaces the one HHV for “Biogas (captured methane)” with values for two types of biogas: “Landfill Gas” and “Other Biomass Gases.” The CH

4

content of landfill gas (approximately 50 percent) is typically lower than the CH

4

concentration in digester gas (approximately 65 percent), and the proposed emission factors reflect these concentration values.

Revisions are proposed to the HHV and emission factors for the individual components of liquid petroleum gases (LPG) including propane, propylene, ethane, ethylene, isobutane, isobutylene, butane, and butylene. Since the HHV for these LPGs are presented on the basis of million Btu per gallon, and these compounds are gases under standard conditions, the heating value must be presented using a stated temperature and pressure. For all LPG except ethylene, we are proposing estimates of HHV at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and saturation pressure. For ethylene, since it cannot be liquefied above 48.6°F, we have selected a value for HHV that is determined at 41°F (slightly under the critical temperature) and the corresponding saturation pressure. The emission factors for these compounds have also been updated using the proposed HHV and the fraction of carbon contained in the compound.

We are proposing a correction to the emission factor for coke because it appears that the emission factor currently in Table C-1 was inadvertently listed as the emission factor for petroleum coke. We have also changed the name in Table C-1 to “coal coke” to differentiate this substance from “petroleum coke,” which has a different HHV and EF. We are also proposing updated emission factors for the four types of coal and the four listed factors for mixed coals based on the most recent version of the factors used in the Inventory.

The HHV for the biomass fuel “solid byproducts” would be revised to reflect the average of the solid byproducts consumed by the facilities that reported HHV in the 1999 survey conducted by the Energy Information Administration. The proposed value is presented on a wet basis, and is more consistent with other biomass fuels. Based on our research, we are also proposing minor changes to the HHV and/or emission factors for the following substances: natural gas, used oil, petrochemical feedstocks, and tires. Other proposed changes to Table C-1 include updates to emission factors and HHV based on our latest research and to standardize conversion factors. These corrections are discussed in the memorandum “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO

2

Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45” (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv). The method in 40 CFR 98.33(e)(3)(iv) for calculating biogenic CO

2

emissions from municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion requires the use of a default factor for the biogenic share of CO

2

. We are proposing a change to the default factor used to determine the annual biogenic CO

2

emissions from MSW from 0.6 to 0.55 to reflect trends in waste composition. The complete analysis of this change can be found in the memorandum “Review and Evaluation of 40 CFR Part 98 CO

2

Emission Factors for EPW07072 TO 45,” available in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

The EPA received a Petition for Reconsideration and Rulemaking from the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and the American Wood Council (AWC) on November 16, 2012 (hereafter referred to as “AF&PA Petition”).

30

The AF&PA Petition included a recent study containing new methane (CH

4

) and nitrous oxide (N

2

O) emissions test data in support of a request that EPA revise the CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors in Subparts AA and C for combustion of spent pulping liquor and wood residuals. The EPA reviewed the basis for the current emission factors, integrated the emissions test data provided by Petitioners with previously available data, and is proposing to update the spent pulping liquor and wood residual combustion emission factors in subparts AA and C, respectively.

30

Letter from Paul Noe, American Forest & Paper Association, and Robert Glowinski, American Wood Council, to Lisa Jackson, U.S. EPA. Petition for Reconsideration of 40 CFR Part 98 Subparts C and AA; Petition for Rulemaking To Revise 40 CFR Part 98 Subparts C and AA; Request for Correction Under Information Quality Act. November 16, 2012.

Table 5 of this preamble summarizes the proposed Table C-2 revisions, and major changes are explained below.

Table 5—Proposed Changes to Table C-2 to Subpart C-Default CH

4

and N

2

O Emission Factors for Various Types of Fuel

Fuel type

Current values

Default CH

4

emission factor

Default N

2

O

emission factor

Proposed values

Default CH

4

emission factor

Default N

2

O

emission factor

Coal and Coke (All fuel types in Table C-1)

1

(Footnote Added)

1.1 × 10

−02

1.6 × 10

−03

1.1 × 10

−02

1.6 × 10

−03

Anthracite for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

1.6 × 10

−01

Waste Anthracite (Culm) for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

4.0 × 10

−01

Bituminous for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

1.3 × 10

−01

Waste Bituminous (Gob) for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

2.9 × 10

−01

Subbituminous for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

6.5 × 10

−02

Lignite for FBCs only

2

N/A

N/A

1.1 × 10

−02

1.1 × 10

−01

Fuel Gas

N/A

N/A

3.0 × 10

−03

6.0 × 10

−04

Biomass Fuels—Solid (All fuel types in Table C-1, except wood and wood residuals) (Added to parenthetical: “except wood and wood residuals”)

3.2 × 10

−02

4.2 × 10

−03

3.2 × 10

−02

4.2 × 10

−03

Wood and wood residuals

7.2 × 10

−3

3.6 × 10

−3

Biomass Fuels-Gaseous (All fuel types in Table C-1) Changed category from “Biomass”

3.2 × 10

−03

6.3 × 10

−04

3.2 × 10

−03

6.3 × 10

−04

N/A = No current emission factor available.

1

Use of the default emission factors for the coal and coke category may not be used to estimate emissions from combusting anthracite, waste anthracite, bituminous, waste bituminous, subbituminous, or lignite coal burned in an FBC.

2

Use of these default emission factors is required for FBCs burning the specified coal type.

Note: Those employing this table are assumed to fall under the IPCC definitions of the “Energy Industry” or “Manufacturing Industries and Construction”. In all fuels except for coal the values for these two categories are identical. For coal combustion, those who fall within the IPCC “Energy Industry” category may employ a value of 1g of CH

4

/mmBtu.

Specifically, based on our analysis of this emissions test data, we are proposing to add a row for wood and wood residuals in Table C-2 that contains CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors addressing those submitted to EPA with the AF&PA Petition. We integrated that data with previously available emissions test data in order to consider all of the information available to us in developing the new default emission factors for wood and wood residuals. Our analysis of the test data can be found in the memorandum “Kraft Pulping Liquor and Woody Biomass Methane (CH

4

) and Nitrous Oxide (N

2

O) Emission Factor Literature Review” available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

We are also proposing to add coal, culm, and gob N

2

O emission factors to Table C-2 specific to fluidized bed combustors. As referenced above in response to the Sierra Club Petition, the EPA reviewed multiple studies that indicate that N

2

O emissions from fluidized bed combustors burning coal, culm, and gob are significantly higher than from conventional combustion technologies. The EPA agrees our analysis and development of emission factors (including a discussion of emission factors for culm and gob) can be found in the memorandum “Emission Factor Updates for Fluidized Bed Boilers and Other Revisions to Tables C-1 and C-2 of 40 CFR Part 98—Summary” available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

We are proposing to add “fuel gas” to Table C-2 of subpart C to address a program gap discovered through the verification process. Because fuel gas is not currently included in Table C-2, instructions are included in subparts X and Y to use the default CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors for “Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)” to calculate CH

4

and N

2

O emissions from fuel gas combustion. However, for facilities that do not report under subpart X or Y, there is currently no requirement to calculate CH

4

and N

2

O emissions from fuel gas combustion. The proposed revision addresses this unintentional gap. As a result, subpart C reporters would be required to report CH

4

and N

2

O emissions from fuel gas combustion. Fuel gas is defined at 40 CFR 98.6 as “gas generated at a petroleum refinery or petrochemical plant and that is combusted separately or in any combination with any type of gas.”

C. Subpart H—Cement Production

We are proposing one revision to the reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart H (Cement Production). The current Part 98, published on October 30, 2009, provides that facilities subject to subpart H report the monthly cement production from each kiln at the facility for verification of reported emissions. In the preamble to the Technical Corrections, Clarifying, and Other Amendments to Certain Provisions of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 66434, October 28, 2010), the EPA stated its intent to change the cement production reporting requirements under 40 CFR 98.86 to require annual, facility-wide cement production instead of monthly, kiln-specific cement production (75 FR 66440). Reporting cement production on a kiln-specific basis is inconsistent with cement plant manufacturing practices, because kilns produce clinker (an intermediate product in cement manufacturing) and do not make cement. Although it was obviously the EPA's intention to revise the rule accordingly, inadvertently, this change was not reflected in the rule. This change is also consistent with the requirement in 40 CFR 98.86(b)(3), which requires facilities without continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) to report annual cement production at the facility. Therefore, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.96(a)(2) to require reporting of facility-wide cement production.

D. Subpart K—Ferroalloy Production

We are proposing two corrections to subpart K of Part 98 (Ferroalloy Production). First, we are proposing to revise Equation K-3 of subpart K to correct the equation. The equation in the current Part 98 does not include a conversion factor from kilograms to metric tons. Therefore, we are proposing to correct Equation K-3 to revise the numerical term “2000/2205” to “2/2205” to account for this conversion.

Next, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.116(e) to require the reporting of the annual process CH

4

emissions (in metric tons) from each electric arc furnace (EAF) used for the production of any ferroalloy listed in Table K-1 of subpart K of Part 98. Per 40 CFR 98.113(d), ferroalloy production facilities are currently required to calculate CH

4

emissions from each EAF used for the production of ferroalloys listed in Table K-1. Facilities are currently required to report CH

4

emissions for EAFs where a CEMS is used to measure emissions. However, the requirement to report emissions of CH

4

from EAFs where the carbon mass balance procedure is used to measure emissions was erroneously omitted from the current Part 98. The proposed amendments are necessary for

consistent reporting of CH

4

emissions from all ferroalloy production facilities. Because facilities must already monitor and calculate emissions of CH

4

from each EAF, the proposed amendment would not impose any additional burden on reporters. The proposed data reporting element reflects aggregated annual information that is currently gathered by reporters.

E. Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas Production

Under subpart L of Part 98 (Fluorinated Gas Production), the EPA is proposing to extend temporary, less detailed reporting requirements for fluorinated gas producers for an additional year. In a final rule published on August 24, 2012, the EPA promulgated temporary, less detailed reporting requirements for reporting years 2011 and 2012 (77 FR 51477). As discussed in that final rule, this was intended to allow the EPA time to evaluate concerns raised by the producers that EPA release of the more detailed reporting required by the 2010 final rule would reveal trade secrets, and to consider how the rule might be changed to balance these concerns with the need to obtain the data necessary to inform the development of future GHG policies and programs. The proposed extension would require the same less detailed reporting for reporting year 2013 as for reporting years 2011 and 2012. The extension would allow the EPA, as well as stakeholders, to consider the various options for reporting emissions under subpart L in conjunction with EPA's on-going evaluations regarding reporting inputs to emission equations for subpart L, whose reporting deadline was deferred until 2015. Fluorinated gas producers and other commenters have often noted that whether or not disclosure of a particular data element poses confidentiality concerns depends on the other data that would be required to be reported and/or disclosed. The extension would allow the various potential reporting requirements and confidentiality determinations to be considered simultaneously.

F. Subpart N—Glass Production

We are proposing several clarifying revisions to subpart N of Part 98 (Glass Production). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart N are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to revise the monitoring methods used to measure carbonate-based mineral mass-fractions to allow for more accurate measurement methods and to add flexibility for reporters. The current Part 98 requires that such measurements are based on sampling using ASTM D3682-01 (Reapproved 2006) Standard Test Method for Major and Minor Elements in Combustion Residues from Coal Utilization Processes 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. However, we have determined that industry consensus standards that specify analysis by X-ray fluorescence (e.g., ASTM C25-11 Standard Test Methods for Chemical Analysis of Limestone, Quicklime, and Hydrated Lime and ASTM C1271-99 Standard Test Method for X ray Spectrometric Analysis of Lime and Limestone) are more accurate than ASTM D6349-09, which uses inductively coupled plasma or ASTM D3682-01, which uses atomic absorption. Therefore, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.144(b) to specify that reporters determining the carbonate-based mineral mass fraction must use sampling methods that specify X-ray fluorescence. We are proposing to remove ASTM D6349-09 and ASTM D3682-01 from the requirements in 98.144(b). The proposed amendment would allow reporters flexibility in choosing a sampling method (since multiple X-ray fluorescence methods are available) while ensuring that more accurate available measurement methods are applied. For measurements made in the emission reporting year 2013 or prior years, reporters would continue to have the option to use ASTM D6349-09 and ASTM D3682-01. The EPA is not proposing to have reporters revise previously submitted annual reports. These facilities would have the option, but not be required, to use the newly proposed option for the reports submitted to EPA in 2013.

G. Subpart O—HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

The EPA is proposing clarifying amendments and other corrections to Subpart O (HFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction); the more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to Subpart O are found in this section. Additional minor corrections to Subpart O are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to add a sentence to 40 CFR 98.156(c) to clarify how to report the HFC-23 concentration at the outlet of the destruction device in the event that the concentration falls below the detection limit of the measuring device. The provisions of 40 CFR 98.156(c) require facilities that destroy HFC-23 to report the concentration of HFC-23 measured at the outlet of the destruction device during the facility's annual HFC-23 concentration measurements at the outlet of the destruction device. However, if the concentration during the measurements falls below the detection limit of the measuring device, the facility will not be able to report a specific concentration. The proposed sentence clarifies that in this situation, facilities are required to report the detection limit of the measuring device and that the concentration was below that detection limit.

H. Subpart P—Hydrogen Production

We are proposing several clarifying revisions to subpart P of Part 98 (Hydrogen Production). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart P are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.163(b) to clarify that when the fuel and feedstock material balance approach is followed, the average carbon content and molecular weight for each month used in Equations P-1, P-2, or P-3 may be based on analyses performed annually or analyses performed more frequently than monthly (based on the requirements of 40 CFR 98.164(b)). If the carbon content or molecular weight measurements are performed annually, reporters would use the annual value as the monthly average. If the analyses are performed more often than monthly, then the reporter would use the arithmetic average of these values as the monthly average. The term definitions in Equations P-1, P-2, and P-3 currently refer to the “results of one or more analyses for month n”; however, the monitoring frequencies specified at 40 CFR 98.163(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) range from weekly to annually, so this clarification is necessary to align these requirements. Further, we are proposing to revise the term definitions in Equations P-1, P-2, and P-3 to remove references to “one or more analyses” since multiple analyses in a month are not always required, as described above.

We are also proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.164(b)(5) to reduce burden by adding flexibility to the fuel and feedstock analysis requirements, consistent with EPA's original intent

and subpart C (40 CFR 98.34(a)(6), 40 CFR 98.34(b)(4)), and subpart X (40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)(xiii)). The proposed change allows a facility to analyze fuels and feedstocks using chromatographic analysis, whether continuous or non-continuous.

We are proposing to move recordkeeping requirements currently included in 40 CFR 98.164 (Monitoring and QA/QC requirements) to 40 CFR 98.167 (Records that must be retained). Specifically, 40 CFR 98.164(c) and (d) will be moved to new paragraphs 40 CFR 98.167(c) and (d). Finally, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.166(a)(2) and (a)(3) to remove the requirement to report hydrogen and ammonia production for all units combined. The individual unit production is already reported and can be summed to obtain the production for all units combined.

I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production

We are proposing multiple amendments to subpart Q of Part 98 (Iron and Steel Production) to provide clarification for certain provisions and calculation methods. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart Q are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to amend the definition of the iron and steel production source category in subpart Q, 40 CFR 98.170, to include direct reduction furnaces not co-located with an integrated iron and steel manufacturing process. Reporters are required to report CO

2

emissions from direct reduction furnaces under 40 CFR 98.172(c), and it was the EPA's intent for this reporting requirement to cover all direct reduction furnaces; however, the inclusion of direct reduction furnaces not co-located with an integrated iron and steel manufacturing process was inadvertently excluded from 40 CFR 98.170. The proposed change corrects that omission. This change impacts only one facility currently operating in the United States and that facility is already reporting under Part 98. We do not anticipate this change will impose a burden on additional existing reporters.

The EPA is proposing to amend Equation Q-5 in subpart Q to account for the use of gaseous fuels in EAFs. Many EAF operators use supplemental natural gas for melting scrap in the furnace. One facility that provided input to the EPA on this issue meets approximately 20 percent of its energy requirement with natural gas. Because natural gas combustion products can constitute a significant portion of CO

2

emissions from EAFs, we are proposing to modify Equation Q-5 by adding terms to account for the amount of gaseous fuel combusted and the carbon content of the gaseous fuel. We are also proposing to amend Equation Q-5 by correcting the term “C

f

” to “C

flux

” and the term “C

c

” to “C

carbon

” to match those presented in the definitions, and to add a closing bracket at the end of the equation.

Additionally, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.173(d) to clarify when the Tier 4 calculation methodology must be used to calculate and report combined stack emissions. The proposed amendment would clarify that the Tier 4 calculation methodology would be used (and emissions would be reported under subpart C of Part 98) if the GHG emissions from a taconite indurating furnace, basic oxygen furnace, non-recovery coke oven battery, sinter process, EAF, decarburization vessel, or direct reduction furnace are vented through a stack equipped with a CEMS that complies with the Tier 4 methodology in subpart C of this part, or through the same stack as any combustion unit or process equipment that reports CO

2

emissions using a CEMS that complies with the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in subpart C. The amendment is necessary to clarify that facilities using either shared or dedicated CEMS must use the appropriate subpart C calculation methodology for determining emissions.

We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.174(c)(2) by removing the term “furnace” from the statement “For the furnace exhaust,” because decarburization vessels are not furnaces. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.174(c)(2) by dividing (c)(2) into two separate sub paragraphs to separately specify the sampling time for continuously charged EAFs. Newer and more efficient EAFs use the “Consteel®” process, which involves continuous, rather than batch, scrap feed. Thus, “production cycles” may be an ambiguous term for reporters who operate a continuous EAF, and could be interpreted to require lengthy test periods as a single production cycle could extend for several days during which steel was continuously tapped. Therefore, we are proposing to remove the term “production cycles” for continuous EAFs and provide owners or operators with the option of sampling for a period spanning at least three hours.

We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.175(a) to clarify that 100 percent data availability is not required for process inputs and outputs that contribute less than one percent of the total mass of carbon into or out of the process. In accordance with 40 CFR 98.174(b)(4), reporters do not collect the monthly mass or annual carbon content of inputs or outputs that contribute less than one percent of the total mass of carbon into or out of the process. Therefore, reporters are not required to estimate missing data for these inputs. Similarly, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.176(e) by clarifying that the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 98.176(e) do not apply to process inputs and outputs that contribute less than one percent of the total mass of carbon into or out of the process.

J. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production

We are proposing changes to subpart X of Part 98 (Petrochemical Production). In addition, we are providing flexibility for reporters and clarifying the calculation methodology, monitoring and reporting requirements, missing data procedures and other provisions under the rule. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart X are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions to this rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.242(b)(2) to clarify that reporters using the mass balance option for a petrochemical process are not to report emissions from the combustion of petrochemical off-gas in any combustion unit, regardless of whether or not the combustion unit is part of the petrochemical process unit. Subpart X currently states that emissions of CO

2

, CH

4

, and N

2

O from only supplemental fuels (i.e., not from the combustion of process off-gas) burned in a combustion unit are reported under subpart C of Part 98 (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). However, this requirement applies only to combustion units that are within the petrochemical process unit because the definition of supplemental fuel applies only to combustion within the process unit. Reporters may interpret this to mean that combustion units not within the petrochemical process unit should report emissions from combustion of petrochemical off-gas. This would lead to double counting since these emissions are already accounted for in the mass balance calculation. The proposed amendment would avoid possible double counting by specifying that emissions from the combustion of petrochemical process off-gas in combustion units outside the process unit also are not to be reported under subpart C.

We are proposing a change to the calculation methodology in 40 CFR 98.243(b) for CH

4

and N

2

O emissions from burning process off-gas for reporters using the CEMS method to determine CO

2

emissions. The proposed calculation method is consistent with the calculation approach for CEMS-monitored sources in subpart C but should not increase burden because Tier 4 units can use the best available information to estimate cumulative annual heat input (see 40 CFR 98.33(c)(4)(i), 40 CFR 98.33(c)(4)(ii)(C)). The proposed calculation method would require reporters to use Equation C-10 of subpart C of Part 98. Reporters would use the cumulative annual heat input from combustion of the off-gas (mmBtu) and proposed fuel gas emission factors from Table C-2 to calculate emissions of CH

4

and N

2

O. The proposed fuel gas emission factors in Table C-2 are the same as the “Petroleum” factors previously referenced by subpart X, but we determined that a separate entry for fuel gas is needed for other reasons, as described in Section II.B of this preamble.

We are proposing to modify both 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) and 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4) to allow subpart X reporters that use the mass balance calculation method to obtain carbon content measurements from a customer of the product. Subpart X currently requires petrochemical manufacturers to determine product carbon contents from their own analyses. This change would provide additional flexibility for sources to obtain the carbon content measurement, and it is consistent with the current option that allows petrochemical manufacturers to obtain the carbon content of feedstocks from feedstock suppliers.

We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.243(c)(4) for the alternative sampling requirements for feedstocks and products when the composition is greater than 99.5 percent of a single compound for reporters using the mass balance calculation method. Currently, the alternative can only be used during periods of normal operation and when the product meets specifications. We are proposing changes that will allow the alternative method to be used during all times that the average monthly concentration is above 99.5 percent. The proposed changes would allow greater flexibility for reporters.

For reporters using the mass balance calculation method in 40 CFR 98.243(c)(5), we are proposing to revise definitions for five of the terms in Equation X-1. First, we are proposing to clarify that the term “C

g

” includes streams containing CO

2

recovered for sale or use in another process, which is consistent with the current definition of the term “(CC

gp

)

i,n

”. Second, proposed changes to the terms “(F

gf

)

i,n

” and “(P

gp

)

i,n

” would clarify that the inputs for gaseous feedstock and products may be measured on either a mass basis or a volume basis. Finally, we are proposing clarifications to the terms for molecular weight of gaseous feedstocks and products (“(MW

f

)

i

” and “(MW

p

)

i

”) to specify that molecular weight is to be determined monthly, which is consistent with the monitoring frequency specified in 40 CFR 98.243(c)(1).

We are proposing to modify the test method description for chromatographic analysis in 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)(xiii) to remove the word “gas.” The proposed change would clarify that a chromatograph other than a gas chromatograph may be used. We are also proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4)(xv) to allow additional methods for the analysis of carbon black feedstock oils and carbon black products. This section of subpart X currently specifies that a reporter may use an industry standard practice for such feedstocks and products. The proposed changes would provide additional flexibility by also allowing the use of a method published by a consensus-based standards organization (i.e., a published method that is not already specifically listed in 98.244(b)(4)). For clarity, the proposed amendments also would list known consensus-based standards organizations and add a requirement for facilities to document the standard method that they use in the facility monitoring plan required under 40 CFR 98.3(g)(5).

We are proposing to add a requirement under 40 CFR 98.244(c) to clarify the monitoring and quality assurance requirements for flares. Following implementation of Part 98, the EPA received questions concerning the monitoring and quality assurances requirements for flares because while the rule refers to subpart Y for flare emission calculation methods, it does not specify monitoring and quality assurance requirements. As a result, we are clarifying the requirements for flares to specify that facilities must conduct monitoring and quality assurance in accordance with 40 CFR 98.254. The proposed monitoring requirements for flares harmonize subpart X with other subparts under Part 98.

We are proposing to clarify the missing data procedures in 40 CFR 98.245 for missing feedstock and product flow rates and missing feedstock and product carbon contents. This section of subpart X currently specifies that reporters are to develop substitute values for these parameters using the same procedures as for missing fuel carbon contents as specified in 40 CFR 98.35. The proposed amendment clarifies that the procedures for missing fuel carbon contents in 40 CFR 98.35(b)(1) are to be used only for missing feedstock and product carbon contents, and the procedures for missing fuel usage in 40 CFR 98.35(b)(2) are to be used to develop substitute values for missing feedstock and product flow rates. We are also proposing to add missing data requirements for missing flare data and for missing molecular weights for gaseous feedstocks and products. The amendment would require reporters to develop substitute values for missing molecular weights using the procedures for missing fuel carbon contents as specified in 40 CFR 98.35(b)(1), and substitute values for missing flare data would be developed using the procedures in 40 CFR 98.255(b) and (c). We are proposing these additional missing data procedures so that reporters do not have to contact the EPA individually for guidance on how to proceed in the absence of instructions in the rule. We also expect that these changes will promote consistency both among subpart X reporters and between subpart X reporters and other reporters (e.g., subpart Y reporters).

We are proposing two amendments to clarify the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 98.246(a)(6) for reporters using the mass balance method. This section of subpart X currently requires a reporter to report the name of each method listed in 40 CFR 98.244 that is used to determine a measured parameter. In addition, when a method is not listed in 40 CFR 98.244 (i.e., for flow or mass measurements), the reporter is required to provide a description of the manufacturer's recommended method. The only methods listed in 40 CFR 98.244 are methods for determining carbon content or molecular weight, and they are all in paragraph (b)(4) of 40 CFR 98.244. Thus, one proposed amendment to clarify 40 CFR 98.246(a)(6) would require reporters to report the name of each method that is used to determine carbon content or molecular weight in accordance with 40 CFR 98.244(b)(4). The current requirement to provide a description of manufacturer's recommended method has been interpreted in various ways, and a wide variety of information has been provided in reports to date. To simplify this reporting requirement,

reduce burden, and promote consistency among reporters, the second proposed change would require reporters to describe each type of device used to determine flow or mass (e.g., flow meter or weighing device) and identify the method used to determine flow or mass for each device in accordance with 40 CFR 98.244(b)(1) through (b)(3). Methods could be identified by method number, title, or other descriptor.

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.246(a)(8) to specify that reporters using the mass balance calculation method must identify combustion units outside of the petrochemical process unit that burned process off-gas. This section of subpart X currently requires identification of each combustion unit that burned both process off-gas and supplemental fuel. Supplemental fuel is defined as fuel burned in a petrochemical process that is not produced within the process itself. Thus, the current language in 40 CFR 98.246(a)(8) requires identification of only those combustion units within a petrochemical process unit that burn off-gas from the process. The purpose of the proposed change is to extend this requirement to combustion units that combust fuel gas generated by the petrochemical process but are not part of the petrochemical process. This additional information is needed to allow us to verify correct reporting of fuel gas in subpart C.

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.246(a)(9) for reporters using the alternative to sampling and analysis for carbon content as specified in 40 CFR 98.243(c)(4) of the mass balance calculation method. One of the proposed changes would clarify the units of time to report in (days) for periods during which off-specification product was produced. A second proposed revision would eliminate reporting of the volume or mass of off-specification products produced. If a facility is complying with 40 CFR 98.243(c)(4) for a product and produces off-specification products so that the average monthly purity does not fall below 99.5 percent, then the facility need not report the amount of off-specification product. However, if the average monthly purity does fall below 99.5 percent, the facility must use the carbon content procedures in 40 CFR 98.243(c)(3) for the off-specification product, and must report the amount and carbon content of the off-specification product under 40 CFR 98.246(a)(4). The proposed revision would reduce the burden on reporters.

We are proposing several changes to the CEMS reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(b)(4), (b)(5), and (b)(6) to improve the accuracy of emissions attributed to subpart X sources, clarify requirements, and reduce burden. We would revise 40 CFR 98.246(b)(4) to specify that for each CEMS monitoring location where CO

2

emissions from either the process or combustion of off-gas from the process are measured, the facility must provide an estimate of the fraction of the total CO

2

emissions that are attributable to the petrochemical process unit, based on engineering judgment. Subpart X currently requires this reporting for process off-gas combustion emissions but not for process emissions. We need both to correctly determine the quantity of CEMS location emissions attributable to the petrochemical process unit. We would remove the requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(b)(4) and (b)(5) to report CO

2

, CH

4

, and N

2

O emissions from each CEMS location because this requirement is also specified in 40 CFR 98.36(c)(2), which is referenced from 40 CFR 98.246(b)(2). Similarly, we would remove the requirement to report the aggregated total emissions from all CEMS locations because the EPA will calculate sums from the reported values for individual CEMS locations, as necessary. In 40 CFR 98.246(b)(5) we would also remove the requirements to report inputs to Equation C-8 because we are proposing to replace the requirement to use Equation C-8 with a requirement to use Equation C-10, as noted previously in this section. Instead of the Equation C-8 inputs, reporters would report the total annual heat input for Equation C-10, as required in 40 CFR 98.35(c)(2). Finally, we are proposing to remove the requirement to identify each stationary combustion unit that burns petrochemical process off-gas. We use combustion unit identifications to help verify the distribution of emissions reported under subparts C and X for reporters that use the mass balance method. The identifications are not needed for reporters that use CEMS because all emissions from each combustion unit that burns process off-gas are reported under subpart X. On balance, we expect that these changes will reduce the reporting burden.

K. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries

We are proposing changes, technical corrections and clarifying amendments for subpart Y of Part 98 (Petroleum Refineries). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart Y are found here. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

In conjunction with the addition of fuel gas to Table C-2 as discussed in Section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to subpart Y to change the reference to Table C-2 at 40 CFR 98.253(b)(2) and (b)(3) from “Petroleum Products” to “Fuel Gas” for calculation of CH

4

and N

2

O from combustion of fuel gas. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.252(a) to remove the reference to the default emission factors for “Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)” in Table C-2. Because the emission factors for Petroleum Products and Fuel Gas are identical, this will not change the result of any emission calculation.

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.253(f)(4) and the terms “F

SG

” and “MF

c

” in Equation Y-12 to clarify the calculation methods for sulfur recovery plants to address both on-site and off-site sulfur recovery plants. We are also proposing changes to the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.256(h) to clarify the reporting requirements for on-site and off-site units. The proposed revisions would clarify the requirements that should apply to on-site versus off-site sulfur recovery plants.

We are proposing to clarify 40 CFR 98.253(j) regarding when Equation Y-19 must be used for calculation of CH

4

and CO

2

emissions. The proposed change clarifies that Equation Y-19 must be used to calculate CH

4

emissions if the reporter elected to use the method in 40 CFR 98.253(i)(1), and may be used to calculate CO

2

and/or CH

4

emissions, as applicable, if the reporter elects this method as an alternative to the methods in paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of 40 CFR 98.253. We are also proposing to clarify reporting requirements to 40 CFR 98.256(j) and (k) to specify that when Equation Y-19 is used for asphalt blowing operations or delayed coking units, the facility must report the relevant information required under 40 CFR 98.256(l)(5) rather than all of the reporting elements in 40 CFR 98.256(l).

L. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production

We are proposing an additional requirement, minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart Z of Part 98 (Phosphoric Acid Production). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart Z of Part 98 are discussed in this section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

The terminology used in the introductory text of 40 CFR

98.263(b)(1)(ii) and definition of the term “CO

2n,

” could be interpreted as meaning that the method for sampling carbon content of rock represented direct CO

2

emissions from the process, which was not the EPA's intention. While the equation calculates CO

2

emissions from a process line, the input values obtained from the measurements of grab samples are CO

2

content of the rock. Therefore, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.263(b)(1)(ii) and the description of “CO

2n,i

” to indicate that the sampling method provides CO

2

content, and not emissions.

We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.266(b) to require that the annual report must include the annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons), rather than the annual permitted phosphoric acid production capacity. Through implementation of the rule, the EPA has learned that not all facilities have a “permitted” production capacity. The EPA is proposing to revise this requirement to report annual production capacity, as opposed to permitted production capacity, in the current Part 98.

31

The proposed change acknowledges that not all phosphoric acid production facilities have a permitted production capacity. Additionally, not all facilities produce to the permitted capacity. This change 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.

31

See Table 9 of this preamble for the EPA's proposed data category assignment and confidentiality determination for this data element.

We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.266 to add a requirement to report the number of times missing data procedures were used to estimate the CO

2

content of the phosphate rock. The proposed requirement is consistent with 40 CFR 98.264(b), which allows for determination of either inorganic carbon content or CO

2

content.

M. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

We are proposing changes to subpart AA of Part 98 (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing) to revise default emission factors and clarify the information that must be reported. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart AA of Part 98 are discussed in this section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.273(a)(3), 40 CFR 98.276(e) and Equation AA-1 to remove the references to site-specific emissions factors because there are no methods or requirements in subpart AA for deriving the site-specific GHG emission factors for biomass combustion.

We are proposing revisions to the emission factors shown in Tables AA-1 and AA-2 to correct format errors that occurred in the printing of the rule in the CFR. Specifically, in Table AA-1, the CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors were intended to apply to each fuel. However, when printed in the

Federal Register

, lines were added to separate each row/fuel, and this format change created the appearance that the factors apply only to the first fuel listed in the table. To correct this error, we are proposing to insert the CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors for each individual fuel. Today's proposed changes will make the rule conform to Tables AA-1 and AA-2 as they originally were proposed in the April 10, 2009

Federal Register

(74 FR 16692). A similar error occurred with Table AA-2. In addition, the Kraft Lime Kiln N

2

O factors were inadvertently omitted in the printing of Table AA-2; it was intended to be zero (0) for all fuels in Table AA-2 (as proposed to be amended in the August 11, 2010

Federal Register

(75 FR 48811)).

In addition to correcting formatting errors, we are proposing revisions to the CH

4

and N

2

O emission factors for pulping liquor in Table AA-1 based on emissions test data made available to us for eight U.S. recovery furnaces in the AF&PA Petition as discussed above. Our analysis of that data confirms that the information contained in the AF&PA Petition is more robust and relevant for U.S. recovery furnaces than the original Table AA-1 emission factors which were previously adopted from a literature review.

32

32

See the memorandum in the docket titled,

“Kraft Pulping Liquor and Woody Biomass Methane

(

CH

4

)

and Nitrous Oxide

(

N

2

O

)

Emission Factor Literature Review.”

We are also proposing additional changes to Table AA-2 to (1) Amend the title to remove the reference to fossil fuel since the table contains a biogenic fuel as well (biogas); (2) specify that the emission factors for residual and distillate oil apply for any type of residual (no. 5 or 6) or distillate (no. 1, 2 or 4) fuel oil to clarify our intent that the emissions factors apply to all grades of these fuel types; and (3) add a row to specify that the Table C-2 emission factor for CH

4

and the Table C-2 emission factors for CH

4

and N

2

O may be used, respectively, for ancillary lime kilns and calciners combusting fuels (e.g., propane, used oil, and lubricants) that were not previously listed in Table AA-2. The Technical Support Document for Subpart AA from the final Part 98

33

explains that the operating temperatures in rotary lime kilns appear to be too high for appreciable formation of N

2

O, so an emission factor of zero is proposed for N

2

O from ancillary fuel combustion in pulp mill lime kilns.

33

Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/archived/tsd/TSD Pulp_and_Paper 2_11_09.pdf.

We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.276(k) to clarify the EPA's intent regarding the annual pulp and/or paper production information that must be reported. Since publication of the rule, we have received questions from the industry about what this requirement means and the units of measure to use for reporting pulp production. Hence, we are proposing to amend the rule to clarify that the annual production information must consist of the production of air-dried, unbleached virgin pulp produced onsite during the reporting year and the production of paper products exiting the paper machine(s) during the reporting year, prior to application of any off-machine coatings.

34

Greenhouse gas emissions from pulp and paper operations reported under subpart AA are dependent on the amount of pulp produced. Reporting the total annual production of air-dried unbleached virgin pulp provides a common reporting basis for all types of pulp mills regardless of production processes (e.g., bleaching, secondary fiber pulping, and paper making) that happen downstream of the virgin pulping process where the GHG emissions are generated.

34

See the memorandum “Proposed data category assignments and confidentiality determinations for new and substantially revised data elements in the proposed `2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements'” (hereafter referred to as “Confidentiality Determinations Memorandum”) (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934) for the proposed category assignments and confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements.

N. Subpart BB—Silicon Carbide Production

We are proposing several revisions to subpart BB of Part 98 (Silicon Carbide Production). The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart BB of Part 98 are discussed in this section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.282(a) to remove the requirement for silicon carbide production facilities to report CH

4

emissions from silicon carbide process units or furnaces. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.283(d) to remove the CH

4

calculation methodology. The current CH

4

calculation methodologies in subpart BB overestimate the emissions of CH

4

from silicon carbide facilities because the equations do not take into consideration the destruction of CH

4

emissions. Because these emissions are typically controlled, emissions from these facilities are minimal, and the EPA has determined that the requirement to report CH

4

emissions is not necessary to understand the emissions profile of the industry.

Reporters must continue to monitor and report CO

2

emissions from silicon carbide process units and production furnaces. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.283 so that CO

2

emissions are to be calculated and reported for all process units and furnaces combined. The EPA intended in the final Part 98 (October 30, 2009) to require reporting from all silicon carbide process units and production furnaces, as specified in 40 CFR 98.282. However, 40 CFR 98.283 states that “You must calculate and report the annual process CO

2

emissions from each silicon carbide process unit or production furnace using the procedures in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.” The proposed correction would revise 40 CFR 98.283 for consistency with the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 98.286 and reduce burden by combining all emissions.

O. Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

We are proposing two substantive corrections to subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use) in this section. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.304(c)(1) and (c)(2) to correct the accuracy and precision requirements for weighing cylinders. In the current Part 98, the subpart DD regulatory text for 40 CFR 98.304(c)(1) and (c)(2) presents the required scale accuracies as “2 pounds of the scale's capacity.” The scale accuracy requirement for subpart DD was intended to be “2 pounds of true weight,” as expressed in the “Technical Support Document: Emissions from Electric Power Equipment Use” and “EPA's Response to Public Comments: Subpart DD: Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use”

35

, and the preamble to the final Part 98 (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009). The proposed amendments would make 40 CFR 98.304(c)(1) and (c)(2) consistent with the EPA's intent.

35

See

http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/reporters/subpart/dd.html

.

P. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines

We are proposing multiple amendments to subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines) to clarify certain provisions and equation terms, harmonize reporting requirements, and improve verification of annual GHG reports. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart FF of Part 98 are discussed in this section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to revise the terminology in subpart FF in response to questions submitted by reporters. Reporters have noted that ventilation does not take place through wells, but rather mine ventilation system shafts or vent holes, and degasification systems do not use shafts, but rather wells or gob gas vent holes. Reporters have also stated that mine ventilation air is not flared, rather it is destroyed using a ventilation air methane (VAM) oxidizer. Therefore we are proposing to revise provisions in 40 CFR 98.320(b), 40 CFR 98.322(b) and (d), 40 CFR 98.323(c), and 40 CFR 98.324(b) and (c) to adopt terminology that more accurately reflects industry operations.

We are also proposing to revise the reporting requirements of subpart FF to include additional data elements that will allow the EPA to verify the data submitted, perform a year to year comparison of the data, and assess the reasonableness of the data reported.

36

The data elements are readily available to the reporter and would not require additional data collection or monitoring or significantly increase the reporting burden. The additional data elements are included in the proposed revised 40 CFR 98.326(h), (i), (j), (o), (r), and new requirements (t) and (u) and include: The moisture correction factor used in the emissions equations, units of measure for the volumetric flow rates reported, method of determining the gas composition, the start date and close date of each well or shaft, the number of days the well or shaft was in operation during the reporting year, and the amount of CH

4

routed to each destruction device. We are also proposing to add a reporting requirement (40 CFR 98.326(u)) for the reporting mines to provide the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) identification. This identification number will allow the EPA to easily identify the facility for verification and comparison of the Inventory data with GHGRP data. The reporting requirements have also been updated to harmonize with changes to the calculation methods as itemized in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2-12-0934).

36

See Table 9 of this preamble for the proposed category assignments and confidentiality determinations for each proposed data element.

Q. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

We are proposing multiple revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) to clarify equations and amend monitoring requirements to reduce burden for reporters. The more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart HH are discussed in this section. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to amend the definition of the degradable organic carbon (DOC) term for Equation HH-1 to indicate that the DOC values for a waste type must be selected from Table HH-1. When we originally proposed subpart HH in April of 2009, Equation HH-1 applied to both MSW and industrial waste landfills. When we finalized Subpart HH for MSW landfills only, the definition of the DOC term allowed for the default value from Table HH-1 or measurement data, if available. Although we included measurement methods for determining site-specific DOC values for industrial waste streams within Subpart TT, we do not consider that these laboratory methods are suitable for determining the DOC for MSW landfills in subpart HH because of the variability and heterogeneity of MSW.

The EPA may take into consideration the usage of site-specific DOC values for MSW landfills in Equation HH-1 if suitable measurement methods are available. We specifically request comment from reporters who have used measurement methods for determining DOC. We request that the commenter provide information on the type of waste streams for which measurement methods were used, the analytical method used to determine DOC, and procedures used to ensure that the samples tested were representative of the waste stream tested for different years. We also note that, if measurements of DOC are made for different years, the DOC variable in Equation HH-1 should be a function of

the year the waste is placed in the landfill. As currently written, the DOC term in Equation HH-1 is a constant for a given waste type and is not a function of the disposal year. We therefore also request comment on the need to revise Equation HH-1 and the definition of DOC to allow DOC to be a different value for different years that a waste is placed in the landfill.

We are proposing to amend the definition of the term “F” in Equation HH-1 (fraction by volume of CH

4

in the landfill gas) to further clarify that this term should be corrected to zero percent (0%) oxygen. Unlike the concentration of CH

4

in the landfill gas as measured for use in Equation HH-4, the term F is more accurately defined as the fraction of the dissimilated carbon that is metabolized to CH

4

. Some landfill gas collection systems may draw ambient air into the collected landfill gas, thereby diluting the concentration of CH

4

in the landfill gas. The proposed amendment is needed to correct measurements of CH

4

concentrations made in gas collection systems (or elsewhere) for ambient air dilution so that the resultant value of F more closely matches the fraction of degraded carbon that is generated as CH

4

.

We are also proposing to revise the definition of parameter “N” in Equation HH-4 and the provisions of 40 CFR 98.343(b)(2)(i), (ii), (iii)(A), and (iii)(B). We received comments from landfill owners and operators that the requirement to sample CH

4

concentrations weekly was burdensome, particularly for closed landfills, and unnecessary because the CH

4

concentrations did not vary appreciably over the year. Some landfill owners and operators provided EPA with their weekly flow and CH

4

concentration data for the 2011 reporting year for 395 unique landfills. We reviewed and analyzed the data and determined that reducing the CH

4

concentration monitoring frequency from weekly to monthly would increase the overall uncertainty of a landfill's CH

4

recovery from ±8 percent to ±10.5 percent. (See “Review of Weekly Landfill Gas Volumetric Flow and Methane Concentrations,” October 18, 2012, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.) It is reasonable to conclude that the on-going annual costs associated with monitoring CH

4

concentrations monthly would be approximately one-fourth the cost of monitoring weekly. Thus, landfill owners can realize a significant savings in their monitoring costs while not significantly increasing the uncertainty in the calculated CH

4

recovery. Based on the data provided by the landfill owners and operators and our analysis of that data, we are proposing to revise the minimum monitoring frequency from weekly to monthly.

We are proposing to amend the oxidation fraction default value used in Equations HH-5, HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 of subpart HH. We received comments from landfill owners and operators that the oxidation fraction default value of 10 percent that is required to be used in these equations is too low and that many landfills exhibit much higher oxidation fractions. Over the past several years, numerous U.S. landfills have been tested to estimate the oxidation fraction; the newly tested landfills have been predominately landfills with gas collection systems and clay soil or “other soil mixture” covers. We reviewed the oxidation study data and analyzed Subpart HH data to evaluate various options for revising the default oxidation fraction. Based on our review, we agree that the 10 percent soil oxidation fraction likely underestimates the amount of methane oxidized in the surface soil layer when the landfill gas flow through the soil surface is reduced, as is the case for landfills with gas collection systems. We considered a revised single default oxidation fraction or a default oxidation fraction based on the type of cover soil used at the landfill, but these defaults do not take in account the key variable, which is the methane flux rate entering the surface soil layer. Based on our analysis, we are proposing three different default oxidation fractions depending on the methane flux “bin,” found in new proposed Table HH-4. For cases where the methane flux is projected to be high (greater than 70 grams/m

2

/day), the default oxidation fraction remains as 10 percent. For cases where the methane flux is projected to be low (less than 10 grams/m

2

/day), the default proposed oxidation fraction is 35 percent. For cases with moderate methane flux rates (10 to 70 grams/m

2

/day), the proposed default oxidation fraction is 25 percent. We are also proposing to add requirements in paragraph 98.346(h) and paragraphs 98.346(i)(8), (10), and (11) for facilities to report the oxidation fraction used in each of Equations HH-5, HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8.

37

We have concluded that this binned approach provides a more realistic estimate of the role of methane oxidation in the surface soil on the methane emissions than the single default oxidation fraction. We are including Table HH-4 to reference these values. Table HH-4 also provides a calculation method to determine the methane flux rate to be used for determining the oxidation fraction when Equations HH-5, HH-6, HH-7, or HH-8 are used. Reporters under subpart TT will also use Table HH-4 when Equation TT-6 is used to determine the methane generation adjusted for oxidation. For further information regarding our analysis of methane oxidation fractions, see “Review of Methane Flux and Soil Oxidation Data”, December 7, 2012, in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934.

37

The EPA is proposing category assignments and confidentiality determinations for these new and revised data elements in the Confidentiality Determinations Memorandum (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are also proposing to amend Equations HH-6, HH-7, and HH-8 and surrounding text to generalize these equations in the event that the landfill contains multiple landfill gas collection system measurement locations and/or multiple destruction devices. When there is a single landfill gas measurement location, these equations are identical to the existing equations. However, the existing equations were inadequate to calculate CH

4

emissions at landfills with gas collection systems that have multiple measurement locations and/or multiple destruction devices. In addition to the revisions proposed to clarify equation term definitions when multiple measurement locations or destruction devices are used, we are also proposing to revise the definition of the f

Dest

term for Equation HH-6 and HH-8 to clarify that the fraction of hours the destruction device was operating should be calculated as the number of operating hours for the device divided by the hours that gas flow as sent to the device.

We are also proposing to amend the first sentence in 40 CFR 98.345(c) to revise “in reporting years” to “in the reporting year” to clarify that the missing data procedures are for a reporting year and that reporters do not need to report substitute data information for years prior to the current reporting year, thereby reducing the burden on reporters.

Finally, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(d)(1) and (e) to move the reporting elements pertaining to the methane correction factor (MCF) from paragraph (d)(1) to paragraph (e) because MCF is not a function of the waste type. This amendment eliminates the duplicative reporting requirements for MCF and its related reporting elements (i.e., reporters would no longer be required to report this information for each waste type).

R. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

We are proposing multiple revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) to clarify requirements and amend data reporting requirements to reduce burden for reporters. This section includes the more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart LL. Additional minor corrections are discussed in EPA's Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

To reduce burden, we are proposing to remove the requirements at 40 CFR 98.386(a)(1), (a)(5), (a)(13), (b)(1), and (c)(1) for each facility, importer, and exporter to report the annual quantity of each product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. Reporters would continue to report the annual quantities of each product or natural gas liquid in metric tons or barrels at 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and (c)(2). We are also retaining the requirement to report a complete list of methods used to measure the annual quantities reported for each product or natural gas liquid.

S. Subpart MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products

We are proposing several revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart MM (Suppliers of Petroleum Products) to clarify requirements and amend data reporting requirements to reduce burden for reporters. This section includes the more substantive corrections, clarifying, and other amendments to subpart MM. Additional minor corrections are discussed in the Table of Revisions (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934).

We are proposing to clarify the equation term for “Product

i

” at 40 CFR 98.393(a)(2) to exclude those products that entered the refinery but are not reported under 40 CFR 98.396(a)(2). We are proposing harmonizing changes to 40 CFR 98.394(b) to make the equipment calibration requirements for petroleum products suppliers consistent with other Part 98 calibration requirements. The requirements for equipment calibration in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A (General Provisions) allow for postponement of calibrations for units and processes that operate continuously with infrequent outages. We are proposing similar provisions be incorporated into the subpart MM equipment calibration requirements. The proposed changes would also provide flexibility for reporters meeting the equipment calibration requirements.

As with the proposed changes to subpart LL, in order to reduce burden for reporters, we are proposing to remove the requ

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.