Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69337 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: November 14, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27699 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0672; FRL–9902–02– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Ohio SO2 Air Quality Rule Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On June 24, 2011, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency 

submitted for Clean Air Act State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) approval, 

revisions to Ohio Administrative Code 

(OAC) rules: 3745–18–01, 3745–18–03 

to 3745–18–52, 3745–18–54 to 3745– 

18–77, 3745–18–79, 3745–18–81 to 

3745–18–89, and 3745–18–91 to 3745– 

18–94. The rule revisions primarily 

update facility information and remove 

SO2 requirements for shutdown 

facilities throughout the SIP. EPA 

believes that the revisions improve the 

clarity of the rule without affecting the 

stringency and therefore is proposing to 

approve all of the submitted revisions 

except for specific paragraphs in OAC 

3745–18–04. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0672, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

Arra.Sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 26, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–27566 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927; FRL–9902–52– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR78 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: 

Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

amend certain provisions of the 

Fluorinated Gas Production source 

category of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule. The proposed changes 

would reduce the level of detail in 

which emissions were reported, 

establish a new set of default global 

warming potentials, eliminate the massbalance emission calculation method, 

and clarify the emission factor method. 

We are also proposing confidentiality 

determinations for the new and 

substantially revised reporting 

requirements of the Fluorinated Gas 

Production source category. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before January 21, 2014. 

Public Hearing. The EPA does not 

plan to conduct a public hearing unless 

requested. To request a hearing, please 

contact the person listed in the 

following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by November 26, 2013. 

Upon such request, the EPA will hold 

the hearing on December 4, 2013, in the 

Washington, DC area. The EPA will 

provide further information about the 

hearing on the GHGRP Web site, http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

ghgrulemaking.html if a hearing is 

requested. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0927, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: GHGReportingFGHG@

epa.gov. Include Docket ID No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0927 in the subject line 

of the message. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mailcode 2822T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center, Public Reading Room, William 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Jefferson Clinton (WJC) West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927, Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Fluorinated Gas 

Production. 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 in 

response to this notice, clearly mark the 

part or all of the comments that you 

claim to be CBI. For information that 

you claim to be CBI in a disk or CD– 

ROM that you mail to 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 claimed as 

CBI to only the mail or hand/courier 

delivery address listed above, attention: 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0927. 

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 be free of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and 

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, WJC 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 at http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/

ghgrulemaking.html. To submit a 

question, select Rule Help Center, 

followed by Contact Us. To obtain 

information about the public hearing or 

to register to speak at the hearing, please 

go to http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/emissions/

ghgrulemaking.html. Alternatively, 

contact Carole Cook at 202–343–9263. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of this proposal will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program 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 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 

producers of fluorinated gases. 

Regulated categories and examples of 

affected entities include those listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLE OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Fluorinated Gas Production ................................................................... 325120 Industrial gases manufacturing facilities. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

lists the types of facilities that the EPA 

is now aware could be potentially 

affected by the reporting requirements. 

Other types of facilities not 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 subpart L. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular facility, 

consult the person listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CFC chlorofluorocarbon 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e CO2-equivalent 

DE destruction efficiency 

EAR Export Administration Regulations 

EF emission factor 

e-GGRT electronic-GHG Reporting Tool 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69339 

FR Federal Register 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP global warming potential 

HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HFE hydrofluoroether 

ITAR International Traffic in Arms 

Regulations 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

kg kilograms 

LCD liquid crystal display 

MEMS micro-electro-mechanical systems 

MtCO2e metric tons carbon dioxide 

equivalent 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

NODA notice of data availability 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RY reporting year 

SAR Second Assessment Report 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

WWW Worldwide Web 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. How is this preamble organized? 

B. Background on the GHG Reporting Rule 

C. Legal Authority 

D. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

E. When would these amendments apply? 

F. How would these amendments affect 

confidentiality determinations? 

G. How does this proposed rule relate to 

the proposed rule titled, ‘‘Revisions to 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements, and Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program?’’ 

II. Proposed Amendments 

A. Proposed Amendments to the Subpart L 

Reporting Requirements 

1. Background of Proposed Amendments to 

Subpart L Reporting Requirements 

2. Summary of Proposed Amendments to 

Subpart L Reporting Requirements 

3. Rationale 

4. Proposal to Revise the Set of Default 

GWPs Used To Convert Fluorinated GHG 

Emissions Into CO2e 

5. Other Changes to Reporting 

Requirements 

6. Reporting Emissions From Destruction 

of Previously Produced Fluorinated 

GHGs and From Venting of Residual 

Fluorinated GHGs From Containers 

7. Submission of Full GHG Reports for 

Reporting Year 2011, 2012, and 2013 

B. Proposal To Remove the Mass-Balance 

Approach From Subpart L 

C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor 

Approach of Subpart L 

D. Overview and Approach to Proposed 

CBI Determinations 

III. 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 Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program (GHGRP), an overview of the 

proposed amendments, and information 

on when the amendments would 

become effective, how this rule affects 

confidentiality determinations, and how 

this proposed rule relates to other GHG 

reporting notices. This section also 

discusses the EPA’s use of our legal 

authority under the Clean Air Act to 

collect data under the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘GHG Reporting Rule’’ or ‘‘Part 

98.’’ 

The second section of this preamble 

describes in detail the changes that are 

being proposed, presents the EPA’s 

rationale for the proposed changes, and 

identifies issues on which the EPA is 

particularly interested in receiving 

public comments. 

Finally, the third section of the 

preamble discusses the various statutory 

and executive order requirements 

applicable to this proposed rulemaking. 

B. Background on the GHG Reporting 

Rule 

The GHG Reporting Rule 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. A 

subsequent notice finalizing reporting 

requirements for Fluorinated Gas 

Production was published on December 

1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). (The final rule 

published on December 1, 2010 is 

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2010 

Final Rule’’). 

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 rule (74 FR 56260, October 30, 

2009), CAA section 114 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. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing 

confidentiality determinations under its 

authorities provided in sections 114, 

301, and 307 of the CAA for the 

proposed new or substantially revised 

data elements that would be reported 

under this proposed rule. 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 which is not 

emission data and which qualifies 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. 

D. Summary of Proposed Amendments. 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

certain provisions of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule that affect 

fluorinated gas production facilities. 

The proposed amendments include the 

following changes: 

• Revision of the reporting 

requirements to allow more aggregated 

reporting to address potential disclosure 

concerns (see Section II.A.1 of this 

preamble). 

• Proposal of a revised set of default 

global warming potentials (GWPs) for 

fluorinated greenhouse gases 

(fluorinated GHGs). 

• Removal of the option to use the 

mass-balance approach. 

• Clarification of the emission factor 

approach. 

• Various technical corrections. 

E. When would these amendments 

apply? 

These amendments would apply to 

reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

L (subpart L) that occurs in calendar 

year 2015 and subsequent years. This 

would include reporting of information 

for reporting year 2014 and subsequent 

reporting years. It would also include 

reporting of certain information for 

reporting years 2011 and 2012, and to 

reporting of that information for 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

reporting year 2013. We previously 

deferred the former under the rule titled 

‘‘2012 Technical Corrections, Clarifying 

and Other Amendments to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and 

Confidentiality Determinations for 

Certain Data Elements of the 

Fluorinated Gas Source Category’’ (77 

FR 51477; August 24, 2012). We 

proposed to defer the latter under the 

rule titled, ‘‘2013 Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 

Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Substantially 

Revised Data Elements’’ (hereinafter 

referred to as the Proposed 2013 

Revisions Rule; 78 FR 19802; April 2, 

2013). 

F. How would these amendments affect 

confidentiality determinations? 

In this notice, we are proposing 

confidentiality determinations for 

proposed new or substantially revised 

subpart L data elements. The EPA has 

previously proposed confidentiality 

determinations for subpart L data 

elements (77 FR 1434, January 10, 

2012), which did not cover the new or 

substantially revised data elements that 

the EPA is proposing in the present 

action. The proposed confidentiality 

determinations for these data elements 

together with our rationale are 

discussed in detail in Section II.D of this 

preamble. In addition, the proposed 

amendments would delete certain 

existing subpart L reporting 

requirements, while continuing to 

require that records be kept of these 

elements. Should the EPA finalize the 

deletion of these data elements, the EPA 

will not take final action on the 

previously proposed confidentiality 

determinations for the deleted data 

elements. 

G. How does this proposed rule relate to 

the proposed rule titled, ‘‘Revisions to 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements, and Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations under 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program?’’ 

On September 11, 2013, the EPA 

proposed a rule titled, ‘‘Revisions to 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements, and Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations under 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program’’ 

(78 FR 55994; hereinafter referred to as 

the proposed Inputs rule). In that 

proposed rule, the EPA proposed to add 

a requirement for certain reporters 

under 24 subparts, including subpart L, 

to use an EPA-provided inputs 

verification tool. For these subparts, the 

designated inputs to emission equations 

for which reporting was deferred to 

2015 and disclosure concerns have been 

identified would be entered into the 

inputs verification tool. In addition, 

these inputs would be kept by the 

facilities as records for five years. 

Both the proposed Inputs rule and 

this proposed rule are proposing 

changes to the subpart L reporting 

requirements. A redline/strikeout 

version of the subpart L regulatory text 

that reflects both sets of proposed 

changes is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. While both sets of 

changes are intended to address 

disclosure concerns, the reporting 

elements that are proposed to be 

amended generally differ. The proposed 

Inputs rule would amend and/or remove 

a number of reporting elements that are 

inputs to emission equations. This 

proposed rule would amend and/or 

remove other reporting requirements. In 

some cases, the two proposed rules are 

proposing changes to the same 

provisions, e.g., because those 

provisions contain several data 

elements, some of which are inputs, and 

some of which are not. For example, the 

proposed Inputs rule is proposing to 

remove the data element ‘‘mass’’ from 

40 CFR 98.126(b)(6) through (b)(8). This 

rule is proposing to remove these 

paragraphs altogether, because the 

remaining data elements (chemical 

formulas of reactants, products, and byproducts) are no longer useful without 

the corresponding masses. (The 

rationale for these and the other 

proposed amendments to the subpart L 

reporting requirements is discussed in 

Section II.A.3 of this preamble.) 

II. Proposed Amendments 

A. Proposed Amendments to the 

Subpart L Reporting Requirements 

1. Background of Proposed 

Amendments to Subpart L Reporting 

Requirements 

On January 10, 2012, the EPA 

published proposed determinations 

regarding whether the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program data elements in 

eight subparts of Part 98, including 

subpart L, would or would not be 

entitled to confidential treatment under 

the CAA (77 FR 1434). In that proposed 

rule, the EPA proposed that the 

chemical identities and quantities of the 

fluorinated GHG emissions at the 

process level, reported under subpart L, 

are ‘‘emission data.’’ Under section 

114(c) of the CAA, ‘‘emission data’’ are 

not eligible for confidential treatment 

and must be made publicly available. 

The EPA received two comments on 

that proposed rule related to subpart L. 

These commenters, the American 

Chemistry Council and 3M Company, 

raised concerns that the release of 

certain data elements that the EPA 

proposed to classify as emission data 

(and that therefore would not be eligible 

for treatment as confidential business 

information), would reveal ‘‘trade 

secrets.’’ Both commenters stated that 

the disclosure of the identity and 

quantities of the fluorinated GHGs 

emitted at the process level, from either 

process vents or fugitive sources, would 

reveal ‘‘trade secrets’’ regarding 

individual chemical production 

processes. 3M stated that process-level 

emission data provides specific 

information on reactants, by-products, 

and products that would provide 

competitors with a detailed 

understanding of 3M’s manufacturing 

process. They noted that competitors 

with knowledge of fluorine chemistry 

could use such information to identify 

the particular manufacturing pathways 

used by 3M. They asserted that 

competitors could then duplicate these 

processes without having to incur 

research and development costs, putting 

3M at a ‘‘competitive [dis]advantage.’’ 

The American Chemistry Council and 

3M Company also expressed concern 

that the disclosure of the identity and 

quantity of emissions at the process 

level could violate export control 

regulations. Specifically, the 

commenters stated that the release of 

some data elements would make 

available to the public information that 

is subject to Export Administration 

Regulations (EAR) and International 

Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) that 

prohibit public disclosure for reasons of 

‘‘national security, anti-terrorism, 

nuclear non-proliferation, and chemical 

and biological weapons security.’’ The 

commenters stated that the EAR and 

ITAR control not only export of 

products, but also export of technical 

knowledge, such as the design of a 

product and production information, 

and that the release of process-level 

emission data may provide such insight 

into the design of a product or 

production information that is exportcontrolled. The commenters stated that 

if the EPA attempted to protect exportcontrolled information from disclosure 

by implementing ‘‘an export control 

plan,’’ this would be in conflict with 

EPA’s position that emission data 

cannot be withheld from the public 

under the CAA. 

Following receipt of the public 

comments on the proposed CBI 

determinations, the EPA proposed and 

promulgated temporary, less detailed 

reporting requirements for reporting 

years 2011 and 2012 (77 FR 51477, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69341 

1The EPA subsequently proposed to extend the 

temporary provisions through reporting year 2013 

under the Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule. 

2We are proposing to define fluorinated gas 

product as the product of the process, including 

isolated intermediates. 

3 In the rule finalizing Part 98, the EPA cited the 

following benefits of process-specific reporting, 

Continued 

August 24, 2012).1 This was intended to 

allow the EPA additional time to 

evaluate the concerns raised by the 

commenters and to consider how the 

rule might be changed to balance these 

concerns with the EPA’s need to obtain 

the data necessary to inform the 

development of future GHG policies and 

programs. The EPA presented several 

reporting options, along with some of 

their advantages and disadvantages, in a 

memorandum (‘‘Potential Future 

Subpart L Options’’) that was placed in 

the docket to that rulemaking when the 

temporary reporting requirements were 

proposed (EPA–HQ–OAR–2011–0147). 

The options presented in the 

memorandum were based on reporting 

emissions at varying levels of 

aggregation for both the source of the 

emissions (ranging from reporting by 

process and by emission type to 

reporting at the facility level) and the 

chemicals emitted (ranging from 

reporting by speciated fluorinated GHG 

to reporting in CO2e). 

The EPA received two written 

comments on the alternatives presented 

in the memorandum. In addition, the 

EPA discussed alternative reporting 

options with fluorinated gas producers 

and other stakeholders. These 

comments and discussions are 

summarized further in the ‘‘Rationale’’ 

Section II.A.3 of this preamble. 

2. Summary of Proposed Amendments 

to Subpart L Reporting Requirements 

Following review of the comments 

submitted on the proposed 

confidentiality determinations (77 FR 

1434, January 10, 2012) and the 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Potential Future 

Subpart L Options,’’ and considering 

discussions with stakeholders, the EPA 

is proposing to permanently amend the 

subpart L reporting requirements to 

require reporting at a less aggregated 

level beginning in calendar year 2015. 

Specifically, we are proposing to require 

owners and operators of facilities 

producing fluorinated gases to report (1) 

emissions by fluorinated GHG group 

(chemical type) at the process level for 

each generically defined production or 

transformation process, and (2) 

emissions by chemical at the facility 

level for certain fluorinated GHG 

emissions. 

Fluorinated GHG emissions would be 

reported by chemical at the facility level 

when (a) the fluorinated GHG was 

emitted in quantities above 1,000 

mtCO2e and the facility produced more 

than one fluorinated gas product,2 or (b) 

for facilities that produced only one 

fluorinated gas product, the fluorinated 

GHG emitted was a major fluorinated 

GHG constituent of a fluorinated gas 

product and the fluorinated gas product 

was sold or otherwise transferred to 

another person. (Other fluorinated GHG 

emissions at the facility level would be 

reported by chemical type.) Where the 

emission factor or emission calculation 

factor approaches are used, facilities 

would be required to further 

disaggregate process emissions by 

emission type, i.e., into vented vs. 

leaked emissions. 

These changes would apply only to 

emissions from production and 

transformation processes; emissions 

from venting of container heels and 

destruction of previously produced 

fluorinated GHGs would be reported by 

chemical and by process as required by 

the 2010 Final Rule. 

In addition to the changes above, we 

are proposing to replace the 

requirements to report process-specific 

emission factors, activity data, and 

destruction efficiencies with a 

requirement to identify, as a range, the 

level by which the emissions of each 

process are reduced or controlled, e.g., 

by destruction devices. We are also 

proposing to remove the requirement 

that facilities report the following data 

elements: The contents, locations, and 

functions of the streams analyzed under 

the scoping speciation (40 CFR 

98.126(a)(3) and (a)(4)). In addition, we 

are proposing to revise the set of default 

GWPs used to calculate and report CO2e 

emissions under subpart L. We are also 

proposing to amend several provisions 

of subpart A to be consistent with the 

revised subpart L reporting 

requirements for purposes of reporting 

emissions monitored under subpart L. 

As discussed in Section II.A.7 of this 

preamble, all of these changes would 

apply to (previously deferred) reporting 

for Reporting Years 2011, 2012, and 

2013, as well as to reporting in future 

years. The amendments would not 

change other requirements of Part 98, 

including the requirement under 40 CFR 

98.3(g) that data used to calculate GHG 

emissions for each process be retained 

as records. 

The EPA is also proposing to remove 

the option to use a mass-balance 

approach from the calculation and 

monitoring requirements of the rule. No 

facilities are currently using this 

approach. With this change, facilities 

would still be able to use the emission 

factor and emission calculation factor 

approaches to monitor, calculate, and 

report their fluorinated GHG emissions. 

3. Rationale 

As discussed above in Section II.A.1 

of this preamble, certain subpart L 

reporters have raised concerns regarding 

reporting and potential disclosure of 

‘‘trade secrets’’ and ‘‘business sensitive 

information.’’ We believe that these 

reporters have raised legitimate 

concerns regarding the potential 

disclosure of this information and the 

possible consequences to the reporting 

businesses. Based on our evaluation of 

these concerns and potential reporting 

alternatives, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart L that would 

address these concerns while 

continuing to collect the data necessary 

to inform the development of future 

GHG policies and programs. To enable 

the EPA to evaluate future GHG policies 

and programs, reporting should allow 

the EPA to understand the magnitudes 

and growth rates of emissions of 

different chemicals from different 

sources and to identify and analyze 

potential approaches to reducing 

emissions of these chemicals from these 

sources. In addition, reporting should 

enable the EPA to verify reported 

emissions. The proposed amendment 

would continue to meet these 

objectives, while at the same time 

addressing the potential disclosure 

concerns discussed above. 

The EPA has considered a range of 

reporting options including varying 

levels of aggregation for the source of 

the emissions and for the fluorinated 

GHGs (chemicals) emitted. The levels of 

aggregation considered for the emission 

source included reporting by process 

and emissions type, by process type and 

subtype, and by facility. The levels of 

aggregation considered for the 

fluorinated GHGs included reporting by 

speciated fluorinated GHG, by 

fluorinated GHG group, or in terms of 

total CO2e only. In addition, the EPA 

considered implementing various 

combinations of these options. 

As discussed further in Sections 

II.A.3.a and II.A.3.b of this preamble, 

both process-specific and chemicalspecific reporting are important to 

understanding sources of emissions and 

assessing approaches to reduce 

emissions. Process-specific emissions 

information allows the EPA to identify 

processes with high potential for 

emission reductions as well as measures 

to achieve those reductions.3 ChemicalVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:34 Nov 18, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19NOP1.SGM 19NOP1

TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69342 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

among others: ‘‘Process-level reporting also 

provides information that will be useful in 

identifying processes that have reduced emissions 

over time and processes at specific plants that have 

the most potential for future reductions in 

emissions. In addition, the process-level reporting 

may provide information that can be used to 

improve methodologies for specific processes under 

future programs and to identify processes that may 

use a technology that could be the basis for an 

emission standard at a later time’’ (74 FR 56311, 

October 30, 2009). 

4For example, if the product of the process were 

emitted, as is frequently the case, its identity might 

be considered emissions data. This could lead to 

disclosure of its identity where the product was an 

intermediate whose identity would otherwise 

remain unknown to competitors. 

5The definition of ‘‘process’’ in subpart L reads 

in part, ‘‘Process means all equipment that 

collectively functions to produce a fluorinated gas 

product, including an isolated intermediate (which 

is also a fluorinated gas product), or to transform 

a fluorinated gas product. A process may consist of 

one or more unit operations. For the purposes of 

this subpart, process includes any, all, or a 

combination of reaction, recovery, separation, 

purification, or other activity, operation, 

manufacture, or treatment which are used to 

produce a fluorinated gas product.’’ 

specific information allows the EPA, as 

well as the public and the international 

community, to better understand the 

atmospheric impacts of U.S. emissions, 

to compare U.S. emissions to 

atmospheric measurements and, if 

inconsistencies between emissions and 

atmospheric measurements are found, to 

better understand the magnitudes and 

causes of those inconsistencies. 

In their comments on the proposed 

confidentiality determinations and in 

subsequent communications, 

fluorinated gas producers have 

repeatedly stated that reporting, and 

subsequent disclosure, of chemicalspecific emissions at the process level 

would provide insight into 

manufacturing methods that would 

enable competitors to gain a competitive 

advantage. After careful consideration of 

these comments, the EPA agrees with 

the fluorinated gas producers’ assertion 

that chemical-specific, process-specific 

emissions may in some cases provide a 

detailed chemical ‘‘fingerprint’’ of a 

process that could enable competitors to 

deduce how that process works to 

produce a particular product. One 

producer (3M) explained that, for 

example, a competitor with expertise in 

fluorine chemistry may be able to 

analyze speciated emissions and 

identify reactants, by-products, 

intermediates, and products. By 

examining the ratios of these emissions, 

the competitor may be able to deduce 

process conditions (e.g., reaction 

temperatures or whether or not a 

catalyst was used) based on publicly 

available equilibrium constant data. 

To address this concern while 

continuing to meet the objectives of the 

GHG Reporting Rule, the EPA is 

proposing to replace the current 

reporting of chemical-specific emissions 

at the process level with a reporting 

requirement that combines two levels of 

reporting. The proposed two-level 

reporting, which is discussed in more 

detail below, would avoid the potential 

disclosure concerns discussed above 

while retaining reporting of important 

information on emissions at both the 

process and chemical levels. 

We believe that this proposal, by 

addressing the business-related 

concerns raised by commenters, would 

also address the concerns they raised 

regarding export control requirements. 

We request comment on whether or not 

this is the case. 

a. Reporting by Generically Identified 

Process, Emission Type, and 

Fluorinated GHG Group 

The first level of proposed reporting 

is reporting of emissions by generically 

identified process (as discussed below), 

emission type (i.e., vents vs. leaks), and 

fluorinated GHG group. While such 

reporting would provide less detail than 

the 2010 Final Rule on the chemicals 

emitted, the product of each process, 

and emissions from individual process 

vents, it would preserve key data to 

inform the development of GHG policies 

and programs. First, such reporting 

would enable the EPA to identify 

processes and emission types with high 

or quickly changing emissions. As 

stated in the 2009 Final Rule (74 FR 

56311), identifying such processes is 

important because they may have the 

most potential for future reductions. 

Second, reporting by process, emission 

type, and fluorinated GHG group would 

help the EPA to identify and analyze 

reduction options. This is because 

reduction options are implemented at 

the process level and for specific 

emission types. Finally, process-level 

reporting is helpful for verifying 

emissions because it can allow 

comparison of emission rates among 

similar processes and because it can 

facilitate duplication of emissions 

calculations, which are performed at the 

process level. 

Because the EPA agrees with 

commenters’ concern that reporting the 

product of each process could lead to 

the disclosure of the identity of 

intermediates, and that such disclosure 

could in turn reveal information on how 

certain products are made, the EPA is 

proposing to identify processes 

generically rather than by the product of 

the process.4 This identification would 

include three pieces of information for 

each process. First, the reporter would 

identify the process as a production 

process, a transformation process where 

no fluorinated GHG reactant is 

produced at another facility, or a 

transformation process where one or 

more fluorinated GHG reactants are 

produced at another facility. Second, 

within these categories, the reporter 

would further identify the process as a 

reaction, distillation, or packaging 

process, or as a combination of these. 

Third, the reporter would tag the 

process with an identifier chosen by the 

facility (e.g., a letter or number) that 

would remain constant from year to year 

to permit year-to-year comparisons of 

emissions from that process. 

This method for identifying each 

process would supply useful 

information on the nature of the process 

without actually identifying the product 

of the process. For example, reporting 

the process type would enable the EPA 

to ascertain whether and how emission 

levels may vary across process types 

and thereby enable us to identify 

particular process types as having more 

potential for reductions. It would also 

permit the tracking of emissions from 

the same process from year to year. 

Moreover, it is generally consistent with 

the definition of ‘‘process’’ in subpart 

L.5 That definition includes ‘‘any, all, or 

a combination of reaction, recovery, 

separation, purification, or other 

activity, operation, manufacture, or 

treatment which are used to produce a 

fluorinated gas product.’’ Because the 

term ‘‘distillation’’ may encompass 

recovery, separation, and purification, 

the EPA’s preference is not to create 

separate classifications for recovery, 

separation, and purification. However, 

the EPA requests comment on whether 

the proposed classifications are 

sufficiently clear and comprehensive, or 

whether they should be expanded. 

One drawback of generically 

identifying processes is that this 

approach would not allow the EPA to 

compare processes making the same 

product (including intermediates) across 

different facilities. While some products 

are produced at only one facility, 

several are produced at multiple 

facilities. The EPA believes that the 

proposed amendment is nevertheless 

appropriate despite this drawback, 

because the information that can be 

obtained by comparisons of types of 

processes across different facilities 

remains useful for the purposes of the 

GHGRP. Nevertheless, the EPA requests 

comment on alternative identification 

strategies that would avoid this 

drawback. 

The EPA is proposing to establish five 

chemical types or groups into which 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69343 

6Hodnebrog, ;., M. Etminan, J. S. Fuglestvedt, G. 

Marston, G. Myhre, C. J. Nielsen, K. P. Shine, and 

T. J. Wallington, ‘‘Global Warming Potentials and 

Radiative Efficiencies of Halocarbons and Related 

Compounds: A Comprehensive Review,’’ Reviews of 

Geophysics, Accepted manuscript online: 24 APR 

2013. This article is discussed in more detail in 

Section II.A.4 of this preamble. 

7For example, the Climate and Clean Air 

coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants 

Initiative primarily focuses on chemicals with 

atmospheric lifetimes of less than 50 years. 

facilities would sort emissions for 

reporting at the process level. These 

groups are based primarily on chemical 

structure, which is correlated with 

atmospheric lifetime and GWP. Each 

group possesses a significantly different 

set of GWPs. The EPA believes that 

using these groups for reporting would 

avoid the potential disclosure concerns 

discussed above while still providing 

useful data that could inform technical 

and policy analysis. The groups are the 

same as those that we are proposing as 

the basis for default GWPs and include 

the following: 

Fully fluorinated GHGs. This group 

would be defined as it currently is in 

the temporary subpart L reporting 

provisions. Fully fluorinated GHGs are 

fluorinated GHGs that contain only 

single bonds and in which all available 

valence locations are filled by fluorine 

atoms. This group includes but is not 

limited to saturated perfluorocarbons, 

SF6, NF3, SF5CF3, fully fluorinated 

linear, branched and cyclic alkanes, 

fully fluorinated ethers, fully 

fluorinated tertiary amines, fully 

fluorinated aminoethers, and 

perfluoropolyethers. Fully fluorinated 

GHGs have lifetimes of over 500 to 

several thousand years and GWPs of 

6,290 to 22,800. 

Saturated hydrofluorocarbons. This 

group would include 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that contain 

only single bonds (i.e., 

hydrofluoroalkanes such as HFC-134a). 

Saturated HFCs generally have 

atmospheric lifetimes from 1 to 55 years 

and GWPs from 100 to 5,000, though 

there are exceptions at both extremes. 

The average GWP of saturated HFCs is 

approximately 2,200, based on GWPs in 

AR4 and in the article ‘‘Global Warming 

Potentials and Radiative Efficiencies of 

Halocarbons and Related Compounds: A 

Comprehensive Review (hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Comprehensive 

Review’’ 6). Because the range of 

lifetimes and GWPs spanned by the 

saturated HFCs is quite large, we are 

also considering the option of breaking 

saturated HFCs into two sets based on 

atmospheric lifetime. Saturated HFCs 

have lifetimes from 0.3 years to 270 

years and GWPs from 12 to 14,800. 

Breaking the saturated HFCs out into 

two sets would reduce these ranges 

considerably and would thereby provide 

more precise information regarding the 

atmospheric behavior of each group. For 

example, the average GWP of the 

saturated HFCs with atmospheric 

lifetimes above 20 years is 

approximately 5,700, while the average 

GWP of the saturated HFCs with 

atmospheric lifetimes below 20 years is 

approximately 600. Moreover, 

information on the atmospheric 

lifetimes of emissions helps to inform 

policies that distinguish among 

chemicals based on their atmospheric 

lifetimes and GWPs.7 However, one 

drawback of breaking out saturated 

HFCs by atmospheric lifetime is that it 

requires reporters to know the 

atmospheric lifetimes of the HFCs being 

reported as part of each saturated HFC 

group. While EPA could include this 

information in Table A–1 for the HFCs 

that are already on Table A–1, this 

information is not likely to be available 

for many HFCs that are not on Table A– 

1. Another drawback of breaking out 

saturated HFCs by atmospheric lifetime 

is that it would disaggregate reporting 

further than the proposed approach, 

potentially leading to disclosure 

concerns where process-specific 

reporting overlaps with facility-wide 

reporting. (This overlap is discussed in 

more detail in Section II.A.3.b. of this 

preamble.) To some extent, this concern 

could be mitigated by grouping 

saturated HFCs with lifetimes greater 

than or equal to 20 years with saturated 

HFEs with lifetimes greater than or 

equal to 20 years, and by creating a 

similar grouping for saturated HFCs and 

saturated HFEs with atmospheric 

lifetimes of less than 20 years. The EPA 

requests comment on the option of 

breaking out saturated HFCs by 

atmospheric lifetime for purposes of 

reporting emissions by fluorinated GHG 

group. 

Saturated hydrofluoroethers. This 

group would include hydrofluoroethers 

(HFEs) that contain only single bonds 

(i.e., hydrofluoroethers such as HFE134). Saturated HFCs generally have 

atmospheric lifetimes from several 

months to 30 years and GWPs from 100 

to 5,000, although, as for saturated 

HFCs, there are exceptions at both 

extremes. The average GWP of saturated 

HFCs is approximately 1,600 (based on 

AR4 and Comprehensive Review 

GWPs). As is the case for HFCs, the 

range of atmospheric lifetimes and 

GWPs spanned by the saturated HFEs is 

quite large, and breaking these HFEs 

into two sets based on atmospheric 

lifetime would provide more precise 

information regarding the atmospheric 

behavior of each group. For example, 

the average GWP of the saturated HFEs 

with atmospheric lifetimes above 20 

years is approximately 5,700, while the 

average GWP of the saturated HFCs with 

atmospheric lifetimes below 20 years is 

approximately 600. However, there are 

drawbacks associated with breaking the 

saturated HFEs into two groups that are 

similar to the drawbacks cited above for 

breaking the saturated HFCs into two 

groups. The EPA requests comment on 

the option of breaking the saturated 

HFEs into two groups based on 

atmospheric lifetime. 

Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, 

unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, 

and fluorinated ketones. This group 

would include very short-lived 

compounds including unsaturated PFCs 

(e.g., hexafluoropropylene and 

tetrafluoroethylene), unsaturated HFCs 

(e.g., HFC-1234yf and perfluorobutyl 

ethene), unsaturated HCFCs, 

unsaturated HFEs (e.g., fluoroxene), and 

fluorinated ketones. According to the 

Comprehensive Review, these GHGs 

have lifetimes of a few days to weeks. 

The average GWPs of unsaturated PFCs, 

unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HFEs, 

and fluorinated ketones are 

approximately 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, and 0.1 

respectively. Most individual chemicals 

of these types have GWPs of less than 

one. 

The EPA considered including 

fluorinated acetates and fluorinated 

formates in this group. However, the 

fluorinated acetates whose atmospheric 

lifetimes and GWPs have been studied 

often have lifetimes of months rather 

than days and GWPs in the 10s, 

significantly different from those of the 

compounds that would be included in 

this group. Fluorinated formates have 

still larger atmospheric lifetimes and 

GWPs. Thus, the EPA is proposing to 

include fluorinated acetates and 

fluorinated formates in the ‘‘other 

fluorinated GHG’’ group discussed 

below. 

While multiple studies have indicated 

that unsaturated HFCs have short 

atmospheric lifetimes and low GWPs, 

fewer studies have been performed on 

unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs 

and fluorinated ketones. Thus, the 

lifetimes and GWPs of unsaturated 

HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and 

fluorinated ketones are less certain. The 

EPA requests comment on the likely 

variability of the lifetimes and GWPs of 

unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs 

and fluorinated ketones and on whether 

or not these compounds should be 

included in the very-short-lived group 

or in the ‘‘Other fluorinated GHG’’ 

group, discussed below. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69344 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8 76 FR 30782; May 26, 2011. 

Other fluorinated GHGs. This group 

includes the fluorinated GHGs that do 

not fall into any of the four sets defined 

above. To ensure that the gas groups are 

both distinct (i.e., do not overlap) and 

comprehensive (i.e., cover all 

fluorinated GHGs), this gas group is a 

catch-all. Based on the list of 

compounds and GWPs included in the 

Comprehensive Review, the EPA’s 

understanding is that this group would 

consist of fluorinated acetates, 

fluorinated formates, 

carbonofluoridates, and fluorinated 

alcohols with lifetimes ranging from a 

few weeks to a few years and GWPs 

ranging from less than five to the 

hundreds. The EPA requests comment 

on which chemicals would fall into this 

group and on their atmospheric 

lifetimes and GWPs. The EPA also 

requests comment on whether this 

group should be combined with the 

group of very short-lived compounds 

discussed above (Unsaturated PFCs, 

unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, 

unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated 

ketones). Keeping the groups separate 

allows for a more precise assessment of 

each group’s atmospheric impacts, 

particularly since the ‘‘other’’ group, 

due to its necessarily open-ended 

definition, could eventually include 

fluorinated GHGs with relatively long 

lifetimes and high GWPs. Keeping the 

groups separate would also be 

consistent with the approach proposed 

for setting default GWPs, discussed 

further below. However, if the number 

of GHGs in both groups is small, 

combining the groups would both 

simplify reporting and reduce potential 

disclosure concerns. 

The advantage of requiring reporting 

by these fluorinated GHG groups is that 

it would address the disclosure 

concerns described above by avoiding 

the disclosure of the identities of the 

individual species that are emitted from 

production and transformation 

processes while still providing general 

information on the GWPs and 

atmospheric lifetimes of the emissions. 

General knowledge of the GWPs of the 

chemicals emitted is critical for 

distinguishing between processes 

emitting many tons of a low-GWP 

chemical and processes emitting a few 

tons (or kilograms) of a high-GWP 

chemical. While the CO2-equivalent 

emissions of both processes may be the 

same, appropriate emission reduction 

strategies, and their cost effectiveness, 

may differ. As noted above, general 

information on the atmospheric 

lifetimes of emissions also helps to 

inform policies that focus on either 

short- or long-lived chemicals. Grouping 

by chemical structure is also consistent 

with current international conventions 

that address chemicals with impacts on 

the global atmosphere (e.g., UNFCCC, 

Montreal Protocol). Commenters 

supported the establishment of 

fluorinated GHG groups similar to those 

above. 

In comments on the Options 

Memorandum, 3M expressed concern 

that reporting of emissions by 

generically identified process, emission 

type, and fluorinated GHG group could 

still disclose ‘‘trade secret information.’’ 

3M was specifically concerned that such 

reporting could reveal the number and 

types of process steps associated with a 

product when a facility made only one 

product or when a facility added a 

product between one year and the next. 

In the former case, the commenter stated 

that a competitor could determine 

production throughput based on the 

CO2e information that is reported under 

subpart OO. In the latter case, 3M 

argued that competitors could deduce 

the number of process steps associated 

with the new product or with 

manufacturing improvements by 

comparing reports between one year and 

the next. The commenter further stated 

that similar comparisons of data 

reported under subpart OO would yield 

information on the new product 

volume. Where manufacturing 

improvements changed the number of 

processes, 3M maintained that 

competitors could use this information 

to understand how the facility had 

changed its overall manufacturing 

process. 

While the EPA takes these concerns 

very seriously, some of the commenter’s 

concerns appear to stem from 

competitors’ potential use of the subpart 

L data in combination with production 

volumes reported under subpart OO. 

Production volumes reported under 

subpart OO have been determined to be 

CBI 8 and therefore will not be publicly 

released by the EPA. In the absence of 

chemical-specific reporting or any 

identification of the product of each 

process, the EPA believes that the 

number of process steps, assuming this 

could be deduced from reporting, could 

not by itself reveal detailed information 

on manufacturing techniques. Moreover, 

where a facility produced multiple 

fluorinated gas products, changes in the 

number of processes reported from one 

year to the next could be caused either 

by the introduction of new products or 

by changes to the manufacturing 

techniques used to make current 

products, as pointed out by the 

commenter. The identity and number of 

products whose manufacturing 

techniques might have changed would 

remain unknown. Thus, the link 

between the changed number of process 

steps and any particular new product or 

improvement would be uncertain at 

best. The EPA requests comment on this 

issue, particularly on why or how the 

disclosure of the number of process 

steps would raise a concern (in the 

absence of data reported under subpart 

OO by product and facility, which will 

not be publicly released). Information 

that would be helpful to the Agency 

includes the specific information 

identified on page 81368 in the Call for 

Information: Information on Inputs to 

Emission Equations Under the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Rule (75 FR 81366, December 27, 

2010). 

If the concern regarding the number of 

process steps relates to the 

characterization of each process as a 

reaction, distillation, or packaging 

process, one option would be to drop 

this characterization and to identify the 

process only as a production process, a 

transformation process where no 

fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at 

another facility, or a transformation 

process where one or more fluorinated 

GHG reactants are produced at another 

facility. The process would still be 

tagged with a letter or number that 

could be used to identify it from year to 

year. One disadvantage of this approach 

is that it would not show whether or 

how emission levels varied by process 

subtype. It would, however, still 

provide information on how emission 

levels varied by process type. Going 

further, the identification of the process 

as a production process or as one of the 

two types of transformation processes 

could also be dropped. However, if 

facilities did not identify emissions that 

come from transformation processes that 

transform fluorinated GHGs produced at 

other facilities, we would lose our 

ability to distinguish between these 

‘‘downstream’’ emissions and the 

‘‘upstream’’ emissions that result from 

the production and transformation of 

fluorinated gases produced on site. This 

would interfere with our ability to 

analyze the impacts of upstream vs. 

downstream policies. Nevertheless, we 

would retain critical information on the 

magnitudes and trends of emissions 

from each process. We request comment 

on these options. 

In the event that disclosing the 

number of process steps is demonstrated 

to be a concern even if processes are 

identified only by a letter or a number, 

the EPA is requesting comment on the 

option of requiring facilities to report 

total emissions, by fluorinated GHG 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69345 

9Belgium’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory (1990– 

2011): National Inventory Report submitted under 

the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, p. 122, and 

Table 2(II)s2, Common Reporting Format (CRF) 

Tables submitted by Belgium, April 2013. See 

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_

inventories/national_inventories_submissions/

items/7383.php. 

10 3M may have meant the UNFCCC, which 

covers HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 but not other 

fluorocarbons. 

11This producer was nevertheless concerned that 

a quantity threshold could reveal detailed process 

information because chemicals that fell below the 

Continued 

group, only for each emission type (i.e., 

reporting facility-level emissions by 

fluorinated GHG group, distinguishing 

between vented and leaked emissions). 

This approach would maintain 

information on emissions type, but 

would not allow the EPA to identify 

processes with high or quickly changing 

emissions or to analyze reduction 

options. The EPA requests comment on 

this approach, particularly on whether 

any reduction in the sensitivity of the 

data that would be reported under it 

would justify the loss of the processspecific data that would be reported 

under the first option. 

b. Reporting by Chemical at the Facility 

Level for Fluorinated GHGs With 

Emissions Above a Threshold 

The second part of the proposed 

approach, reporting by chemical at the 

facility level, would supplement the 

process-specific reporting discussed 

above with chemical-specific reporting 

of fluorinated GHGs emitted from 

fluorinated gas production in quantities 

above a certain threshold. As explained 

in more detail below, the EPA is 

proposing a threshold of 1,000 mtCO2e 

but is seeking comment on other 

options. In general, reporting of 

emissions under the GHGRP is 

chemical-specific. For Part 98 generally, 

information on the identities and 

characteristics of GHGs is important for 

assessing their impacts on the 

atmosphere and informing policies that 

distinguish among chemicals based on 

their atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs. 

For subpart L, information on the 

identities and characteristics of GHGs is 

particularly important. First, the range 

of GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes 

spanned by the fluorinated GHGs is 

large. Lifetimes range from a few days 

(e.g., for several unsaturated 

fluorocarbons) to thousands of years 

(e.g., for saturated perfluorocarbons), 

while GWPs range from less than one 

(e.g., for several unsaturated 

fluorocarbons) to above 20,000 (e.g., for 

SF6). Often, the same fluorinated gas 

production facility may emit fluorinated 

GHGs at both ends of the GWP and 

lifetime ranges. Knowledge of the 

lifetimes of the chemicals is key to 

understanding how emissions from 

different processes would fit into 

policies that focus particularly on shortlived or long-lived GHGs. 

Second, chemical-specific reporting at 

the facility level would provide a useful 

check on the CO2e emissions reported at 

the process or process type level. Under 

today’s proposed rule, facilities would 

report process-level emissions in CO2e 

only, introducing the possibility of 

errors in the assignment of GWPs (either 

arithmetic or in the choice of the GWP). 

Chemical-specific reporting at the 

facility level would allow the EPA to 

apply the appropriate GWP to each 

chemical and verify that the CO2e 

summed across chemicals matched the 

CO2e summed across processes. 

Third, fluorinated gas producers are a 

significant source for many fluorinated 

GHGs, and for some fluorinated GHGs, 

they are the only source. This makes 

them especially important in efforts to 

verify national and global emissions 

using atmospheric measurements. (Most 

fluorinated GHGs lack significant 

natural sources.) 

Finally, chemical-specific reporting is 

consistent with GHG Inventory 

reporting under the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate 

Change (UNFCCC), which encourages 

chemical-specific reporting. Under the 

UNFCCC, other countries report 

chemical-specific emissions from 

comparable fluorinated gas production 

facilities. For example, in 2013 and 

previous years, Belgium’s GHG 

inventory reported emissions from ‘‘an 

electrochemical synthesis (electrofluorination) plant, which emits, or has 

emitted SF6, CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F10, 

C5F12 and C6F14 as well as fluorinated 

greenhouse gases not covered by the 

Kyoto Protocol (among which CF3SF5, 

C7F16, C8F18 and C8F16O).’’ 9 From this 

plant, Belgium reported 2011 emissions 

of CF4, C4F10, C5F12, and C6F14 in tons 

of each gas. France and Italy have also 

reported chemical-specific emissions 

from their fluorinated gas production 

facilities. 

In comments on the Options 

Memorandum and in discussions with 

the EPA, fluorinated gas producers 

stated that even at the facility level, 

chemical-specific reporting could 

disclose ‘‘trade secret . . . information.’’ 

Several producers cited the (relatively 

rare) case in which a fluorinated gas 

production facility produces only one 

final product, in which case facilitylevel information may be the same as 

process-specific information. One 

producer, 3M, noted that even for 

facilities producing multiple products, 

chemical-specific reporting at the 

facility level could provide information 

to competitors on process inputs since 

some of the chemicals could be unique 

and obviously attributable to a specific 

product. 

On the other hand, 3M observed that 

for some facilities and under some 

reporting approaches, it was possible 

that chemical-specific reporting of 

certain chemicals would not be a 

concern. 3M pointed to Belgium’s 

reporting of emissions from its 

electrochemical synthesis plant as an 

example. 3M observed that the plant 

reports chemical-specific emissions for 

certain fluorinated GHGs, including 

those covered by the Kyoto Protocol and 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC).10 However, the plant 

reports emissions of other fluorinated 

GHGs in aggregate as a separate group. 

(3M also stated that Belgium aggregates 

emissions from more than one 

fluorinated gas producer in its GHG 

inventory, although this is inconsistent 

with Belgium’s description of the 

emissions in its National Inventory 

Report.) 

While the EPA believes that reporting 

of chemical-specific emissions at the 

facility level would in most cases 

address the potential disclosure 

concerns described above associated 

with reporting of chemical-specific 

emissions at the process level, the EPA 

finds it plausible that in some cases, 

individual reporting of the full suite of 

emitted fluorinated GHGs at the facility 

level could disclose detailed process 

information. To address disclosure 

concerns associated with reporting all 

emissions by chemical while retaining 

information on fluorinated GHGs that 

are emitted in significant quantities, the 

EPA is proposing that facilities be 

required to report emissions of a 

fluorinated GHG by chemical when 

emissions of that fluorinated GHG 

exceed 1,000 mtCO2e for the facility as 

a whole. Emissions of fluorinated GHGs 

that do not exceed 1,000 mtCO2e would 

be reported by fluorinated GHG group at 

the facility level. This would reduce the 

number of speciated fluorinated GHGs 

that would be identified and would 

therefore reduce the chemical-specific 

information potentially available to 

competitors. During discussions 

between EPA and industry, one 

fluorinated gas producer indicated that 

chemicals emitted in quantities greater 

than one ton accounted for the vast 

majority of one facility’s emissions, 

while accounting for a small fraction of 

the total number of chemicals emitted.11


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69346 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

threshold one year and exceeded it the next would 

be identified in the second year, indicating that the 

scale or nature of one or more processes at the 

facility had changed. This concern is similar to the 

one expressed regarding the number of process 

steps being revealed by process-specific reporting, 

and EPA has similar questions regarding it. 

12For sevoflurane, which is not included in AR4, 

they would be based on the Table A–1 value. 

A cutoff of 1,000 mtCO2e correlates to 

a cutoff of 0.1 tons of fully fluorinated 

GHG (assuming a GWP of 10,000), 0.5 

tons of saturated HFCs (assuming a 

GWP of 2,200), and 1,000 tons of 

unsaturated HFCs (assuming a GWP of 

1). A GWP-weighted cutoff has the 

advantage of accounting for the 

potential atmospheric impact of each 

fluorinated GHG’s emissions, but the 

EPA could also set the cutoff in terms 

of tons of chemical, e.g., at half a ton or 

one ton. The latter approach would be 

slightly simpler. Our goal would be to 

set any such cutoff at a level that would 

ensure we have chemical-specific 

information for the chemicals that are 

responsible for the bulk of CO2- 

equivalent emissions from the facility. 

The EPA requests comment on the 

proposed magnitude of the cutoff. 

Where a facility produces only one 

fluorinated gas, the EPA is proposing 

that it be required to report emissions 

only by fluorinated GHG group unless 

the emissions consist of a major 

fluorinated GHG constituent of the 

fluorinated GHG product and that 

product is sold or transferred to another 

person. In this case, the facility would 

be required to report emissions of the 

major fluorinated GHG constituents of 

the product, which the EPA proposes to 

define as constituents of the product 

that individually account for more than 

1 percent of the product by mass. The 

EPA is proposing this exception because 

where products are sold or otherwise 

transferred to other persons, those 

persons, who could presumably include 

competitors, could identify the major 

constituents of the product simply by 

chemically analyzing it. Thus, 

identifying the chemical species of the 

major constituents of the product when 

they are emitted would not provide any 

additional information to competitors 

on the product or the methods used to 

produce it. The EPA is proposing to 

limit this reporting to major constituents 

because information on constituents 

that comprise less than 1 percent of the 

product is (1) more difficult to obtain 

through chemical analysis, and (2) more 

likely to disclose detailed information 

regarding reactants, intermediates, and 

by-products of the processes used to 

make the product. This is because such 

reactants, intermediates, and byproducts may occur as lowconcentration impurities in the product. 

The EPA requests comment on this 

proposal and on whether and how it 

might disclose detailed information 

about the process. 

The EPA also requests comment on 

whether this exception from chemicalspecific reporting should be expressed 

in terms of the number of processes at 

a facility rather than the number of 

products, since a facility that produced 

one fluorinated gas product but also 

transformed one or more fluorinated 

gases would be reporting emissions 

from multiple processes. 

Possible interaction between reporting 

by chemical type at the process level 

and reporting by chemical at the facility 

level. If there is only one process at a 

facility that emits a particular chemical 

type, and if emissions of one or more of 

the chemicals in that chemical type 

exceed the 1,000 mtCO2e threshold, 

then reporting by chemical at the 

facility level would allow competitors to 

deduce at least a subset of the chemicals 

that are being emitted by that process. 

We request comment on whether this 

situation actually arises in practice. 

Various ways of reducing the 

probability of this situation include 

increasing the threshold for chemicalspecific reporting (e.g., up to 10,000 

mtCO2e) and/or reducing the number of 

separate fluorinated GHG groups (e.g., to 

‘‘fully fluorinated GHGs, saturated HFCs 

and saturated HFEs, and other’’). If the 

situation would still occur even with 

these changes, another way to address it 

would be to allow facilities that 

encounter it to report process-level 

emissions only as CO2e, without any 

designation of the chemical type. 

Affected facilities would continue to 

report facility emissions by chemical. 

As discussed above, process-level 

information on chemical type is 

important because it provides insight 

into potential reduction options; thus, 

we would prefer not to pursue this last 

approach. However, reporting in CO2e 

only would still permit us to understand 

the magnitudes and trends of emissions 

from each process. We request comment 

on the extent to which increasing the 

threshold for chemical-specific 

reporting and/or reducing the number of 

chemical types would address any 

revealing overlap between the chemicals 

reported at the facility level and 

chemical types reported at the process 

level. We also request comment on the 

option of allowing facilities affected by 

this overlap to report process-level 

emissions without identifying the 

chemical type emitted. 

4. Proposal To Revise the Set of Default 

GWPs Used To Convert Fluorinated 

GHG Emissions Into CO2e 

The 2010 Final Rule and the 

temporary subpart L reporting 

provisions both include default GWPs 

that enable fluorinated gas production 

facilities to calculate and report 

emissions in CO2e for fluorinated GHGs 

that are not on Table A–1. Such 

fluorinated GHGs account for 

approximately 20 percent of the CO2e 

emissions reported under subpart L. The 

2010 Final Rule includes one default 

GWP (2,000), while the temporary 

reporting provisions include two 

(10,000 for fully fluorinated GHGs; 

2,000 for all other fluorinated GHGs). 

We are proposing to replace these 

default GWPs with five default GWPs 

that would significantly increase the 

precision and accuracy of the CO2e 

emissions calculated and reported 

under subpart L. The new default GWPs 

would also replace best-estimate GWPs 

that some facilities have used to report 

their CO2e emissions under the subpart 

L temporary reporting provisions. The 

default GWPs would be calculated and 

assigned based on fluorinated GHG 

group, and would be included in a new 

Table L–1. The default GWPs would be 

based on the AR4 values for the 

compounds currently listed in Table A– 

1,12 and, for fluorinated GHGs that are 

not included in Table A–1, on 

additional GWPs in the recent peerreviewed literature, specifically the 

Comprehensive Review. As indicated by 

its name, the Comprehensive Review 

consolidates and updates the GWPs 

found in the peer-reviewed literature for 

numerous halogenated compounds, 

including approximately 100 

fluorinated GHGs that are not included 

in Table A–1. The Comprehensive 

Review GWPs are likely to be the basis 

of updated GWPs in the IPCC Fifth 

Assessment Report (AR5), which is 

expected to be completed this year. 

The default GWPs would be assigned 

to the fluorinated GHG groups the EPA 

is proposing for process-specific 

reporting: (1) Fully fluorinated GHGs, 

(2) saturated HFCs, (3) saturated HFEs 

and saturated HCFEs, (4) unsaturated 

PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated 

HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and 

fluorinated ketones, and (5) other GHGs. 

The proposed default GWPs for these 

fluorinated GHG groups are listed in 

Table 2 of this preamble. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69347 

13The Comprehensive Review rounded the GWPs 

of many short-lived compounds to ‘‘1’’ or ‘‘0.’’ In 

these cases, EPA calculated the exact GWP based 

on the radiative efficiency and atmospheric lifetime 

provided for the compound in the Comprehensive 

Review. The exact GWPs are included in ‘‘Analysis 

of Potential Default GWPs for Fluorinated GHGs 

and HTFs Reported under the GHGRP.’’ 

TABLE 2—DEFAULT GWPS PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN TABLE L–1 AS DEFAULT GWPS BY FLUORINATED GHG GROUP

Fluorinated GHG group 

Proposed global 

warming potential 

(100 yr.) 

Fully fluorinated GHGs .................................................................................................................................................................. 10,000 

Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) ........................................................................................................................................... 2,200 

Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) ................................................................ 1,600 

Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones ................................ 1 

Other fluorinated compounds ........................................................................................................................................................ 100 

As discussed in Section II.A.3.a of 

this preamble, the compounds within 

each group exhibit similar atmospheric 

lifetimes and radiative behavior, 

meaning that their GWPs fall into a 

relatively limited range. This permits 

default GWPs to be established with 

more precision than is possible with 

larger or more diverse sets of fluorinated 

GHGs. 

For each group, we have taken the 

average GWP of the group, rounding it 

to one or two significant figures. For 

example, to determine the default GWP 

for fully fluorinated GHGs, we 

determined the average GWP of all fully 

fluorinated fluorocarbons in either the 

revised Table A–1, or, for compounds 

not included in the revised Table A–1, 

in the Comprehensive Review. The 

average GWP for the fully fluorinated 

fluorocarbons is equal to 9,857. This 

provided the default GWP of 10,000 for 

fully fluorinated compounds. 

This approach is expected to result in 

an unbiased estimate of the GWP of 

each fluorinated GHG group because, at 

the present time, the GWPs of the 

fluorinated GHGs on Table A–1 are not 

expected to be any lower or higher, on 

average, than the GWPs of the 

fluorinated GHGs that are not on Table 

A–1. However, for the ‘‘Other 

fluorinated GHG’’ group, which is a 

‘‘catch-all’’ category for fluorinated 

GHGs that do not fit into any other 

group, it is possible that newly 

synthesized types of compounds could 

have GWPs significantly different from 

the GWPs of the types of compounds 

that are currently in the group. Given 

this uncertainty, we are requesting 

comment on two alternatives. One 

option would be to establish a default 

GWP for this group that is equal to the 

average of the known GWPs of the 

current members of this group plus one 

standard deviation. This would result in 

a default GWP of 300 rather than 100 for 

the ‘‘Other fluorinated GHG’’ group. 

Another option would be to adopt a 

default GWP for this group based on the 

average of the GWPs of all fluorinated 

GHGs, i.e., 2000. This would recognize 

that the uncertainty associated with the 

GWPs of newly synthesized compound 

types may exceed that associated with 

the GWPs of the compound types 

currently identified as belonging to the 

‘‘other fluorinated GHG’’ group. 

However, while adopting a GWP of 2000 

would decrease the likelihood of 

underestimating the GWPs of new types 

of compounds, it would significantly 

overestimate the GWPs of the 

compound types that have been 

identified as belonging to this group to 

date. 

For the group including very shortlived, unsaturated compounds, we are 

proposing to establish a default GWP of 

one to simplify calculations, although 

the average GWP for the group is 

actually 0.4.13 Using a default GWP of 

one would lead to an overestimate of 

CO2e emissions, but this overestimate 

would be extremely small in most cases. 

We request comment on this approach. 

The EPA also requests comment on 

the sets of chemicals selected as the 

bases for the default GWPs. First, we are 

requesting comment on the fluorinated 

GHG groups proposed here. Do they 

capture most of the variability in GWPs 

exhibited by fluorinated GHGs? If not, 

what alternative fluorinated GHG 

groups would capture this variability? 

Could facilities easily determine to 

which fluorinated GHG group a 

particular fluorinated compound 

belonged? 

Second, we are requesting comment 

on the individual chemicals whose 

GWPs are used to establish GWPs for 

each fluorinated GHG group. We are 

specifically interested in comments on 

how to treat compounds with relatively 

high or low GWPs for their groups (i.e., 

outliers). Within the group of fully 

fluorinated GHGs, relatively high GWPs 

are generally a consequence of a 

compound’s radiative efficiency (or, 

more precisely, the ratio of the 

compound’s radiative efficiency to its 

molecular weight), which is in turn 

influenced by the compound’s inclusion 

of bonds other than C–F bonds (e.g., S– 

F or N–F bonds in SF6, SF5CF3, and 

NF3) or by a cyclic structure (as for c– 

C3F6). Within the other fluorinated GHG 

groups, relatively high-GWP compounds 

are those that are relatively long-lived, 

such as HFC–23 among the saturated 

HFCs and HFE–125 and HFE–134 

among the saturated HFEs, while 

relatively low-GWP compounds are 

those that are short-lived, such as HFC– 

152a among the saturated HFCs. 

To develop the proposed defaults, we 

have included outliers where we could 

not rule out the possibility that such 

outliers may also occur among the 

fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs we wish 

to estimate through the use of defaults. 

Thus, to estimate the default GWP for 

fully fluorinated GHGs, the EPA did not 

include SF6 or NF3, because the 

definition of ‘‘fluorinated GHG’’ does 

not include any other compounds 

whose radiatively important bonds 

consist exclusively of S–F or N–F 

bonds. However, we did include 

SF5CF3, because the definition of 

‘‘fluorinated GHG’’ does include 

fluorocarbons, which may include S–F 

and N–F bonds in addition to C–F 

bonds. We also included cyclic 

fluorinated GHGs for the same reason. 

An analysis of how the default GWPs 

change based on the inclusion or 

exclusion of outliers (Analysis of 

Potential Default GWPs for Fluorinated 

GHGs Reported Under the GHGRP) is 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. For fully-fluorinated GHGs, 

the inclusion of SF6 and NF3 would 

increase the default from 10,000 to 

11,000, while the exclusion of c–C3F6 

would decrease the default to 9,000. 

We are also requesting comment on 

whether fluorinated GHGs that contain 

chlorine should be included in the 

‘‘other fluorinated GHG’’ group or in the 

fluorinated GHG groups in which 

chemically similar fluorinated GHGs 

that do not contain chlorine are 

included. While most chlorinecontaining GHGs are regulated under 

the EPA’s Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Regulations and are therefore 

excluded from the definition of 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69348 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

14Even if the mass of product produced is not 

used by a facility to estimate its emissions, it may 

be used in analyses of that facility’s emission data 

to develop an ‘‘implied emission factor’’ that can be 

used to compare emission rates per mass of product 

produced across processes and facilities. 

‘‘fluorinated GHG’’ (and the 

requirements of Subpart L), some 

chlorine-containing GHGs are included 

in the definition of ‘‘fluorinated GHG.’’ 

These include, for example, a few 

hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) and 

unsaturated hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

(HCFCs). In the future, other chlorinecontaining fluorinated GHGs may be 

emitted (e.g., unsaturated 

chlorofluorocarbons and unsaturated 

hydrobromofluorocarbons). In 

developing the proposed default GWPs, 

we have included current chlorinecontaining compounds in the same 

groups as similar compounds without 

chlorine (grouping HCFEs with HFEs 

and unsaturated HCFCs with 

unsaturated HFCs), because the 

atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs of the 

chlorine-containing compounds are 

similar to those of the similar 

compounds without chlorine. The 

alternative would be to include the 

chlorine-containing compounds in the 

‘‘Other fluorinated GHG group,’’ but this 

approach would lead to the use of less 

accurate default GWPs for the chlorinecontaining compounds. 

As discussed above, the 

Comprehensive Review GWPs are likely 

to be the basis of the GWPs in the IPCC 

Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which is 

expected to be completed this year. To 

the extent that AR5 updates or corrects 

the GWPs for some GHGs that are 

included in the Comprehensive Review 

(but are not included in Table A–1), we 

are proposing to use those updated 

values in our calculations of default 

GWPs for the final rule. (If AR5 includes 

GWPs rounded to zero, one, or two, we 

would use the corresponding updated 

radiative efficiencies and/or 

atmospheric lifetimes to calculate more 

precise updated GWPs and use those 

more precise GWPs to calculate the 

relevant default(s).) We request 

comment on this approach. 

Differences between proposed default 

GWPs and the default GWPs in the 

subpart L temporary reporting 

provisions. The approach proposed in 

today’s action differs from the approach 

taken under the temporary subpart L 

reporting provisions in two respects. 

First, the temporary subpart L reporting 

provisions give facilities the option to 

use their best estimate of a GWP for a 

compound lacking a GWP on Table A– 

1, as long as that estimate is based on 

the information described in 40 CFR 

98.123(c)(1)(vi)(A)(3) and is 

documented. Under the approach 

proposed in this action, facilities and 

suppliers would not have this option, 

but would use the appropriate default 

GWP. Second, the temporary subpart L 

reporting provisions include default 

GWPs for just two fluorinated GHG 

groups, ‘‘fully fluorinated GHGs’’ and 

‘‘other,’’ while this proposed rule 

includes five default GWPs for five 

fluorinated GHG groups. 

There are several reasons why we are 

not proposing to allow facilities to use 

best-estimate GWPs in today’s action. 

When we promulgated the temporary 

provisions, we had not collected as 

much information on the GWPs of 

fluorinated GHGs as we now have. 

Since we have collected this additional 

information and issued a NODA seeking 

public comment on potential chemicalspecific GWPs, we now have a stronger 

basis for making generalizations 

regarding the atmospheric impacts of 

fluorinated GHG groups, particularly the 

five for which we are proposing default 

GWPs in this action. Dividing the set of 

fluorinated compounds into five rather 

than two sets also allows us to set 

default GWPs with more precision. 

Thus, the key reason for allowing 

facilities to develop and apply their own 

GWPs, which is that such estimates 

could be significantly more accurate and 

precise than default GWPs, no longer 

applies to the extent that it once did. 

Furthermore, the use of best-estimate 

GWPs has significant drawbacks. 

These drawbacks include the lack of 

transparency of best-estimate GWPs to 

EPA and the public and the lack of 

consistency of best-estimate GWPs 

across facilities emitting the same 

chemical. These drawbacks were 

acceptable in the context of the 

temporary reporting provisions, which 

were intended only to provide interim 

emissions estimates while the EPA 

addressed the disclosure issues raised 

by commenters, but they pose 

significant concerns for long-term 

reporting. Under the temporary 

provisions, neither best-estimate GWPs 

nor the data and analysis used to 

support them are reported to the EPA; 

thus, the reliability of this data and 

analysis, and the accuracy of the 

resulting GWPs, are difficult to 

ascertain. This could lead to the use of 

poorly supported, incorrect GWPs. In 

addition, allowing facilities to use their 

own best estimates of GWPs could result 

in different facilities using different 

GWPs for the same compound, reducing 

the comparability of emissions estimates 

across facilities. In contrast, establishing 

consistent default GWPs for compounds 

for use by multiple facilities would 

allow the EPA to compare emissions 

across facilities and to better 

characterize emission trends. 

Future Changes to Default GWPs. 

While the EPA would reserve the right 

to update the default GWPs as chemicalspecific GWPs were evaluated or 

reevaluated for new or existing 

fluorinated GHGs in each fluorinated 

GHG group, we do not expect that such 

updates would be frequent. This is 

because the sets of fluorinated GHGs 

whose GWPs we are using as the basis 

for each default are relatively large, 

meaning that the addition or change of 

a few GWPs is not likely to have a large 

impact on the average. 

5. Other Changes to Reporting 

Requirements 

Categorization of Effective Destruction 

Efficiencies: In addition to the changes 

above, we are proposing to replace the 

requirements to report process-specific 

activity data (including the mass of 

product produced 14), emission factors, 

and destruction efficiencies with a 

requirement to identify, as a range, the 

level by which the emissions of each 

process are reduced or controlled, e.g., 

by a destruction device. In the proposed 

Inputs rule, we proposed to remove the 

requirements to report process-specific 

activity data, emission factors, and 

destruction efficiencies; in this action 

we are proposing to remove the 

requirement to report the mass of 

product produced. As discussed in an 

analysis supporting the proposed Inputs 

rule (‘‘Evaluation of Competitive Harm 

from Disclosure of ‘‘Inputs to 

Equations’’ Data Elements Deferred to 

March 31, 2015,’’ available in Docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0929), we have 

identified potential disclosure concerns 

associated with reporting of exact 

activity data, emission factors, and 

destruction efficiencies at the process 

level under subpart L. 

With respect to subpart L, the 

proposed Inputs rule addresses the use 

of activity data, emission factors, and 

destruction efficiencies as inputs to 

emissions calculations. In addition to 

being used as inputs, these data 

elements provide information that is 

useful for policy analysis for the 

fluorinated gas production source 

category. Specifically, they help EPA to 

identify processes with a large potential 

for future reductions and reduction 

technologies that are highly effective. 

On the one hand, processes that are 

relatively uncontrolled are likely to 

have a larger potential for future 

reductions than those that are already 

highly controlled. On the other hand, 

high levels of control imply the use of 

highly effective reduction technologies. 

Destruction efficiencies indicate the 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69349 

15Note that reporting process emissions by 

chemical type would reduce but not eliminate this 

uncertainty. 

level of control directly, while emission 

factors (and the activity data from which 

such factors can be deduced) can do so 

indirectly (because very low emission 

factors often result from high levels of 

control). While the magnitude of 

emissions from a process may provide 

some indication of whether or not that 

process is controlled, this is not always 

the case. For example, large (i.e., highproduction) processes that emit gases 

with very high GWPs may be controlled 

but still have higher CO2e emissions 

than smaller, uncontrolled processes 

that emit gases with lower GWPs. The 

wide range of GWPs of the gases that are 

emitted from fluorinated gas production 

facilities introduce a source of 

uncertainty into data from these 

facilities that is generally absent from 

the data from other types of facilities.15

The proposed requirement for 

facilities to report, as a range, the level 

of control of each process would 

directly address this issue. We are 

proposing four ranges into which 

facilities would bin the level of control 

of processes. These ranges are shown in 

Table 3 of this preamble. 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED RANGES FOR

REPORTING REDUCTION LEVELS

[mtCO2e] 

Range of reductions 

Range of uncontrolled 

emissions associated 

with emissions of 

1,000 mtCO2e 

>99% ........................ 100,000 to 

>10,000,000 *. 

95% to 99% .............. 20,000 to 100,000. 

75% to 95% .............. 4,000 to 20,000. 

0% to 75% ................ 1,000 to 4,000. 

* The 10 million figure assumes a reduction 

of 99.99 percent (e.g., destruction to ‘‘four 

nines’’); higher reduction percentages would 

lead to higher upper bounds. 

The ranges are designed to provide 

useful information on the level of 

control for each process while also 

protecting detailed information 

regarding the mass of material removed 

from the process (e.g., as one or more 

by-products) and vented to the 

destruction device or atmosphere. Each 

range of reductions corresponds to a 

range of uncontrolled emissions that 

spans a factor of four or more, resulting 

in a large zone of uncertainty around the 

masses of vented process streams. At the 

same time, however, the ranges are 

small enough to distinguish between 

highly controlled processes, processes 

with intermediate levels of control, and 

processes that are relatively 

uncontrolled. 

The uncertainty created by the ranges 

of reduction levels would be in addition 

to the uncertainty around the masses of 

vented process streams that would 

result from reporting emissions by 

fluorinated GHG group rather than by 

individual chemical. The GWPs for each 

fluorinated GHG group have relative 

standard deviations ranging from 40 

percent (for fully fluorinated GHGs) to 

over 100 percent (for all the other 

fluorinated GHG groups), resulting in 

similar uncertainty ranges for chemicalspecific emissions (both controlled and 

uncontrolled). Given the uncertainty 

associated with reporting by fluorinated 

GHG group, we are considering 

requiring facilities to report their precise 

level of reduction for each process 

rather than the range of that reduction. 

This would provide more detailed 

information regarding the reduction and 

may actually be simpler than placing 

the level of reduction in a range. One 

potential issue regarding this approach 

is that the level of uncertainty (around 

the masses of vented process streams) 

that results from reporting emissions by 

fluorinated GHG group is relatively low 

(i.e., a relative standard deviation of less 

than 50%) for some groups (e.g., fully 

fluorinated GHGs), which could result 

in disclosure concerns for facilities that 

make one product. We request comment 

on this alternative. 

The EPA also considered requiring 

facilities to indicate simply whether or 

not each process is controlled. However, 

for processes that are completely 

uncontrolled, this approach raises 

issues similar to those raised by 

reporting the precise level of reduction. 

This is because, for uncontrolled 

processes, the level of reduction would 

be precisely specified as zero. In the 

approach we are proposing, a facility 

with uncontrolled emissions from a 

process would bin that process in the 

zero- to 75-percent controlled category, 

whose corresponding uncontrolled 

emissions span a factor of four. 

However, we request comment on 

requiring facilities to indicate only 

whether or not each process is 

controlled. 

To calculate the level of reductions, 

we are proposing that facilities consider 

both the destruction efficiency (DE) and 

the downtime (or uptime) of the 

destruction device. Downtime can have 

a large impact on the effective 

destruction efficiency of destruction 

devices; for example, a device with a 

nominal DE of 99.99 percent that 

experiences 5 percent downtime will 

have an effective destruction efficiency 

of 95 percent. The level of reductions or 

effective destruction efficiency would 

be equated to one minus the ratio 

between the actual emissions from the 

process (i.e., accounting for any 

controls) and the uncontrolled 

emissions from the process (i.e., the 

emissions that would have occurred in 

the absence of controls), expressed in 

CO2e. This calculation would not 

require facilities to gather any 

additional data, and we anticipate that 

it would be automated through the 

inputs verification tool, meaning that 

there would be essentially no additional 

burden associated with it for reporters. 

However, to the extent that some burden 

may exist, we request comment on the 

option of requiring reporting of effective 

destruction efficiencies only for 

processes with emissions over a certain 

threshold, e.g., 10,000 mtCO2e. 

Because we are proposing to remove 

the option to use the mass-balance 

approach, and because very few 

facilities have used this approach to 

date, our preference is not to require 

reporting of the effective destruction 

efficiency for processes whose 

emissions were estimated using the 

mass-balance approach. However, we 

request comment on this. 

Reporting for scoping speciation. We 

are also proposing to remove the 

requirements that facilities report the 

contents, location, and function of the 

streams analyzed under the scoping 

speciation (40 CFR 98.124(a)). Facilities 

would simply keep records of this 

information as currently required under 

40 CFR 98.127(b). We agree with the 

comments on the proposed CBI 

determinations that the contents of 

emitted streams, which we had 

proposed to be emission data, would 

reveal the same types of process 

information as would be revealed by 

chemical-specific reporting of process 

level emissions under 40 CFR 98.126. In 

view of this concern, we reviewed the 

role of this data element in the GHGRP. 

The contents, location, and function of 

tested streams provide background on 

emission estimates that is analogous to 

the background provided by emissions 

test data. (Facilities are currently 

required to keep records of, but not 

report, emissions test data under 40 CFR 

98.127(d)(4).) This background 

information is important for ensuring 

that facilities have correctly complied 

with subpart L’s monitoring 

requirements, but it is not essential to 

verify emission calculations or to inform 

policy. Thus, we are proposing to 

require recordkeeping as opposed to 

reporting of the contents, location, and 

function of tested streams, consistent 

with the approach we have taken with 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69350 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

16Applying revised GWPs to the emissions 

reported under this proposed rule would also 

involve uncertainty, as many emitted chemicals are 

likely to fall under the proposed threshold for 

chemical-specific reporting. 

emissions test data under 40 CFR 

98.127(d)(4). 

6. Reporting Emissions From 

Destruction of Previously Produced 

Fluorinated GHGs and From Venting of 

Residual Fluorinated GHGs From 

Containers 

In addition to emissions from 

fluorinated gas production and 

transformation processes, facilities 

covered by subpart L are required to 

report emissions of each fluorinated 

GHG from destruction of previously 

produced fluorinated GHGs and from 

venting of residual fluorinated GHGs 

from containers (40 CFR 98.126(g) and 

(h)). The commenters did not include 

these data elements among those that 

they identified as posing a risk of 

revealing trade secrets or violating 

export control laws regulations. 

Therefore, the EPA is not proposing to 

amend the reporting of these emissions. 

The EPA notes that these data elements 

would include the identification of the 

fluorinated GHG products being 

destroyed or vented. As discussed 

above, competitors can assess the 

contents of a fluorinated gas producer’s 

final products (unlike intermediates) 

simply by purchasing the products and 

analyzing their contents. 

7. Submission of Full GHG Reports for 

Reporting Year 2011, 2012, and 2013 

In the final rule published on August 

24, 2012, the EPA deferred detailed 

reporting of reporting year (RY) 2011 

and 2012 emissions under subpart L 

until March 31, 2014 (or, if the data 

element was deferred under the Inputs 

rule, until the date set forth for that data 

element at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vii) and 

Table A–7 of subpart A). In the 

Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, we 

proposed to further defer detailed 

reporting of RY 2011, 2012, and 2013 

emissions until March 31, 2015. Instead 

of requiring facilities to report their RY 

2011, 2012, and 2013 emissions at the 

level of detail specified in the 2010 

Final Rule, we are today proposing to 

require facilities to report those 

emissions at the level of detail specified 

in this rule. 

When subpart L reporters submit their 

full annual reports for RY 2011, 2012, 

and 2013, we are also proposing to 

require them to report emissions using 

the Table A–1 GWPs in effect on the 

reporting deadline as specified in 40 

CFR 98.3(b), and the default GWPs 

established through this rulemaking. 

This would ensure that the emissions 

reported under subpart L for RY 2011, 

2012, and 2013 are based on the same 

GWPs as emissions reported for 

subsequent reporting years, avoiding the 

appearance of trends that are caused 

solely by inconsistent GWPs. In the 

Proposed 2013 Revisions Rule, the EPA 

proposed to apply the GWPs proposed 

in that rule to emissions reported for 

Reporting Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. 

However, as noted in the Proposed 2013 

Revisions Rule, we cannot apply revised 

GWPs with any precision to the less 

detailed subpart L reports received 

under the August 24, 2012 rule that 

deferred full subpart L reporting, 

because those reports do not include 

chemical-specific emissions data (78 FR 

19834).16 Moreover, we are proposing 

that facilities submit RY 2011, 2012, and 

2013 reports with the level of detail 

specified in this action. Since the 

subpart L facilities would be submitting 

their reports with the level of detail 

specified in this action, the incremental 

burden associated with applying the 

GWPs established in the 2013 Revisions 

Rule and in this rulemaking to the 

previously deferred RY 2011, 2012, and 

2013 reports would be negligible, while 

the benefit, a consistent time series, 

would be considerable. 

B. Proposal To Remove the MassBalance Approach From Subpart L 

The 2010 Final Rule included three 

methods for calculating emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs from fluorinated gas 

production: 

(1) The process-vent specific emission 

factor method, which requires facilities 

to conduct emissions testing to 

determine an emission factor for the 

vent; 

(2) The process-vent specific emission 

calculation factor method, which 

requires facilities to use certain 

engineering calculation or assessment 

methods to calculate an emission factor 

for the vent and which may be applied 

to batch processes and to continuous 

process vents with emissions of less 

than 10,000 mtCO2e, and 

(3) The mass-balance method, which 

requires facilities to track and measure 

the fluorine-containing compounds that 

are added to or removed from the 

process, including reactants, byproducts and products, to determine 

emissions from the process. 

We are proposing to remove the massbalance method. As observed in the 

preamble to the 2009 proposed rule and 

2010 Final Rule, the mass-balance 

method requires very precise and 

accurate concentration and flow 

measurements in order to provide a 

reasonably precise and accurate 

estimate of emissions. For this reason, 

facilities that wish to use the massbalance method are required to review 

the accuracy and precision of their 

measurement systems and to calculate 

the absolute and relative errors of the 

estimates that they would develop using 

the mass-balance method. If these 

calculations show that the absolute and 

relative errors would fall above certain 

limits for a process, facilities are not 

allowed to use the mass-balance method 

for that process. However, at least one 

facility that believed it was eligible to 

use the mass-balance method calculated 

an impossible result (negative 

emissions) when it attempted to use this 

method. This indicates that the error 

limits (which should have prohibited 

such a result) may be difficult to 

calculate and apply. Without the error 

limits, the mass-balance method is not 

viable. Finally, only two facilities 

reporting emissions in 2012 or 2013 

indicated that they had used the massbalance method to estimate emissions 

from any process, and both facilities 

indicated that they were no longer using 

this method when contacted by the 

EPA. Thus, we do not expect that the 

removal of this method will result in a 

significant burden for subpart L 

reporters. However, we request 

comment on this issue, on the proposed 

removal of the mass-balance method, 

and on the rationale presented here. 

Our intent is that facilities submitting 

reports in 2015 of RY 2011, 2012, 2013, 

or 2014 emissions estimated using the 

mass-balance method would be able to 

refer to its provisions even after it is 

removed from subpart L. We are 

proposing to revise subpart L to inform 

interested parties that the full text of the 

mass-balance method is available as part 

of the 2010 final rule (75 FR 74774, 

74832–74837, 74843–74845). Another 

option would be to include the full text 

of the mass-balance method as an 

appendix to part 98. We are seeking 

comment on whether that option would 

have any advantages over referring 

interested parties to the 2010 final rule. 

Because two facilities have used the 

mass-balance method to estimate their 

emissions during previous reporting 

years, we are proposing to retain certain 

reporting requirements associated with 

that approach (i.e., for purposes of 

reporting RY 2011, 2012, 2013, and 

2014 emissions in 2015) as well as the 

corresponding recordkeeping 

requirements. However, we are 

proposing to remove several other 

reporting elements for the mass-balance 

method. In some cases, we are 

proposing to remove these elements 

because they involve reporting 

emissions by chemical and by process, 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69351 

17Since subpart L is a direct emitter source 

category, the data elements are assigned to the 

direct emitter data categories. 

and, as discussed above, we are 

proposing to replace such reporting 

with less detailed reporting under 

subpart L. The data elements that fall 

into this category include the masses 

and chemical formulas for the 

fluorinated GHG reactants, products, 

and by-products emitted. In other cases, 

we are proposing to remove these 

elements because they would no longer 

be useful given the proposed removal of 

the requirement to report associated 

data elements under the proposed 

Inputs rule. The data elements that fall 

into this category include the chemical 

formulas for the fluorine-containing 

reactant fed or removed, for the product 

produced or removed, and for the byproduct removed; and the fractions of 

the mass emitted that consist of 

fluorine-containing reactants, products, 

and by-products. 

C. Clarifications to the Emission Factor 

Approach of Subpart L 

The EPA is proposing to amend 

subpart L to clarify that facilities using 

the emission factor approach to estimate 

their emissions are required, in future 

testing, to test for any fluorinated GHG 

identified in the scoping speciation, and 

to report emissions of all fluorinated 

GHGs that are identified in the scoping 

speciation. Emissions that fall below the 

detection limit of the measurement 

technology would be required to be 

reported at one half of that limit. (Note 

that if the emissions of a particular 

fluorinated GHG fell below 1,000 

mtCO2e for the facility as a whole, those 

emissions would be reported in CO2e 

only.) This change would be 

implemented by removing references to 

fluorinated GHGs that ‘‘occur in more 

than trace concentrations’’ and 

replacing them with references to 

fluorinated GHGs ‘‘identified under the 

initial scoping speciation.’’ 

As noted in the April 12, 2010 

proposed rule, one of the purposes of 

the scoping speciation is ‘‘to identify byproducts to measure in subsequent 

emissions testing to develop emission 

factors’’ (75 FR 18674). However, the 

regulatory text in the 2010 Subpart L 

Final Rule did not explicitly require 

facilities to include the fluorinated 

GHGs identified under the scoping 

speciation in the testing. This 

amendment would address that 

oversight. Due to the high GWPs of 

many fluorinated GHGs, even 

fluorinated GHGs that are emitted only 

at trace concentrations (i.e., in 

concentrations of less than 0.1 percent 

of the emissions stream) can account for 

significant CO2e emissions from the 

facility. Thus, it is important to include 

them in emissions testing and emissions 

estimates. 

Other proposed amendments to 

subpart L and proposed harmonizing 

amendments to subpart A. As discussed 

in Section II.A.4 of this preamble, the 

EPA is proposing to revise the set of 

default GWPs applied to fluorinated 

GHGs that do not have GWPs in Table 

A–1. To implement those changes, we 

are proposing additional revisions to 

subpart L. We are proposing a revision 

to 40 CFR 98.123(a) regarding the 

default GWPs that should be used when 

Table A–1 GWPs are not available for 

fluorinated GHGs emitted from a 

process. We are proposing to delete the 

use of a default GWP of 2,000 and 

proposing to add use of the appropriate 

default from Table L–1 for the 

fluorinated GHG group to which the 

compound would belong. We are 

proposing similar changes to 40 CFR 

98.123(c)(1)(v) and 98.124(c)(2). We are 

also proposing to delete the last 

sentence in 40 CFR 98.123(a), which 

states that fluorinated GHGs should not 

be reported under 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) of 

subpart A when the GWP is not listed 

in Table A–1. 

In addition, we are proposing to 

remove and reserve 40 CFR 

98.123(c)(1)(vi), which establishes a 

process under which facilities may 

request, for fluorinated GHGs whose 

GWPs are not included in Table A–1, to 

use provisional GWPs for their 

preliminary calculation of emissions 

under 40 CFR 98.123(c)(1). We 

established this process in recognition 

of the fact that the default GWP value 

that is currently provided for these 

calculations, 2000, would overestimate 

emissions from process vents in some 

cases, inappropriately requiring 

facilities to perform stack tests for these 

vents. With the establishment of five 

default GWPs, which would allow 

considerably more precise estimates of 

CO2e emissions than the previous single 

default value of 2000, we have 

concluded that this provision would no 

longer be necessary. However, we 

request comment on this. If we were to 

retain the provision, we would amend it 

to replace the February 2011 due date 

for requests to use a provisional GWP 

with a more general due date that allows 

facilities to request provisional GWPs in 

the future. Specifically, facilities would 

be required to submit their requests by 

February 28 of the reporting year for 

those emissions they wish to estimate 

using the emission calculation factor 

approach. 

We are also proposing a technical 

correction to Equation L–33 of subpart 

L. Equation L–33 is used to determine 

the mass of fluorinated GHG emitted 

from venting of residual fluorinated 

GHGs in containers, when pressure is 

the monitored parameter. Although the 

current Equation L–33 includes the 

appropriate basis for the estimate, i.e., a 

form of the ideal gas law, the equation 

is not solved for the desired variable, 

the mass of residual gas in the 

container, in kilograms. The EPA is 

proposing a new Equation L–33 that 

directly calculates this variable. Because 

the amended equation is based on the 

same input parameters as the current 

equation, the correction does not result 

in additional requirements. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing a 

technical clarification to 40 CFR 

98.124(c)(2) of subpart L. Paragraph 

(c)(2) includes a term or acronym, 

‘‘RSD,’’ that is not defined within the 

rule. The EPA has added the term 

‘‘relative standard deviation (RSD)’’ in 

the second sentence in 40 CFR 

98.124(c)(2) to clarify the meaning of the 

term in the regulatory text. 

We are also proposing changes to 

subpart A to harmonize subpart A 

reporting with subpart L reporting for 

fluorinated gas production facilities. 

These include changes to 40 CFR 

98.2(b)(1), which establishes the set of 

gases to include in the threshold 

calculation, 40 CFR 98.2(b)(4), which 

includes Equation A–1 for calculating 

CO2e, 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E), which 

establishes the set of gases to include in 

annual reporting of emissions in tons of 

chemical, and 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(vi), 

which establishes the set of gases to 

include in annual reporting of emissions 

in CO2e. 

D. Overview and Approach to Proposed 

CBI Determinations 

In this action, the EPA is proposing 

confidentiality determinations for each 

of the 15 reporting data elements 

proposed to be added or substantially 

revised, as previously discussed in 

Section II.A of this preamble. To make 

these determinations, the EPA is using 

the same approach that the EPA 

previously used for the 2011 final CBI 

rule (76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011). 

Specifically, the EPA is assigning each 

of these 15 data elements to one of 11 

direct emitter data categories,17 based 

on the type and characteristics of the 

data elements. For a description of each 

data category and the type and 

characteristics of data elements assigned 

to each category, see Sections II.C and 

II.D of the July 7, 2010 CBI proposal 

preamble (75 FR 39106–39130). 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69352 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Based on its evaluation of these 15 

data elements, the EPA is proposing that 

each data element be assigned to one of 

the following direct emitter data 

categories: 

• Emissions. 

• Calculation Methodology and 

Methodological Tier. 

• Facility and Unit Identifier 

Information. 

• Unit/Process ‘‘Static’’ 

Characteristics that are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations. 

• Unit/Process Operating 

Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations 

In the 2011 final CBI rule (76 FR 

30782, May 26, 2011), the EPA made 

categorical determinations that all data 

elements assigned to the ‘‘Emissions,’’ 

‘‘Calculation Methodology and 

Methodological Tier,’’ and ‘‘Facility and 

Unit Identifier Information’’ data 

categories meet the definition of 

‘‘emission data’’ in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i) 

and, thus, are not entitled to 

confidential treatment. Among the 15 

proposed new or substantially revised 

reporting data elements, the EPA is 

proposing, as shown in Table 4A of this 

preamble, that seven data elements be 

assigned to the ‘‘Emissions’’ data 

category, four data elements be assigned 

to the ‘‘Calculation Methodology and 

Methodological Tier’’ category, and 1 

data element be assigned to the ‘‘Facility 

and Unit Identifier Information’’ data 

category, thereby applying the 

categorical confidentiality 

determinations made for these 

categories in the 2011 final CBI rule to 

each of these reporting data elements. 

This proposal is not changing, nor 

soliciting comment on, the 

determination that these three data 

categories are ‘‘emission data,’’ as 

finalized in the 2011 CBI rule. Should 

the EPA finalize the category 

assignment for these data elements, they 

will be considered ‘‘emission data’’ and, 

as such, not entitled to confidential 

treatment. 

TABLE 4A—DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE ‘‘EMISSIONS,’’ ‘‘CALCULATION METHODOLOGY AND

METHODOLOGICAL TIER,’’ AND ‘‘FACILITY AND UNIT IDENTIFIER INFORMATION’’ DATA CATEGORIES

Proposed citation Proposed new or substantially revised data element 

‘‘Emissions’’ Data Category 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(3) .......... For facilities with multiple fluorinated gas products: For each generically-identified process and each fluorinated 

GHG group, total GWP-weighted emissions of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from the process, in 

metric tons CO2e. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(4)(i) ....... For facilities with multiple fluorinated gas products: For each fluorinated GHG with emissions of 1,000 metric tons 

of CO2e or more from the facility as a whole, the total mass in metric tons of the fluorinated GHG emitted from 

the facility as a whole. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(4)(ii) ...... For facilities with multiple fluorinated gas products: Aggregated total GWP-weighted emissions of all other 

fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility as a whole, in metric tons of CO2e. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(5) .......... For facilities that produce only one fluorinated gas product: Aggregated total GWP-weighted emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the facility as a whole, in metric tons of CO2e. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(5) .......... Where facilities produce only one fluorinated gas product but emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG constituent of that fluorinated gas product, and the product is sold or transferred to another person: Total mass in 

metric tons of each fluorinated GHG emitted that is a major fluorinated GHG constituent of the product. 

40 CFR 98.126(c)(3) .......... For the emission factor and emission factor calculation method: For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWPweighted mass of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from all process vents combined, in metric tons of 

CO2e. 

40 CFR 98.126(c)(4) .......... For the emission factor and emission factor calculation method: For each fluorinated GHG group, the total GWPweighted mass of all fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted from equipment leaks, in metric tons of CO2e. 

‘‘Calculation Methodology and Methodological Tier’’ Data Category 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(iv) ..... For each generically-identified fluorinated gas production and transformation process and each fluorinated GHG 

group at the facility: The methods used to determine the mass emissions of that fluorinated GHG group from 

that process from process vents. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(v) ...... For each generically-identified fluorinated gas production and transformation process and each fluorinated GHG 

group at the facility: The methods used to determine the mass emissions of that fluorinated GHG group from 

that process from equipment leaks. 

40 CFR 98.126(b)(1) .......... For the mass-balance approach: The overall absolute and relative errors calculated for the process under paragraph § 98.123(b)(1), in tons and decimal fraction, respectively. 

40 CFR 98.126(b)(2) .......... For the mass-balance approach: The method used to estimate the total mass of fluorine in destroyed or recaptured streams (specify § 98.123(b)(4) or (15)). 

‘‘Facility and Unit Identifier Information’’ Data Category 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(i) ....... For each generically-identified production and transformation process at the facility: A number, letter, or other identifier for the process. 

The EPA is proposing to assign two 

proposed new data elements to the 

‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics 

that are Not Inputs to Emission 

Equations’’ category and one proposed 

new data element to the ‘‘Unit/Process 

Operating Characteristics That are Not 

Inputs to Emission Equations’’ category. 

In the 2011 final CBI rule, the EPA 

determined that the data elements in 

these categories are not ‘‘emission data’’ 

(as defined at 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)). 

However, instead of categorical 

determinations, the EPA made 

confidentiality determinations for 

individual data elements assigned to 

these categories. In proposing these 

determinations, the EPA considered the 

confidentiality criteria at 40 CFR 2.208, 

in particular whether release of the data 

is likely to cause substantial harm to the 

business’s competitive position. See 40 

CFR 2.208(e)(1). The EPA is therefore 

following the same approach in this 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69353 

action for the proposed new reporting 

elements assigned to these categories. 

Table 4B of this preamble lists the 

proposed new data elements that the 

EPA proposes to assign to these data 

categories and presents the EPA’s 

rationale for proposing to determine that 

none of these data elements qualifies as 

CBI. 

TABLE 4B—PROPOSED CONFIDENTIALITY DETERMINATIONS FOR PROPOSED NEW DATA ELEMENTS ASSIGNED TO THE

‘‘UNIT/PROCESS ‘STATIC’ CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE NOT INPUTS TO EMISSION EQUATIONS’’ AND THE ‘‘UNIT/PROCESS OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE NOT INPUTS TO EMISSION EQUATIONS’’ DATA CATEGORIES

Citation Data element Confidentiality 

determination 

Proposed rationale for confidentiality 

determination 

Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(ii) ...... For each generically-identified production and 

transformation process at the facility: Indication of whether the process is a fluorinated 

gas production process, a fluorinated gas 

transformation process where no fluorinated 

GHG reactant is produced at another facility, or a fluorinated gas transformation process where one or more fluorinated GHG 

reactants are produced at another facility.

Not CBI ............. This data element would reveal only general 

information about the type of operation, 

which would not reveal any information 

about the production process (e.g., number 

of process steps, manufacturing efficiencies, 

novel productions methods) that would 

allow competitors to gain a competitive advantage. 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(2)(iii) ..... For each generically-identified production and 

transformation process at the facility: Indication of whether the process could be characterized as reaction, distillation, or packaging.

Not CBI ............. This data element would reveal only a general 

description of the type of production process, which would not reveal any information 

about the process (e.g., number of process 

steps, manufacturing efficiencies, novel productions methods) that would allow competitors to gain a competitive advantage. 

Unit/Process Operating Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations 

40 CFR 98.126(a)(7) .......... For each generically identified process, the 

range in Table L–1 that encompasses the 

effective destruction efficiency, DEeffective, 

calculated for that process using Equation 

L–35, based on CO2e.

Not CBI ............. This data element would place the effective 

destruction efficiency for the process in a 

range. For any given level of emissions, this 

range would correspond to a range of 

masses vented to the destruction device 

that spanned a factor of four or more. Thus, 

even if competitors had a rough estimate of 

the quantity of the product produced (e.g., 

from sources other than the GHGRP), this 

information would not reveal any information 

about the process (e.g., manufacturing efficiencies) that would allow competitors to 

gain a competitive advantage. 

The EPA is requesting comment on 

two aspects of these confidentiality 

determinations. First, the EPA seeks 

comment on the proposed data category 

assignment for each of these data 

elements in Tables 4A and 4B. We 

specifically seek comments identifying 

which proposed new data elements may 

be incorrectly assigned, a detailed 

explanation of why they may be 

incorrectly assigned, and a 

recommendation regarding the data 

category to which they should be 

assigned. 

Second, for those data elements 

assigned to the direct emitter data 

category without categorical 

confidentiality determinations (i.e., the 

data elements in Table 4B), the EPA 

seeks comment on the individual 

confidentiality determinations we are 

proposing for these data elements. We 

specifically request comment, including 

detailed rationale and supporting 

information, on whether the data 

element does or does not qualify for 

confidential treatment. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not increase 

information collection burden. These 

proposed amendments to subpart L 

reduce the level of detail with which 

emissions are reported and therefore 

could potentially reduce the reporting 

burden. The OMB has previously 

approved the information collection 

requirements for subpart L under 40 

CFR part 98 under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB 

control number 2060–0629. 

Further information on the EPA’s 

assessment on the impact on burden can 

be found in the 2013 Amendments to 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule for 

the Fluorinated Gas Production Source 

Category Cost Memo in docket number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0927. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69354 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this proposed rule on small entities, 

small entity is defined as: (1) A small 

business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s regulations at 

13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of these proposed rule 

amendments on small entities, I certify 

that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule affects fluorinated gas 

producers, none of which are small 

entities. 

Further, the EPA took several steps to 

reduce the impact of 40 CFR part 98 on 

small entities when developing the final 

GHG Reporting Rules in 2009 and 2010. 

For example, the EPA determined 

appropriate thresholds that reduced the 

number of small businesses reporting. In 

addition, the EPA conducted several 

meetings with industry associations to 

discuss regulatory options and the 

corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. Finally, 

the EPA continues to conduct 

significant outreach on the GHG 

reporting program and maintains an 

‘‘open door’’ policy for stakeholders to 

help inform the EPA’s understanding of 

key issues for the industries. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

The proposed rule amendments do 

not contain a Federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures of $100 million or 

more for State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or the 

private sector in any one year. Thus, the 

proposed rule amendments are not 

subject to the requirements of section 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. This rule is 

also not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Facilities subject to 

the rule include fluorinated gas 

producers. None of the facilities 

currently known to undertake these 

activities is owned by a small 

government. Therefore, this action is not 

subject to the requirements of section 

203 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. For a more 

detailed discussion about how Part 98 

relates to existing state programs, please 

see Section II of the preamble to the 

final Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (74 

FR 56266, October 30, 2009). 

The proposed amendments apply to 

facilities that produce fluorinated gases. 

They would not apply to governmental 

entities unless the governmental entity 

owns a facility that produces fluorinated 

gases. We are not aware of any 

governmental entities that would be 

affected. This regulation also does not 

limit the power of States or localities to 

collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

Although section 6 of Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action, the 

EPA did consult with State and local 

officials or representatives of State and 

local governments in developing 

subpart L, promulgated on December 1, 

2010. A summary of the EPA’s 

consultations with State and local 

governments is provided in Section 

VIII.E of the preamble to the 2009 final 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between the 

EPA and State and local governments, 

the EPA specifically solicits comment 

on this proposed action from State and 

local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The proposed amendments apply 

to facilities that produce fluorinated 

gases. They would not have tribal 

implications unless the tribal entity 

owns a facility that produces fluorinated 

gases. We are not aware of any tribal 

facilities that would be affected. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA 

to use voluntary consensus standards in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the EPA decides not 

to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

the EPA is not considering the use of 

any voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69355 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment because it is a rule 

addressing information collection and 

reporting procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: November 7, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, part 98 of title 40, chapter I, 

of the Code of Federal Regulations is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 98—MANDATORY 

GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart A—General Provision 

■ 2. Section 98.2 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(4). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.2 Who must report? 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Calculate the annual emissions of 

CO2, CH4, N2O, and each fluorinated 

GHG in metric tons from all applicable 

source categories listed in paragraph 

(a)(2) of this section. The GHG 

emissions shall be calculated using the 

calculation methodologies specified in 

each applicable subpart and available 

company records. Include emissions of 

only those gases listed in Table A–1 of 

this subpart, except fluorinated gas 

production facilities must calculate and 

report CO2e for all fluorinated GHGs 

whose emissions they are required to 

report under subpart L of this part. For 

fluorinated GHGs that are not included 

on Table A–1, fluorinated gas 

production facilities must use the 

default GWP provided in Table L–1 to 

subpart L of this part for the fluorinated 

GHG group of which the GHG is a 

member. 

* * * * * 

(4) Sum the emissions estimates from 

paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of 

this section for each GHG and calculate 

metric tons of CO2e using Equation A– 

1 of this section. 

Where: 

CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent, metric 

tons/year. 

GHGi = Mass emissions of each greenhouse 

gas, metric tons/year. 

GWPi = Global warming potential for each 

greenhouse gas from Table A–1 of this 

subpart. For each fluorinated GHG not 

listed in Table A–1, fluorinated gas 

production facilities reporting under 

subpart L of this part must use the 

default GWP provided in Table L–1 to 

subpart L of this part for the fluorinated 

GHG group of which the GHG is a 

member. 

n = The number of greenhouse gases emitted. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 98.3 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(E); and (c)(4)(vi). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.3 What are the general monitoring, 

reporting, recordkeeping, and verification 

requirements of this part? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(E) Each fluorinated GHG (as defined 

in § 98.6), including those not listed in 

Table A–1 of this subpart, except 

fluorinated gas production facilities 

must comply with § 98.126(a) rather 

than this paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(E). 

* * * * * 

(vi) When applying paragraph (c)(4)(i) 

of this section to fluorinated GHGs and 

fluorinated heat transfer fluids, 

calculate and report CO2e for only those 

fluorinated GHGs listed in Table A–1 of 

this subpart, except fluorinated gas 

production facilities must calculate and 

report CO2e for all fluorinated GHGs 

whose emissions they are required to 

report under subpart L of this part. For 

fluorinated GHGs that are not included 

on Table A–1 of this subpart, 

fluorinated gas production facilities 

must use the default GWP provided in 

Table L–1 to subpart L of this part for 

the fluorinated GHG group of which the 

GHG is a member. 

* * * * * 

Subpart L—Fluorinated Gas 

Production 

■ 4. Section 98.122 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (d), (e) and (f). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.122 GHGs to report. 

* * * * * 

(c) Process level. You must report, for 

each fluorinated GHG group, the total 

GWP-weighted mass of all fluorinated 

GHGs in that group (in metric tons 

CO2e) emitted from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas production 

process. 

(2) Each fluorinated gas 

transformation process that is not part of 

a fluorinated gas production process 

and where no fluorinated GHG reactant 

is produced at another facility. 

(3) Each fluorinated gas 

transformation process that is not part of 

a fluorinated gas production process 

and where one or more fluorinated GHG 

reactants are produced at another 

facility. 

(d) Facility level, multiple products. If 

your facility produces more than one 

fluorinated gas product, you must report 

the emissions (in metric tons) for the 

facility as a whole of each fluorinated 

GHG that is emitted from the facility as 

a whole in quantities of 1,000 metric 

tons of CO2e or more. Aggregate and 

report emissions of all other fluorinated 

GHGs by fluorinated GHG group for the 

facility as a whole, in metric tons of 

CO2e. 

(e) Facility level, one product only. If 

your facility produces only one 

fluorinated gas product, aggregate and 

report the GWP-weighted emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG 

group for the facility as a whole, in 

metric tons CO2e, with the following 

exception: Where emissions consist of a 

major fluorinated GHG constituent of a 

fluorinated gas product, and the product 

is sold or transferred to another person, 

report the total mass of each fluorinated 

GHG emitted that is a major fluorinated 

GHG constituent of the product (in 

metric tons). 

(f) You must report the total mass of 

each fluorinated GHG emitted (in metric 

tons) from: 

(1) Each fluorinated gas destruction 

process that is not part of a fluorinated 

gas production process or a fluorinated 

gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes 

combined. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP19NO13.004</GPH>
69356 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(2) Venting of residual fluorinated 

GHGs from containers returned from the 

field. 

■ 5. Section 98.123 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising introductory text; 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(16); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(v); 

■ f. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(1)(vi); 

■ g. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(i) and 

(e)(ii) as paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2), 

respectively; 

■ h. Revising paragraph (g)(1); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(ii); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (g)(2)(iv); and 

■ k. Adding paragraph (h). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.123 Calculating GHG emissions. 

For fluorinated gas production and 

transformation processes, you must 

calculate the fluorinated GHG emissions 

from each process using the emission 

factor or emission calculation factor 

method specified in paragraphs (c), (d), 

and (e) of this section, as appropriate. 

For destruction processes that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs that were previously 

‘‘produced’’ as defined at § 98.410(b), 

you must calculate emissions using the 

procedures in paragraph (f) of this 

section. For venting of residual gas from 

containers (e.g., cylinder heels), you 

must calculate emissions using the 

procedures in paragraph (g) of this 

section. 

(a) Default GWP value. For fluorinated 

GHGs that do not have GWPs listed in 

Table A–1 to subpart A of this part, use 

the default GWP provided for the 

fluorinated GHG group of which the 

GHG is a member in Table L–1 of this 

subpart in your calculations under 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section, in 

§ 98.124(c)(2), and if you used the mass 

balance method to calculate emissions 

from the process for reporting years 

2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. 

(b) Mass balance method. The mass 

balance method was available for 

reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 

2014 only. It may be found at 75 FR 

74774, 74832–74837 (December 1, 

2010). 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) GWPs. To convert the fluorinated 

GHG emissions to CO2e, use Equation 

A–1 of § 98.2. 

(vi) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) Measuring contents of each 

container. If you weigh or otherwise 

measure the contents of each container 

before venting the residual fluorinated 

GHGs, use Equation L–32 of this section 

to calculate annual emissions of each 

fluorinated GHG from venting of 

residual fluorinated GHG from 

containers. Convert pressures to masses 

as directed in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

Where: 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from the facility through venting 

of residual fluorinated GHG from 

containers, annual basis (metric tons/

year). 

HBfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in 

container j when received by facility 

(metric tons). 

HEfj = Mass of residual fluorinated GHG f in 

container j after evacuation by facility 

(metric tons). (Facility may equate to 

zero.) 

n = Number of vented containers for each 

fluorinated GHG f. 

(2) * * * 

(ii) Measurement of residual gas. The 

residual weight or pressure you use for 

paragraph (g)(1) of this section must be 

determined by monitoring the mass or 

the pressure of your cylinders/

containers according to § 98.124(k). If 

you monitor the pressure, convert the 

pressure to mass using a form of the 

ideal gas law, as displayed in Equation 

L–33 of this section, with an 

appropriately selected Z value. 

Where: 

mR = Mass of residual gas in the container 

(metric ton) 

p = Absolute pressure of the gas (Pa) 

V = Volume of the gas (m3) 

MW = Molecular weight of the fluorinated 

GHG f (g/gmole) 

Z = Compressibility factor 

R = Gas constant (8.314 Pa m3/Kelvin mole) 

T = Absolute temperature (K) 

106 = Conversion factor (106 g/metric ton) 

* * * * * 

(iv) Calculate annual emissions of 

each fluorinated GHG from venting of 

residual fluorinated GHG from 

containers using Equation L–34 of this 

section. 

Where: 

ECf = Total mass of each fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from the facility through venting 

of residual fluorinated GHG from 

containers, annual basis (metric tons/

year). 

hfj = Facility-wide gas-specific heel factor for 

fluorinated GHG f (fraction) and 

container size and type j, as determined 

in paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this section. 

Nfj = Number of containers of size and type 

j returned to the fluorinated gas 

production facility. 

Ffj = Full capacity of containers of size and 

type j containing fluorinated GHG f 

(metric tons). 

n = Number of combinations of container 

sizes and types for fluorinated GHG f. 

(h) Effective destruction efficiency for 

each process. If you used the emission 

factor or emission calculation factor 

method to calculate emissions from the 

process, use Equation L–35 to calculate 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP19NO13.005</GPH> EP19NO13.006</GPH> EP19NO13.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69357 

the effective destruction efficiency for the process, including each process 

vent: 

Where: 

DEEffective = Effective destruction efficiency 

for process i (fraction). 

EPVf = Mass of fluorinated GHG f emitted 

from process vent v from process i, 

operating scenario j, for the year, 

calculated in Equation L–21, L–22, L–26, 

or L–27 of this section (kg). 

GWPf = Global warming potential for each 

greenhouse gas from Table A–1 to 

subpart A of this part or Table L–1 of this 

subpart. If the GHG has a GWP listed in 

Table A–1, use that GWP. Otherwise, use 

the default GWP provided in Table L–1 

for the fluorinated GHG group of which 

the GHG is a member. 

ECFPV_Uf = Emission calculation factor for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during process i, operating 

scenario j during periods when the 

process vent is not vented to the 

properly functioning destruction device, 

as used in Equation L–21; or Emission 

calculation factor for fluorinated GHG f 

emitted from process vent v during 

process i, operating scenario j, as used in 

Equation L–26 or L–27 (kg emitted/

activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg product), 

denoted as ‘‘ECFPV’’ in those equations. 

EFPV_Uf = Emission factor (uncontrolled) for 

fluorinated GHG f emitted from process 

vent v during process i, operating 

scenario j, as used in in Equation L–22 

(kg emitted/activity) (e.g., kg emitted/kg 

product). 

ActivityU = Total process feed, process 

production, or other process activity 

during the year for which the process 

vent is not vented to the properly 

functioning destruction device (e.g., kg 

product). 

ActivityC = Total process feed, process 

production, or other process activity for 

process i, operating scenario j, during the 

year for which emissions are vented to 

the properly functioning destruction 

device (i.e., controlled). 

o = Number of operating scenarios for 

process i. 

v = Number of process vents in process i, 

operating scenario j. 

w = Number of fluorinated GHGs emitted 

from the process. 

■ 6. Section 98.124 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Removing paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(8); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c)(1); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (c)(2); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c)(5); 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (c)(7) as 

paragraph (c)(6); 

■ g. Redesignating paragraph (c)(8) as 

paragraph (c)(7); and 

■ h. Redesignating paragraph (c)(9) as 

paragraph (c)(8); 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.124 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Mass balance monitoring. Mass 

balance monitoring was available for 

reporting years 2011, 2012, 2013, and 

2014 only. The mass balance monitoring 

provisions may be found at 75 FR 

74774, 74843–74845 (December 1, 

2010). 

(c) * * * 

(1) Process vent testing. Conduct an 

emissions test that is based on 

representative performance of the 

process or operating scenario(s) of the 

process, as applicable. Include in the 

emission test any fluorinated GHG that 

was identified in the initial scoping 

speciation or is otherwise known to 

occur in the vent stream. You may 

include startup and shutdown events if 

the testing is sufficiently long or 

comprehensive to ensure that such 

events are not overrepresented in the 

emission factor. Malfunction events 

must not be included in the testing. If 

you do not detect a fluorinated GHG 

that was identified in the scoping 

speciation or is otherwise known to 

occur in the vent stream, assume that 

fluorinated GHG was emitted at one half 

of the detection limit. 

(2) Number of runs. For continuous 

processes, sample the process vent for a 

minimum of 3 runs of 1 hour each. If the 

relative standard deviation (RSD) of the 

emission factor calculated based on the 

first 3 runs is greater than or equal to 

0.15 for the emission factor, continue to 

sample the process vent for an 

additional 3 runs of 1 hour each. If more 

than one fluorinated GHG is measured, 

the RSD must be expressed in terms of 

total CO2e. For fluorinated GHGs whose 

GWPs are not listed in Table A–1 to 

subpart A of this part, use the default 

GWP provided for the fluorinated GHG 

group of which the GHG is a member in 

Table L–1 of this subpart in the RSD 

calculation. 

* * * * * 

(5) Emission test results. The results 

of an emission test must include the 

analysis of samples, number of test runs, 

the results of the RSD analysis, the 

analytical method used, determination 

of emissions, the process activity, and 

raw data and must identify the process, 

the operating scenario, the process vents 

tested, and the fluorinated GHGs that 

were included in the test. The emissions 

test report must contain all information 

and data used to derive the processvent-specific emission factor, as well as 

key process conditions during the test. 

Key process conditions include those 

that are normally monitored for process 

control purposes and may include but 

are not limited to yields, pressures, 

temperatures, etc. (e.g., of reactor 

vessels, distillation columns). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Section 98.126 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ d. Removing paragraphs (b)(2)–(b)(12); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b)(13); 

■ f. Redesignating paragraph (b)(13) as 

paragraph (b)(2); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ h. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(1); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (c)(3); 

■ j. Revising paragraph (c)(4); 

■ k. Revising paragraph (e); 

■ l. Revising paragraph (h)(1); and 

■ m. Adding paragraph (k). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.126 Data reporting requirements. 

(a) All facilities. In addition to the 

information required by § 98.3(c), you 

must report the information in 

paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(7) of this 

section according to the schedule in 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section, except 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALSEP19NO13.008</GPH>
69358 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

as otherwise provided in paragraph (j) of 

this section or in § 98.3(c)(4)(vii) and 

Table A–7 of subpart A of this part. 

(1) Frequency of reporting under 

paragraph (a) of this section. The 

information in paragraphs (a)(2), (3), (4), 

(5), (6), and (7) of this section must be 

reported annually. 

(2) Generically-identified process. For 

each production and transformation 

process at the facility, you must: 

(i) Provide a number, letter, or other 

identifier for the process. 

(ii) Indicate whether the process is a 

fluorinated gas production process, a 

fluorinated gas transformation process 

where no fluorinated GHG reactant is 

produced at another facility, or a 

fluorinated gas transformation process 

where one or more fluorinated GHG 

reactants are produced at another 

facility; and 

(iii) Indicate whether the process 

could be characterized as reaction, 

distillation, or packaging (include all 

that apply). 

(iv) For each generically-identified 

process and each fluorinated GHG 

group, report the methods used to 

determine the mass emissions of that 

fluorinated GHG group from that 

process from vents, i.e., mass-balance, 

process-vent-specific emission factor, or 

process-vent-specific emission 

calculation factor. 

(v) For each generically-identified 

process and each fluorinated GHG 

group, report the method(s) used to 

determine the mass emissions of that 

fluorinated GHG group from that 

process from equipment leaks, unless 

you used the mass balance method for 

that process. 

(3) Process level, multiple products. If 

your facility produces multiple 

fluorinated gas products, for each 

generically identified process and each 

fluorinated GHG group, report the total 

GWP-weighted emissions of all 

fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted 

from the process, in metric tons CO2e. 

(4) Facility level, multiple products. If 

your facility produces multiple 

fluorinated gas products, you must 

report the information in paragraphs 

(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii) of this section, as 

applicable. 

(i) For each fluorinated GHG with 

emissions of 1,000 metric tons of CO2e 

or more from the facility as a whole, you 

must report the total mass in metric tons 

of the fluorinated GHG emitted from the 

facility as a whole. 

(ii) Aggregate and report the total 

GWP-weighted emissions of all other 

fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG 

group for the facility as a whole, in 

metric tons of CO2e. 

(5) Facility level, one product only. If 

your facility produces only one 

fluorinated gas product, aggregate and 

report the total GWP-weighted 

emissions of fluorinated GHGs by 

fluorinated GHG group for the facility as 

a whole, in metric tons of CO2e, with 

the following exception: Where 

emissions consist of a major fluorinated 

GHG constituent of a fluorinated gas 

product, and the product is sold or 

transferred to another person, report the 

total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted that is a major 

fluorinated GHG constituent of the 

product. 

(6) Destruction processes and 

container heel venting. You must report 

the total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG emitted from: 

(i) Each fluorinated gas destruction 

process that is not part of a fluorinated 

gas production process or a fluorinated 

gas transformation process and all such 

fluorinated gas destruction processes 

combined. 

(ii) Venting of residual fluorinated 

GHGs from containers returned from the 

field. 

(7) Effective destruction efficiency. 

For each generically identified process, 

use Table L–2 of this subpart to report 

the range that encompasses the effective 

destruction efficiency, DEeffective, 

calculated for that process using 

Equation L–35 of this subpart. The 

effective destruction efficiency must be 

reported on a CO2e basis. 

(b) Reporting for mass balance 

method for reporting years 2011, 2012, 

2013, and 2014. If you used the massbalance method to calculate emissions 

for any of the reporting years 2011, 

2012, 2013, or 2014, you must conduct 

mass balance reporting for that reporting 

year. For processes whose emissions 

were determined using the mass-balance 

method under the former § 98.123(b), 

you must report the information listed 

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this 

section for each process on an annual 

basis. 

(1) If you calculated the relative and 

absolute errors under the former 

§ 98.123(b)(1), the overall absolute and 

relative errors calculated for the process 

under the former § 98.123(b)(1), in tons 

and decimal fraction, respectively. 

(2) The method used to estimate the 

total mass of fluorine in destroyed or 

recaptured streams (specify the former 

§ 98.123(b)(4) or (15)). 

(c) Reporting for emission factor and 

emission calculation factor approach. 

For processes whose emissions are 

determined using the emission factor 

approach under § 98.123(c)(3) or the 

emission calculation factor under 

§ 98.123(c)(4), you must report the 

following for each generically-identified 

process. 

(1) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

(3) For each fluorinated GHG group, 

the total GWP-weighted mass of all 

fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted 

from all process vents combined, in 

metric tons of CO2e. 

(4) For each fluorinated GHG group, 

the total GWP-weighted mass of all 

fluorinated GHGs in that group emitted 

from equipment leaks in metric tons 

CO2e. 

* * * * * 

(e) Reporting of destruction device 

excess emissions data. Each fluorinated 

gas production facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs must report the excess 

emissions that result from malfunctions 

of the destruction device, and these 

excess emissions must be reflected in 

the fluorinated GHG estimates in the 

former § 98.123(b) and in § 98.123(c). 

Such excess emissions would occur if 

the destruction efficiency was reduced 

due to the malfunction. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) The mass of the residual 

fluorinated GHG vented from each 

container size and type annually (metric 

tons). 

* * * * * 

(k) Submission of complete reporting 

year 2011, 2012, and 2013 GHG reports. 

By March 31, 2015, you must submit 

annual GHG reports for reporting years 

2011, 2012, and 2013 that contain the 

information specified in paragraphs (a) 

through (h) of this section. The reports 

must calculate CO2e using the GWPs in 

Table A–1 to subpart A of this part (as 

in effect on January 1, 2015) and Table 

L–1 of this subpart (as applicable). Prior 

submission of partial reports for these 

reporting years under paragraph (j) of 

this section does not affect your 

obligation to submit complete reports 

under this paragraph. 

■ 8. Section 98.127 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(2); 

■ c. Adding paragraph (a)(3); 

■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(4); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; and 

■ g. Revising paragraph (c)(3). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.127 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Identify all products and processes 

subject to this subpart. Include the unit 

identification as appropriate, along with 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 69359 

the generic process identification 

reported for the process under 

§ 98.126(a)(2)(i)through (iii); which 

product the process is associated with; 

whether the process is a reaction, 

distillation, or packaging process 

(include all that apply); and whether the 

process is a production process, a 

transformation process where no 

fluorinated GHG reactant is produced at 

another facility, or a transformation 

process where one or more fluorinated 

GHG reactants are produced at another 

facility. 

(2) Monthly and annual records, as 

applicable, of all analyses and 

calculations conducted as required 

under § 98.123, including the data 

monitored under § 98.124, and all 

information reported as required under 

§ 98.126. 

(3) Identify all fluorinated GHGs with 

emissions of 1,000 metric tons CO2e or 

more from the facility as a whole, and 

identify all fluorinated GHGs with total 

emissions less than 1,000 metric tons 

CO2e from the facility as a whole. 

(4) Calculations used to determine the 

total GWP-weighted emissions of 

fluorinated GHGs by fluorinated GHG 

group for each process, in metric tons 

CO2e. 

(b) Scoping speciation. Retain records 

documenting the information collected 

under § 98.124(a). 

(c) Mass-balance method. Retain the 

following records for each process for 

which the mass-balance method was 

used to estimate emissions in reporting 

years 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014. If you 

used an element other than fluorine in 

the mass-balance equation pursuant to 

the former § 98.123(b)(3), substitute that 

element for fluorine in the 

recordkeeping requirements of this 

paragraph. 

* * * * * 

(3) The data and calculations used to 

determine the fractions of the mass 

emitted consisting of each reactant 

(FERd), product (FEP), and by-product 

(FEBk), including the preliminary 

calculations in the former 

§ 98.123(b)(8)(i). 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 98.128 is amended by: 

■ a. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Fluorinated GHG group; 

■ b. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Fluorinated GHG product; 

■ c. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Generically-identified 

process; 

■ d. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Major fluorinated GHG 

constituent; 

■ e. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Other fluorinated GHGs; 

■ f. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Saturated 

hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs); 

■ g. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Saturated 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); 

■ h. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Saturated 

hydrofluoroethers (HFEs); 

■ i. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Unsaturated 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs); 

■ j. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Unsaturated 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); 

■ k. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Unsaturated 

hydrofluoroethers (HFEs); and 

■ l. Adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for Unsaturated 

perfluorocarbons (PFCs). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 98.128 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Fluorinated GHG group means one of 

the following sets of fluorinated GHGs: 

Fully fluorinated GHGs; Saturated 

hydrofluorocarbons; Saturated 

hydrofluoroethers and saturated 

hydrochlorofluoroethers; Unsaturated 

PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated 

HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and 

fluorinated ketones; or Other fluorinated 

GHGs. 

Fluorinated GHG product means the 

product of the process, including 

isolated intermediates. 

* * * * * 

Generically-identified process means 

a process that is (1) identified as a 

production process, a transformation 

process where no fluorinated GHG 

reactant is produced at another facility, 

or a transformation process where one 

or more fluorinated GHG reactants are 

produced at another facility; (2) further 

identified as a reaction, distillation, or 

packaging process, or a combination 

thereof; and (3) tagged with a discrete 

identifier, such as a letter or number, 

that remains constant from year to year. 

* * * * * 

Major fluorinated GHG constituent 

means a fluorinated GHG constituent of 

a fluorinated GHG product that occurs 

in concentrations greater than 1 percent 

by mass. 

* * * * * 

Other fluorinated GHGs means 

fluorinated GHGs that are none of the 

following: fully fluorinated GHGs, 

saturated hydrofluorocarbons, saturated 

hydrofluoroethers, saturated 

hydrochlorofluoroethers, unsaturated 

perfluorocarbons, unsaturated 

hydrofluorocarbons, unsaturated 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons, unsaturated 

hydrofluoroethers, or fluorinated 

ketones. 

* * * * * 

Saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers 

(HCFEs) means fluorinated GHGs in 

which two hydrocarbon groups are 

linked by an oxygen atom; in which two 

or more, but not all, of the hydrogen 

atoms in the hydrocarbon groups have 

been replaced by fluorine atoms and 

chlorine atoms; and which contain only 

single bonds. 

Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 

means fluorinated GHGs that are 

hydrofluorocarbons and that contain 

only single bonds. 

Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) 

means fluorinated GHGs in which two 

hydrocarbon groups are linked by an 

oxygen atom; in which one or more, but 

not all, of the hydrogen atoms in the 

hydrocarbon groups have been replaced 

by fluorine atoms; and which contain 

only single bonds. 

* * * * * 

Unsaturated 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) 

means fluorinated GHGs that contain 

only carbon, chlorine, fluorine, and 

hydrogen and that contain one or more 

bonds that are not single bonds. 

Unsaturated hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs) means fluorinated GHGs that are 

hydrofluorocarbons and that contain 

one or more bonds that are not single 

bonds. 

Unsaturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) 

means fluorinated GHGs in which two 

hydrocarbon groups are linked by an 

oxygen atom; in which one or more, but 

not all, of the hydrogen atoms in the 

hydrocarbon groups have been replaced 

by fluorine atoms; and which contain 

one or more bonds that are not single 

bonds. 

Unsaturated perfluorocarbons (PFCs) 

means fluorinated GHGs that are 

perfluorocarbons and that contain one 

or more bonds that are not single bonds. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Adding Tables L–1 and L–2 to 

subpart L to read as follows: 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
69360 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE L–1 TO SUBPART L—DEFAULT GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS FOR COMPOUNDS THAT DO NOT APPEAR ON TABLE

A–1 TO SUBPART A OF PART 98 

Fluorinated GHG group 

Proposed global 

warming potential 

(100 yr.) 

Fully fluorinated GHGs .................................................................................................................................................................. 10,000 

Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) ........................................................................................................................................... 2,200 

Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) ................................................................ 1,600 

Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones ................................ 1 

Other fluorinated GHGs ................................................................................................................................................................. 100 

TABLE L–2 TO SUBPART L—RANGES

OF EFFECTIVE DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY

Range of Reductions 

≥99% 

≥95% to <99% 

≥75% to <95% 

≥0% to <75% 

[FR Doc. 2013–27288 Filed 11–18–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990–0010; FRL–9902– 

80–Region 9] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the El Toro Marine Corp Air 

Station Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region IX is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete portions of the 

El Toro Marine Corp Air Station 

Superfund Site (Site) located in Irvine, 

California, from the National Priorities 

List (NPL) and requests public 

comments on this proposed action. The 

NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 

105 of the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an 

appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of California, through the 

California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control, have determined 

that all appropriate response actions at 

these identified parcels under CERCLA 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

This partial deletion pertains to all 

Site media, including soil and 

groundwater, of parcels I–A, II–A, III–A, 

II–J, II–Q, II–S, II–T, III–C, I–C, II–U, I– 

B, I–E, I–G, I–H, I–I, I–J, I–L, I–M, I–P, 

II–G, II–I, II–P, III–D, I–K, I–N, I–O, I– 

S, II–E, II–L, II–M, II–R, I–Q, I–R, II–B, 

II–K, and II–O. The remaining areas of 

the Site will remain on the NPL and are 

not being considered for deletion as part 

of this action. Maps identifying the area 

to be deleted and the area of the Site to 

remain on the NPL are available for 

review in the partial deletion docket. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

December 19, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1990–0010, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Aycock.Mary@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3528. 

• Mail: Mary Aycock, U.S. EPA 

Remedial Project Manager, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, Mail Code SFD–8–1, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. 

• Hand delivery: Mary Aycock, U.S. 

EPA Remedial project Manager, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, Mail Code SFD81, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1990– 

0010. 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. 

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 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 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, 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 EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, 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 statue. 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: 

Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop 

SFD–7C, 95 Hawthorne Street, Room 

403, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: 

(415) 820–4700. Hours: Mon. thru Fri.— 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Heritage Park Regional Library, 

Reference Section, 14361 Yale Street, 

Irvine, CA 92714. Phone: (949) 936– 

4040. Hours: Mon. thru Thu.—10 a.m. to 

9 p.m., Sat.—10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Sun.— 

12 p.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Aycock, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, Mail Code SFD81, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS