Vol. 81 Friday, 

No. 10 January 15, 2016 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 98 

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under 

the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2536 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526; FRL–9934–93– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS60 

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Elements 

Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; grant of 

reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend 

specific provisions in the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and 

improve implementation of the rule, to 

improve the quality and consistency of 

the data collected under the rule, and to 

clarify or provide minor updates to 

certain provisions that have been the 

subject of questions from reporting 

entities. This action also proposes 

confidentiality determinations for the 

reporting of certain data elements to the 

program. This action also proposes 

action in response to a petition to 

reconsider specific aspects of the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 29, 2016. 

Public hearing. The EPA does not 

plan to conduct a public hearing unless 

requested. To request a hearing, please 

contact the person listed in the 

following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section by January 20, 2016. If 

requested, the hearing will be 

conducted on February 1, 2016, in the 

Washington, DC area. The EPA will 

provide further information about the 

hearing on its Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html) 

if a hearing is requested. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 343–9263; fax number: 

(202) 343–2342; email address: 

GHGReporting@epa.gov. Alternatively, 

you may contact the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule Helpline at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrule_contactus.htm or Carole Cook at 

202–343–9263. 

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition 

to being available in the docket, an 

electronic copy of today’s proposal will 

also be available through the WWW. 

Following the Administrator’s signature, 

a copy of this action will be posted on 

the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ghgreporting. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated 

entities. These proposed revisions affect 

entities that must submit annual 

greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98). This 

proposed rule would impose on entities 

across the U.S. a degree of reporting 

consistency for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from most sectors of the 

economy and therefore is ‘‘nationally 

applicable’’ within the meaning of 

section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Although the EPA concludes 

that the rule is nationally applicable, the 

EPA is also making a determination, for 

purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1), that 

this action is of nationwide scope and 

effect and is based on such a 

determination. (See CAA section 

307(b)(1) (a petition for review may be 

filed in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia ‘‘if 

such action is based on a determination 

of nationwide scope or effect and if in 

taking such action the Administrator 

finds and publishes that such action is 

based on such a determination’’). 

Further, the Administrator has 

determined that rules codified in 40 

CFR part 98 are subject to the provisions 

of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). 

See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the 

provisions of section 307(d) apply to 

‘‘such other actions as the Administrator 

may determine’’). These are proposed 

amendments to existing regulations. If 

finalized, these amended regulations 

would affect owners or operators of 

certain suppliers and direct emitters of 

GHGs. Regulated categories and entities 

include, but are not limited to, those 

listed in Table 1 of this preamble: 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources .......................... .......................... Facilities operating boilers, process heaters, incinerators, turbines, and internal combustion engines. 

211 Extractors of crude petroleum and natural gas. 

321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood products. 

322 Pulp and paper mills. 

325 Chemical manufacturers. 

324 Petroleum refineries, and manufacturers of coal products. 

316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and miscellaneous plastic products. 

331 Steel works, blast furnaces. 

332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, anodizing, and coloring. 

336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle parts and accessories. 

221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services. 

622 Health services. 

611 Educational services. 

Acid Gas Injection Projects ........................................................ 211111 or 

211112 

Projects that inject acid gas containing CO2 underground. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2537 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY—Continued 

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

Adipic Acid Production ............................................................... 325199 Adipic acid manufacturing facilities. 

Aluminum Production ................................................................. 331312 Primary aluminum production facilities. 

Ammonia Manufacturing ............................................................ 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia manufacturing facilities. 

CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Projects ........................ 211 Oil and gas extraction projects using CO2 enhanced oil and 

gas recovery. 

Electrical Equipment Use ........................................................... 221121 Electric bulk power transmission and control facilities. 

Electronics Manufacturing .......................................................... 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing facilities. 

334413 Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solid-state) device manufacturing facilities. 

334419 LCD unit screens manufacturing facilities. MEMS manufacturing facilities. 

Geologic Sequestration Sites .................................................... N/A CO2 geologic sequestration projects. 

Glass Production ........................................................................ 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities. 

327213 Glass container manufacturing facilities. 

327212 Other pressed and blown glass and glassware manufacturing 

facilities. 

HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction ........................ 325120 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities 

Hydrogen Production ................................................................. 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities. 

Iron and Steel Production .......................................................... 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, 

blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace shops. 

Lime Production ......................................................................... 327410 Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, dolomitic hydrates manufacturing facilities. 

Nitric Acid Production ................................................................ 325311 Nitric acid manufacturing facilities. 

Petrochemical Production .......................................................... 32511 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing facilities. 

325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, methanol manufacturing facilities. 

325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities. 

325182 Carbon black manufacturing facilities. 

Phosphoric Acid Production ....................................................... 325312 Phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities. 

Petroleum Refineries ................................................................. 324110 Petroleum refineries. 

Pulp and Paper Manufacturing .................................................. 322110 Pulp mills. 

322121 Paper mills. 

322130 Paperboard mills. 

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ................................................. 562212 Solid waste landfills. 

221320 Sewage treatment facilities. 

Soda Ash Manufacturing ........................................................... 325181 Akalies and chlorine manufacturing facilities. 

212391 Soda ash, natural, mining and/or beneficiation. 

Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids Fuels ..................................... 211111 Coal liquefaction at mine sites. 

Suppliers of Petroleum Products ............................................... 324110 Petroleum refineries. 

Suppliers of Natural Gas and NGLs .......................................... 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities. 

211112 Natural gas liquid extraction facilities. 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases ................................ 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities. 

Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide ...................................................... 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities. 

Underground Coal Mines ........................................................... 212113 Underground anthracite coal mining operations. 

212112 Underground bituminous coal mining operations. 

Industrial Wastewater Treatment ............................................... 322110 Pulp mills. 

322121 Paper mills. 

322122 Newsprint mills. 

322130 Paperboard mills. 

311611 Meat processing facilities. 

311411 Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable manufacturing facilities. 

311421 Fruit and vegetable canning facilities. 

325193 Ethanol manufacturing facilities. 

324110 Petroleum refineries. 

Industrial Waste Landfills ........................................................... 562212 Solid waste landfills. 

221320 Sewage treatment facilities. 

322110 Pulp mills. 

322121 Paper mills. 

322122 Newsprint mills. 

322130 Paperboard mills. 

311611 Meat processing facilities. 

311411 Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable manufacturing facilities. 

311421 Fruit and vegetable canning facilities. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Other types of facilities than 

those listed in the table could also be 

subject to reporting requirements. To 

determine whether you are affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability criteria found 

in 40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the 

relevant criteria in the sections related 

to industrial gas suppliers and direct 

emitters of GHGs. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2538 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

to a particular facility, consult the 

person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Many facilities that are affected by 40 

CFR part 98 have GHG emissions from 

multiple source categories listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

ASTM American Society for Testing and 

Materials 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service 

CBI confidential business information 

CEMS continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

DE destruction efficiency 

EDC ethylene dichloride 

e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Tool 

EF emission factor 

EGU NSPS Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, 

Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EO Executive Order 

ER enhanced oil and gas recovery 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

GWP Global warming potential 

Hg mercury 

HHV high heat value 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

ISBN International Standard Book Number 

IUPAC International Union of Pure and 

Applied Chemistry 

IVT Inputs Verification Tool 

kg kilograms 

LDC local distribution company 

LNG liquefied natural gas 

mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per 

hour 

mmcfd million cubic feet per day 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health 

Administration 

MSW municipal solid waste 

mtCO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NGL natural gas liquid 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

ODS ozone-depleting substances 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RY Reporting year 

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

U.S. United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

VCM vinyl chloride monomer 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. How is this preamble organized? 

B. Executive Summary 

C. Background on This Proposed Rule 

D. Legal Authority 

E. When would the proposed amendments 

apply? 

F. Where can I get a copy of information 

related to the proposed rule? 

G. Methods Incorporated by Reference 

II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed 

Amendments to Part 98 

A. Revisions To Streamline 

Implementation of Part 98 

B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of 

Data Collected Under Part 98 and 

Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

C. Other Amendments 

D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and 

Harmonizing Revisions 

III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart 

A. Subpart A—General Provisions 

B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources 

C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production 

D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production 

E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing 

F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

G. Subpart N—Glass Production 

H. Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production and 

HFC–23 Destruction 

I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production 

J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing 

K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production 

L. Subpart X—Petrochemical Production 

M. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries 

N. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production 

O. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing 

P. Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing 

Q. Subpart DD—Use of Electric 

Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment 

R. Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines 

S. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

T. Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment 

U. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based 

Liquid Fuels 

V. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas 

and Natural Gas Liquids 

W. Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases 

X. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of 

Carbon Dioxide 

Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills 

Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, 

and Corrections 

IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations 

for New or Changed Data Reporting 

Elements 

A. Overview and Background 

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations 

C. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Substantially 

Revised Data Reporting Elements 

D. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Other Part 98 Data 

Reporting Elements for Which No 

Determination Has Been Previously 

Established 

E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality 

Determination for Subpart NN Data 

Elements 

F. Request for Comments on Proposed 

Category Assignments and 

Confidentiality Determinations 

V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments 

A. How was the incremental burden of the 

proposed rule estimated? 

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed 

Revisions to Part 98 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

A. How is this preamble organized? 

The first section of this preamble 

contains background information 

regarding the origin of the proposed 

amendments. This section also 

discusses the EPA’s legal authority 

under the CAA to promulgate (including 

subsequent amendments to) the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Part 98’’) and the EPA’s 

legal authority to make confidentiality 

determinations for new or revised data 

elements required by this amendment or 

for existing data elements for which a 

confidentiality determination has not 

previously been proposed. Section I of 

this preamble also discusses when the 

proposed amendments would apply and 

provides additional information 

regarding materials referenced in this 

rulemaking. Section II of this preamble 

describes the types of amendments 

included in this rulemaking, and 

includes the rationale for each type of 

proposed change. Section III of this 

preamble is organized by Part 98 

subpart and contains detailed 

information on the proposed revisions 

to each subpart and the rationale for the 

proposed revisions in each section. 

Section IV of this preamble discusses 

the proposed confidentiality 

determinations for new or substantially 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2539 

1 During the development of Part 98, the EPA 

received a number of comments from stakeholders 

regarding their concern that some of the data 

reported consisted of confidential business 

information that, if released to the public, would 

likely harm their competitive position. The EPA has 

subsequently published a series of notices to 

establish determinations for the confidentiality 

status of data required to be reported under the 

GHGRP (i.e., ‘‘confidentiality determinations’’). See 

section IV.A of this preamble for additional 

information. 

revised (i.e., requiring additional or 

different data to be reported) data 

reporting elements, as well as proposed 

confidentiality determinations for 

certain existing data elements in 

subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR for 

which the EPA has not previously made 

a determination or where the EPA has 

determined that the current 

determination is no longer appropriate. 

Section V of this preamble discusses the 

impacts of the proposed amendments. 

Finally, section VI of this preamble 

describes the statutory and executive 

order requirements applicable to this 

action. 

B. Executive Summary 

The GHGRP is a well-known, reliable 

source for high-quality, timely 

greenhouse gas emissions data that 

enables key stakeholders to understand 

greenhouse gas emissions, identify 

emission reduction opportunities, and 

take action. Since the first year of data 

collection through the GHGRP, the EPA 

has responded to tens of thousands of 

questions from reporters, engaged in 

stakeholder outreach through 

compliance assistance webinars, 

solicited feedback via a public testing 

process to help improve the EPA’s 

electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Tool (e-GGRT), and learned about 

various site specific scenarios via 

interaction with reporters during the 

verification of submitted data. Through 

these extensive outreach efforts, the 

EPA has improved our understanding of 

the technical challenges and burden 

associated with implementation of the 

Part 98 provisions, as well as issues that 

may impact the quality of the data 

received. The proposed changes would 

amend specific provisions in the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to 

streamline and improve implementation 

of the rule, improve the quality and 

consistency of the data collected under 

the rule, and clarify or provide minor 

updates to certain provisions that have 

been the subject of questions and 

feedback from reporting entities. 

The EPA is proposing amendments 

that can be categorized as follows: 

• Revisions to streamline 

implementation and reduce burden. 

These changes reduce or simplify 

requirements in a manner that would 

ease burden on reporters and the EPA. 

The changes would also improve the 

usefulness of data for the public. Such 

revisions include revising requirements 

to focus EPA and reporter resources on 

relevant data, removing reporting 

requirements for specific facilities that 

report little to no emissions, or 

removing reported data elements that 

are no longer necessary. 

• Amendments to improve quality of 

data. These amendments are needed to 

ensure that accurate data are being 

collected under the rule and would 

expand monitoring or reporting 

requirements that are necessary to 

improve verification and improve the 

accuracy of data used to inform the 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘U.S. GHG Inventory’’). 

• Minor amendments to better reflect 

industry processes and emissions. Such 

revisions include amendments to 

calculation, monitoring, or 

measurement methods that would 

address prior petitioner or commenter 

concerns (e.g., amendments that provide 

additional flexibility for facilities or that 

more accurately reflect industry 

processes and emissions). 

• Minor clarifications and corrections 

to improve understanding of the rule. 

Such revisions include the following: 

Corrections to errors in terms and 

definitions in certain equations; 

clarifications that provide additional 

information for reporters to better or 

more fully understand compliance 

obligations; changes to correct cross 

references within and between subparts; 

and other editorial or harmonizing 

changes that would improve the 

public’s understanding of the rule. 

This action also proposes to establish 

confidentiality determinations for the 

reporting of certain data elements added 

or revised in these proposed 

amendments, and for certain existing 

data elements for which no 

confidentiality determination has been 

previously proposed.1 Finally, section 

III.S of this preamble describes the 

proposed changes in response to a 

petition to reconsider specific aspects of 

subpart HH, which applies to municipal 

solid waste landfills. 

The proposed revisions are 

anticipated to increase burden for Part 

98 reporters in cases where they would 

expand current applicability, 

monitoring, or reporting, and are 

anticipated to decrease burden for 

reporters in cases where they would 

streamline Part 98 to remove 

notification or reporting requirements or 

simplify the data that must be reported. 

The estimated incremental change in 

burden from the proposed amendments 

to Part 98 includes burden associated 

with: (1) Changes to the reporting 

requirements by adding, revising, or 

removing existing reporting 

requirements; (2) revisions to the 

applicability of subparts such that 

additional facilities would be required 

to report; and (3) additional monitoring 

requirements for underground coal 

mines. Many of the amendments that 

the EPA is proposing in this action are 

not anticipated to have a significant 

impact on burden. As discussed in 

section I.E of this preamble, we are 

proposing to implement these changes 

over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 

2018 in order to stagger the 

implementation of these changes over 

time. The burden has subsequently been 

determined based on when the 

proposed revisions would be 

implemented in each year (e.g., the 

burden for RY2016 only reflects changes 

to subparts I (Electronics 

Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills), and related 

changes to subpart A (General 

Provisions)). The EPA determined that 

one-time implementation costs would 

apply for certain revisions to 

applicability and monitoring 

requirements that would first apply in 

reporting year (RY) 2017 and RY2018; 

therefore, we have estimated costs 

through RY2019 to reflect the 

subsequent annual costs incurred by 

industry. As more fully explained in 

section V of this preamble, the EPA has 

determined that the total estimated 

incremental burden associated with all 

revisions in this proposed rulemaking 

would be $2,049,478 over the 3 years 

covered by the proposed rule, with an 

estimated annual burden of $1,081,830 

per year once all changes have been 

implemented. The incremental 

implementation costs for each reporting 

year are summarized in Table 2 of this 

preamble. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2540 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

2Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public 

Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128. 

TABLE 2—INCREMENTAL BURDEN FOR REPORTING YEARS 2016–2019 

[$/year] 

Reporting year 2016 2017 2018 2019 

Total Annual Cost (all subparts) ...................................................................... $9K $34K $2.0M $1.1M 

C. Background on This Proposed Rule 

The GHG Reporting Rule was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The 

final rule became effective on December 

29, 2009 and requires reporting of GHGs 

from various facilities and suppliers, 

consistent with the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act.2

The EPA subsequently proposed and 

finalized amendments to various 

subparts, including subparts in this 

action. The amendments generally did 

not change the basic requirements of 

Part 98, but were intended to improve 

clarity and ensure consistency across 

the calculation, monitoring, and data 

reporting requirements. The EPA issued 

additional rules in 2010 finalizing the 

requirements for subparts T, FF, II, and 

TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); 

subparts I, L, DD, QQ, and SS (75 FR 

74774, December 1, 2010); and subparts 

RR and UU (75 FR 75060, December 1, 

2010). Following the promulgation of 

these subparts, the EPA finalized several 

technical and clarifying amendments to 

these and other subparts under the 

GHGRP. A number of subparts have 

been revised since promulgation (75 FR 

79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR 73866, 

November 29, 2011; 77 FR 10373, 

February 22, 2012; 77 FR 29935, May 

21, 2012; 77 FR 51477, August 24, 2012; 

78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78 FR 

71904, November 29, 2013; 79 FR 

63750, October 24, 2014; and 79 FR 

73750, December 11, 2014). The 

amendments in this action are a 

continuation of the effort to improve the 

GHGRP and address issues identified 

during implementation. 

D. Legal Authority 

The EPA is proposing these rule 

amendments under its existing CAA 

authority provided in CAA section 114. 

As stated in the preamble to the 2009 

final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 56260), 

CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA 

broad authority to require the 

information proposed to be gathered by 

this rule because such data would 

inform and are relevant to the EPA’s 

carrying out a wide variety of CAA 

provisions. See the preambles to the 

proposed and final GHG reporting rule 

for further information. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing 

confidentiality determinations for 

proposed new, revised, and existing 

data elements in Part 98 under its 

authorities provided in sections 114, 

301, and 307 of the CAA. Section 114(c) 

of the CAA requires that the EPA make 

publicly available information obtained 

under CAA section 114, except for 

information (excluding emission data) 

that qualifies for confidential treatment. 

The Administrator has determined that 

this proposed rule is subject to the 

provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. 

Generally section 307(d) contains a set 

of procedures relating to the issuance 

and review of certain enumerated CAA 

rules. 

E. When would the proposed 

amendments apply? 

In this action, the EPA is proposing: 

(1) Numerous amendments to Part 98 

including subpart-specific revisions that 

would streamline implementation of 

Part 98, improve the quality of the data 

collected under the rule, update certain 

provisions to more accurately reflect 

industry processes and emissions, and 

other corrections, as described in 

sections II and III of this preamble; and 

(2) new or revised confidentiality 

determinations for data elements that 

are added or revised in the proposed 

amendments or for certain existing data 

elements, as described in section IV of 

this preamble. The EPA is planning to 

phase in implementation of the 

proposed requirements depending on 

the nature of the revision. Some of the 

amendments would apply in RY2016, 

some in RY2017, and some in RY2018. 

This section describes when each of the 

proposed amendments would apply. 

We are proposing that amendments to 

40 CFR part 98, subparts I (Electronics 

Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills), with related 

revisions to subpart A (General 

Provisions), would apply to the RY2016 

reports, which must be submitted by 

March 31, 2017. The remaining 

amendments proposed in this action 

would apply to annual reports 

submitted for RY2017, except for 

amendments to V (Nitric Acid 

Production), Y (Petroleum Refineries), 

FF (Underground Coal Mines) and OO 

(Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases) which would apply to reports for 

RY2018. 

We are proposing to implement these 

revisions over reporting years 2016, 

2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the 

implementation of these changes over 

time, in consideration of the types of 

changes being made and the associated 

revisions needed to implement them, 

including impacts to reporters and 

revisions to EPA’s e-GGRT. Specifically, 

some of the proposed changes include 

revisions to software that would need to 

be updated in e-GGRT. The time 

phasing also allows sufficient lead time 

for reporters to implement the proposed 

changes following the promulgation of 

the final rule revisions. For example, 

where the proposed changes would 

require reporters to collect new data that 

are not readily available or that could 

not be determined from existing 

monitoring and recordkeeping, the EPA 

would not apply these changes to 

RY2016 reports. The proposed schedule 

also provides sufficient time for new 

reporters who would become subject to 

Part 98 as a result of the proposed 

amendments to acquire monitoring 

equipment and begin collecting data. 

The amendments that would apply to 

RY2016, RY2017, and RY2018 reports 

are discussed in sections I.E.1, I.E.2, and 

I.E.3 of this preamble. 

1. Which proposed amendments would 

apply beginning with RY2016? 

Table 3 of this preamble lists the 

affected subparts and proposed changes 

that would apply to RY2016. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2541 

TABLE 3—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2016 

Subpart affected a Changes applicable in RY2016 

A—General Provisions ............................................................................. 40 CFR 98.6 (definition of ‘‘Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system’’ only). 

I—Electronics Manufacturing .................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart.

HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ....................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

aSubpart names may also be found in the Table of Contents for this preamble. 

We are proposing that all changes to 

subparts I and HH, and minor revisions 

to subpart A, would apply to reports for 

RY2016, which must be submitted by 

March 31, 2017. For subpart I, we are 

proposing several revisions that would 

improve the quality of the data 

collected. For example, we are 

proposing to revise the requirements of 

the technology triennial report in 40 

CFR 98.96(y), which applies to 

semiconductor manufacturing facilities 

with emissions from subpart I processes 

greater than 40,000 metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) per 

year. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 

98.96(y)(1), facilities are required to 

submit the first triennial report on 

March 31, 2017. The changes we are 

proposing to 40 CFR 98.96(y) would 

clarify the types of data and 

measurements to be submitted with the 

triennial report, but would not 

fundamentally alter the data reported or 

require additional data collection from 

reporters. Specifically, we are clarifying 

that where reporters provide any 

utilization and by-product formation 

rates and/or destruction or removal 

efficiency data in the triennial report, 

they must also include information on 

the methods and conditions under 

which the data were collected, where 

available (see section III.F of this 

preamble for additional information). 

We are proposing to implement the 

changes to subpart I in RY2016 in order 

to ensure that the data submitted in the 

triennial reports submitted on March 31, 

2017 reflects these methods and 

conditions, which will help the EPA to 

more efficiently review the reported 

data. In addition to the proposed 

changes to 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is 

proposing revisions to improve the 

methodology used to calculate the 

fraction of fluorinated-GHG and 

fluorinated-GHG byproduct destroyed or 

removed in a fab using the stack testing 

methodology. 

Under subpart HH, we are proposing 

several revisions to improve the quality 

of the data collected, better align the 

rule requirements with industry 

operating practices, and streamline the 

reporting requirements. We are also 

proposing one related change to subpart 

A of Part 98 to update the definition of 

‘‘gas collection system or landfill gas 

collection system’’ in 40 CFR 98.6. 

These revisions, which are described in 

section III.S of this preamble, are 

proposed to apply to RY2016 reports 

because they provide additional 

clarifications and flexibility regarding 

the existing regulatory requirements that 

address questions raised by reporters 

during implementation. 

We have determined that it would be 

feasible for existing reporters to 

implement the proposed changes to 

subparts A, I, and HH for RY2016 

because these changes are consistent 

with the data collection and calculation 

methodologies in the current rule. The 

proposed revisions would not add new 

monitoring requirements, and would 

not substantially affect the type of 

information that must be collected. The 

owners or operators are not required to 

actually submit RY2016 reports until 

March 31, 2017, which is three months 

or more after we expect the final rule 

amendments based on this proposal to 

be published, thus providing ample 

opportunity for reporters to adjust to the 

amendments. 

2. Which proposed amendments would 

apply beginning with RY2017? 

Table 4 of this preamble lists the 

affected subparts and proposed changes 

that would apply to RY2017. For these 

revisions, reporters would submit an 

annual report on March 31, 2018. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2017 

Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2017 

A—General Provisions ............................................................................. § 98.2; § 98.3; § 98.4; § 98.6; § 98.7(e)(33); and Tables A–3 and A–4. 

C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources .................................. All proposed changes in subpart. 

E—Adipic Acid Production ....................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart.

F—Aluminum Production .......................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart.

G—Ammonia Manufacturing .................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

N—Glass Production ................................................................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

O—HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction ................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

P—Hydrogen Production .......................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart.

Q—Iron and Steel Production .................................................................. All proposed changes in subpart. 

S—Lime Manufacturing ............................................................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

U—Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate ..................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

X—Petrochemical Production ................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

Z—Phosphoric Acid Production ............................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing ........................................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing ................................................................. All proposed changes in subpart. 

DD—Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment .............. All proposed changes in subpart. 

II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment ........................................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels ............................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products .................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids ......................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide ............................................................ All proposed changes in subpart. 

RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide ..................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

TT—Industrial Waste landfills ................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2542 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE TO RY2017—Continued 

Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2017 

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

The changes to subparts listed in 

Table 4 of this preamble would apply to 

the annual reports submitted for 

RY2017 on March 31, 2018; these 

changes are proposed to apply to the 

2017 reporting year in order to allow for 

adequate time for the agency to integrate 

the revisions through e-GGRT and the 

Inputs Verification Tool (IVT), as well 

as prepare to incorporate the revisions 

into other GHGRP datasets and 

publications. The changes to subparts 

included in Table 4 of this preamble 

would be feasible for reporters to 

implement for RY2017 because these 

changes are consistent with the data 

collection and calculation 

methodologies in the current rule. In 

most cases, the proposed revisions 

include minor revisions such as 

editorial corrections, corrections to 

cross-references, and technical 

clarifications regarding the existing 

regulatory requirements. Where 

calculation equations are proposed to be 

modified, the changes generally clarify 

terms in the emission calculation 

equations and do not materially affect 

monitoring requirements or how 

emissions are calculated. In some cases, 

we are adding flexibility by providing 

alternative monitoring methods or 

missing data procedures that would 

reduce burden on reporters. For 

example, in subpart AA (Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing), for missing 

measurements of the mass of spent 

liquor solids or spent pulping liquor 

flow rates, we are proposing to allow 

reporters to use the daily mass of spent 

liquor solids fired that are currently 

reported under 40 CFR 63, subpart MM 

(National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical 

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, 

Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills) as an 

alternative to maximum mass and flow 

rate values currently required in 40 CFR 

98.275(b) (see section III.O of this 

preamble for additional information). 

Other proposed changes would reduce 

the type of information that must be 

collected; e.g., we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to 

clarify the EPA’s policies allowing 

reporters to cease reporting under Part 

98 (see section III.A.1 of this preamble), 

and we are proposing to remove 

reporting requirements in subpart O 

(HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 

Destruction) (see section III.H of this 

preamble) and subpart LL (Suppliers of 

Coal-based Liquid Fuels) (see section 

III.U of this preamble) that are no longer 

needed to support verification or other 

activities. Although some of the 

proposed revisions included in Table 4 

of this preamble would include 

reporting additional data, the EPA has 

determined that the data we are 

proposing to collect would be readily 

available to reporters. For example, we 

are proposing to add requirements to 40 

CFR part 98, subpart DD (Electrical 

Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use) and subpart NN 

(Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural 

Gas Liquids) for reporters to include the 

name of the U.S. state or territory 

covered in the facility’s annual report. 

Because these revisions would not 

require the collection of additional data 

or changes to existing monitoring 

requirements, it is feasible for these 

revisions to be implemented for 

RY2016. However, we are not 

implementing these changes until 

RY2017 to allow the agency sufficient 

time to incorporate the revisions into eGGRT and IVT. Finally, we note that the 

reporters affected under the subparts in 

Table 4 of this preamble are not 

required to actually submit RY2017 

reports until March 31, 2018. Because a 

final rule based on this proposal would 

be finalized in late 2016, reporters will 

have over a year to prepare for the 

amendments before they must submit 

RY2017 reports. 

3. Which proposed amendments would 

apply beginning with RY2018? 

We are proposing that the revisions to 

the subparts listed in Table 5 of this 

preamble would apply to annual reports 

submitted for RY2018, which must be 

submitted by March 31, 2019. 

TABLE 5—PROPOSED CHANGES TO PART 98 APPLICABLE FOR RY2018 

Subpart affected Changes applicable in RY2018 

A—General Provisions ............................................................................. § 98.7(l)(1); Table A–5. 

V—Nitric Acid Production ......................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

Y—Petroleum Refineries .......................................................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

FF—Underground Coal Mines ................................................................. All proposed changes in subpart. 

OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases ..................................... All proposed changes in subpart. 

We are proposing that revisions to 

subparts V, Y, FF, and OO, and related 

changes to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) and Table 

A–5 of subpart A, would apply to 

RY2018, with reporters following the 

revised rule requirements beginning 

January 1, 2018. In several cases, the 

proposed changes would revise the 

applicability of a source category to 

certain facilities or significantly revise 

existing calculation or monitoring 

methodologies. For example, we are 

proposing to revise the definition of the 

industrial gas supplier source category 

in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO to 

include facilities that destroy, but do 

not produce, fluorinated GHGs and 

fluorinated HTFs. These proposed 

changes could expand the applicability 

of Part 98 to additional facilities that 

were not previously required to report 

under the rule; these facilities would 

require more time to acquire and install 

monitoring equipment and begin 

collecting data under Part 98. Similarly, 

we are proposing to revise the 

calculation methodology for delayed 

coking units in 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

Y (Petroleum Refineries) to better reflect 

industry emissions (see section III.M of 

this preamble). 

As discussed in section III.R of this 

preamble, we are proposing some 

methodological changes to subpart FF to 

clarify the type of facilities included in 

the source category and revise the 

monitoring and data collection 

requirements to improve the quality of 

the data collected. We are proposing a 

related revision to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2543 

subpart A to incorporate updated 

methods for sampling methane 

concentration and conducting 

measurements of flow rate, temperature, 

pressure, and moisture content. Given 

that the final rule revisions would not 

be finalized until the second half of 

2016, it is assumed that it would not be 

feasible for these facilities to acquire, 

install, and calibrate new monitoring 

equipment, or to perform more frequent 

monitoring, in time for the reports 

submitted for RY2017. However, the 

EPA is also seeking comment on 

whether underground coal mine 

facilities would indeed be able to meet 

these revised requirements for RY2017. 

In past rulemakings, the EPA has 

typically required monitoring to begin a 

few months after finalization of revised 

rules, and has offered Best Available 

Monitoring Methods (BAMM) to be used 

temporarily to provide sufficient time 

for facilities to come into full 

compliance with the newly finalized 

monitoring methods. In this action, to 

avoid the need to offer the use of BAMM 

and to stagger the burden associated 

with making revisions to e-GGRT, we 

are proposing that the revisions to these 

subparts would apply to RY2018 

reports. If finalized, subpart V, Y, FF, 

and OO reporters, including new 

reporters, would begin following the 

revised rule requirements on January 1, 

2018 and submit the first annual reports 

using the revised monitoring and data 

collection methods on March 31, 2019. 

This schedule would allow at least one 

year for subpart V, Y, FF, and OO 

reporters to acquire, install, and 

calibrate any new monitoring 

equipment, as well as implement any 

changes to existing monitoring methods, 

for the 2018 reporting year. The 

proposed timeline also allows sufficient 

time for the agency to integrate any 

associated changes to reporting 

requirements in the affected subparts 

into e-GGRT and other GHGRP 

activities, such as verification. 

The EPA is proposing one related 

change to subpart A that could apply to 

certain subpart FF reporters prior to 

January 1, 2018. In keeping with the 

proposed changes discussed in section 

III.A.1 of this preamble, we are 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of 

subpart A to streamline the reporting 

requirements for closed coal mines. 

These proposed revisions would apply 

beginning January 1, 2017, consistent 

with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 

98.2 listed in Table 4 of this preamble, 

and could affect owners and operators 

of abandoned underground mines (see 

section III.A and III.R of this preamble 

for additional information). All other 

proposed revisions related to subpart FF 

would apply beginning January 1, 2018 

for the reasons described above. 

F. Where can I get a copy of information 

related to the proposed rule? 

This preamble references several 

documents developed to support the 

proposed rulemaking. These documents 

provide additional information 

regarding the proposed changes to Part 

98, and supplementary information 

which the EPA considered in the 

development of the proposed revisions. 

These documents are referenced in 

sections II through V of this preamble 

and are available in the docket to this 

rulemaking or other rulemaking dockets, 

as follows: 

• ‘‘Table of 2015 Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.’’ EPA 

memorandum summarizing the less 

substantive minor corrections, 

clarifications, and harmonizing 

revisions in the proposed rule, as 

discussed in section II of this preamble. 

Available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in 

the U.S.’’ From Natalie Tang, EPA to 

Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, 

EPA, dated January 29, 2015. 

Memorandum supporting proposed 

revisions to subpart V (Nitric Acid 

Production) as discussed in section III.K 

of this preamble. Available in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Request to Consider IPCC 

Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and 

Data for the Elimination of e-GGRT 

Validation Messages at VCM Production 

Facilities Reporting Under Subpart X.’’ 

Letter received from Occidental 

Chemical Company, July 10, 2015, as 

discussed in section III.L of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot 

Gas Reporting Requirements under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP).’’ From Jeff Coburn, Leslie 

Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI 

International (RTI) to Brian Cook, EPA, 

dated July 10, 2015. Memorandum 

supporting proposed revisions to 

subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as 

discussed in section III.M of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Revised Emission Methodology for 

Delayed Coking Units.’’ From Jeff 

Coburn, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated 

June 4, 2015. Memorandum supporting 

proposed revisions to subpart Y 

(Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in 

section III.M of this preamble. Available 

in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Evaluating Possible VAM 

Emissions Estimation Errors Based on 

Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, 

Monthly, Weekly).’’ Ruby Canyon 

Engineering, dated June 10, 2015. 

Memorandum supporting revisions to 

subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) 

as discussed in section III.R of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Use of Inspection Data from the 

Mine Safety Health Administration for 

Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation 

from Mine Ventilation Shafts.’’ From 

Clark Talkington, Advanced Resources 

International, Inc. (ARI) to Cate Hight, 

EPA, dated November 13, 2015. 

Memorandum supporting revisions to 

subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) 

as discussed in section III.R of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Review of Oxidation Studies and 

Associated Cover Depth in the PeerReviewed Literature.’’ From Kate 

Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff 

Coburn, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, 

dated June 17, 2015, Memorandum 

supporting proposed revisions to 

subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills) as discussed in section III.S of 

this preamble. Available in the docket 

for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Review of Site-Specific Industrial 

Waste Degradable Organic Content 

Data’’ from Jeff Coburn and Katherine 

Bronstein, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, 

dated June 17, 2015. Memorandum 

supporting proposed revisions to 

subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills) 

as discussed in section III.Y of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for 

this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Proposed Data Category 

Assignments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Elements in the 

Proposed 2015 Revisions.’’ 

Memorandum listing all proposed new, 

substantially revised, and existing data 

elements with proposed category 

assignments and confidentiality 

determinations, as described in Section 

IV of this preamble. Available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking, 

Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526. 

• ‘‘Final Evaluation of Competitive 

Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to 

Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to 

March 31, 2015.’’ Memorandum, 

September 2014. Available in Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0929. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2544 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

• ‘‘Summary of Evaluation of 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(GHGRP) Part 98 ‘Inputs to Emission 

Equations’ Data Elements Deferred Until 

2013.’’ Memorandum, December 17, 

2012. Available in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

• ‘‘Final Data Category Assignments 

and Confidentiality Determinations for 

Part 98 Reporting Elements.’’ 

Memorandum, April 29, 2011. Available 

in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0924. 

• ‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 

2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule.’’ Memorandum 

describing the costs of the proposed 

revisions to Part 98, as discussed in 

section V of this preamble. Available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking, 

Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526. 

G. Methods Incorporated by Reference 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text for 40 CFR 98.7 that 

includes incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference the following: 

• Standard Test Methods for 

Determining the Biobased Content of 

Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples 

using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM 

D6866–12), which would apply to 

subpart C reporters (see section III.B.2 of 

this preamble). These standards are 

available on the ASTM Web site (http:// 

www.astm.org/) to everyone at a cost 

determined by the ASTM ($50). The 

ASTM also offers memberships or 

subscriptions that allow unlimited 

access to their methods. The cost of 

obtaining these methods is not a 

significant financial burden, making the 

methods reasonably available for 

reporters. The EPA will also make a 

copy of these documents available in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble for 

more information) for review purposes 

only. 

• Inspection and sampling standards 

from the Coal Mine Safety and Health 

General Inspection Procedures 

Handbook Number: PH13–V–1 

(February 2013) as published by the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA), which would apply to subpart 

FF reporters (see section III.R.2 of this 

preamble). These standards are available 

free of charge through the MSHA Web 

site (http://www.msha.gov). The EPA 

has also made, and will continue to 

make, these documents available 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Because these standards do not 

present a significant financial burden to 

reporters, the EPA has determined that 

these methods are reasonably available. 

The EPA has also made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available in hard copy at the 

appropriate EPA office (see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this preamble for more information). 

II. Overview and Rationale for 

Proposed Amendments to Part 98 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

revise specific provisions in Part 98 to 

simplify and streamline implementation 

of the rule, improve the quality and 

consistency of the data collected under 

the rule, and to clarify or provide minor 

updates to certain provisions that have 

been the subject of questions and 

feedback from reporting entities. The 

EPA has identified four categories of 

changes that we are proposing in this 

rulemaking, which include the 

following: 

• Revisions to streamline 

implementation of the rule by reducing 

or simplifying requirements that would 

ease burden on reporters and the EPA, 

such as revising requirements to focus 

GHGRP and reporter resources on 

relevant data, removing reporting 

requirements for specific facilities 

which report little to no emissions, or 

removing reported data elements that 

are no longer necessary; 

• Amendments that would expand 

monitoring, applicability, or reporting 

requirements that are necessary to 

enhance the quality of the data 

collected, improve verification of 

collected data under the GHGRP, and 

improve the accuracy of data included 

in the U.S. GHG Inventory; 

• Other amendments, such as 

amendments to calculation, monitoring, 

or measurement methods that would 

address prior petitioner or commenter 

concerns (e.g., amendments that provide 

additional flexibility for facilities or that 

more accurately reflect industry 

processes and emissions). 

• Minor clarifications and 

corrections, including: corrections to 

terms and definitions in certain 

equations; clarifications that provide 

additional information for reporters to 

better or more fully understand 

compliance obligations; changes to 

correct cross references within and 

between subparts; and other editorial or 

harmonizing changes that would 

improve the public’s understanding of 

the rule. 

Sections II.A through II.D of this 

preamble describe each of the above 

categories in more detail and provide 

rationale for the changes included in 

each category. 

The proposed changes in this action 

would advance the EPA’s goal of 

maximizing rule effectiveness. For 

example, these proposed changes would 

clarify existing rule provisions, thus 

enabling government, regulated entities, 

and the public to easily identify and 

understand rule requirements. In 

addition, specific changes such as 

increasing the flexibility given to 

reporting entities related to requesting 

extensions for revising annual reports 

would make compliance easier than 

non-compliance. The proposed changes 

also serve to clarify whether and when 

reporting requirements apply to a 

facility, and more specifically when a 

facility may discontinue reporting, 

thereby allowed a regulated entity to 

regularly assess their compliance and 

prevent noncompliance. 

The proposed changes would also 

improve the EPA’s ability to assess 

compliance by adding reporting 

elements that allow the EPA to more 

thoroughly verify GHG data and 

understand trends in emissions. For 

example, the proposed requirement to 

report the date of installation of any 

abatement equipment at Adipic Acid 

and Nitric Acid Production facilities 

will increase the EPA and public’s 

understanding of the use of and trends 

in emissions reduction technologies. 

Lastly, the proposed changes further 

advance the ability of the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Program to provide 

access to quality data on greenhouse gas 

emissions by adding key data elements 

to improve the usefulness of the data. 

One example is the proposed addition 

of the reporting of emissions by state for 

Suppliers of Natural Gas (subpart NN 

reporters). This data will allow users of 

the GHGRP data to more easily identify 

the state within which the reporter 

operates, which will be useful for 

determining state level GHG totals 

associated with natural gas supply and 

increase transparency and usefulness of 

the data reported. 

Additional details for the specific 

amendments proposed for each subpart 

are included in section III of this 

preamble. To reduce the length of this 

preamble, we have summarized the 

remaining less substantive minor 

corrections, clarifications, and 

harmonizing revisions in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Table of 2015 Revisions 

to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’ 

(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Table of 

Revisions’’) available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526). These changes include 

straightforward clarifications of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2545 

requirements to better reflect the EPA’s 

intent; harmonizing changes within 

subparts (such as harmonizing 

terminology); corrections to calculation 

terms and cross-references; editorial and 

minor error corrections; and removal of 

redundant text. The Table of Revisions 

describes each proposed change within 

a subpart, including those itemized in 

this preamble, and provides the current 

rule text and the proposed correction. 

Where the proposed change is listed 

only in the Table of Revisions, the 

rationale for the proposed change is also 

listed there. 

We are seeking public comment only 

on the issues specifically identified in 

this notice (including the changes listed 

in the Table of Revisions) for the 

identified subparts. We are not 

reopening other aspects of Part 98. 

A. Revisions To Streamline 

Implementation of Part 98 

Following implementation of Part 98, 

the EPA has identified several areas of 

the rule which could be revised or 

simplified to improve the efficiency of 

the requirements or to reduce the 

burden on reporters and the EPA. We 

are consequently proposing several 

revisions that would streamline the 

requirements as well as improve 

implementation of the rule. 

Several of the proposed revisions 

would clarify and revise the 

requirements of Part 98 in order to focus 

the GHGRP and reporter resources on 

the most relevant data. In some cases, 

we are proposing to revise requirements 

to reduce when facilities must report 

emissions, such as by clarifying 

requirements for facilities that may 

report very little or no emissions. The 

EPA does not anticipate a significant 

change in the overall reported emissions 

or a reduction in the quality of reported 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

emissions and supply. Removing these 

instances of reporting would also reduce 

burden on some reporters. 

As an example, we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF to 

allow an underground coal mine to 

cease reporting after it has closed and its 

status is determined to be ‘‘abandoned’’ 

by MSHA. The CO2e emissions from 

abandoned and sealed mines are far 

below the reporting threshold. The EPA 

is proposing these types of changes to 

reduce burden, as well as to focus the 

collection of data under the GHGRP on 

those sources that are expected to emit, 

import, or export larger amounts of 

greenhouse gases. 

In addition, the EPA is proposing in 

this rulemaking that pilot gas, which is 

considered the gas used to maintain a 

pilot flame at the flare tip, may be 

excluded from the quantity of flare gas 

used to perform GHG emissions 

calculations for subparts Q (Iron and 

Steel Production), X (Petrochemical 

Production), and Y (Petroleum 

Refineries). The quantity of GHG 

emissions associated with pilot gas is 

very small relative to the total GHG 

emissions from a flare at petroleum 

refineries, petrochemical production 

facilities, and iron and steel production 

facilities. Eliminating the monitoring of 

this small quantity of emissions will not 

adversely impact the quality of the 

greenhouse gas data collected and may 

decrease the burden associated with 

monitoring the flare gas. We are 

proposing similar revisions to other 

subparts that simplify data collection for 

reporters and focus the provisions of the 

rule on the essential data that the EPA 

requires to review, assess, and verify 

reported emissions. 

Other proposed revisions to the rule 

include changes that would streamline 

the rule, such as removing reported data 

elements that are no longer necessary. 

For example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid 

Fuels), we are proposing to remove 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.386 that are 

no longer needed to support verification 

or other activities. In a prior notice, 

‘‘2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule and Final 

Confidentiality Determinations for New 

or Substantially Revised Data Elements’’ 

(78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013, 

hereafter referred to as ‘‘2013 Revisions 

Rule’’), we finalized amendments to 

subpart LL that removed requirements 

in 40 CFR 98.386 for suppliers to report 

the annual quantity of each product or 

natural gas liquid on the basis of the 

measurement method used. Subpart LL 

reporters are currently only required to 

report the total annual quantities of each 

product or natural gas liquid in metric 

tons or barrels supplied. In this action, 

we are proposing to remove the 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.386 that require 

suppliers to report the methods used to 

measure the quantities of each product 

reported. This change would harmonize 

with the previously finalized revisions 

which removed the requirement to 

report products by method and would 

reduce the burden on reporters. 

We are also proposing certain 

revisions that would streamline the 

reporting and verification process. 

These proposed changes would ease the 

burden on reporters (e.g., by reducing 

the actions required of reporters) and 

improve agency implementation of the 

rule. For example, we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s 

policies allowing reporters to cease 

reporting under Part 98. The existing 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i) provide 

options for reporters to discontinue 

reporting when annual emissions are 

less than certain thresholds, or if 

process operations are permanently shut 

down. We are proposing to clarify when 

these requirements apply for suppliers, 

processes or operations that cease 

operation in the reporting year, and 

facilities where the operations are 

changed such that a process or 

operation no longer meets the 

‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ for a 

subpart. These provisions are 

anticipated to streamline reporting by 

specifying when reporters are no longer 

required to report for a particular 

process or operation. 

We are proposing similar changes to 

Part 98 which would improve the 

efficiency of the reporting process. The 

specific changes that we are proposing 

that are intended to streamline Part 98, 

as described in this section, are 

described for each subpart, as 

appropriate, in sections III.A through 

III.Y of this preamble. 

B. Revisions To Improve the Quality of 

Data Collected Under Part 98 and 

Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

The EPA is also proposing 

amendments in this action that would 

improve the existing applicability, 

monitoring, or reporting requirements of 

Part 98 in order to enhance the quality 

and accuracy of the data collected under 

the GHGRP, improve verification of 

collected data, and provide additional 

data to help improve estimates included 

in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

Several of the amendments in this 

action are being proposed to improve 

the quality of the data collected under 

the GHGRP. The data collected under 

Part 98 are used to inform the EPA’s 

understanding of the relative emissions 

and distribution of emissions from 

specific industries, the factors that 

influence GHG emission rates, and to 

inform policy options and potential 

regulations. Following several years of 

implementation of the rule, the EPA has 

identified certain areas of the rule where 

clarifying amendments to source 

category definitions, revisions to 

calculation methodologies or 

monitoring methods, and revisions or 

additions to reporting requirements are 

needed to ensure that accurate data are 

being collected under the rule. For 

example, we are proposing revisions to 

subpart FF to revise the monitoring 

requirements for methane liberated from 

ventilation systems to remove the 

option to use quarterly testing by the 

MSHA. This change is being proposed 

because we have determined that the 

quarterly flowrate data gathered by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2546 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

MSHA cannot be used to reliably 

estimate coal mine emissions for GHG 

reporting purposes. Instead, coal mines 

will be required to use one of the other 

existing methods to measure emissions 

from ventilation, either collection of 

grab samples or use of continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 

In proposing this change, the EPA is 

seeking comment on whether other 

alternatives, such as surface level 

samples taken at the fan mouth, would 

achieve the same objectives for 

improved data quality from mine 

ventilation systems. The EPA is also 

seeking comment on increasing the 

frequency with which grab samples 

must be taken at underground coal 

mines. Currently coal mines must take 

grab samples on a quarterly basis and 

report methane liberation on a quarterly 

basis. In this action, the EPA is seeking 

comment on increasing the frequency of 

grab samples to monthly sampling in 

order to provide more transparent and 

reliable measurement of methane 

emissions from ventilation systems 

while more closely aligning the 

monitoring requirements for mine 

ventilation with those for degasification 

systems. The EPA also seeks comments 

on other monitoring frequencies higher 

than monthly (such as biweekly) or 

monitoring frequencies higher than 

quarterly but less than monthly (such as 

bimonthly). For comments on increasing 

the monitoring frequency and the 

availability of other alternative 

monitoring methods, the EPA 

encourages commenters to submit 

studies, data, and background 

information on multi-year ventilation 

system monitoring on a basis that is 

more frequent than quarterly. This 

information will help determine the 

appropriate frequency of monitoring for 

ventilation emissions that is needed to 

ensure reliable and accurate 

measurements. 

In another case, we are proposing to 

revise existing reporting requirements to 

collect more detailed facility data. For 

example, we are proposing to amend the 

reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 

98, subpart O (HFC–22 Production and 

HFC–23 Destruction) to require 

reporting of the information under 40 

CFR 98.156(a) at a process level. 

Currently, reporters are required to 

submit the annual mass of HCFC–22 

produced, the annual mass of reactants 

fed into the process, the annual mass of 

HFC–23 emitted, and additional 

information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at 

the facility level. Collecting this 

information on a process-level basis 

would further our understanding of 

emissions from HCFC–22 production 

processes and provide a more accurate 

emissions profile for this sector. 

Some of the proposed amendments 

include revisions to existing reporting 

requirements to clarify the data that are 

currently reported or improve 

verification of reported data. For 

example, we are proposing amendments 

to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH to add 

a requirement for landfills with gas 

collection systems to report the number 

of hours active gas flow was sent to each 

destruction device instead of the annual 

operating hours for each destruction 

device. This revision is needed in order 

for the EPA’s reporting tool to 

accurately calculate a key variable in 

certain equations used to calculate 

emissions. Although the proposed 

change would require different data to 

be reported, it would improve 

verification of the existing data by 

reducing the number of reporters that 

override their equation results, resulting 

in fewer verification errors and followup messages to reporters. 

We are also proposing several 

amendments to ensure data collected by 

the GHGRP adequately support the U.S. 

GHG Inventory. As described in the 

preamble of the proposed GHG 

Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 

2009), the GHGRP is intended to 

supplement and complement the U.S. 

GHG Inventory by advancing the 

understanding of emission processes 

and monitoring methodologies for 

particular source categories or sectors. 

Specifically, the GHGRP complements 

the U.S. GHG Inventory by providing 

data from individual facilities and 

suppliers above certain thresholds to 

improve the assumptions and emissions 

values used in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

The collected facility, unit, and processlevel GHG data from the GHGRP 

provide and confirm the national 

statistics and emission estimates 

presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory, 

which are calculated using aggregated 

national data. These proposed 

amendments include clarifications to 

source category definitions, revisions to 

calculation methodologies, and 

revisions or additions to reporting 

requirements that will improve the 

accuracy of the data included in the 

U.S. GHG Inventory and improve our 

ability to inform the development of 

GHG policies and programs. For 

example, we are proposing revisions to 

40 CFR part 98, subpart E (Adipic Acid 

Production) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

V (Nitric Acid Production) that would 

require reporting of the date of 

installation of any abatement systems (if 

applicable). The addition of these data 

elements would help improve the 

accuracy of trend estimates for these 

sectors in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

Specifically, the proposed data elements 

would allow the agency to apply 

emission factors with and without 

abatement systems over the correct time 

periods using the reported dates. 

The specific changes that we are 

proposing for each subpart, as 

appropriate, are described in sections 

III.A through III.Y of this preamble. 

C. Other Amendments 

In addition to the amendments 

described in sections II.A and II.B of 

this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

other amendments to certain subparts of 

Part 98. Through outreach and 

communication with stakeholders, the 

EPA has identified certain aspects of the 

rule that may require substantive 

revision, such as amending calculation, 

monitoring, or measurement methods to 

provide flexibility for certain facilities, 

or to more accurately reflect industry 

processes and emissions. These changes 

would respond to comments raised by 

stakeholders in prior rulemakings and 

issues raised by petitioners for certain 

subparts, and would more closely align 

rule requirements with the processes 

conducted at specific facilities. For 

example, for 40 CFR part 98, subpart TT 

(Industrial Waste Landfills), we are 

proposing to add several waste types for 

pulp and paper, including associated 

degradable organic content (DOC) and kvalues, to Table TT–1 of subpart TT to 

include common industrial waste 

subtypes. The EPA is proposing these 

revisions following comments on 2013 

Revisions Rule, in which stakeholders 

requested the EPA add these common 

waste types to Table TT–1 of subpart 

TT. These proposed revisions would 

improve the accuracy of calculated 

emissions reported by these facilities. 

Additional details for the 

amendments described in this section 

are discussed for each subpart, as 

appropriate, in sections III.A through 

III.Y of this preamble. 

D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and 

Harmonizing Revisions 

The EPA is proposing additional 

minor corrections, clarifications, and 

harmonizing revisions that would 

improve understanding of the rule. 

These revisions primarily include 

simple revisions of requirements to 

better reflect the EPA’s intent, such as 

clarifying changes to definitions, 

calculation methodologies, monitoring 

and quality assurance requirements, 

missing data procedures, and reporting 

requirements. Some of these proposed 

changes result from questions raised by 

reporters through the GHGRP Help Desk 

or e-GGRT and are intended to resolve 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2547 

uncertainties in the regulatory text. The 

proposed changes would reduce 

confusion for reporters and correct 

inconsistencies in the rule. 

In some cases, we are proposing 

minor amendments that would clarify 

general monitoring requirements, 

measurement methods, or reported data 

elements. These revisions include less 

substantive changes, such as simple 

corrections to calculation terms, 

revisions of cross-references, 

harmonizing changes (such as changes 

to terminology within a subpart for 

consistency), simple editorial 

corrections, and removal of redundant 

text. As discussed earlier in section II of 

this preamble, these less substantive 

revisions are summarized in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526). 

III. Proposed Amendments to Each 

Subpart 

This section summarizes the specific 

substantive amendments proposed for 

each Part 98 subpart, as generally 

described in section II of this preamble. 

Sections III.A through III.Z of this 

preamble also identify where additional 

minor corrections to a subpart are 

included in the Table of Revisions. 

A. Subpart A—General Provisions 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart A of Part 98. This 

section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart A; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart A To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

several amendments that are intended to 

simplify and streamline the 

requirements of subpart A and increase 

the efficiency of the report submittal 

process. First, we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s 

policies allowing reporters to cease 

reporting under Part 98. The existing 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) 

provide options for reporters to 

discontinue reporting if annual 

emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e 

for five reporting years or less than 

15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years, 

or if process operations are permanently 

shut down. There has been confusion 

among reporters as to whether these offramp provisions apply to both direct 

emitters and suppliers, given the use of 

the term ‘‘emissions’’ in 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(1) and (2) since suppliers report 

the quantity of product supplied into 

the economy and the emissions that 

would occur if the products were 

completely released, combusted, or 

oxidized when used by their customers. 

The EPA’s original intention was that 

these off-ramp provisions apply to both 

suppliers (subparts LL through QQ) and 

direct emitters (subparts A through KK 

and subparts SS and TT), as well as the 

Injection of Carbon Dioxide source 

category (subpart UU). The EPA is 

adding a new paragraph to 40 CFR 

98.2(i) to clarify this point. We are 

proposing to retain the current language 

in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) (i.e., 

‘‘reported emissions’’) to continue to 

refer to direct emitters and to add new 

paragraph 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to clarify 

that the provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) 

and (2) apply to suppliers (i.e., by 

specifying in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) that 40 

CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers 

by substituting the term ‘‘quantity of 

GHG supplied’’ for ‘‘emissions’’ in 40 

CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2)). For example, a 

supplier of industrial greenhouse gases 

might qualify under proposed 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an 

exporter of industrial greenhouse gases 

because GHG exports are less than 

25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years 

(i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)). 

Further, we have clarified that, for 

suppliers, these off-ramp provisions 

apply individually to each importer, 

exporter, petroleum refinery, 

fractionator of natural gas liquids, local 

natural gas distribution company, and 

producer of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), or fluorinated 

greenhouse gases. For example, 

regarding the example above where a 

supplier of industrial greenhouse gases 

qualifies under proposed 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an 

exporter of industrial greenhouse gases, 

this same supplier would still be 

required to report as an importer if they 

also report GHG imports that do not 

qualify under proposed 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting 

because GHG imports are not less than 

the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(1) or (2). Likewise, a company 

might qualify under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to 

discontinue reporting as a supplier of 

industrial greenhouse gases under 

subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases) because the reported 

quantity of industrial greenhouse gases 

supplied is less than 15,000 mtCO2e for 

three reporting years (i.e., as provided in 

40 CFR 98.2(i)(2)), but the company 

might still be required to report as a 

supplier of carbon dioxide under 

subpart PP because the reported 

quantity of carbon dioxide supplied is 

not less than the thresholds specified in 

40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Additionally, 

the proposed off-ramp requirements for 

suppliers would be applied separately 

from those for direct emitters. This 

would occur whether the supplier and 

direct emitter report as two separate 

entities in e-GGRT or, for simplicity, as 

one entity in e-GGRT. For example, if a 

facility reports under subpart Y (a direct 

emitter subpart) and subpart MM (a 

supplier subpart), and the facility meets 

the off-ramp requirements in proposed 

40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) for the GHG quantities 

reported under subpart MM but does 

not meet the off-ramp requirements in 

40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2) for GHG 

emissions under subpart Y, then the 

facility may cease reporting under 

subpart MM while still reporting under 

subpart Y. If the subpart MM and 

subpart Y data were submitted in two 

different annual reports under two 

different e-GGRT identification 

numbers, the facility would discontinue 

submitting reports for subpart MM all 

together while continuing to submit 

reports for subpart Y. If the subpart MM 

and subpart Y data were submitted in 

one annual report under one e-GGRT 

identification number, the facility 

would continue to submit reports under 

that e-GGRT identification number with 

the subpart Y data and without the 

subpart MM data. 

The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) 

allow reporters to discontinue reporting 

if all processes or operations cease 

operation (e.g., plant closure). There has 

been confusion among reporters as to 

whether there is a similar provision to 

cease reporting for situations where a 

single process or operation ceases 

operation. The EPA is proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to specify that 

reporting is not required for any process 

or operation that ceases operation in the 

reporting years following the reporting 

year in which the process or operation 

ceased operation, provided the owner or 

operator submits a notification to the 

Administrator and explains the reasons 

for the cessation of operation. For 

example, if a facility previously 

reporting under 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) 

and 40 CFR part 98, subpart T 

(Magnesium Production) removes all of 

their combustion sources, but continues 

their magnesium casting operations 

under subpart T, the proposed revision 

to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) would clarify that 

this facility is exempt from the subpart 

C reporting of the combustion processes 

in the reporting years following the year 

in which the combustion sources ceased 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2548 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

3According to 40 CFR 98.3(g), facilities using the 

Inputs Verification Tool are required to maintain all 

records at the facility for five years. Facilities that 

are not required to use the Inputs Verification Tool 

for any subparts under which they are reporting are 

required to maintain records for three years. 

operation. Note that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) 

does not apply to seasonal or other 

temporary cessation of operations, and 

that reporting must resume for any 

future calendar year during which any 

of the GHG-emitting processes or 

operations resume operation. A similar 

change is being proposed to streamline 

reporting for operators of underground 

coal mines subject to 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart FF. Specifically, we are 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to 

delete an exclusion for abandoned 

underground coal mines that precludes 

them from the off-ramp. Data submitted 

by closed and abandoned mines during 

the first four years of the GHGRP have 

improved the EPA’s understanding of 

emissions from these mines and have 

shown that they produce GHG 

emissions in quantities well below the 

reporting threshold. This change is 

further discussed in section III.R.1 of 

this preamble. 

In addition, there has been confusion 

regarding how Part 98 addresses 

situations where a facility no longer 

meets the ‘‘Definition of Source 

Category’’ specified in an applicable 

subpart. For example, subpart II of Part 

98 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) 

applies to anaerobic processes that treat 

wastewater from either meat processing 

operations (NAICS 3116) or fruit and 

vegetable processing (NAICS 3114). If a 

facility were subject to subpart II 

because it processes meat byproducts 

into human food, but switched its 

operations to producing animal food or 

to processing seafood rather than meat 

byproducts, then the processing plant 

would no longer meet the source 

category definition of ‘‘industrial 

wastewater treatment’’ in 40 CFR 98.350 

because it no longer falls under the 

classification of NAICS 3116. The 

facility, therefore, would not be subject 

to reporting under subpart II. The EPA 

is proposing to add a new provision in 

40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to clarify that if the 

operations of a facility or supplier are 

changed such that a process or 

operation no longer meets the 

‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as 

specified in an applicable subpart, then 

the owner or operator is exempt from 

reporting under any such subpart for the 

reporting years following the year in 

which change occurs, provided that the 

owner or operator submits a notification 

to the Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting for the process or 

operation no later than March 31 of the 

year following such changes. For any 

future calendar year during which the 

process or operation meets the 

‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as 

specified in an applicable subpart, the 

owner or operator would be required to 

resume reporting for the process or 

operation. 

Lastly, the EPA is proposing to limit 

resubmittal of reports to five years prior 

to the current reporting year. For 

example, in RY2016, resubmittal of 

reports from RY2011–2015 would be 

allowed, but a resubmittal of a RY2010 

report would no longer be permitted. 

The EPA currently requires facilities to 

resubmit past year reports for the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in 

which a substantive error is identified, 

and allows resubmittals going back to 

the first year of the program. Based on 

the resubmittals to the program to date, 

the EPA has determined that the 

number of reports that are resubmitted 

falls drastically after the active 

verification period of 6 months, and 

continues to fall over time. Because 

there is significant burden to the EPA 

for maintaining the reporting forms 

needed for facilities to resubmit reports 

for past years, the EPA is seeking 

comment on limiting the resubmittals to 

5-years prior to the current reporting 

year. The EPA would set the limit at five 

years in part because there is a 5-year 

recordkeeping requirement in Part 98.3

The EPA has determined that this 

change will have minimal impact on the 

quality of the data set, as resubmissions 

for past years to date have not impacted 

overall sector or total emission trends. 

While this change would not require a 

revision to the regulatory text, the EPA 

wishes to seek input from stakeholders 

prior to implementing this policy. As a 

result, in this action, the EPA is asking 

for comment on limiting resubmittal of 

reports to five years before the current 

reporting year. 

2. Revisions to Subpart A To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

The EPA is proposing several 

amendments to subpart A that would 

improve the quality of the data collected 

under the GHGRP. For the reasons 

described in section II.B of this 

preamble, these proposed revisions are 

intended to collect data that would 

improve the EPA’s understanding of 

sector GHG emissions, and are 

anticipated to generally result in only a 

slight increase in burden for reporters. 

First we are proposing revisions to 40 

CFR 98.3(c) to revise the content of the 

annual report to include three new data 

elements to uniquely identify 

individually reported fluorinated GHGs 

and fluorinated heat transfer fluids 

(HTF): Chemical name, CAS registry 

number, and the linear chemical 

formula. Currently, 40 CFR 

98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E) and (F) require 

reporting of each fluorinated GHG and 

fluorinated HTF from applicable source 

categories, and 40 CFR 98.3(c)(5)(ii) 

requires the reporting of each 

fluorinated GHG from suppliers. The 

rule, however, does not specify how to 

identify each compound; instead, only 

the name of a GHG is required in a 

facility’s annual report. Generally, 

reporters identify the GHGs in their 

annual report from Table A–1 of subpart 

A, which provides a list of fluorinated 

GHG along with the GWP of each gas, 

a registry number assigned by the 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and 

the chemical formula. When newly 

developed compounds are not listed in 

Table A–1 of subpart A, reporters 

classify the GHG as ‘‘other’’ and provide 

a chemical name. In these situations, 

different reporters sometimes refer to 

the ‘‘other’’ gas by different names (e.g., 

a standard IUPAC name as well as one 

or more common or trade names), 

especially when compounds have more 

than one name that is scientifically 

valid. This also results in facilities 

reporting the same gas under a different 

name from year to year. As an example, 

in prior reporting years, separate 

facilities under 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

I (Electronics Manufacturing) have 

reported emissions of the same 

fluorinated GHGs under multiple 

common names (e.g., 

octafluorotetrahydrofuran may be 

reported separately as 

octafluorotetrahydrofuran, 

perfluorotetrahydrofuran, and c-C4F8O). 

Further, with the fast pace of technology 

development, new fluorinated 

chemicals are routinely being 

developed. Because of the rapid pace at 

which new chemicals enter the 

marketplace, it is not feasible for the 

EPA to update Table A–1 or the 

fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF 

lists in the GHGRP’s electronic reporting 

system fast enough to keep pace with all 

chemicals in use at any point in time. 

If a fluorinated GHG were to be reported 

under a different name in a future 

reporting year, it could result in delays 

or errors in data analysis and trends if 

the GHGRP dataset contains information 

for the GHG associated with two 

different names. 

To improve the usefulness of the 

emissions and supplier data reported, 

we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

98.3(c)(4) and (5) to include two 

additional identifiers of fluorinated 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2549 

4Substance Registry Services (SRS) is the EPA’s 

central system for information about substances that 

are tracked or regulated by EPA or other sources. 

It is the authoritative resource for basic information 

about chemicals, biological organisms, and other 

substances of interest to EPA and its state and tribal 

partners. See http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/

registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do. 

GHGs and fluorinated HTFs so that each 

compound can be identified 

unambiguously. To the extent available, 

we propose to require chemical 

identifiers provided by national 

consensus organizations. The 

International Union of Pure and 

Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides a 

naming convention that can be used for 

all organic chemicals. The Chemical 

Abstracts Service (CAS) of the American 

Chemical Society assigns a chemical 

registry number that is widely used in 

industry and academia to identify 

individual chemical compounds. 

However, even with these two 

standardized services, we have learned 

that chemicals often are reported under 

different names for a variety of reasons. 

Therefore, knowing the linear chemical 

formula would help the EPA to classify 

compounds consistently. (We are 

proposing to require reporting of the 

linear chemical formula rather than the 

condensed chemical formula because 

the former provides information on the 

structure of the fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that is useful for 

identifying the compound and 

distinguishing it from other fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that have the 

same number of atoms of each element 

in different arrangements.) Accordingly, 

we are proposing to require reporting all 

three of the following data elements to 

ensure that the EPA can properly 

classify and identify each unique 

compound reported: 

• Chemical name. If a chemical is not 

included in Table A–1 of subpart A (or 

not listed in the Web forms in the EPA’s 

reporting tool), then facilities or 

suppliers would be required to report 

the name using the chemical naming 

convention provided by IUPAC. 

• CAS Registry Number. If a CAS 

number is not assigned or if the CAS 

number is not associated with a single 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat 

transfer fluid, then reporters would 

report an identification number 

assigned by the EPA’s Substance 

Registry Services.4

• Linear chemical formula. 

Next, we are proposing to add a 

sentence to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8) to clarify 

the missing data provisions. The 

proposed revision explains that missing 

data provisions apply not only to 

reported parameters, but to any 

parameter used to monitor or calculate 

emissions. Use of missing data 

procedures can affect the accuracy of an 

emission estimate regardless of whether 

that parameter is reported. It is the 

EPA’s intention that the effect be 

documented, such that the accuracy of 

the reported emissions may be better 

understood. 

We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 

98.4(i) to update the content of the 

certificate of representation (COR). For 

each facility or supplier, all GHG reports 

and other communications are 

submitted by a ‘‘designated 

representative’’ of the owners and 

operators of the facility or supplier. The 

designated representative (DR) acts as a 

legal representative between the facility 

or supplier and the agency. The DR is 

appointed by submitting to the EPA a 

COR at least 60 days prior to the 

deadline for submission of the initial 

annual GHG report. Currently, 40 CFR 

98.4(i) specifies that the COR must 

contain the following information: 

• Identification of the facility or 

supplier; 

• Name and contact information for 

the DR; 

• A list of the owners and operators 

of the facility or supplier; 

• Certification statements that the DR 

was appointed by a binding agreement 

with the owners and operators, that the 

DR has the necessary authority to carry 

out the duties and responsibilities on 

behalf of the owners and operators, and 

that the owners and operators are bound 

by the representations, actions, 

inactions, or submissions of the DR; and 

• Signature of the DR. 

We are proposing the addition of one 

item to the COR, which is a list of all 

the 40 CFR 98 subparts under which the 

facility or supplier intends to report. 

The information on the subparts 

anticipated to be reported is for the 

EPA’s internal planning and 

management purposes, and would 

streamline the EPA’s internal processes 

related to preparing for upcoming 

reporting seasons. This new COR 

requirement would impose no new 

burden on reporters. The revised 

content of the COR would apply only to 

newly submitted CORs for facilities that 

have not previously reported to the 

GHGRP. The DR would not be required 

to re-submit a previously submitted 

COR to add the new information. For 

example, the new information would 

not be required for a revised COR that 

is submitted to change the DR, address, 

or list of owners. The information 

submitted on anticipated subpart 

applicability would be based on 

whatever applicability analysis the 

facility or supplier has conducted on 

their own to determine that Part 98 

applies, and on best engineering 

judgment as to the specific subparts that 

apply at the time that the COR is 

submitted. There would be no legal 

obligation to include GHG data for a 

particular subpart in the annual GHG 

report only because that subpart was 

included in the list of subparts 

submitted in the COR. Rather, the 

annual report must include all of the 

subparts that the DR determines meet 

the applicability requirements of 40 CFR 

98.2 at any time during a reporting year. 

Also, the facility or supplier is not 

required to maintain any records to 

support the listing of subparts in the 

COR. 

Finally, we are proposing to add 

provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to include a 

requirement that a facility must inform 

the EPA whenever the facility (or 

supplier) stops reporting under one eGGRT identification number because 

the emissions (or quantity supplied) are 

being reported under another e-GGRT 

identification number. The EPA 

anticipates that this would occur when 

one facility purchases another facility 

(in its entirety) that is physically 

adjacent. The emissions from the 

purchased process equipment would 

automatically become part of the facility 

for the purchaser, and the facility 

previously reported by the seller would 

no longer exist. In general, the rule 

currently requires a facility reporting 

under an e-GGRT identification number 

to have a valid reason for discontinuing 

reporting under that e-GGRT 

identification number and to notify the 

EPA of that valid reason. The e-GGRT 

system is set up to collect such 

notification from the discontinuing 

reporter, and the EPA routinely follows 

up with all facilities that have 

discontinued reporting without 

providing a valid reason. On several 

occasions, a facility that was 

discontinuing reporting under its eGGRT identification number contacted 

the GHGRP Help Desk in an attempt to 

notify the EPA that the emissions would 

be reported under another e-GGRT 

identification number. In those cases, 

the discontinuing reporter was looking 

for a formal way to transfer the reporting 

obligation to the other facility and 

confirm that the reporter was no longer 

responsible for reporting those 

emissions. The rule currently does not 

require reporting of any information 

from which the EPA could ascertain that 

the discontinuation of reporting was 

done for a valid reason or with which 

the discontinuing reporter could make a 

formal notification. To ensure that the 

EPA is aware of situations when an 

annual report for a facility or supplier 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2550 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

5The EPA publishes Frequently Asked Questions 

to provide general and administrative information 

about 40 CFR part 98. FAQ 749 is available at: 

http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/

viewpage.action?pageId=198705183. 

is no longer required because the 

emissions will now be reported under a 

different facility, we are proposing the 

following changes: If a facility reported 

GHG emissions in the previous year, 

and the GHG emissions are being 

reported as part of another facility in the 

current reporting year, the prior facility 

must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT 

facility identification number under 

which the emissions are reported in the 

current reporting year. A similar 

requirement would apply to suppliers. 

In other words, whenever a business 

relationship such as an acquisition, 

merger, or joint venture abrogates a 

facility or supplier that previously 

registered in e-GGRT and submitted an 

annual GHG report, the designated 

representative for the subsumed facility 

or supplier would have to report the eGGRT identification number of the 

reconstituted facility or supplier. The 

facility identification number should be 

readily available to the reporter, and 

this change would allow the EPA to 

better assess compliance with the 

Program while providing the subsumed 

facility or supplier a formal method of 

notifying the EPA of their valid reason 

for discontinuing reporting. This 

provision would not include Onshore 

Petroleum and Natural Gas Production 

Facilities reporting under subpart W, 

consistent with FAQ 749,5 which 

currently does not require these 

facilities to notify the EPA when they 

discontinue reporting because of a 

change in ownership of all wells and 

associated equipment in a basin. In 

proposing this change, the EPA is 

seeking comment on whether requiring 

the reconstituted entity to report the eGGRT identification number of the 

subsumed facility or supplier would 

impose less burden on the regulated 

community while achieving the same 

objectives. 

For more information on subpart A 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

3. Other Amendments to Subpart A 

For reasons described in section II.C 

of this preamble, we are also proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 98.3(h)(4) to simplify 

the process for requesting an extension 

for the reporter to respond to the EPA’s 

questions on a submitted report or 

submit a revised report to correct a 

reporting error identified by the EPA 

during report verification. Currently, 

reporters are allowed a 45-day period to 

respond to the EPA’s questions and may 

request an extension of 30 days, which 

is automatically granted, if needed. The 

Administrator may also grant an 

additional extension beyond the 

automatic 30-day extension, if the 

owner or operator submits a request for 

an additional extension at least 5 

business days prior to the expiration of 

the automatic 30-day extension. We are 

proposing to remove the requirement 

that the request for an extension beyond 

the automatic 30 days must be 

submitted at least 5 days prior to the 

expiration of the automatic 30-day 

extension. Reporters would still be 

required to submit a request for the 

additional extension, but they may do 

so closer to (but not after) the expiration 

date of the automatic 30-day extension. 

We are also proposing two 

amendments to subpart A of Part 98 to 

clarify a definition in 40 CFR 98.6. We 

are proposing to amend the definition of 

‘‘gas collection system’’ to clarify that 

active venting systems that convey 

landfill gas to the surface of the landfill 

by mechanical convection, but the 

landfill gas is never recovered or 

thermally destroyed prior to release to 

the atmosphere, are not considered a 

landfill gas collection system. The 

requirements in subpart HH for gas 

collection systems are specific to 

landfill gas that is recovered or 

destroyed, but ‘‘active venting’’ systems 

appear to meet the definition of gas 

collection systems. The proposed 

revision clarifies that ‘‘active venting 

systems’’ are not subject to the 

monitoring and calculation 

requirements for landfills with gas 

collection systems. 

The EPA is proposing to amend the 

definitions for ‘‘ventilation hole or 

shaft’’ in 40 CFR 98.6 to clarify that the 

term ‘‘vent hole or shaft’’ for mine 

ventilation systems includes mine 

portals, adits, and other mine entrances 

and exits used to move air from the 

ventilation system out of the mine. The 

proposed change is prompted by 

questions that we have received from 

reporters during the first four years of 

implementation, seeking guidance on 

whether these ventilation system 

components are considered part of the 

source category definition. Portal and 

adit are terms sometimes used to 

describe mine entries and shafts. The 

intent of the rule is to capture all points 

in the ventilation system where 

methane emissions may exhaust to the 

atmosphere. Adding these terms should 

provide clarity for reporters. We do not 

expect this rule change to result in an 

additional burden to reporters; it is a 

clarification to provide further guidance 

in applicability. However, the EPA does 

expect this proposed change to improve 

the accuracy of reporting. 

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart A 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor corrections and 

clarifications to subpart A of Part 98, 

including clarifications to definitions, 

editorial changes, and clarifications to 

reporting requirements. These minor 

revisions are summarized in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

B. Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart C of Part 98. This 

section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart C; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart C To Improve 

Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

revisions that would allow the EPA to 

collect data that would improve the 

EPA’s ability to verify data under Part 

98, while generally resulting in only a 

slight increase in burden for reporters. 

First, the EPA is proposing to require 

reporting of the moisture content used 

to correct the default high heating value 

(HHV) for wood and wood residuals 

(dry basis) in Table C–1, in accordance 

with the procedures of footnote 5 in 

Table C–1. The Table C–1 default HHV 

for wood and wood residuals assumes 

that the wood and wood residuals are 

dry (i.e., zero percent moisture content). 

However, wood and wood residuals are 

often wet when combusted. Applying 

the wet weight of the wood to the dry 

basis HHV overestimates emissions, as a 

portion of the weight that is combusted 

is water. 

Facilities raised this concern through 

the GHGRP Help Desk and the EPA 

responded by adding footnote 5 to Table 

C–1 in the 2013 Revisions Rule, which 

allowed reporters to correct the default 

dry basis HHV to a wet basis. Currently 

e-GGRT and IVT require the use of the 

default dry basis HHV when reporting 

wood and wood residuals using 

Equations C–1 and C–8. For reporters 

that need to correct their HHV, the only 

option available is to override the eGGRT or IVT calculated value, which is 

on a dry basis. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2551 

6The October 24, 2014 action used the process 

established in the notice ‘‘Change to the Reporting 

Date for Certain Data Elements Required Under the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule’’ 

(76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011, hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Final Deferral Notice’’) and the 

accompanying memorandum entitled ‘‘Process for 

Evaluating and Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs 

to Emission Equations’’ (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0929) to determine if there are any 

associated disclosure concerns. In the ‘‘Revisions to 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements under 

the GHGRP’’ (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014, 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Final Inputs Rule’’), the 

EPA finalized an approach for addressing 

disclosure concerns associated with inputs to 

emissions equations, in which the inputs for which 

disclosure concerns were identified are entered and 

verified in the EPA’s inputs verification tool (IVT). 

IVT is a software tool that verifies emissions 

without the inputs being reported to EPA. Inputs to 

emissions equations for which disclosure concerns 

have been identified are entered into the tool. IVT 

uses the entered inputs to calculate emission 

equation results. IVT does not retain the entered 

inputs but conducts certain checks of the inputs 

and calculated emissions values and generates a 

verification summary. The same process was used 

for the evaluation of this new input to equation data 

element. 

7 40 CFR 98.36(f) specifies the following criteria 

for combustion sources: (1) The stationary fuel 

combustion source contains at least one combustion 

unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator 

owned or operated by an entity that is subject to 

regulation of customer billing rates by the public 

utility commission (excluding generators that are 

connected to combustion units that are subject to 

subpart D of this part); and (2) the stationary fuel 

combustion source is located at a facility for which 

the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric 

generators specified in paragraph (f)(1) of this 

section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt 

electric output. 

8 If a reporter elects to report the moisture content 

of wood and wood residuals for a source that does 

not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f), 

e-GGRT will require the reporter to waive the right 

to make confidentiality claims before reporting the 

moisture content via e-GGRT. 

The EPA is proposing to add the 

moisture correction calculation as a 

reporting element, as well as a data 

element that would be entered into IVT 

for those reporters using IVT. This 

would allow the EPA to verify the 

accuracy of the moisture content and 

resultant emissions. Based on current 

reporting year data, approximately 132 

facilities (167 units) would be affected 

by this new data element. The EPA 

anticipates that the impact of this new 

data element will be minimal, as 

moisture content is already determined 

by the facilities that correct the HHV of 

their wood products. 

Because the new data element is an 

input to an emission equation, the EPA 

evaluated the data element to determine 

if its public release would cause 

disclosure concerns as was done for all 

inputs to equations through a previous 

action (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014).6

In the evaluation conducted for the 

October 24, 2014 action, the EPA 

described in section 2.2 of Part 2 of the 

memorandum ‘‘Final Evaluation of 

Competitive Harm from Disclosure of 

‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements 

Deferred to March 31, 2015,’’ September 

2014 (available in Docket Id. No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2010–0929) that data related 

to ‘‘process design, process 

performance, and/or cost to do 

business’’ could be detrimental to a 

firm’s competitiveness. After 

considering this newly proposed data 

element, we have determined that for 

those subpart C combustion sources that 

do not meet the criteria specified in 40 

CFR 98.36(f),7 this data element fits the 

description of being related to ‘‘process 

design, process performance, and/or 

costs to do business.’’ Specifically, for 

industrial facilities that produce wood 

and wood residuals as a production 

process byproduct (e.g., pulp and paper 

production), the moisture content of the 

wood and wood residuals affects the 

heating value of the wood fuel used to 

produce steam for the production 

process. As such, moisture content 

could reveal information about process 

efficiency and the cost to produce a 

product. However, given the wide range 

of industries subject to the wood and 

wood residuals reporting requirements 

under subpart C, it is possible that there 

are industries that do not have concerns 

disclosing the proposed new data 

element. In light of the above, we 

propose to allow reporters to elect under 

40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 

98.36(a) (for subpart C sources that do 

not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 

98.36(f)) to either enter the moisture 

content into IVT or, if potential 

disclosure is not a concern to the 

reporter, report the data.8 If a reporter 

were to elect to enter the data into IVT, 

the reporter would also be required to 

keep a record of the data as specified in 

proposed new 40 CFR 98.37(b)(37). 

After considering whether disclosure 

concerns exist for those sources that 

meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), the 

EPA has determined that the moisture 

content of the wood and wood residuals 

would not reveal any proprietary 

information about facility or process 

performance, design, and operation; cost 

to do business; raw material usage; or 

production. Site-specific fuel 

characteristics do not vary significantly 

from publicly-known average values. 

Additionally for the electric utilities, 

this sector has experienced a high level 

of transparency due to the practice of 

passing fuel costs through to paying 

customers. The EPA is proposing that, 

for sources that meet the criteria in 40 

CFR 98.36(f), there are no disclosure 

concerns and the moisture content of 

the wood and wood residuals must be 

reported in e-GGRT. 

For emissions reported using the 

aggregation of units (GP) and common 

pipe (CP) configurations, the EPA does 

not currently have the ability to 

compare emissions to the cumulative 

maximum rated heat input capacity for 

the units in the configuration. This 

information is important for verifying 

these emissions. The EPA is proposing 

to resolve this gap in verification by 

requiring reporting of the cumulative 

maximum rated heat input capacity for 

all units (within the configuration) that 

have a maximum rated heat input 

capacity greater than or equal to 10 

(mmBtu/hr). 

When originally promulgated, 40 CFR 

98.36(c) required the cumulative heat 

input capacity for all units in GP and CP 

configurations. These requirements 

were removed in December 2010 

amendments to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule (75 FR 79092, December 

17, 2010). The 2010 final rule noted that 

for verification purposes, ‘‘the only 

critical data element is the maximum 

rated heat input capacity of the largest 

unit in the group’’ (75 FR 79117). 

Although the highest maximum rated 

heat input capacity of any unit in these 

configurations is useful in verifying 

compliance with the rule requirements, 

it does not provide enough information 

to assess the quality of emissions 

reported under these configurations. 

Currently over 50 percent nonbiogenic CO2 reported under subpart C 

is reported using GP and CP 

configurations. Therefore, we have 

identified the need to obtain additional 

information on these reporting 

configurations to further assess data 

quality for these reported emissions. 

The cumulative maximum rated heat 

input capacity will be used to verify that 

emissions data are not over or under 

reported for GP and CP configurations. 

In the December 2010 amendments 

(75 FR 79117), commenters highlighted 

the burden associated with determining 

the maximum rated heat input capacity 

and maintaining an equipment count for 

small domestic combustion sources 

(e.g., water heaters, furnaces, space 

heaters) located at large industrial 

facilities. The EPA agrees with the 

commenters’ position and believes that 

meaningful data verification can be 

achieved without requiring information 

on small domestic combustions sources, 

as GHG emissions data are typically 

dominated by larger emission units. 

There were approximately 7,000 GP 

and CP configurations reported in 2014, 

out of the total 18,000 configurations 

reported in subpart C. Of these, 

approximately 2,250 reporting 

configurations reported that the highest 

maximum rated heat input capacity of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2552 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

any unit in the configuration was less 

than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The total nonbiogenic CO2 reported from these 2,250 

configurations was approximately 2 

percent of the total non-biogenic CO2

reported for all 7,000 GP and CP 

configurations. The remaining 98 

percent of non-biogenic CO2 reported 

came from the 4,750 GP and CP 

configurations that identified the 

highest maximum rated heat input 

capacity of any unit as greater than or 

equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). These data 

provide evidence that using the heat 

input capacity information from units 

greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr 

will allow for meaningful data 

validation without mandating overburdensome requirements for reporters. 

When reporting the cumulative 

maximum rated heat input capacity, 

reporters will not be required to account 

for units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. For GP 

configurations, this means that the 

cumulative maximum rated heat input 

capacity will be determined as the sum 

of the maximum rated heat input 

capacities for all units in the group that 

are greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/ 

hr) and less than or equal to 250 

(mmBtu/hr). Units with a maximum 

rated heat input capacity greater than 

250 mmBtu/hr are not allowed to use 

the GP configuration. For CP 

configurations, the cumulative 

maximum rated heat input capacity will 

be determined as the sum of the 

maximum rated heat input capacities for 

all units served by the pipe that are 

greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). 

Note that fuel use and corresponding 

emissions are still required to be 

reported for units with a maximum 

rated heat input capacity less than 10 

(mmBtu/hr). Emissions reporting of 

GHGs for GP and CP configurations will 

remain unchanged. 

Approximately 2,250 existing GP and 

CP reporting configurations will not be 

affected by this new requirement. 

Approximately 4,750 GP and CP 

reporting configurations will be 

required to determine and report 

cumulative maximum rated heat input 

capacity. This equates to approximately 

3,540 affected facilities (out of the 

roughly 5,925 reporting in subpart C). 

However, many of these affected 

facilities will likely benefit from not 

having to account for units with a heat 

input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). 

The EPA believes that the burden 

associated with determining the 

cumulative maximum rated heat input 

capacity for GP and CP configurations 

will be minimal. Existing air permits 

and compliance records for other federal 

and state regulations likely contain heat 

input capacity data for many of the 

affected sources (i.e., units greater than 

or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr). The proposed 

requirement for reporting of the 

cumulative maximum rated heat input 

capacity for GP and CP reporting 

configurations would greatly improve 

the ability to verify emissions for these 

configurations. 

For more information on subpart C 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

2. Other Amendments to Subpart C 

For the reasons described in section 

II.C of this preamble, we are proposing 

revisions to the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart C (General Stationary 

Fuel Combustion Sources) to (1) clarify 

the reporting requirements when the 

results of HHV sampling are received 

less frequently than monthly for certain 

sources; (2) streamline the conversion 

factors used to convert short tons to 

metric tons; and (3) revise Tables C–1 

and C–2 to more clearly define emission 

factors for certain petroleum products. 

First, we are proposing to amend 40 

CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the 

definition of terms for Equation C–2b in 

cases where the results of HHV 

sampling are received less frequently 

than monthly. Reporters subject to 40 

CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation 

C–2b, however the equation currently 

defines the frequency of HHV sampling 

as monthly. This proposed revision will 

replace the term ‘‘month’’ in the 

equation inputs ‘‘(HHV)I,’’ ‘‘(Fuel)I,’’ 

and ‘‘n’’ with the term ‘‘samples.’’ 

We are proposing changes to Tables 

C–1 and C–2 to remove duplication and 

to further classify several fuels to 

provide clarity. These changes are 

minor clarifications to existing rule 

requirements and, therefore, do not 

impact the burden on reporters. The 

first change that we are proposing to 

Table C–1 is to remove duplication of 

default HHV and CO2 emission factors 

for petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is 

currently listed under both the 

‘‘Petroleum products’’ category and 

‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ category. To avoid 

confusion with the classification of this 

fuel, we propose to remove petroleum 

coke from both of these categories and 

to include the fuel under a new category 

entitled ‘‘Petroleum products—solid.’’ 

The second change to Table C–1 

proposed is to move the fuel propane 

gas from the ‘‘Other fuels—gaseous’’ 

category into a new category entitled 

‘‘Petroleum products—gaseous.’’ 

Propane is also included under the 

‘‘Petroleum products’’ category, and we 

are not proposing to remove propane 

from this category as a majority of 

reporters use this fuel type when 

reporting use of propane. To help clarify 

that all fuels in the ‘‘Petroleum 

products’’ category are liquid fuels, we 

propose to rename this category to 

‘‘Petroleum products—liquid.’’ In 

conjunction with the changes to Table 

C–1 for propane and petroleum coke, we 

are also proposing to change Table C– 

2 to further clarify that these fuels are 

considered petroleum products and 

their methane (CH4) and N2O emissions 

should be calculated and reported 

accordingly. Therefore we propose to 

change the ‘‘Petroleum (All fuel types in 

Table C–1)’’ category to ‘‘Petroleum 

Products (All fuel types in Table C–1),’’ 

which will encompass all liquid, solid, 

and gaseous petroleum products. 

We are also proposing another change 

to Table C–2 to further streamline the 

CH4 and N2O emission factors for fuels 

in the ‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ category. 

With the proposed reclassification of 

petroleum coke from this category to a 

new solid petroleum products category, 

the remaining fuels are municipal solid 

waste (MSW), tires and plastics. Both 

MSW and tires are listed in Table C–2 

and have identical CH4 and N2O 

emission factors, however plastics are 

not included in the table. We are 

proposing to combine the MSW and tire 

line items into an ‘‘Other fuels—solid’’ 

category, which would encompass all 

three solid fuels (i.e., MSW, tires and 

plastics). 

Finally, we are proposing to update 

the Standard Test Methods for 

Determining the Biobased Content of 

Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples 

using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM 

D6866–08) to the current standard 

(ASTM D6866–12). The proposed 

change would revise references to the 

method in 40 CFR 98.34(d) and (e), 40 

CFR 98.36(e)(2), and include a 

harmonizing change to 40 CFR 

98.7(e)(33). 

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart C 

In addition to the substantive changes 

proposed, as described in section II.D of 

this preamble, we are proposing minor 

revisions that are intended to clarify 

specific provisions in subpart C. These 

minor revisions are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

C. Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart E of Part 98 

(Adipic Acid Production). This section 

discusses all of the proposed 

amendments to subpart E. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2553 

9Recent research has revealed that PFC emissions 

may also occur from some aluminum smelters in 

the absence of anode effects as those are 

traditionally defined. These ‘‘non-anode-effect 

emissions’’ are particularly prevalent in recently 

built smelters that use very large cells, i.e., cells 

containing 40 or more anodes. Most U.S. smelters 

do not use such large cells. 

10See the final rule titled ‘‘Revisions to Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements, and 

Confidentiality Determinations Under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,’’ (79 FR 63753– 

54, October 24, 2014) for a full discussion of the 

Continued 

1. Revisions to Subpart E To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment that is intended to 

simplify and streamline the 

requirements of subpart E and increase 

the efficiency of the report submittal 

process. We are proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.53(a)(2) to remove the annual 

approval for an alternative method for 

determining N2O emissions request by 

the reporter and the annual request 

approval by the EPA if the reporter’s 

methodology has not changed. 

Reporters that are subject to subpart E 

are allowed to use an alternative method 

to calculate N2O emissions from the 

production of adipic acid. The 

alternative method must be approved by 

the EPA before being used to comply 

with subpart E. Currently, reporters who 

choose to use the alternative method are 

required to request approval on an 

annual basis and provide the following 

information: 

• The calculation method for 

determining annual N2O emissions; 

• associated data collection 

procedures (parameters, how the 

parameters will be determined, 

frequency of data collection); 

• initial and ongoing monitoring and 

quality assurance (QA)/quality control 

(QC) procedures; 

• missing data procedures that will be 

applied in the event that quality-assured 

parameters are unavailable (e.g., if a 

CEMS malfunctions during a unit 

operation); 

• any N2O emissions abatement 

technology that is being used on this 

unit or process; 

• any specific test methods or 

industry consensus standards that 

would be applied (ASTM, EPA, etc.) for 

data collection or monitoring; and 

• any data reporting elements, in 

addition to the elements required in the 

rules, which would be provided to the 

EPA to verify the calculated emissions 

using the alternative method. 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is 

proposing to allow additional flexibility 

in the use of alternative methods by 

removing the annual approval request. 

Unless there have been changes in the 

reporter’s methodology. If a reporter 

received approval to use an alternative 

method in the previous reporting year 

and the methodology has not changed, 

the EPA is proposing that the request for 

use of the alternative method be 

automatically approved for subsequent 

reporting years. For most reporters, the 

alternative method is based on 

innovative methodologies that are 

already in practice at the facility, so the 

underlying monitoring, data collection, 

and QA/QC procedures used are 

unlikely to change from one reporting 

year to the next. The reporter would 

only need to notify the EPA that it is 

using an already approved alternative 

method. This notification would be 

included in the annual report 

submission. If, however, a reporter 

makes any changes to the previouslyapproved alternative method, then it 

must request permission to use the 

revised method as stated in 40 CFR 

98.53(a)(2). Not only would this 

proposed change add flexibility to the 

reporters, it would also reduce the 

burden for reporters to comply with 

subpart E. By requiring requests only for 

new approvals or for methodologies that 

have changed since prior approval, the 

EPA burden required to review and 

approve the methodologies would also 

be reduced. 

2. Revisions to Subpart E To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment that is intended to 

improve the quality of data collected 

under subpart E while generally 

resulting in only a slight increase in 

burden for reporters. We are proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 98.56(f) to require 

reporting of the date of installation of 

any N2O abatement technology (if 

applicable). This information is readily 

available or already collected by 

reporters, and would not require 

additional data collection or monitoring. 

This data element could be carried over 

from one reporting year to the next. The 

reporter would not be required to make 

changes unless additional abatement 

technology is installed at a later date. 

The addition of this data element would 

help improve our understanding of the 

use and trends in emissions reduction 

technologies and the accuracy of the 

U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the 

accuracy of trend estimates for this 

sector. Specifically, the proposed data 

element would allow for improved 

analysis of emissions by enabling the 

EPA to more accurately apply the 

applicable emission factors over specific 

time periods, depending on whether the 

emissions were exhausted to an N2O 

abatement technology during that time 

period. For more information on subpart 

E confidentiality determinations 

resulting from these proposed revisions, 

see section IV of this preamble. 

D. Subpart F—Aluminum Production 

In this action, we are proposing 

several technical amendments to 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart F (Aluminum 

Production). This section discusses the 

substantive changes to subpart F; 

additional minor corrections and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart F To Improve 

Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and 

Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

several amendments to 40 CFR 98, 

subpart F to improve the quality of the 

data collected under Part 98 and 

improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. We 

are proposing to require reporting of two 

data elements that influence 

perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from 

aluminum production: annual average 

anode effect minutes per cell-day and 

annual smelter-specific slope 

coefficients. These proposed revisions 

are intended to collect more accurate 

and informative data. As discussed in 

section II.B of this preamble, these 

proposed revisions would allow the 

EPA to collect data that would improve 

the EPA’s understanding of GHG 

emissions from aluminum production 

while generally resulting in only a slight 

increase in burden for reporters. 

The annual average anode effect 

minutes per cell day is a measure of the 

fraction of the time during which 

aluminum electrolysis cells are 

operating that the cells are experiencing 

process disturbances known as anode 

effects. PFC emissions from aluminum 

production are closely associated with 

the frequency and duration of anode 

effects.9 Smelter-specific slope 

coefficients are a measure of the 

relationship between average anode 

effect minutes per cell day, aluminum 

production, and PFC emissions at 

individual smelters. 

Both data elements were included in 

the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule. However, in the Final Deferral 

Notice published on August 25, 2011, 

we deferred reporting of the data 

elements because they were classified as 

inputs to emission equations (76 FR 

53057).10 The two data elements were 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2554 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

history of EPA’s treatment of inputs to emission 

equations under the GHGRP. 

11Although a monthly total of metal production 

is used in Equation F–2, the annual total metal 

production is used in Equations F–5 and F–6; thus, 

we are not proposing to collect annual metal 

production. 

12Although the VAIP program continues, GHGRP 

reporting supplanted reporting under the VAIP. 

13A review of the slope coefficients and anode 

effect minutes provided under the VAIP showed 

that the relative standard deviation of smelterspecific slope coefficients was 32 percent, while the 

relative standard deviation of anode effect minutes 

was 95 percent. The comparison was made for the 

year 2007 because that is the most recent year for 

which detailed smelter-specific slope coefficients 

were available. 

14 IVT will use the data element reported to eGGRT to calculate the emissions value. 

15See Equation 3.4 (Tier 3), p. 3.13 and 3.15. 2006 

IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 

3, Chapter 3, Section 3.2: Ammonia Production; 

Section 4.5 (p. 4–20) of U.S. Inventory. Available 

at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/

ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4- 

Industrial-Processes.pdf. 

considered inputs into Equation F–2. In 

the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, 

October 24, 2014), we decided not to 

collect these data elements and to 

include the inputs into Equation F–2 in 

IVT. However, after further 

investigation, we have determined that 

for average anode effect minutes per cell 

day, the actual input in Equation F–2 is 

a monthly average, while the removed 

reporting element is an annual 

average.11 Consequently, annual average 

anode effect minutes per cell day is not 

an input to an emission equation and, 

if restored as a reporting element, would 

be eligible for confidential treatment. As 

discussed in section IV of this preamble, 

we are proposing to determine that the 

annual average of the anode effect 

minutes per cell day is CBI. 

IVT currently requires the entry of 

monthly anode effect minutes and 

smelter-specific slope coefficients (along 

with monthly metal production), 

allowing PFC emission estimates from 

smelters to be verified. However, our 

interest in anode effect minutes and 

slope coefficients goes beyond 

verification of emission estimates. 

Specifically, the annual average of 

anode effect minutes is of interest 

because it provides insight into one of 

the key drivers of PFC emissions from 

primary aluminum production at the 

facility and U.S. level. This data 

element helps us to understand why 

emissions have increased or decreased 

in a particular year or over longer 

periods. Thus, it is important for 

informing the development of future 

GHG policies and programs. In addition, 

it is important for explaining U.S. 

emission trends through the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. Before the GHGRP became 

effective, anode effect minutes (as well 

as smelter-specific slope coefficients) 

had been provided to the EPA by most 

U.S. smelters under the Voluntary 

Aluminum Industrial Partnership 

(VAIP), although anode effect minutes 

was reported as a company-wide (rather 

than smelter-specific) average by some 

companies in some years.12

Smelter-specific slope coefficients 

also influence emissions. Because they 

are relatively stable over time (under 

subpart F, they are required to be remeasured every ten years), they do not 

drive trends in the same way that metal 

production and anode effect minutes do. 

However, they do contribute to 

differences in emission rates from 

different smelters and are therefore of 

interest for purposes of informing GHG 

policies and programs. 

Smelter-specific slope coefficients are 

inputs to emission equations (i.e., to 

Equation F–2). In the analysis titled, 

‘‘Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm 

from Disclosure of ‘‘Inputs to 

Equations’’ Data Elements Deferred to 

March 31, 2015’’ (September, 2014, 

available in docket EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2010–0929), we concluded that smelterspecific slope coefficients provided data 

related to process efficiency and also 

provided data that could be used to 

calculate the mass of aluminum 

produced if both the anode effect 

minutes and reported GHG emissions 

were also known. (The product of the 

slope coefficient, monthly metal 

produced, and monthly average anode 

effect minutes is the CF4 emissions from 

the smelter or potline.) However, we are 

now revisiting this conclusion in light 

of our proposed determination that the 

annual average of the anode effect 

minutes is CBI. Without data on anode 

effect minutes, data on smelter-specific 

slope coefficients pose few, if any, 

disclosure concerns. Most variability in 

process efficiency is driven by anode 

effect minutes, not smelter-specific 

slope coefficients, and it is not possible 

to back-calculate metal production 

without anode effect minutes.13

Therefore, in conjunction with our 

proposed determination that the annual 

average of the anode effect minutes is 

CBI, we are proposing to revise the 

findings in the Final Inputs Rule and to 

now find no disclosure concerns 

associated with this input to equation, 

and are proposing to collect this data. 

Note that we would continue to use IVT 

to verify the results of Equation F–2 

because we would be collecting only 

one of the three inputs to this 

equation.14

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart F 

In addition to the substantive changes 

proposed, as described in section II.D of 

this preamble, we are proposing minor 

revisions that are intended to clarify 

specific provisions in subpart F. These 

minor corrections are summarized in 

the Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

E. Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing 

In this action, we are proposing 

multiple amendments to subpart G of 

Part 98 (Ammonia Manufacturing). This 

section discusses all of the proposed 

changes to subpart G. 

1. Revisions to Subpart G To Improve 

Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and 

Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

revisions that would allow the EPA to 

collect data that would improve the 

EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions 

from ammonia manufacturing while 

generally resulting in only a slight 

increase in burden for reporters. 

Specifically, we are proposing to add 

three data reporting elements. We are 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.76(a) to 

require reporting of annual ammonia 

production for facilities where a CEMS 

is used to measure CO2 emissions, 40 

CFR 98.76(b)(2) to require reporting of 

annual feedstock consumption, and 40 

CFR 98.76(b)(7) to require reporting of 

annual average carbon content. These 

data elements are readily available so 

these proposed changes would have no 

impact on burden for the reporters. 

The addition of these data elements 

would improve the EPA’s ability to 

verify reported GHGRP emissions, and 

enable the EPA to transparently apply 

more advanced calculation methods 15

(based on total fuel requirements) for 

determining emissions from ammonia 

production within the U.S. GHG 

Inventory, using aggregated facility level 

GHGRP data. Currently, the annual U.S. 

GHG Inventory emissions estimates are 

based on multiplication of a technologyfeedstock type specific default emission 

factor and national ammonia 

production. Further data on feedstock 

consumption and associated carbon 

contents would assist the EPA in 

reconciling CO2 estimates of non-energy 

use of fuels in the energy sector and CO2

process emissions from ammonia 

production. Finally, collecting annual 

ammonia production from facilities 

where a CEMS is used to measure CO2

emissions ensures data completeness if 

ammonia manufacturers begin 

employing CEMS in the future, and 

enhances the EPA’s ability to verify 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2555 

reported information. Currently, annual 

ammonia production is collected on a 

facility basis, but only for facilities 

without CO2 CEMS. For more 

information on subpart G confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of 

this preamble. 

2. Other Amendments to Subpart G 

For the reasons described in section 

II.C of this preamble, we are proposing 

multiple amendments to Subpart G to 

clarify the EPA’s intentions related to 

the reporting of annual ammonia 

production and annual methanol 

production. We are proposing to amend 

40 CFR 98.74(f) to read, ‘‘You may use 

company records or an engineering 

estimate to determine the annual 

ammonia production and the annual 

methanol production.’’ We are also 

proposing to clarify the requirement to 

report annual methanol production for 

each process unit in 40 CFR 98.76(b)(15) 

by adding that this information must be 

reported ‘‘regardless of whether the 

methanol is subsequently destroyed, 

vented, or sold as product.’’ These 

amendments will clarify the original 

intent of the requirements and reduce 

uncertainty from reporters by 

addressing multiple Help Desk 

questions, including questions related to 

the reporting of methanol that were 

raised during the RY2014 reporting 

period. 

F. Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart I of Part 98 

(Electronics Manufacturing). The 

reporting requirements for the 

electronics manufacturing sector were 

initially promulgated under subpart I on 

December 1, 2010 (75 FR 74774). Since 

the promulgation of that final rule, the 

EPA has published several rules to 

amend the calculation, monitoring, and 

reporting provisions of subpart I to 

respond to concerns raised by reporters 

and representatives from the 

semiconductor industry. Notably, the 

EPA finalized substantial amendments 

to provisions in subpart I on November 

13, 2013 (78 FR 68162). These 

amendments included significant 

revisions to the methods for calculating 

GHG emissions, including revised 

default emission factors and the 

addition of a new stack test 

methodology, as well as substantial 

revisions to monitoring methodologies, 

data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and clarifications to terms 

and definitions. These amendments 

became effective on January 1, 2014, 

and reporters used the revised 

requirements in the submittal of their 

annual reports for RY2014. 

In this action, we are not proposing 

revisions that would include significant 

changes to the calculation 

methodologies, monitoring provisions, 

or data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of subpart I. Rather, we are 

proposing revisions that we have 

identified following implementation of 

the November 13, 2013 final rule and 

through discussions with industry 

stakeholders on how to improve the 

emissions estimates from the electronics 

manufacturing sector. These proposed 

changes are needed to improve the 

clarity of the calculation requirements 

and quality of the data collected under 

subpart I and to improve the EPA’s 

understanding of GHG emissions from 

the electronics manufacturing sector. 

This section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart I; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart I To Improve the 

Quality of Data Collected Under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several amendments to 

subpart I that would improve the quality 

of the data collected under the GHGRP. 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions 

that would allow the EPA to collect 

more accurate and detailed data which 

would improve the EPA’s 

understanding of sector GHG emissions, 

while generally resulting in only a slight 

increase in burden for reporters. 

First, the EPA is proposing to revise 

Equation I–24, including revising the 

name to Equation I–24A, which 

calculates the weighted-average fraction 

of a fluorinated GHG destroyed or 

removed in a fab using the stack testing 

methodology in 40 CFR 98.93(i), to 

incorporate two changes. First, instead 

of calculating the weighted-average 

fraction of gas destroyed or removed 

weighted by the consumption of that gas 

in different process types, the EPA is 

proposing to revise the equation so that 

the average fraction destroyed or 

removed is weighted by the estimated 

uncontrolled emissions of that gas from 

different process types. This change is 

needed to address the fact that the same 

gas can have different emissions when 

used in different process types, and 

these differences could potentially lead 

to errors in the calculation of the 

fraction of gas destroyed or removed, 

especially at facilities with a large 

percentage of tools fitted with 

abatement. To calculate the estimated 

uncontrolled emissions of each gas, the 

EPA is proposing to use the input gas 

emission factors from Tables I–3 to I–7 

of subpart I and the consumption of 

each gas in each process type for each 

fab. 

The second proposed change is to 

create a second equation (Equation I– 

24B) in 40 CFR 98.93(i) to calculate the 

weighted-average fraction of fluorinated 

GHG by-product gas ‘‘k’’ destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems in each 

fab using the stack testing methodology. 

This change is needed to clarify how the 

term dkf, which is used in several other 

equations in subpart I, should be 

calculated. This second equation would 

also address the fact that the same byproduct gas can be formed at different 

rates from different input gas and 

process combinations, which could 

potentially lead to errors in the 

calculation of the average fraction of byproduct gas destroyed or removed, 

especially at facilities with a large 

percentage of tools fitted with 

abatement. The EPA is also proposing 

conforming changes throughout Subpart 

I to the rule sections where Equation I– 

24A and I–24B should be referenced. 

Finally, for the triennial technology 

report required of certain facilities as 

specified in 40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is 

proposing to specify that reporters that 

are providing any utilization and byproduct formation rates and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data 

must also include information on the 

methods and conditions under which 

the data were collected, where such 

information is available. The triennial 

report would describe, for any 

utilization, by-product formation rate, 

and/or destruction or removal efficiency 

data submitted: the methods used for 

the measurements, the wafer size, film 

type being manufactured, substrate type, 

the linewidth or technology node, 

process type, process subtype for 

chamber clean processes, the input 

gases used and measured, the utilization 

rates measured, and the by-product 

formation rates measured, where this 

information is available. All of these 

data elements, with the exception of 

substrate type and linewidth, were 

submitted with the emission factor 

measurements provided to the EPA by 

semiconductor manufacturers during 

the development of the 2010 and 2013 

final rules. This information is 

necessary to enable the EPA to better 

understand the data being submitted 

and to better apply it in the 

development of new or revised emission 

factors. Without collecting this data, the 

agency would not be able to effectively 

evaluate how emissions may vary by 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2556 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

wafer size, film type, substrate type, 

linewidth or technology node, and 

process type or process subtype. The 

current subpart I is based on the 

recognition that emission factors vary 

significantly by wafer size and process 

type and subtype, and given the high 

rate of technical evolution in this sector, 

film type, substrate type, and linewidth 

may also increasingly affect emission 

factors. Additionally, the input gases 

used, methods used for measurement, 

and measured utilization rates and 

byproduct formation rates are vital for 

the development of accurate and useful 

emission factors. 

For more information on subpart I 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart I 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor corrections and 

clarification to subpart I of Part 98, 

including editorial changes, 

harmonizing changes, and clarifications 

to reporting requirements. These minor 

revisions are summarized in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

G. Subpart N—Glass Production 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart N of Part 98 

(Glass Production). This section 

discusses the substantive changes to 

subpart N; additional minor corrections 

are summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

For the reasons described in section 

II.C of this preamble, we are proposing 

amendments that are intended to clarify 

the rule requirements in subpart N, 

while resulting in no impact on burden 

for reporters. Specifically, the changes 

clarify that a default value of 1.0 can be 

used for the fraction of calcination and 

the carbonate mass fraction for each 

carbonate type contained in the raw 

materials charged to the furnace. The 

current rule is unclear as to whether a 

reporter must perform a chemical 

analysis if they select to use a default 

value of 1.0. We are proposing to revise 

40 CFR 98.144(b), 40 CFR 98.144(c), 40 

CFR 98.144(d), 40 CFR 98.146(b)(5), and 

40 CFR 98.146(b)(7) to clarify that no 

further chemical analysis is required if 

the default value of 1.0 is selected. 

These amendments will clarify the 

original intent of the requirements and 

address multiple Help Desk questions. 

Additional minor editorial corrections 

may be found in the Table of Revisions 

in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526). 

H. Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production 

and HFC–23 Destruction 

In this action we are proposing 

several amendments to subpart O of Part 

98 (HCFC–22 Production and HFC–23 

Destruction). This section discusses all 

of the changes to subpart O. 

1. Revisions to Subpart O To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

several amendments to subpart O that 

are intended to simplify and streamline 

GHGRP requirements and increase the 

efficiency of the report submittal 

process, generally resulting in a 

decrease in burden on reporters. We are 

proposing to revise subpart O to remove 

three reporting requirements related to 

the revised destruction efficiency that 

facilities are required to calculate in the 

event that the HFC–23 concentration 

that they annually measure at the outlet 

of the destruction device exceeds the 

concentration measured during the 

performance test that is the basis for the 

current destruction efficiency. The 

reporting requirements are found at 40 

CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4) and 

include, respectively, the concentration 

(mass fraction) of HFC–23 at the outlet 

of the destruction device, the flow rate 

at the outlet of the destruction device in 

kilograms per hour (kg/hr), and the 

emission rate (in kg/hr) calculated from 

these two parameters. These reporting 

requirements were originally intended 

to allow us to verify the calculation of 

a revised destruction efficiency. 

However, the requirements to report the 

revised destruction efficiency (the result 

of the calculation) and the flow rate of 

HFC–23 being fed into the destruction 

device (another input into the 

calculation) were removed by the Final 

Inputs Rule, and verification of HFC–23 

emissions, including their destruction, 

is now conducted by the IVT. Thus, 

reporting these data elements to the EPA 

is no longer needed. 

2. Revisions to Subpart O To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

We are also proposing revisions to 

subpart O to (1) reinstate in 40 CFR 

98.156(d) reporting of the method used 

to calculate the revised destruction 

efficiency, and (2) require facilities to 

report HCFC–22 production and HFC– 

23 emissions for each HCFC–22 

production process rather than for the 

facility as a whole. As discussed in 

section II.B of this preamble, we are 

proposing revisions that would allow 

the EPA to collect data that would 

improve the EPA’s understanding of 

GHG emissions from HCFC–22 

production and HFC–23 destruction 

while generally resulting in only a slight 

increase in burden for reporters. 

The requirement to report the method 

used to calculate the revised destruction 

efficiency (not an input to emission 

equation) was inadvertently removed by 

the Final Inputs Rule. We are proposing 

to reinstate this requirement because it 

is useful for understanding data quality, 

specifically, the rigor of the method 

used to revise the destruction efficiency. 

Subpart O currently requires facilities 

to report production and emissions 

information at the facility level although 

these quantities are monitored and 

calculated at the process level. We are 

proposing to revise the reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a) to 

require that facilities report production 

and emissions information for each 

HCFC–22 production process. At the 

time the EPA finalized the subpart O 

requirements (74 FR 56260, October 30, 

2009), we had intended to collect data 

on individual HCFC–22 processes, with 

the understanding that each facility had 

one HCFC–22 process. We have learned 

since that time that some facilities may 

have more than one HCFC–22 process 

and we are proposing to revise the rule 

to require reporting for each individual 

process. In the event that a facility has 

more than one HCFC–22 production 

process, this would provide more 

precise information that would allow us 

to better verify emissions and 

understand HFC–23 trends. 

Reporters in this subpart already 

monitor, estimate, and record process 

and emissions data on a process basis 

per 40 CFR 98.153; therefore, these 

proposed rule revisions to report the 

production and emissions data on a 

process basis are not expected to 

significantly increase burden. For more 

information on subpart O 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

I. Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production 

In this action we are proposing 

amendments to subpart Q of Part 98 

(Iron and Steel Production). This section 

discusses one substantive change to 

subpart Q; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

A revision is being made to align with 

revisions being proposed for subpart Y 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2557 

(Petroleum Refineries). Under 40 CFR 

98.172(b), facilities that report to 

subpart Q are referred to provisions in 

40 CFR part 98, subpart Y for reporting 

CO2 emissions from flares that burn 

blast furnace gas or coke oven gas. 

Subpart Q reporters should refer to 

section III.M.1 of this preamble for 

proposed revisions to subpart Y that 

would clarify that facilities should 

exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG 

emissions. As discussed in section II.A 

of this preamble, the proposed revisions 

would simplify data collection and may 

decrease the burden associated with 

monitoring the flare gas. 

J. Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart S of Part 98 

(Lime Manufacturing). This section 

discusses all the proposed amendments 

to subpart S. 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several revisions to subpart S 

to improve the quality of data collected 

under Part 98. We are proposing to 

require reporting of three data elements 

that influence CO2 emissions from lime 

manufacturing: Annual emission factors 

for each lime product type produced, 

annual emission factors for each 

calcined byproduct/waste by lime type 

that is sold, and annual average results 

of chemical composition analysis of 

each type of lime product produced and 

calcined byproduct/waste sold. As 

discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions 

that would allow the EPA to collect data 

to improve the EPA’s understanding of 

GHG emissions from lime 

manufacturing and the U.S. GHG 

Inventory while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for 

reporters. 

Similar data elements were included 

in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule; however, these data elements were 

monthly values, listed in 40 CFR 

98.196(b)(2), 40 CFR 98.196(b)(3), and 

40 CFR 98.196(b)(5). However, in a final 

rule published on August 25, 2011, we 

deferred reporting of the data elements 

because they were inputs to emission 

equations (76 FR 53057). In the Final 

Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 

2014), we identified disclosure concerns 

with these data elements and therefore 

decided not to collect these monthly 

data elements and to include the inputs 

from Equations S–1 and S–2 in IVT. 

IVT currently requires the entry of 

monthly calcium oxide and magnesium 

oxide content for Equation S–1, 

outputting the monthly emission factor 

for lime type; monthly calcium oxide 

and magnesium oxide content for 

Equation S–2, outputting the monthly 

emission factor for calcined lime 

byproduct/waste type sold; calcium 

oxide and magnesium oxide content, 

and annual weight or mass of calcined 

byproducts or wastes for lime type that 

is not sold for Equation S–3, outputting 

the annual CO2 emissions for calcined 

lime byproduct or waste type that is not 

sold; and monthly weight or mass of 

lime type produced, monthly weight or 

mass of calcined byproducts or wastes 

sold for Equation S–4, outputting the 

annual CO2 process emissions from lime 

production from all lime kilns. The IVT 

inputs allow us to verify CO2 emissions 

from lime kilns. 

Collecting the annual emission factors 

for each lime product type produced, 

annual emission factors for each 

calcined byproduct/waste by lime type 

that is sold, and annual average results 

of chemical composition analysis of 

each type of lime product produced and 

calcined byproduct/waste sold would 

allow us to understand why emissions 

have increased or decreased in a 

particular year or over longer periods. 

Thus, they are important for informing 

the development of future GHG policies 

and programs. In addition, they are 

important for explaining U.S. emission 

trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

These annual values are not inputs to 

equations; as described in section IV of 

this preamble, we are proposing that 

these data elements be eligible for 

confidential treatment. 

For more information on subpart S 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

K. Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production 

In this action, we are proposing three 

amendments to subpart V of Part 98 

(Nitric Acid Production). This section 

discusses all of the proposed changes to 

subpart V. 

1. Revisions to Subpart V To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment that is intended to 

simplify and streamline the 

requirements of subpart V and increase 

the efficiency of the report submittal 

process. We are proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.223(a)(2) to conditionally 

remove the annual approval request by 

the reporter and the annual request 

approval by the EPA. As further 

discussed in section III.C of this 

preamble for subpart E, the EPA is 

proposing that the request for use of the 

alternative method be automatically 

approved for the next reporting year if 

the reporter received approval to use an 

alternative method in the previous 

reporting year and the method has not 

changed. 

2. Revisions to Subpart V To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

two amendments that are intended to 

improve the quality of data collected 

under subpart V that would result in a 

moderate increase in burden for 

reporters. First, we are proposing to 

revise 40 CFR 98.220 to change the 

definition of the source category to 

require reporting from all reporters that 

produce nitric acid, regardless of the 

nitric acid strength. The subpart V 

definition was based on the Standards 

of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants in 

40 CFR part 60 (77 FR 48433, August 14, 

2012) which covers the emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the 

production of weak nitric acid 

(specifically between 30 percent and 70 

percent in strength). Weak nitric acid is 

produced through a three step process. 

The majority of N2O emissions from 

nitric acid production occur during 

ammonia oxidation, which is the first 

step in the process. 

High-strength nitric acid is produced 

by two different methods. The first 

method begins with producing weak 

nitric acid and then uses extractive 

distillation to concentrate the nitric 

acid. Since N2O emissions occur only 

during weak nitric acid production and 

the production of weak nitric acid is 

covered by the existing source category 

definition, N2O emissions from this 

high-strength nitric acid production 

method are covered by the existing 

nitric acid source category definition. 

The second method is an extended 

version of the weak nitric acid 

production process, meaning that the 

high-strength nitric acid is produced in 

a single nitric acid train rather than two 

separate processes. This combined 

process is not currently covered by the 

existing source category definition, even 

though the amount of N2O emissions 

from the process would be similar to the 

weak nitric acid production process. 

When the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule was published in 2009, only one 

nitric acid plant in the United States 

produced nitric acid greater than 70 

percent in strength. In the interim, 

further research has indicated the 

existence of three other nitric acid trains 

capable of producing high-strength 

nitric acid, including one existing plant 

and two potential plants becoming 

operational as early as the end of 2015. 

See the memorandum, ‘‘Re: Strong 

Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.’’ from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick 

and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 

29, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526. 

Because of increased usage of the 

high-strength nitric acid process in the 

United States, we are proposing that the 

definition of nitric acid be updated to 

apply to all nitric acid strengths to 

ensure that subpart V reporting captures 

all N2O emissions related to the 

production of nitric acid. By revising 

the definition, the rule would avoid 

confusion and ensure that all nitric acid 

trains and all N2O emissions are subject 

to subpart V. The applicability change 

would help improve the completeness 

of reporting under subpart V and further 

standardize Part 98 to be consistent with 

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate 

Change (IPCC) guidance. 

We are also proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.226(h) to require reporting of the 

date of installation of any N2O 

abatement technology (if applicable). 

This date is readily available or already 

collected by reporters, and would not 

require additional data collection or 

monitoring. This data element could be 

carried over from one reporting year to 

the next. The reporter would not be 

required to make changes unless 

additional abatement technology is 

installed at a later date. The addition of 

this data element would help improve 

the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory 

by improving the accuracy of trend 

estimates for this sector, while generally 

resulting in only a slight increase in 

burden. Specifically, the proposed data 

element would allow for improved 

analysis of emissions by enabling the 

EPA to more accurately apply the 

applicable emission factors over specific 

time periods, depending on whether the 

emissions were exhausted to an N2O 

abatement technology during that time 

period. For more information on subpart 

V confidentiality determinations 

resulting from these proposed revisions, 

see section IV of this preamble. 

L. Subpart X—Petrochemical 

Production 

In this action we are proposing 

several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart X (Petrochemical Production). 

This section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart X; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart X To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart X that are 

intended to simplify, streamline, and 

align with other proposed GHGRP 

requirements, which would generally 

result in a decrease in burden for 

reporters. Under 40 CFR 98.243(c), 

facilities that report to subpart X are 

referred to provisions in subpart Y for 

reporting CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions 

from flares. Subpart X reporters should 

refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble 

for proposed revisions to subpart Y that 

would clarify that facilities have the 

option to exclude pilot gas from the 

flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed 

in section II.A of this preamble, the 

proposed revisions would simplify data 

collection and may decrease the burden 

associated with monitoring the flare gas. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) to allow operators 

of an integrated ethylene dichloride 

(EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer 

(VCM) process to report either the 

measured quantity of EDC produced or 

both the measured quantity of VCM and 

an estimate of the amount of EDC 

produced as an intermediate in the 

process. We are also proposing to 

modify 40 CFR 98.240(a) to indicate that 

a reporter may elect to consider the 

entire integrated process (rather than 

just the EDC operations) to be the 

petrochemical process for the purposes 

of complying with the mass balance 

method. 

Subpart X currently requires EDC 

manufacturers to perform the mass 

balance around operations involved in 

the production of the EDC, including 

situations where EDC is produced as an 

intermediate in the production of VCM. 

In a letter received from Occidental 

Chemical Company titled ‘‘Request to 

Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM 

Process Studies and Data for the 

Elimination of e-GGRT Validation 

Messages at VCM Production Facilities 

Reporting Under Subpart X,’’ dated July 

10, 2015, industry representatives 

indicated that an integrated EDC/VCM 

process is a continuous process with 

EDC produced as an intermediate that is 

not stored or measured. As an 

alternative to incurring the burden of 

modifying the process to enable 

measurement of the intermediate EDC 

stream, Occidental Chemical Company 

has requested that subpart X reporters 

be allowed to perform the mass balance 

over the entire integrated process and, 

for the quantity of petrochemical 

produced, report the quantity of VCM 

produced instead of the amount of EDC 

produced. Conducting the mass balance 

over the entire integrated process is 

acceptable to the EPA because the CO2

process emissions (from oxidation of 

ethylene in the oxychlorination process 

to produce EDC) and emissions from 

combustion of vent gases from the EDC 

operations are calculated under both 

methods. The alternative method also 

would estimate additional CO2

emissions for combustion of both vent 

gases and liquid wastes from the VCM 

operations. 

Under the proposed optional method, 

carbon emitted in vent streams from 

VCM operations and carbon in liquid 

wastes that are combusted would be 

assumed to be converted to CO2. For 

most facilities, using the optional 

method likely means either a more 

complete reporting of total facility 

emissions or a shift from reporting 

under subpart C (if the subpart C 

applicability criteria are met) to 

reporting under subpart X. Facilities 

have indicated that vent gases from the 

VCM operations are combusted, 

typically in the same combustion unit as 

the vent gases from the EDC operations. 

Thus, the assumption that carbon in 

such vent streams is converted to CO2

is expected to be valid. Liquid waste 

from the VCM operations that is not 

combusted would be included as a 

product for the purposes of the mass 

balance and, thus, any carbon in such 

stream would be subtracted from the 

total inlet carbon and not attributed to 

CO2 emissions. 

In addition to conducting the mass 

balance over the entire integrated 

process, the EPA is proposing that 

facilities electing to use this optional 

method would report both the measured 

amount of VCM produced and an 

estimate of the amount of EDC produced 

as an intermediate. Reporting the 

amount of VCM would help the EPA to 

verify the estimate of EDC reported. 

Reporting the estimate of EDC produced 

would enable the EPA to determine if 

there is a statistically significant 

difference in average emissions per 

metric ton of EDC between results 

reported by facilities that use the option 

for integrated processes versus results 

for facilities that report only for EDC 

operations. 

The proposed change to 40 CFR 

98.240(a) would harmonize the 

proposed integrated EDC/VCM mass 

balance option with other requirements 

related to petrochemical processes (or 

process units) in subpart X. For 

example, the mass balance calculation 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.243(c) and 

reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

98.246(a) are per petrochemical 

‘‘process unit.’’ Thus, considering the 

entire integrated process to be the 

petrochemical process unit clarifies that 

these calculation and reporting 

requirements apply to the entire 

integrated process under the option, and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2559 

16See Equation 3.17, p. 3.67. 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, 

Chapter 3, Section 3.9: Petrochemical and Carbon 

Black Production. 

not to just the EDC portion of the 

process. 

It is anticipated that the proposed 

amendments would reduce the 

compliance burden by not requiring 

monitoring equipment and/or sampling 

and analysis of an intermediate EDC 

stream just for the purpose of complying 

with subpart X. Instead, facilities would 

be allowed to measure the final product 

VCM, which is likely already being 

measured for other business reasons. A 

few facilities may have a liquid waste 

stream from the VCM operations that is 

not combusted. Such streams would 

need to be measured and included as 

products in the mass balance. The 

potential increase in burden for 

measurement of such streams is 

expected to be more than offset by the 

reduction for not measuring the 

intermediate EDC stream because not all 

facilities will have a liquid waste stream 

that is not combusted, and a waste 

stream is an output that would be more 

readily measured than an intermediate 

that is not stored. 

2. Revisions to Subpart X To Improve 

the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

to amend subpart X to collect additional 

data to help improve estimates included 

in the U.S. GHG Inventory. The EPA is 

proposing to add reporting requirements 

for facilities that use the mass balance 

approach to determine emissions under 

40 CFR 98.243(c) to report the annual 

average of the measurements of the 

carbon content and molecular weight of 

each feedstock and product reported 

under subpart X. Much of these data are 

currently required to be determined and 

retained per the recordkeeping 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.247, so 

adding the reporting requirement to 

report annual averages adds very little 

burden to reporters. These additional 

data elements will be aggregated to the 

national level and used to improve 

national emission estimates in the U.S. 

GHG Inventory for several reasons. 

First, these data points will be helpful 

for understanding non-energy uses of 

fossil fuels by the chemical industry, so 

they can more accurately be allocated 

between the industrial process and 

energy sectors of the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. As noted in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory, currently some degree of 

double-counting may occur between 

CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels 

in the energy sector and CO2 process 

emissions from petrochemical 

production in this sector. Complete data 

integration is not feasible at this time as 

feedstock data from the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) used 

to estimate non-energy uses of fuels are 

aggregated by fuel type, rather than 

disaggregated by both fuel type and 

particular industries (e.g., petrochemical 

production). The EPA, through the 

GHGRP, obtained complete data on 

quantities of fuel consumed as 

feedstocks by petrochemical producers 

for the first time in 2015. The carbon 

content and molecular weight of 

feedstocks will facilitate conversion of 

the GHGRP feedstock quantity data (by 

fuel type) into energy units for 

integration with EIA data to ensure 

appropriate allocation of emissions 

across sectors in the national U.S. GHG 

Inventory, including addressing issues 

with double-counting. 

Second, having annually averaged 

carbon content and molecular weight for 

products and feedstocks derived from 

facility-level GHGRP data would enable 

the EPA to transparently apply the IPCC 

mass balance method 16 for determining 

emissions from petrochemical 

production in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

Currently, only the aggregated facilitylevel products from application of the 

GHGRP mass balance are aggregated and 

published in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

For more information on subpart X 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart X 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor corrections, and 

clarifications to subpart X of Part 98. 

These minor revisions are summarized 

in the Table of Revisions available in 

the docket for this rulemaking (Docket 

Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

M. Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries 

In this action we are proposing 

several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries). This 

section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart Y; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart Y To Streamline 

Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

several amendments that are intended to 

simplify and streamline the 

requirements of subpart Y. To reduce 

reporter burden, the EPA is proposing to 

clarify in this rulemaking that pilot gas, 

which is considered the gas used to 

maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, 

may be excluded from the quantity of 

flare gas used to perform GHG emissions 

calculations. As described below, the 

quantity of GHG emissions associated 

with pilot gas is very small relative to 

the total GHG emissions from a flare at 

petroleum refineries, petrochemical 

production facilities, and iron and steel 

production facilities, and monitoring 

the quantity of pilot gas may impose 

additional burden on some facilities. 

Generally flares combust waste gas 

(excess gas generated by the facility that 

needs disposal which the flare was 

designed to treat/destroy), purge/sweep 

gas (gas that must be added to the flare 

header system or to the base of the flare 

in order to prevent oxygen ingress 

during periods of low waste gas flow), 

and pilot gas (gas used to maintain a 

pilot flame at the flare tip). The majority 

of gas combusted by a flare is waste gas. 

The remaining gas combusted by the 

flare is comprised of purge/sweep and 

pilot gas. The amount of purge/sweep 

gas needed is dependent on the 

complexity of the flare gas header 

system and the flare diameter and tip 

design. As discussed in the 

memorandum ‘‘Proposed Changes to 

Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements 

under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Program (GHGRP)’’ from Jeff Coburn, 

Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, RTI to 

Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015 

(see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2015–0526), flares generally require at 

least 0.1 to 0.2 foot per second (ft/s) 

flow velocity at the tip to prevent 

oxygen ingress, but can be significantly 

higher for flares with complex header 

systems. For a 2 foot diameter flare, this 

translates to a minimum flow of 1,100 

to 2,200 cubic feet per hour or 1 to 2 

mmBtu/hr. Recommended heat rate for 

industrial flare pilots is approximately 

0.05 mmBtu/hr, so GHG emissions from 

flare pilot gas are typically 10 percent or 

less of the emissions from the flare 

purge/sweep gas while the flare is on 

standby (i.e., no active waste gas flow). 

Therefore, we expect the resultant GHG 

emissions from pilot gas to be low, 

especially in the context of the broader 

flare emissions. 

Further, it is difficult for facilities to 

estimate the quantities of pilot gas 

without the use of a meter. Facilities 

generally measure the flare gas, but do 

not always have unit-specific meters 

installed for the gas used for the pilot 

flame (typically natural gas). The EPA 

does not intend for facilities to install a 

separate meter to measure the pilot gas 

for the purposes of reporting under this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

rulemaking, either to include or exclude 

this quantity of pilot gas. Installation of 

an additional meter for this purpose 

would be burdensome to reporters, 

especially when considering the 

increase in reported GHG emissions 

would be very low. Therefore, we are 

proposing to amend the rule to allow, 

but not require, facilities to exclude 

pilot gas from the flare gas GHG 

emissions calculations in Part 98 

subparts Q, X, and Y. Purge/sweep gas 

would still be included in the flare GHG 

emissions calculations. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to 

amend the reporting requirements in 40 

CFR 98.256(e) to add a requirement that 

facilities provide a yes/no indication as 

to whether a flare has a flare gas 

recovery system. Currently, 40 CFR 

98.256(e) requires facilities to report 

general information as to the type of 

flare (e.g., air-assisted, steam-assisted, or 

non-assisted) and the flare service (e.g., 

general facility flare, unit flare, or 

emergency flare). Several offices within 

the EPA (as well as external researchers) 

use the GHGRP data on flares to 

characterize flare emissions, assess 

trends, and evaluate GHG emission 

reductions that could be achieved under 

various policies. In using the GHGRP 

data for flares for these purposes, we 

identified a key deficiency in the 

GHGRP data set is the lack of 

information regarding which flares have 

flare gas recovery systems. Flare gas 

recovery is a primary means by which 

owners and operators of flares may 

reduce flare emissions. The inclusion of 

information on which flares have flare 

gas recovery systems will provide useful 

information to characterize emission 

trends in key industries using flares and 

provide critical information needed by 

the EPA to make policy decisions. Only 

an indication of whether or not the flare 

is serviced by a flare gas recovery 

system is being proposed, so this 

amendment would add only a slight 

increase in burden to subpart Q, X, and 

Y reporters that have flares. For more 

information on subpart Y confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of 

this preamble. 

2. Revisions to Subpart Y To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several amendments that 

would improve the quality of the data 

collected from subpart Y reporters while 

resulting in only a slight increase in 

burden for reporters. 

The EPA originally promulgated rules 

for the reporting of GHG emissions from 

various source categories, including 

petroleum refineries, on October 30, 

2009. Since the reporting requirements 

were developed, understanding of 

emissions from delayed coking units 

(DCU) has improved. The rule originally 

established a methodology to estimate 

methane emissions from a DCU based 

on a simple gas expansion model (i.e., 

Equation Y–18) which the EPA is 

proposing to replace with a new 

methodology that will more accurately 

determine emissions from DCU. 

Recently, EPA’s Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

conducted a detailed information 

collection request (ICR) (OMB Control 

No. 2060–0657) of the petroleum 

refining industry that gathered 

information about DCU operations and 

the decoking process. Based on the 

information collected, the EPA 

determined that the simple gas 

expansion model did not accurately 

reflect the emissions source and 

significantly underestimated emissions 

from the DCU. First, there is less 

gaseous void space in the coke drum 

than previously thought because the 

coke drum is filled with water and the 

void (vapor) space in the coke drum is 

small. Second and more importantly, 

there is a significant quantity of steam 

generated and released from the coke 

drum during the depressurizing process 

because the boiling point of the water 

decreases as the pressure of the vessel 

decreases. That is, there is a phase 

change and gas generation that occurs 

during the venting process. 

Consequently, the total quantity of gas 

discharged during a venting event is 

actually much greater than predicted by 

the simple pressure expansion (no 

phase change) model previously used in 

Equation Y–18. Upon review of the test 

data collected in response to the ICR, 

the EPA determined that methane 

emissions are a function of steam 

generation, not the initial void volume 

in the delayed coking unit vessel. Based 

on these determinations, the EPA 

developed and used a steam generation 

model to estimate emissions from the 

DCU (see Docket Item No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2010–0682–0202) and revised and 

incorporated this methodology as part of 

the emissions factors update for 

petroleum refineries (see http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/

index_consent_decree.html; April 

2015). We are now proposing to amend 

the DCU GHG emission calculation 

methodology to align the GHGRP’s 

methodology with the methodology 

recently incorporated into the emission 

factors update and to provide a more 

accurate means of estimating methane 

emissions from the DCU. 

The proposed methodology uses a 

heat balance on the DCU coke drum 

vessel contents to estimate the volume 

of steam produced during the DCU 

decoking operations (steam venting, 

draining, vessel deheading, and coke 

cutting). Methane emissions per venting 

cycle is proportional to the quantity of 

steam generated. Key inputs to the heat 

balance include the mass of water and 

coke in the coke drum vessel and the 

average temperature of the coke drum 

contents when venting first occurs. We 

are proposing to allow reporters to 

determine the mass of coke in the coke 

drum based on company records or to 

estimate the mass of coke in the coke 

drum based on drum dimensions and 

drum outage (parameters already 

required to be recorded under the 

current rule) and a new equation 

provided in the rule (Equation Y–18a). 

We are proposing to require reporters to 

determine the mass of water in the coke 

drum based on the height of water in the 

coke drum and the mass of coke in the 

coke drum. We are proposing to allow 

either one of two methods to estimate 

the average temperature of the coke bed 

contents: (1) A method based on the 

measured overhead temperature of the 

drum, and (2) a method based on the 

overhead pressure using a temperaturepressure correlation equation provided 

in the rule. 

While the EPA generally considers the 

temperature method to be the most 

accurate means to determine the average 

temperature of the coke bed contents, 

the EPA understands that there are 

concerns that the temperature 

measurements in the overhead line may 

be erroneously high due to additional 

steam purges in the overhead line to 

prevent coke build-up on the 

monitoring equipment, so we have 

provided the temperature-pressure 

correlation equation as well to provide 

reporters additional flexibility. 

Additionally, the EPA has not 

previously required temperature 

monitoring for the DCU in subpart Y of 

Part 98, but the previous methodology 

for delayed coking units in subpart Y 

required the vessel pressure prior to 

venting to be monitored and used as an 

input to the previous equation. 

Consequently, the EPA is providing the 

use of the temperature-pressure 

correlation to allow reporters to use 

current pressure monitoring and 

recordkeeping practices to obtain the 

information needed to implement the 

new methodology. As such, the new 

methodology will not require the 

installation or use of new monitoring 

systems. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2561 

Finally, we are proposing to allow 

facilities that have DCU vent gas 

measurements to use these 

measurements to develop a unit-specific 

methane emissions factor for the DCU. 

This allows reporters that have 

previously used the combined Equation 

Y–18/Y–19 method (as well as other 

reporters) to use the measurement data 

available to provide an improved, sitespecific emissions estimate. If a unitspecific methane emissions factor is not 

available, we are proposing that 

reporters use the default methane 

emissions factor for DCU of 7.9 kg 

methane per metric ton of steam 

generated. Additional background on 

this change is available in the memo 

‘‘Revised Emission Methodology for 

Delayed Coking Units’’ from Jeff 

Coburn, RTI International to Brian Cook, 

EPA, dated June 4, 2015 (see Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

The EPA is proposing that the new 

methodology be used to estimate the 

emissions for each DCU and the EPA is 

proposing to amend the reporting 

requirements for DCU to only require 

reporting at the unit level. This change 

is being proposed for several reasons. 

Currently, DCU emissions are reported 

at the facility level. The decision was 

originally made to require reporting at 

the facility level to allow facilities that 

have two identical DCU (with same 

sized drums) to apply Equation Y–18 to 

the set of drums one time to reduce 

burden. However, the rule contains 

several required reporting elements be 

submitted on a DCU unit-specific basis, 

so the burden reduction associated with 

this simplification is very small, and 

facility-level data hindered the EPA’s 

ability to verify the reported data. 

Facilities currently have the option to 

use a combination of Equation Y–18 and 

Y–19 (process vent method) for 

estimating the emissions from the DCU. 

This further splits certain reporting 

elements between the DCU process unit 

and the process vents inputs. This split 

in the DCU reporting elements has 

caused confusion among reporters and 

made verification of the reported data 

challenging. For example, facilities that 

did not have a DCU were required to 

actively report a zero for their emissions 

from this source. Also, because 

emissions were to be reported at the 

facility level, the emissions from 

process vents added for DCU vents 

needed to be reported as zero for the 

DCU vent at the process vent level. 

However, many reporters reported 

emissions at the process vent level and 

may or may not have fully reported the 

DCU emissions at the facility level. 

Due to the difficulties associated with 

the split reporting requirements, we are 

proposing that the new methodology be 

implemented to estimate the emissions 

for each delayed coking unit separately. 

This will simplify the reporting 

requirements for facilities and allow the 

EPA to simplify and streamline 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for most reporters. 

Additionally, in the proposed approach, 

DCU vent measurements may be used to 

develop a unit-specific methane 

emissions factor so the available 

measurement data can be used within 

the context of the proposed DCU 

methodology, rather than splitting the 

emissions estimates between two 

different methodologies (i.e., Equations 

Y–18 and Y–19). For these reasons, the 

EPA anticipates the burden on reporters 

would be reduced by streamlining the 

DCU reporting requirements so that 

DCU-related reporting elements are only 

required to be reported at the DCU unit 

level. 

In related revisions, we are proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 98.253(j) to delete 

‘‘CH4 emissions if you elected to use the 

method in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section,’’ because the DCU methodology 

no longer includes an option to use a 

combination of techniques to determine 

the CH4 emissions from DCU decoking 

operations. We are also including ‘‘coke 

produced per cycle’’ in the list of 

quantities of petroleum process streams 

that are determined using company 

records in 40 CFR 98.254(j), and adding 

a requirement that temperature and 

pressure measurements associated with 

the DCU are to be determined ‘‘using 

process instrumentation operated, 

maintained, and calibrated according to 

manufacturer’s instructions.’’ These 

revisions are included to clarify 

monitoring requirements associated 

with the new DCU methodology. 

Additionally, we are proposing to revise 

the recordkeeping requirements in 40 

CFR 98.257 associated with the DCU to 

harmonize the recordkeeping 

requirements with the new DCU 

methodology equations. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 

40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) to clarify 

the appropriate equations to be used for 

reporters with an asphalt blowing unit 

with a control device other than a vapor 

scrubber, thermal oxidizer, or flare 

(classified as ‘‘other (specify)’’ in eGGRT). The current rule language in 40 

CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) only 

specifies the methodology to use for 

these three control systems and for 

uncontrolled asphalt blowing. In the 

proposed amendments, we are revising 

40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) to clarify that 

reporters with ‘‘asphalt blowing 

operations controlled either by vapor 

scrubbing or by another non-combustion 

control device’’ must use Equations Y– 

14 and Y–15 to calculate their GHG 

emissions. We are also revising 40 CFR 

98.253(h)(2) to clarify that reporters 

with ‘‘asphalt blowing operations 

controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, 

a flare, or other vapor combustion 

control device’’ must use Equations Y– 

16a/Y–16b and Y–17 to calculate their 

GHG emissions. These amendments will 

yield more accurate emissions values as 

reporters will now be required to use 

the most appropriate equations for 

‘‘other’’ control systems used for asphalt 

blowing operations. For more 

information on subpart Y confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of 

this preamble. 

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart Y 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor corrections, and 

clarifications to subpart Y of Part 98. 

These minor revisions are summarized 

in the Table of Revisions available in 

the docket for this rulemaking (Docket 

Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

N. Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid 

Production 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart Z of Part 98 

(Phosphoric Acid Production). This 

section discusses all the proposed 

amendments to subpart Z. For the 

reasons described in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing to revise 

subpart Z of Part 98 (Phosphoric Acid 

Production) to allow the EPA to collect 

data that would improve the EPA’s 

understanding of GHG emissions from 

phosphoric acid production while 

generally resulting in only a slight 

increase in burden for reporters. 

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

98.266(f)(3) to require that the annual 

report must include the annual 

phosphoric acid production capacity 

(tons) for each wet-process phosphoric 

acid line, rather than the annual 

permitted phosphoric acid production 

capacity. In a prior technical correction 

to the rule (78 FR 19823, April 2, 2013) 

we acknowledged that not all 

phosphoric acid production facilities 

have a permitted production capacity, 

and additionally, not all facilities 

produce to the permitted capacity. 

During that action, we removed the 

word ‘‘permitted’’ from the requirement 

at 40 CFR 98.266(b) to report the 

facility-level production capacity. We 

are proposing a similar revision in this 

action to remove the word ‘‘permitted’’ 

from the requirement to report the 

process-level production capacity, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

17See docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0934– 

0058. Although this request was received in 

comments on the 2013 Revisions Rule, this request 

was determined to be outside the scope of the 2013 

proposed amendments and was not addressed at 

that time. This request is being considered as part 

of these proposed amendments. 

noting similarly that not all facilities 

have a permitted production capacity at 

the process-level or produce to the 

permitted capacity. We are also 

proposing to clarify the units of 

measurement for this reporting 

requirement. The current text for 40 

CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires the reporting 

of ‘‘annual phosphoric acid permitted 

production capacity (tons) for each wetprocess phosphoric acid process line 

(metric tons).’’ In this action, we are 

proposing to remove the units of 

measurement ‘‘(metric tons)’’ from this 

text to provide further clarity on the 

requirements that the unit of 

measurement is ‘‘tons’’ and not ‘‘metric 

tons.’’ The revision to the process-level 

capacity is necessary to ensure that the 

EPA collects consistent annual 

production capacity data and will 

provide a better characterization of the 

relationship between industry 

production and emissions. For more 

information on subpart Z confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of 

this preamble. 

O. Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart AA of Part 98 

(Pulp and Paper Manufacturing). This 

section discusses all of the proposed 

changes to subpart AA. 

1. Revisions to Subpart AA To 

Streamline Implementation of Part 98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment to subpart AA that 

would streamline the requirements of 

the rule and improve implementation, 

while generally reducing burden. We 

are proposing to clarify that Tier 4 

CEMS are not used to report emissions 

under subpart AA. Subpart AA 

currently requires that fossil-fuel based 

CO2 emissions be calculated using 

subpart C methodologies. Subpart AA 

states that Tier 1 or a higher tier may be 

used. Subpart AA reporters have not 

used the Tier 4 CEMS methodology 

during any previous reporting year, and 

are not expected to do so given the 

mixture of biogenic and fossil-fuel CO2

emissions in the exhaust streams from 

subpart AA emission units. Therefore, 

we are proposing amendments to clarify 

that Tier 4 is not included in 40 CFR 

98.273(a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1), which 

refer to the subpart C calculation 

methodologies for CO2 emissions from 

combustion of fossil-fuel. This 

clarification will provide clarity to 

reporters and also reduce the EPA 

burden and related program expense 

required to maintain e-GGRT CEMS web 

forms and associated verification checks 

and documentation. 

2. Other Amendments to Subpart AA 

As described in section II.C of this 

preamble, through communication with 

stakeholders, we have identified certain 

aspects of the rule that may require 

revision, including those we are 

proposing in response to comments 

submitted by stakeholders on prior 

rulemakings. Subpart AA requires pulp 

mill reporters to determine the annual 

mass of spent liquor solids fired in 

chemical recovery furnaces and 

chemical recovery combustion units by 

either measuring the mass of spent 

liquor solids annually (or more 

frequently) with a Technical 

Association of the Pulp and Paper 

Industry (TAPPI) method, or using 

records of measurements made with an 

online measurement system. Missing 

measurements are currently required to 

be populated with either the maximum 

spent liquor mass or fuel flow rate for 

the combustion unit, or the maximum 

mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can 

measure. Representatives of the forest 

products industry requested revisions to 

the missing data requirements for spent 

liquor solids in 40 CFR 98.275(b).17 The 

industry representatives explained that 

use of the maximum potential spent 

liquor solids firing rate or the maximum 

the meter can measure can overstate 

GHG emissions. The industry 

representatives stated that this 

procedure is unnecessarily burdensome 

and confusing because this requirement 

differs from the way mills handle spent 

liquor solids flow monitoring for other 

federal air rules, such as the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants in 40 CFR part 63, subpart 

MM. The industry representatives noted 

that having a data acquisition, analysis, 

and reporting program that uses one 

value for liquor feed rate for GHG 

reporting purposes and another feed rate 

for all other purposes is overly 

complicated for both mill personnel and 

regulatory agencies. The industry 

representatives requested that 40 CFR 

98.275(b) of subpart AA be amended to 

require use of the mass of spent liquor 

solids reported under 40 CFR 63.866 of 

subpart MM for missing measurements. 

The EPA has reviewed the industry 

representatives’ request and agrees that 

use of the daily value recorded under 40 

CFR 63.866(c)(1) of subpart MM results 

in an acceptable missing data estimate 

for the combustion unit. Thus, the EPA 

is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.275(b) 

to allow use of the daily mass of spent 

liquor solids fired reported under 40 

CFR 63.866(c)(1) as an alternative to 

maximum values. The provisions of 40 

CFR 63.866(c)(1) require pulp mills to 

retain records of the mass of spent 

liquor solids fired in megagrams (Mg) or 

tons per day. This proposed amendment 

acknowledges that the daily value 

recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) may 

need to be adjusted to match the 

duration of missing data under subpart 

AA. For example, the daily 

measurement may need to be adjusted 

to represent only a few hours of monitor 

downtime. We are proposing to retain 

the original requirements of 40 CFR 

98.275(b) in addition to proposing the 

alternative to use the value recorded 

under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) to avoid 

requiring reconfiguration of data 

systems in mills that may have 

configured their data reporting systems 

to supply maximum values for subpart 

AA. 

We are proposing one additional 

revision to subpart AA that is a minor 

clarification and that would improve the 

understanding of the rule. We are 

proposing a clarification to column 

labels in Table AA–2. Table AA–2 

contains CH4 and N2O emission factors 

for ‘‘kraft lime kilns’’ and ‘‘kraft 

calciners,’’ both of which are ‘‘pulp mill 

lime kilns’’ as defined in 40 CFR 98.6. 

The N2O emission factors differ for 

these two technologies. Because 

calcining (thermal removal of 

carbonates from lime mud) occurs in 

both types of equipment, there has been 

some confusion regarding which N2O 

emission factors apply. To eliminate 

this confusion, we are proposing minor 

wording changes to clarify that the 

columns for ‘‘kraft lime kilns’’ in Table 

AA–2 refers specifically to ‘‘kraft rotary 

lime kilns.’’ We are also proposing to 

add a footnote to Table AA–2 indicating 

that fluid bed calciners are an example 

of kraft calciners. The majority of kraft 

pulp mills operate rotary lime kilns 

while at least one kraft mill operates a 

fluidized bed calciner. 

P. Subpart CC—Soda Ash 

Manufacturing 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart CC of Part 98 

(Soda Ash Manufacturing). This section 

discusses the substantive changes to 

subpart CC; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2563 

18See p. 3.52–53 (Tier 2 and 3). 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, 

Chapter 3, Section 3.3: Natural Soda Ash 

Production. See also Section 4.11 (pp. 4–40 through 

4–42) of U.S. GHG Inventory http://www.epa.gov/

climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2015-Chapter-4-Industrial-Processes.pdf. 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart CC To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

We are proposing two revisions that 

are intended to improve the quality of 

data collected under subpart CC, while 

only resulting in a slight increase in 

burden for reporters. We are proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 98.296(a) and (b) to 

require reporting of the facility-level 

annual consumption of trona or liquid 

alkaline feedstock. For the reasons 

described in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing the addition 

of this data element to help improve the 

quality of the U.S. GHG Inventory by 

using aggregated facility level data. 

These data are already required to be 

reported on the manufacturing-line 

basis for subpart CC reporters that report 

using CEMS. For non-CEMS subpart CC 

reporters, the requirements to report 

consumption data for each 

manufacturing line, previously required 

per 40 CFR 98.269(b)(5), was removed 

in the Final Inputs Rule. This action 

would propose to streamline the 

reporting of facility-level consumption 

data from both CEMS and non-CEMS 

reporters on a more aggregate level. 

Currently, the U.S. Inventory estimates 

CO2 emissions based on application of 

default emissions factors to estimated 

trona production.18 Consistent 

collection of this data element from 

facilities would enable the EPA to 

aggregate and integrate GHGRP emission 

estimates, and transparently determine 

national emissions based on trona 

consumption within the U.S. GHG 

Inventory and allow for the application 

of more advanced calculation methods. 

For more information on subpart CC 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart CC 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

one minor correction to subpart CC of 

Part 98. This minor revision is 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

Q. Subpart DD—Use of Electric 

Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart DD of Part 98 

(Use of Electric Transmission and 

Distribution Equipment). This section 

discusses all of the proposed changes to 

subpart DD. 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several changes to subpart DD 

that will improve the quality and 

usefulness of the data received by the 

GHGRP, while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for 

reporters. 

A facility is defined under subpart DD 

at 40 CFR 98.308 as an electric power 

system, comprised of all electric 

transmission and distribution 

equipment insulated with or containing 

SF6 or PFC that is linked through 

electric power transmission or 

distribution lines and functions as an 

integrated unit that is owned, serviced, 

or maintained by a single electric power 

transmission or distribution entity (or 

multiple entities with a common 

owner), and that is located between: (1) 

The point(s) at which electric energy is 

obtained from an electricity generating 

unit or a different electric power 

transmission or distribution entity that 

does not have a common owner; and (2) 

the point(s) at which any customer or 

another electric power transmission or 

distribution entity that does not have a 

common owner receives the electric 

energy. The facility also includes 

servicing inventory for such equipment 

that contains SF6 or PFC. 

Given the nature of electric power 

systems, subpart DD facilities generally 

span a geographic area, and in some 

cases, may cross state boundaries. 

Currently, subpart DD reporters provide 

the EPA with the facility address on 

their certificate of representation. 

However, this address does not provide 

complete information on where the 

electric power system actually lies. The 

EPA is proposing to add new reporting 

requirements at 40 CFR 98.306(m) to 

make data collected under subpart DD 

more useful to the public. The new data 

elements would require the electric 

power system to provide the name of 

the U.S. state, states, or territory in 

which the electric power system lies 

and the total miles of transmission and 

distribution lines that lie in each state 

or territory. These data elements would 

allow users of GHGRP data to more 

easily identify the state, states, or 

territory within which the electric 

power system lies. Users of GHGRP data 

would also be able to compare the miles 

of transmission and distribution lines in 

each state or territory to the total miles 

of transmission and distribution lines 

for the facility and then approximate the 

percentage of emissions that occur 

within each state or territory. (As 

discussed in the U.S. GHG Inventory, 

SF6 emissions from electric power 

systems are correlated with the length of 

their transmission lines.) This would be 

useful for determining state- and 

territory-level GHG emissions associated 

with particular electric power systems. 

Although requiring facilities to report 

their emissions by state or territory 

would provide more precise estimates of 

emissions by state or territory, such a 

requirement would probably 

significantly increase the burden of 

reporting. In comparison, reporting the 

total miles of transmission and 

distribution lines that lie in each state 

and territory appears likely to be 

relatively straightforward for electric 

power systems. We request comment on 

whether it would be less burdensome 

for facilities to report the total 

transmission and distribution lines that 

lie in each state or territory within the 

facility boundary or to report the 

emissions for each state or territory 

within the facility boundary. We also 

request comment on whether miles of 

transmission lines alone are likely to be 

a better predictor of SF6 use and 

emissions than combined miles of 

transmission and distribution lines. If 

so, the EPA could simply require 

reporting of the miles of transmission 

lines in each state or territory. 

We are also proposing to add 

reporting elements to subpart DD that 

are related to the nameplate capacities 

and numbers of pieces of new and 

retiring equipment. Currently, electric 

transmission and distribution facilities 

are required to include the nameplate 

capacities of new and retiring 

hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, 

along with the corresponding quantities 

for other electrical equipment, in their 

emission calculations. They are also 

required to report the total nameplate 

capacity of new equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, 

and the total nameplate capacity of 

retiring equipment, including 

hermetically sealed-pressure equipment. 

However, they are not required to 

distinguish between hermetically 

sealed-pressure and other equipment in 

these reports. 

In lieu of reporting the total 

nameplate capacity for all hermetically 

sealed-pressure equipment and other 

equipment, we are proposing to require 

facilities to separately report the 

nameplate capacities of hermetically 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

19We excluded hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment from the requirement to annually 

inventory the total nameplate capacity of the 

facility’s electrical equipment because hermetically 

sealed-pressure equipment tends to have small 

individual charge sizes, to be serviced only rarely 

or not at all, and to be spread in large numbers 

throughout transmission and distribution networks, 

making it relatively difficult to track after it is 

installed. However, it is relatively easy (and 

currently required) to track this equipment when it 

is installed or retired (75 FR 74803, December 1, 

2010). 

sealed-pressure equipment and other 

equipment that they install and retire 

during the year. We are also proposing 

to require facilities to report the 

numbers of pieces of hermetically 

sealed-pressure equipment and other 

equipment that they install and retire 

during the year. These additional 

requirements would not require any 

additional data gathering but would 

enable us to better understand the 

quantities of SF6 contained in 

hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, 

which is typically used in medium 

voltage, distribution applications. 

Currently, the GHGRP does not require 

reporting of the quantity of SF6 inside 

such equipment or the number of pieces 

of such equipment.19 Information on the 

nameplate capacities and numbers of 

pieces of such equipment being 

installed and retired, along with the 

corresponding information for other 

types of equipment, would provide 

insight into the relative importance of 

the two types of equipment as potential 

emission sources (e.g., upon disposal), 

and a rough but useful gauge of the 

average charge sizes of both types of 

equipment, which affects the choice of 

strategy for reducing emissions. 

Historically, hermetically sealedpressure equipment has been 

considered to be a relatively small 

source of SF6 in the U.S., but its 

importance is known to be growing 

internationally and may also be growing 

domestically. These data elements 

represent information that reporters are 

expected to have readily available and 

would therefore generally result in only 

a slight increase in reporting burden. 

The proposed amendments would 

add reporting of the nameplate 

capacities of new hermetically sealedpressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 

98.306(a)(2)), new SF6- or PFC-insulated 

equipment other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 

CFR 98.306(a)(3)), retired hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 

CFR 98.306(a)(4)), and retired SF6- or 

PFC-insulated equipment other than 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear 

(proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(5)). These 

data elements are inputs to an emission 

equation (Equation DD–1). Therefore, 

the EPA evaluated these data elements 

to determine if their public release 

would cause disclosure concerns, using 

the process established in the Final 

Deferral Notice (76 FR 53057, August 

25, 2011). The EPA determined that 

facilities reporting under this subpart 

consist of public utilities, including 

electric cooperatives, public supply 

corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley 

Authority), federal agencies (e.g., 

Bonneville Power Administration), and 

municipally-owned electric utilities. 

These are public or publicly-regulated 

utilities that are not affected by 

competitive market conditions that may 

apply to other industries. The reported 

data relates to maintenance activities 

and installation of new/replacement of 

existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g., 

circuit breakers, switchgear, power 

transformers, etc.) and amounts of SF6

and PFC used or recovered in servicing 

or replacing such equipment. These data 

elements do not disclose any 

information about a manufacturing 

process or operating conditions that 

would be proprietary. Therefore, the 

EPA is proposing that there are no 

disclosure concerns with these 

proposed data elements, and they must 

be reported in e-GGRT. 

Because we recognize that the range 

of charge sizes can be large (e.g., greater 

than an order of magnitude) for both 

types of equipment, we are requesting 

comment on an alternative approach in 

which facilities would report the 

numbers of pieces of each type of 

equipment that are newly installed or 

retired and that fall into particular 

nameplate capacity ranges. One possible 

set of ranges is shown in Table 6 of this 

preamble: 

TABLE 6—NAMEPLATE CAPACITY

RANGES FOR REPORTING NUMBERS

OF PIECES OF NEW AND RETIRING

EQUIPMENT

[Pounds of SF6] 

0 to 0.5. 

>0.5 to 1. 

>1 to 15. 

>15 to 30. 

>30 to 100. 

>100 to 500. 

>500. 

While this approach would require 

more effort than providing the total 

numbers of pieces of equipment newly 

installed and retired for hermetically 

sealed-pressure equipment and for all 

other equipment, it would provide more 

precise data. For example, it would 

enable us to distinguish between 

situations in which most newly 

installed, hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment had a charge size of 1 or 2 

pounds, and situations in which most 

such equipment had a charge size of one 

or two ounces, but the average charge 

size was inflated by a few outliers with 

charge sizes of ten pounds or more. 

For more information on subpart DD 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

R. Subpart FF—Underground Coal 

Mines 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart FF of Part 98 

(Underground Coal Mines). This section 

discusses the substantive changes to 

subpart FF; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart FF To 

Streamline Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing three changes to subpart FF 

that will streamline reporting of GHG 

emissions under subpart FF. 

First, for the reasons described in 

section III.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA 

is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), 

which provides that an owner or 

operator of a facility that has reported to 

the GHGRP can stop reporting to the 

program if all applicable GHG-emitting 

processes and operations permanently 

cease to operate. Facilities may take 

advantage of this provision beginning in 

the year after the cessation of 

operations. However, paragraph (i)(3) 

expressly precludes owners and 

operators of underground coal mines 

from using this off-ramp even after a 

mine is closed and abandoned. 

Underground coal mines may only cease 

reporting after meeting the other criteria 

in 40 CFR 98.2(i): (1) If GHG emissions 

fall below 25,000 mtCO2e for five 

consecutive years, or (2) if GHG 

emissions fall below 15,000 mtCO2e for 

three consecutive years. The EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to 

give owners and operators of abandoned 

underground mines the opportunity to 

use the off-ramp provided by paragraph 

(i)(3). Specifically, we are proposing to 

amend paragraph (i)(3) to state that 

paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to 

underground coal mines, except those 

whose status is determined to be 

‘‘abandoned’’ by MSHA. In keeping 

with the proposed changes to 40 CFR 

98.2(i) discussed in section III.A.1 of 

this preamble, these proposed revisions 

would apply beginning on January 1, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2565 

20U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Methane Emissions from Abandoned Coal Mines in 

the United States: Emission Inventory Methodology 

and 1990–2002 Emissions Estimates. Washington, 

DC, April 2004. http://epa.gov/cmop/docs/amm_

final_report.pdf. 

21See 30 CFR 75.1711. 

22U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety & Health 

Administration. Coal Mine Safety And Health 

General Inspection Procedures Handbook. 

Handbook Number: PH13–V–1. 

2017. All other proposed revisions to 

subpart FF, as discussed in this section, 

would apply beginning January 1, 2018 

(see section I.E of this preamble for 

additional information). 

In proposing this change, the EPA 

recognizes that non-flooded 

underground coal mines continue to 

liberate methane even after the mining 

operations cease. However, methane 

liberation from closed mines occurs on 

a rapidly declining basis until the mine 

is sealed and declared abandoned by 

MSHA, and sealed shafts emit virtually 

no methane to the atmosphere. This is 

supported by the EPA’s work in 

developing a methodology for 

calculating emissions from abandoned 

underground mines.20

The proposed change will streamline 

reporting under subpart FF by limiting 

reporting to facilities actively emitting 

measurable volumes of methane. 

Reports submitted by closed and 

abandoned mines during the first four 

years of the GHGRP show that 

abandoned and sealed mines produce 

quantities of GHG emissions far below 

the reporting threshold, and the data are 

of limited value for the GHGRP and U.S. 

GHG Inventory while resulting in 

additional reporting burden for 

facilities. 

With respect to defining when a mine 

is considered abandoned, the EPA is 

proposing to rely on the MSHA 

determination of a mine’s operational 

status as ‘‘abandoned,’’ because it is a 

transparent, publicly available indicator 

of mine operational activity. The 

operational status of any mine can be 

found using MSHA’s on-line Mine Data 

Retrieval System (MDRS) http://

www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. 

Moreover, the MSHA abandoned status 

provides confidence that closed mines 

are sealed, and are, therefore, not 

emitting methane. MSHA regulations 

require operators to seal any mine that 

has been permanently closed or 

abandoned for more than 90 days.21 The 

MSHA operating procedures require an 

MSHA district manager to inspect and 

certify that the mine is sealed as part of 

the abandonment process.22

Furthermore, the EPA believes that 

this proposed change has the added 

benefit of removing a perceived conflict 

with 40 CFR 98.320(c), ‘‘Definition of 

the source category’’, in subpart FF. 

This provision exempts abandoned and 

closed underground coal mines as 

source categories required to report to 

the GHGRP. Some reporters are 

uncertain which provision, 40 CFR 

98.2(i) or 40 CFR 98.320(c), takes 

precedence when formerly operating 

and reporting mines change status to 

abandoned and sealed mines. The EPA 

believes the proposed modification 

would remove any ambiguity and 

uncertainty, clarifying when 

underground coal mines may cease 

reporting to the GHGRP and 

streamlining implementation of the 

GHGRP. 

Second, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments to clarify when moisture 

content is to be reported. The first 

several amendments apply to 40 CFR 

98.326, which lists the data reporting 

requirements for subpart FF. The EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326(o) to 

require reporting of moisture content 

only in those cases where the 

volumetric flow rate and CH4

concentration from a specific mine 

ventilation or degasification monitoring 

point are not measured on the same dry 

or wet basis, and in the case that flow 

rate is measured with a flow meter that 

does not automatically correct for 

moisture content. For example, if the 

volumetric flow rate at a specified 

monitoring point is measured on a dry 

basis but CH4 concentration at that 

monitoring point is measured on a wet 

basis, then the reporter must report 

moisture content for the monitoring 

point unless using a flow meter that 

automatically corrects for moisture 

content. The EPA is proposing to amend 

40 CFR 98.326 (f) through (i) to require 

reporters to specify whether volumetric 

flow rate and CH4 concentration 

measurements for ventilation and 

degasification systems are determined 

on a wet or dry basis. The proposed 

changes would also amend 40 CFR 

98.326(f) and (h) to specify that where 

a flow meter is used, the reporter must 

indicate whether the flow meter 

automatically corrects for moisture 

content. This information will provide 

the necessary information for the 

reporter and for the EPA to determine if 

moisture content should be reported for 

an individual facility. 

Third, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments related to moisture content 

in 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324, 

which lists the requirements for 

calculating GHG emissions. The EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.323(a)(2) 

to read, ‘‘Values of V, C, T, P, and, if 

applicable, (fH2O), . . .’’ so that ‘‘if 

applicable’’ more explicitly applies to 

the moisture content term, (fH2O). The 

EPA is proposing the same change for 

40 CFR 98.323(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

98.324(b)(1). The changes to 40 CFR 

98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324 are being 

proposed to ensure consistency with the 

proposed change to 40 CFR 98.326(o). 

2. Revisions to Subpart FF To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing two changes to subpart FF 

that will improve the quality of data 

received by the GHGRP and seeking 

comment on a third. First, the EPA is 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.324(b) to 

no longer allow MSHA quarterly 

inspection reports to be used as a source 

of data for monitoring methane liberated 

from ventilation systems. Instead, the 

facility will be required to use either of 

the two other methods set forth in the 

rule to monitor methane released from 

mine ventilation systems: CEMS or 

independently collected grab samples. 

Second, the EPA is proposing to add 

annual coal production to the list of 

data reporting requirements outlined in 

40 CFR 98.326. Third, the EPA is 

seeking comment on increasing the 

frequency with which grab samples 

must be taken, from quarterly to 

monthly. 

Under 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) through 

(3), reporters may choose to monitor 

methane liberated from mine ventilation 

systems using any one or a combination 

of three approved methods: 40 CFR 

98.324(b)(1)—quarterly grab samples; 40 

CFR 98.324(b)(2)—data from MSHA 

quarterly inspection reports; or 40 CFR 

98.324(b)(3)—use of a CEMS. MSHA 

conducts health and safety inspections 

at all operating mines at least once every 

quarter. Each inspection includes a 

methane survey of the ventilation 

system to ensure that the mines are 

operating within prescribed safety 

limits. To obtain methane 

measurements, an MSHA inspector 

takes grab samples using sealed test 

tubes. The samples are analyzed at an 

MSHA laboratory. A handheld 

anemometer is used to determine 

ventilation air flow. Approximately 50 

percent of the 125 mines reporting to 

the GHGRP use MSHA quarterly reports 

as the basis for reporting methane 

liberation from ventilation. 

The EPA is proposing to remove the 

option of using MSHA quarterly 

inspection reports as an accepted 

methodology for monitoring methane 

liberation in mine ventilation systems. 

Reporters would be required to collect 

grab samples or use a CEMS to monitor 

mine ventilation systems. This change 

will remove 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2). We are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2566 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

23From 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 4. See: 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/

2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf. 

proposing this change because we have 

determined, through several reporting 

cycles and a review of MSHA quarterly 

inspection reports for 30 of the highest 

emitting mines, that the quarterly flow 

rate data gathered by MSHA cannot 

reliably be used for GHG reporting 

purposes. MSHA regulations and 

inspections are intended to ensure mine 

worker health and safety rather than to 

quantify specific mine operating 

parameters. MSHA inspections provide 

important data for assessing mine safety, 

and if complete, MSHA data may 

provide a reasonable estimate of 

methane emissions from underground 

coal mines. However, the EPA found 

that for many facilities the MSHA data 

can result in too many data gaps to meet 

the objectives of the GHGRP, adding 

considerable uncertainty to the 

calculation of facility and sector-wide 

GHG emissions. One common example 

is the occasional inconsistency in the 

locations within specific mines where 

MSHA inspectors take volumetric flow 

measurements and methane grab 

samples. Sampling locations are not 

fixed and, from quarter to quarter, 

inspectors may use more than one name 

for a single approach. In addition, 

approaches and even shafts may not 

appear in every quarterly report. For 

more information on the EPA’s review 

of the MSHA data see the memorandum 

titled ‘‘Use of Inspection Data from the 

Mine Safety Health Administration for 

Reporting Quarterly Methane Liberation 

from Mine Ventilation Shafts’’ from 

Clark Talkington, ARI to Cate Hight, 

EPA, dated November 13, 2015, in 

Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526. Although this rule change will 

increase the burden on facilities that 

currently use MSHA data to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.324(b), the 

EPA has determined that the proposed 

amendment is necessary to improve the 

quality of data consistent with the 

intended purpose of Part 98. In 

proposing this change, the EPA is 

seeking comment on whether other 

alternatives, such as surface level 

samples taken at the fan mouth, would 

achieve the same objectives for 

improved data quality from mine 

ventilation systems. The EPA 

encourages commenters to submit 

studies, data, and background 

information that can support additional 

analysis. 

The second proposal to improve data 

quality under subpart FF adds a new 

provision 40 CFR 98.326(u). The EPA is 

proposing to require reporters to report 

the total volume of coal produced, in 

short tons, during the reporting period. 

An important approach for verifying the 

accuracy of subpart FF annual reports is 

a comparison of year to year changes in 

methane liberation and methane 

emissions for each facility. To support 

report verification, the EPA is proposing 

to add coal production to the list of 

required data to be reported under 

subpart FF. In many instances, an 

increase or decrease in coal production 

is a reasonable explanation for a 

corresponding increase or decrease in 

methane liberation. Obtaining annual 

coal production data with the annual 

subpart FF report would allow the EPA 

to review year-to-year changes in 

methane emissions in light of changes 

in coal production. These data are 

expected to reduce the burden on 

reporters and the EPA in verifying the 

annual reports. This change will not 

result in additional reporting burden for 

the mine because coal companies 

closely track coal production and report 

quarterly production totals to MSHA. 

MSHA makes quarterly and annual coal 

production publicly available through 

MSHA’s Mine Data Retrieval System 

(MDRS) at http://www.msha.gov/drs/

drshome.htm. Total annual coal 

production for the reporting year is 

publicly available by the March 31st 

GHGRP submission date in the year 

following the reporting year. 

Third, the EPA is seeking comment on 

increasing the sampling frequency for 

reporters using grab samples from 

quarterly to monthly in order to provide 

more accurate and reliable data. 

Currently, mines that monitor methane 

liberation from grab samples must take 

at least one grab sample per quarter for 

each ventilation monitoring point (40 

CFR 98.324(b)(1)), and report methane 

liberation on a quarterly basis. Minespecific daily and weekly data sets show 

that significant day-to-day and week-toweek variation in methane emissions 

can occur depending on operating and 

geologic conditions at a mine. 

According to the IPCC Guidelines, 

frequent measurements of underground 

coal mine emissions can account for 

such variability and also reduce the 

intrinsic errors in the measurement 

techniques. As emissions vary over the 

course of a year due to variations in coal 

production rate and associated drainage, 

good practice is to collect measurement 

data as frequently as practical, 

preferably biweekly or monthly to 

smooth out variations.23 Preliminary 

analysis of high frequency ventilation 

air emissions at underground coal mines 

shows that uncertainty decreases as 

sampling frequency increases. 

Therefore, increasing the frequency with 

which grab samples are taken from 

quarterly to monthly could improve the 

accuracy of ventilation data reported to 

the GHGRP. In considering this change, 

the EPA analyzed high-frequency 

datasets of ventilation air methane 

(VAM) emissions at three mines (Mines 

‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, and ‘‘C’’) to examine the 

uncertainty associated with weekly, 

monthly, and quarterly sampling based 

on using a random day selection 

approach. 

Using VAM emissions data recorded 

daily and weekly from the three 

underground coal mines (one with daily 

sampling and two with weekly 

sampling), the EPA analyzed the average 

daily VAM emissions rate by randomly 

selecting the sampling day or week 

during a 12 month reporting period. 

Mine A had daily CH4 emissions 

ranging from 1 to 4 million cubic feet 

per day (mmcfd) with an average of ∼2.5 

million cubic feet per day mmcfd. Mine 

B had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 

4 to 18 mmcfd (avg. ∼10.1 mmcfd). Mine 

C had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 

1 to 7 mmcfd (averaging. ∼3.6 mmcfd). 

To assess the variability in emissions, 

each case was run for a weekly, 

monthly, and quarterly sampling 

frequency over a 12 month reporting 

period. For Mine A, the results showed 

that weekly sampling produced a small 

standard deviation of 1.6% compared to 

daily sampling. For all three mines, the 

results showed the standard deviations 

increased to 4.3–5.2% when sampling 

frequency decreased from weekly to 

monthly sampling. Finally, the results 

showed the standard deviations 

increased to 12.1–13.4% when sampling 

frequency decreased from monthly 

sampling to quarterly sampling. Due to 

the day-to-day variability in VAM 

emissions, ranges of maximum possible 

errors are also greater with decreased 

sampling frequency. Deviations from the 

actual value for monthly sampling 

ranged from 8.8–10.7%, while 

deviations for quarterly sampling ranged 

from 20.6–35.1%. 

This analysis demonstrates that 

uncertainty decreases as sampling 

frequency increases, most noticeably 

when the frequency decreases from 

quarterly to monthly. Although the EPA 

considered requiring weekly sampling, 

it appears that monthly sampling strikes 

the most appropriate balance between 

improving data quality while limiting 

the additional burden on reporters for 

more frequent sampling. The EPA also 

notes that a number of mines reporting 

to the GHGRP already take grab samples 

on a more frequent basis than the 

quarterly MSHA sampling requirements. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2567 

In addition, based on published papers 

the EPA understands that many mining 

operations conduct ventilation surveys 

on a monthly and possibly more 

frequent basis as a critical element of 

good practice health and safety. Air 

samples are taken as part of the 

ventilation survey to confirm levels of 

hazardous gases. Therefore, the EPA 

believes an amendment to increase 

monitoring frequency is feasible for the 

industry. The EPA is also seeking 

comment on other monitoring 

frequencies higher than monthly (such 

as biweekly) or monitoring frequencies 

higher than quarterly but less than 

monthly (such as bimonthly). 

For additional information regarding 

the EPA’s preliminary analysis for 

increasing monitoring frequency, see the 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Evaluating 

Possible VAM Emissions Estimation 

Errors Based on Different Sampling 

Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly),’’ 

Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 

10, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526. The EPA encourages 

commenters to submit studies, data, and 

background information demonstrating 

multi-year VAM monitoring on a basis 

that is more frequent than quarterly. 

This information will help determine 

the appropriate frequency of monitoring 

for ventilation emissions that is needed 

to ensure accurate and reliable 

measurements. 

Finally, we are also proposing a 

change to 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) to require 

use of the most recent edition of the 

MSHA Handbook for inspections and 

sampling procedures entitled, Coal 

Mine Safety and Health General 

Inspection Procedures Handbook 

Number: PH13–V–1, February 2013. 

In addition to improving the quality 

of data reported to the GHGRP, and, in 

turn, the quality of emissions data 

aggregated and reported to the public by 

the GHGRP, the proposed changes to 

monitoring methods for mine 

ventilation systems, as well as the 

addition of annual coal production to 

the data reporting requirement, would 

improve the emissions estimates for coal 

mines reported in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. For more information on 

subpart FF confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of 

this preamble. 

3. Other Amendments to Subpart FF 

As described in section II.C of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions to 

Part 98 to respond to issues raised by 

reporters and to more closely align rule 

requirements with the processes 

conducted at specific facilities. The 

following proposed revisions to subpart 

FF are in response to comments and 

questions we have received since 

reporting under subpart FF began in 

2011. 

In 40 CFR 98.323(a) and (b), we are 

proposing to clarify for Equations FF–1 

and FF–3 the method for determining 

the number of days in a month or week 

(n) where active ventilation and 

degasification are taking place. In both 

equations, the definition of Number of 

Days (n) is being clarified to note that 

(n) is determined by taking the number 

of hours in the monitoring period and 

dividing by 24 hours per day. 

In 40 CFR 98.323(a)(3) and 40 CFR 

98.323(b)(2), the text is being amended 

to state that the quarterly sum of CH4 

liberated from ventilation and 

degasification systems, respectively, 

‘‘must be’’ rather than ‘‘should be’’ 

determined as the sum of the CH4 

liberated at each monitoring point 

during that quarter. This change is being 

proposed because calculating the 

quarterly sum of CH4 liberated is 

required rather than being optional. 

The EPA is proposing to remove ‘‘If 

applicable’’ in 40 CFR 98.324(h) to 

clarify that the provision requiring the 

owner or operator to document the 

procedures used to ensure the accuracy 

of gas flow rate, gas composition, 

temperature, pressure, and moisture 

content measurements is a requirement 

for all reporters, because grab samples 

and CEMS would be the only acceptable 

monitoring methods if the amendments 

to 40 CFR 98.324(b) are finalized as 

proposed. 

In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(2), we are 

proposing to clarify the start date and 

end date for a well, shaft, or vent hole. 

This requirement has caused confusion 

for some reporters. The start date of a 

well, shaft, or vent hole is the date of 

actual initiation of operations and may 

begin in a year prior to the reporting 

year. For purposes of reporting, we are 

amending paragraph (r)(2) to state that 

the end date of a well, shaft, or vent 

hole is the last day of the reporting year 

if the well, shaft, or vent hole is 

operating on that date. 

In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(3), we are 

proposing to add language clarifying the 

method for determining and reporting 

the number of days a well, shaft, or vent 

hole was in operation during the 

reporting year. The number of days is 

determined by dividing the total 

operating hours in the reporting year by 

24 hours per day. This change is 

consistent with similar changes to the 

method for determining number of days 

in Equations FF–1 and FF–3, discussed 

earlier in this section. 

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart FF 

In addition to the substantive changes 

proposed, for the reasons described in 

section II.D of this preamble, we are 

proposing minor revisions that are 

intended to clarify specific provisions in 

subpart FF. These minor revisions are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

S. Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart HH of Part 98. 

This section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart HH; additional 

minor amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart HH To 

Streamline Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment that is intended to 

simplify and streamline the 

requirements of subpart HH and focus 

the provisions of the rule on the 

essential data that the EPA requires to 

review, assess, and verify reported 

emissions. We are proposing to revise 

40 CFR 98.346(f) to remove the 

requirement to report the surface area 

for each type of cover material used at 

the facility. The surface area for each 

cover material used has not been useful 

in assessing or verifying reported 

emissions and therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to remove the requirement to 

report this data. The proposed 

amendment will still require the 

reporting of the total surface area of the 

landfill containing waste (in square 

meters) and an identification of the 

type(s) of cover material used. This 

information is used during verification 

to check the consistency of the 

collection efficiency reported by the 

landfill. However, when multiple cover 

types are used, reporters will no longer 

be required to report the surface area of 

the landfill containing waste associated 

with each cover type. The proposed 

change would reduce the burden to 

reporters and the agency as described in 

section II.A of this preamble. 

2. Revisions to Subpart HH To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several amendments to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2568 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

subpart HH that would allow the EPA 

to collect data that would improve the 

EPA’s understanding of sector GHG 

emissions while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for 

reporters. 

First, we are seeking comment on 

whether revisions should be made to 

Table HH–3 to allow landfill owners or 

operators to determine the weighted 

average collection efficiency for their 

landfill using either an area-based 

weighting approach, as has been 

required in previous reporting years, or 

a volume-based weighting approach. We 

are also seeking comment on whether 

reporters should be given the option to 

use either approach, or if one approach 

should be required if reporters meet 

certain landfill characteristics and if so, 

what those landfill characteristics 

should be. We have received comments 

from reporters stating that the area 

weighted average does not accurately 

reflect the overall efficiency of the gas 

collection system due to differences in 

the waste depth or age in different 

portions of their landfill. We considered 

allowing reporters to define subareas of 

the landfill and perform all of the 

subpart HH calculations and report the 

equation inputs for each subarea. This 

approach would consider the effects of 

waste age, composition, and quantity for 

the different landfill subareas, but it 

would essentially double or triple the 

number of reporting elements, 

depending on the number of subareas 

defined. We next considered providing 

a volume-based weighting approach for 

calculating collection efficiency. This 

approach only considers some of the 

variables that influence methane 

generation rate, but these are variables 

already reported, namely the depths for 

each waste area defined in Table HH– 

3. If the option to use the area weighted 

approach or the volume-based 

weighting approach is finalized, no new 

reporting elements beyond an indication 

of which weighting approach is used 

would be required. This revision would 

allow us to use the data previously 

reported to develop a consistent time 

line, if necessary, without requiring 

reporters to revise previously submitted 

reports. If a requirement to use one 

approach over another for reporters with 

certain landfill characteristics is 

finalized, one or more new reporting 

elements may be required depending on 

what the certain landfill characteristics 

are. 

Consequently, we are seeking 

comment on (1) whether reporters 

should be given the option to calculate 

the collection efficiency; (2) whether 

reporters should be allowed to use and 

report the option of either the area 

weighted average or the volume 

weighted average approach; (3) whether 

reporters should be required to use one 

approach over the other depending on 

specific landfill characteristics (e.g., 

reporters with drastically different 

wastes depths in portions of their 

landfill should be required to use the 

volume weighted approach); and (4) 

what those specific landfill 

characteristics should be. We expect 

that the many landfills that have similar 

waste depths in different areas of their 

landfill (or a single area) will maintain 

their existing data collection and 

calculation procedures by using the area 

weighted average. In contrast, we expect 

reporters with different waste depths in 

portions of their landfill to use the 

volume weighted average approach, 

thereby improving the accuracy of the 

data reported for those landfills. If 

finalized, these changes would be 

effective beginning with the 2016 

reporting year and are not retroactive. 

We are proposing to broaden the 

description of area type A5 in Table 

HH–3 to include alternative final covers. 

Currently, facilities with landfill gas 

collection and approved alternative 

final covers are not allowed to use the 

95 percent collection efficiency in their 

emissions calculations because an 

alternative final cover does not fit the 

exact language in the definition for area 

type A5 in Table HH–3. This proposed 

revision would allow facilities with 

alternative final covers to use a 

collection efficiency greater than 75 

percent. Alternative final covers may 

include, but are not limited to, 

evapotranspiration covers, capillary 

barrier covers, asphalt covers, or 

concrete covers. The state, local, or 

other agency responsible for permitting 

the landfill determines whether an 

alternative final cover meets the 

applicable regulatory requirements and 

has been shown to adequately protect 

human health and the environment. 

This rule does not intend to provide 

details of the design or implementation 

of alternative final covers and solely 

relies on the agency responsible for 

permitting the landfill to approve an 

alternative final cover at the facility. For 

clarity, we are also proposing a 

definition for alternative final covers to 

this effect in 40 CFR 98.348. 

We are also proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.346(i)(5) to require reporting of 

the annual hours that active gas flow 

was sent to each destruction device 

instead of reporting the annual 

operating hours for each destruction 

device associated with a given 

measurement location. The proposed 

revision refers to the fraction of hours 

the destruction device was operating 

(fDest), which is a term used in Equations 

HH–6 and HH–8. The term fDest is 

defined as the ‘‘fraction of hours the 

destruction device associated with the 

nth measurement location was operating 

during active gas flow calculated as the 

annual operating hours for the 

destruction device divided by the 

annual hours flow was sent to the 

destruction device as measured at the 

nth measurement location . . .’’ 

Although no changes are being made to 

the definition or calculation of fDest, 

there is currently no reporting 

requirement for the ‘‘. . . hours . . . 

operating during active gas flow . . .’’ 

in the rule. By collecting these data, the 

proposed revision would allow the 

EPA’s reporting tool to accurately 

calculate fDest, as well as the results of 

Equations HH–6 and HH–8. More 

accurate calculation by e-GGRT would 

improve verification of the existing data 

by reducing the number of reporters that 

override their equation results, resulting 

in fewer potential errors identified 

during the verification process. The 

removal of the current requirement to 

report the annual operating hours for 

each destruction device associated with 

a given measurement location would 

not impede verification of reported data, 

as this parameter is not used in the 

subpart calculations. We are also 

proposing to move the requirement to 

report the annual operating hours of the 

gas collection system for each 

measurement location in 40 CFR 

98.346(i)(7) to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to 

consolidate all reporting requirements 

that are associated with each 

measurement location to the same 

paragraph, consistent with reporting 

organization used in e-GGRT. 

Finally, landfills with active gas 

collection systems must calculate and 

report their GHG emissions in two ways. 

Equation HH–6 is designed to be driven 

by the modeled methane generation 

(i.e., Equation HH–1), whereas Equation 

HH–8 is driven by methane recovery 

(i.e. Equation HH–4). For a landfill with 

an active gas collection system, where 

the quantity of recovered methane is 

greater than the modeled methane 

generation (i.e., the result of Equation 

HH–4 is greater than the result of 

Equation HH–1), we are proposing that 

the facility must report the results of 

Equation HH–8 as the final subpart HH 

methane emissions instead of the value 

for Equation HH–6. 

We allowed the term GCH4 in Equation 

HH–6 to be substituted with the greater 

of the Equation HH–4 or Equation HH– 

1 value to avoid a negative result when 

the quantity of recovered methane is 

greater than the modeled methane 

generation. We reviewed several years 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2569 

of facility data and found a few cases 

where the amount of methane recovered 

by the gas collection system was greater 

than the amount of modeled methane 

generation. After reviewing the reports 

where this occurs, as well as examining 

the difference in net emissions between 

Equation HH–6 and HH–8 at these 

facilities, we concluded that the value of 

Equation HH–6 is not reliable for use as 

the final subpart HH emissions when 

the amount of methane recovered is 

greater than the amount of modeled 

methane generation. The substitution of 

Equation HH–4 for GCH4 was only done 

to prevent a negative value of methane 

emissions for Equation HH–6. The EPA 

did not intend for that value to then be 

used as the total subpart HH emissions 

since it is not possible to recover more 

methane from the landfill than was 

generated. To prevent inaccurate values 

from being reported as the final subpart 

HH methane emissions, we are 

proposing to expressly add the 

‘‘methane emissions for the landfill’’ as 

a reporting element in 40 CFR 

98.346(i)(13). This proposed new 

paragraph directs reporters to ‘‘Choose 

the methane emissions from either 

Equation HH–6 of this subpart or 

Equation HH–8 of this subpart that best 

represents the emissions from the 

landfill. If the quantity of recovered CH4

from Equation HH–4 of this subpart is 

used as the value of GCH4 in Equation 

HH–6 of this subpart, use the methane 

emissions calculated using Equation 

HH–8 of this subpart as the methane 

emissions for the landfill.’’ 

For more information on subpart HH 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

3. Other Amendments to Subpart HH 

and Grant of Petition for 

Reconsideration 

We are proposing two amendments 

for subpart HH for the reasons described 

in section II.C of this preamble. These 

proposed amendments are anticipated 

to have minimal or no impact on burden 

for reporters. On April 2, 2013, the EPA 

proposed flux-dependent oxidation 

fractions based on data provided by 

industry representatives (78 FR 19802). 

While we proposed the use of these 

oxidation fractions with no minimum 

soil cover requirement, we received 

comments on the proposed soil 

oxidation fractions noting that soil 

oxidation only occurs with soil of 

adequate depth, porosity, temperature 

and microbes. To respond to this 

comment, we reviewed the soil depths 

present in the peer-reviewed studies 

upon which the data were based and 

determined that the studies supporting 

the higher flux-dependent oxidation 

fractions were performed on soils with 

an average depth across all of the 

studies reviewed of 24 inches or more 

of soil cover. We finalized the proposed 

flux dependent soil oxidation fractions, 

and also included a requirement that 

these flux dependent soil oxidation 

fractions could only be used if the 

majority of the landfill area that 

contains waste has a soil cover of at 

least 24 inches (78 FR 71971, November 

29, 2013). We subsequently received an 

administrative petition for 

reconsideration from Waste 

Management, Inc. (hereafter referred to 

as ‘‘Petitioner’’) on January 28, 2014 

regarding the inclusion of this minimum 

soil cover requirement in order to use 

the flux-dependent soil oxidation 

fractions, titled ‘‘Waste Management’s 

Petition for Reconsideration of 2013 

Revisions to Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule and Final Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Substantially 

Revised Data Elements Docket I.D. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0934’’ (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Petition for 

Reconsideration,’’ available in the 

docket for this rulemaking). This section 

of this preamble discusses the specific 

issue raised in the Petition for 

Reconsideration that is addressed in this 

action, the review and analysis that was 

undertaken since the Petition for 

Reconsideration was received, and the 

changes the EPA is proposing in 

response to the petition. The EPA 

intends to complete its response to the 

Petition for Reconsideration through 

this rulemaking. 

In response to the Petition for 

Reconsideration, the EPA re-evaluated 

the available peer-reviewed literature 

(27 studies) at the time of proposal 

regarding soil oxidation fractions. This 

review found that 85 percent of the data 

points in the literature where both 

methane oxidized and cover depth were 

reported had a cover depth of 24 inches 

or more. This investigation confirmed 

that the vast majority of the soil 

oxidation studies were performed on 

landfills with cover depths of 24 inches 

or more, which was the basis for the 24 

inch soil depth requirement in the final 

rule (78 FR 71927, November 29, 2013). 

However, several of these studies 

investigated the oxidation profile within 

the cover soil and several of these 

studies indicated that the majority of 

soil oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 

inches of the soil cover. While some of 

the data support the idea that the bulk 

of the oxidation may occur in the top 12 

to 15 inches of the soil, it is unclear 

whether these soils would have had 

similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 

inches of soil cover were present. For 

further details on the review of the soil 

oxidation literature, see the 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Review of 

Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover 

Depth in the Peer-Reviewed Literature’’ 

from Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, 

and Jeff Coburn, RTI International to 

Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 

2015, in Docket Id. Number EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526. 

We also reviewed the codified state 

standards from all 50 states for 

requirements regarding intermediate or 

interim cover depth and found that the 

depth requirements are not consistent 

from state to state, and for some states 

depth requirements are not specified 

(e.g., Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire). 

Most states require a minimum 

intermediate cover thickness of 12 

inches. Some states include a minimum 

intermediate cover depth in their 

regulations that is inclusive of the 

federally-mandated 6 inches of daily 

cover depth. For example, 

Massachusetts requires a minimum 

intermediate cover depth of 12 inches, 

including 6 inches of daily cover. Other 

states, such as Florida, require 12 inches 

of intermediate cover in addition to the 

6 inches of initial cover, thereby 

requiring 18 inches of intermediate 

cover in total. 

After reviewing the literature on the 

soil oxidation studies and the codified 

state standards for intermediate soil 

cover, we determined that while the 

literature studies are not conclusive 

regarding the minimum soil cover 

necessary for oxidation to occur, they do 

show that oxidation generally occurs 

with at least 12 inches of soil cover. 

Further, most states require at least 12 

inches of intermediate soil cover. As a 

result, we are proposing to revise and 

clarify the soil cover requirements as 

follows. First, we are proposing to revise 

the phrase ‘‘. . . for a majority of the 

landfill area containing waste . . .’’ to 

read ‘‘. . . for at least 50 percent of the 

landfill area containing waste . . .’’ to 

clarify that we intended the majority of 

the landfill to mean 50 percent or more. 

Second, we are proposing to revise the 

requirement for ‘‘. . . a soil cover of at 

least 24 inches . . .’’ to read ‘‘. . . 

intermediate or interim soil cover . . .’’ 

Third, we propose to define 

intermediate or interim soil cover in 40 

CFR 98.348 to mean ‘‘the placement of 

material over waste in a landfill for a 

period of time prior to disposal of 

additional waste and/or final closure as 

defined by state regulation, permit, 

guidance or written plan, or state 

accepted best management practice.’’ In 

the case where a landfill is located in a 

state that does not have an intermediate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2570 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

24See IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by 

the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., 

Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, 

Japan. Available at: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. 

or interim soil cover requirement as 

proposed to be defined, we are 

proposing to add a footnote to Table 

HH–4 stating that the landfill must have 

a soil cover of 12 inches or greater to use 

an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. 

Lastly, in our review of the oxidation 

studies, we noted that some 

investigators observed that soil methane 

flux near passive vent locations was 

low. Most of the landfills where 

methane flux and soil oxidation were 

measured occurred at landfills with 

active gas collection systems. For 

landfills with passive gas collection, a 

significant portion of the generated 

methane can be released via these 

passive vents and bypass diffusion 

through the cover soil. That is, landfill 

gas that is lost through the passive vents 

would not undergo any soil oxidation. 

The GHGRP does not currently require, 

nor are we proposing to require, direct 

measurement of passive vent flows; 

thus, a facility is unable to determine 

the fraction of the generated landfill gas 

that bypasses the soil cover and it is 

therefore not possible to estimate a 

weighted average soil oxidation fraction 

for landfills with passive vents. It is 

important to note that the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2006 Guidelines 24 recommends 

the use of oxidation fractions ranging 

from 0 to 10 percent largely due to the 

fact that landfill gas will flow primarily 

through channels of least flow 

resistance, which one would expect the 

passive vents to be. If there are fissures 

in the soil cover (or passive vent 

systems), a significant portion of the 

landfill gas will be released without any 

oxidation occurring. However, we are 

not proposing to require the use of an 

oxidation fraction of zero for landfills 

with passive or active venting because 

a small portion of the generated landfill 

gas will pass through the soil cover and 

undergo soil oxidation. Because we 

would expect a larger portion of the 

generated landfill gas to be released via 

the passive vents, for the portion of the 

landfill gas that does diffuse through the 

soil cover the methane flux rate is 

expected to be small, resulting in a 

fraction of methane oxidized that is 

expected to be greater than 10 percent. 

Considering the gas released through the 

passive or active vents and the methane 

that remains to be oxidized in the soil 

cover, while not precise, the overall 

oxidation fraction could be expected to 

average approximately 10 percent. 

Therefore, we are proposing revisions to 

Table HH–4 to require landfills that 

have passive or active vent systems that 

service greater than 50-percent of the 

landfill area containing waste or 

landfills that have only passive or active 

vent systems to use the default 10 

percent oxidation fraction in their 

emission calculations. The EPA is 

seeking comment on whether landfills 

with only passive or active vent systems 

or landfills with such systems on greater 

than 50 percent of the landfill area 

containing waste should be required to 

use the 10 percent oxidation fraction. If 

finalized, these changes to Table HH–4 

would be effective beginning with the 

2016 reporting year and are not 

retroactive. The table as it appeared 

before these proposed revisions applies 

to the relative earlier reporting years. 

While we are proposing to lower the 

minimum amount of soil cover required 

to use certain oxidation fractions, we are 

proposing to require the use of a 10 

percent oxidation fraction for landfills 

with passive or active venting, or for 

landfills with less than 12 inches of soil 

cover (that do not also have a 

geomembrane cover) because 

application of higher soil oxidation 

fractions would be inappropriate at 

landfills with limited cover soils or 

passive vent systems because a 

significant portion of the landfill gas 

may be released through channels or 

vents with little to no soil oxidation 

occurring. 

We are also proposing to add 

definitions of ‘‘passive vent’’ and 

‘‘active venting’’ to further clarify the 

rule requirements as they pertain to 

landfill gas collection system flow and 

composition monitoring and the use of 

soil oxidation fractions. Specifically, we 

are proposing ‘‘Passive vent means a 

pipe or a system of pipes that allows 

landfill gas to flow naturally, without 

the use of a fan or similar mechanical 

draft equipment, to the surface of the 

landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) 

allows for the free flow of landfill gas to 

the atmosphere or to a passive vent flare 

without diffusion through the top layer 

of surface soil.’’ ‘‘Active venting means 

a pipe or a system of pipes used with 

a fan or similar mechanical draft 

equipment (forced convection) used to 

actively assist the flow of landfill gas to 

the surface of the landfill where the 

landfill gas is discharged either directly 

to the atmosphere or to a noncombustion control device (such as a 

carbon absorber) and then to the 

atmosphere.’’ As described previously, 

we are proposing to require landfills 

with passive vents or active venting to 

use a default oxidation fraction of 0.1. 

Providing these definitions clarifies the 

meaning of these terms and thereby 

clarifies the reporters that must use the 

0.1 oxidation fraction. 

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart HH 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor corrections and 

clarifications to subpart HH of Part 98, 

including editorial changes and 

clarifications to reporting requirements. 

These minor revisions are summarized 

in the Table of Revisions available in 

the docket for this rulemaking (Docket 

Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

T. Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment 

We are proposing amendments to 

subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial 

Wastewater). This section discusses the 

substantive changes to subpart II; 

additional minor amendments, 

corrections, and clarifications are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart II To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 and Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing amendments to subpart II 

reporting requirements that would 

provide additional data to support 

estimates included in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory, while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for 

reporters. 

We are proposing an amendment to 

40 CFR 98.356 to require facilities that 

perform ethanol production to indicate 

if their facility uses a wet milling 

process or a dry milling process. To 

clarify this requirement, we are 

proposing amendments to 40 CFR 

98.358 to add definitions of ‘‘wet 

milling’’ and ‘‘dry milling.’’ The EPA 

intends to use the data on the numbers 

of facilities with wet versus dry milling 

processes and their respective 

wastewater characteristics to update 

assumptions used in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory and thereby improve the 

estimates of U.S. emissions from 

wastewater treatment at ethanol 

production facilities. In addition, the 

EPA intends to update the U.S. GHG 

Inventory using data on the level of 

biogas recovery in use at wet milling 

facilities and at dry milling facilities. 

For more information on subpart II 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2571 

2. Other Amendments to Subpart II 

For the reasons described in section 

II.C of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several clarifying 

amendments to subpart II; these 

proposed changes would have no 

impact on burden for reporters. In order 

to resolve uncertainties in the reporting 

requirements in 40 CFR 98.356(b)(1) and 

40 CFR 98.356(d)(3) through (d)(6) 

regarding how to calculate weekly 

averages for chemical oxygen demand 

(COD) and 5-day biochemical oxygen 

demand (BOD5) concentration, CH4

concentration, biogas temperature, 

biogas moisture content, and biogas 

pressure, the EPA is proposing an 

amendment to 40 CFR 98.358 to add a 

definition of the term ‘‘weekly average.’’ 

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart II 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor clarifications to subpart II 

of Part 98. These minor revisions are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

U. Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-Based 

Liquid Fuels 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments to subpart LL of 

Part 98 (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid 

Fuels). This section discusses the 

substantive changes to subpart LL; 

additional minor amendments, 

corrections, and clarifications are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart LL To 

Streamline Implementation 

For the reasons described in section 

II.A of this preamble, we are proposing 

several revisions to 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based 

Liquid Fuels) to clarify requirements 

and amend data reporting requirements, 

resulting in a decrease in burden for 

reporters. 

As described in section II.A of this 

preamble, we are proposing to remove 

the requirements of 40 CFR 98.386(a)(4), 

(a)(8), (a)(15), (b)(4), and (c)(4) for each 

facility, importer, and exporter to report 

the annual quantity of each coal-based 

liquid fuel on the basis of the 

measurement method used. Reporters 

would continue to report the annual 

quantities of each coal-based liquid fuel 

in metric tons or barrels at 40 CFR 

98.386(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and 

(c)(2). We are also proposing to clarify 

that the quantity of bulk natural gas 

liquids (NGLs) reported under 40 CFR 

98.386(a)(20) should not include NGLs 

already reported as individual products 

under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2). These 

changes not only clarify the reporting 

requirements, but also harmonize 

subpart LL requirements with those of 

subpart MM. 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart LL 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

several minor clarifications to subpart 

LL of Part 98. These minor revisions are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

V. Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural 

Gas and Natural Gas Liquids 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments, clarifications, and 

corrections to subpart NN of Part 98 

(Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural 

Gas Liquids). This section discusses the 

substantive changes to subpart NN; 

additional minor amendments, 

corrections, and clarifications are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart NN To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, we are proposing 

one amendment to subpart NN that 

would improve the quality of the data 

collected under Part 98 while generally 

resulting in only a slight increase in 

burden for reporters. Each local 

distribution company (LDC) reporting 

under subpart NN is defined in 40 CFR 

98.400(b) as a company that owns or 

operates distribution pipelines that 

physically deliver natural gas to end 

users that are within a single state. LDCs 

provide the EPA with a corporate 

address on their certificate of 

representation which may or may not be 

within the state where the LDC operates. 

The EPA is proposing to add a new 

reporting requirement at 40 CFR 

98.406(b)(14) to support data 

verification and make the data more 

useful to the public. The new data 

element would require LDCs to provide 

the name of the U.S. state or territory 

covered in the report. This data element 

will improve the EPA’s ability to 

compare reported data to information 

contained in outside data sets (such as 

those from the EIA). Adding this 

requirement will enable the EPA to 

identify a larger portion of LDCs in the 

EIA data set which will lead to 

improved data quality in both the EPA 

and the EIA data sets. This data element 

will also allow users of GHGRP data to 

more easily identify the state within 

which the LDC operates, which will be 

useful for determining state level GHG 

totals associated with natural gas 

supply. 

For more information on subpart NN 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart NN 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several changes to subpart 

NN that are corrections, editorial 

changes, and minor clarifications to 

improve understanding of the rule. 

These additional minor corrections to 

subpart NN are discussed in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for 

this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

W. Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases 

In this action, we are proposing 

several amendments to subpart OO of 

Part 98 (Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases). This section 

discusses all of the proposed changes to 

subpart OO. 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions 

that would allow the EPA to collect data 

that would improve the EPA’s 

understanding of industrial GHG 

supplies while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for 

reporters. We are proposing three 

amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 

(Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases) that would improve the quality 

of the data collection under Part 98 and 

improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

We are proposing two revisions to the 

definition of the source category to 

include facilities that (1) destroy 25,000 

mtCO2e or more of industrial greenhouse 

gases and/or fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids annually; or (2) produce, import, 

or export fluorinated heat transfer fluids 

(HTFs) that are not also fluorinated 

greenhouse gases. We are also proposing 

to expand the scope of monitoring and 

reporting to include production, 

transformation, destruction, imports, 

and exports of fluorinated HTFs that are 

not also fluorinated GHGs. 

Revisions to Include Facilities that 

Destroy Fluorinated GHGs and 

Fluorinated HTFs. To develop an 

accurate estimate of the U.S. supply of 

fluorinated GHGs, it is necessary to 

track all significant additions to and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2572 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

25Such differences have been seen for other 

fluorinated GHGs; a recent comparison between the 

U.S. supply of SF6 reported under OO and the 

demand for SF6 calculated based on reporting under 

subparts I, T (Magnesium Production), DD 

(Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use), and SS (Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment) found that in 2012, 

supplies exceeded the calculated demand by more 

than half. 

subtractions from that supply. 

Additions to the U.S. supply include 

production and import, while 

subtractions include transformation, 

destruction, and export. Currently, 

subpart OO requires producers and 

importers to report the quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs that they produce, 

import, transform, destroy, or send to 

another facility for destruction. 

(Exporters are required to report the 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs that they 

export.) While this reporting accounts 

for destruction by producers and 

importers, it does not account for 

destruction by other entities. This may 

result in a significant underestimate of 

the quantities destroyed because the 

fluorinated GHG market includes 

participants who neither produce nor 

import industrial GHGs but may end up 

destroying them, such as refrigerant 

reclaimers who clean used HFCs for 

reuse. On occasion, these reclaimers 

may destroy fluorinated GHGs that are 

found to be irretrievably contaminated. 

Alternatively, they may send such 

fluorinated GHGs to a facility other than 

a fluorinated gas producer or importer 

for destruction. In other cases, 

fluorinated GHG users may themselves 

recognize that recovered fluorinated 

GHGs are irretrievably contaminated 

and send them directly to a destruction 

facility. 

By requiring facilities that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs to report that 

destruction, we would capture such 

destruction and thereby eliminate a 

potential overestimate of the U.S. 

supply of fluorinated GHGs. To avoid 

covering the destruction of very small 

quantities of fluorinated GHGs that do 

not have a material impact on the CO2e

fluorinated GHG supply, we are also 

proposing to require facilities that 

destroy fluorinated GHGs (and are not 

otherwise covered by subpart OO) to 

report that destruction only if they 

destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of 

fluorinated GHGs annually. This is 

consistent with the thresholds currently 

applied to facilities that destroy HFC–23 

under subpart O and to importers and 

exporters of industrial GHGs under 

subpart OO. 

This expansion of the definition of the 

subpart OO source category would 

apply to facilities that destroy 

previously produced fluorinated GHGs 

and that are not already required to 

report any residual emissions of the 

destroyed fluorinated GHGs under 

another subpart. For example, cement 

kilns that annually accept and destroy a 

total of 25,000 mtCO2e or more of 

irretrievably contaminated HFCs or SF6

recovered from air-conditioning or 

electrical equipment would be covered, 

but electronics manufacturing facilities 

that dissociate fluorinated GHGs during 

and/or after etching and chemical vapor 

deposition chamber cleaning processes 

would not be covered. Electronics 

facilities are currently required to report 

both their emissions and their effective 

destruction efficiencies under subpart I, 

and we therefore already receive data to 

account for the impacts of electronics 

manufacturing on fluorinated GHG 

supplies and emissions. 

We estimate that five to ten 

destruction facilities would be newly 

covered by subpart OO under this 

amendment. This estimate is based on 

the number of facilities that report 

destruction of ozone-depleting 

substances (ODSs) to the EPA under the 

Stratospheric Protection Program. 

Because fluorinated GHGs are 

chemically similar to ODSs, are 

manufactured and imported by many of 

the same facilities and companies that 

manufacture and import ODSs, and are 

used in many of the same applications 

as ODSs, the set of facilities destroying 

fluorinated GHGs is likely to be similar 

to the set of facilities destroying ODSs. 

These facilities include hazardous waste 

treatment facilities that use a variety of 

different destruction technologies such 

as plasma arc and combustion. Facilities 

destroying very small quantities of 

ODSs were excluded from the total 

because similar quantities of fluorinated 

GHGs appeared unlikely to equal or 

exceed the proposed 25,000 mtCO2e

threshold (using an average GWP of 

2000). 

The same rationale applies to 

destruction of fluorinated HTFs; 

reporting by suppliers of fluorinated 

HTFs is discussed below. 

Revisions to Include Facilities that 

Produce, Import, Transform, Export or 

Destroy Fluorinated Heat Transfer 

Fluids and to Require Reporting of these 

Activities. We are also proposing to 

revise subpart OO to include entities 

that produce, import, transform, export, 

or destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not 

also fluorinated GHGs under the subpart 

A definition, and to require monitoring 

and reporting of these activities from all 

suppliers that engage in them. 

Currently, the Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gas source category 

includes suppliers of, and requires 

reporting of, nitrous oxide and 

fluorinated GHGs. The definition of 

fluorinated GHG excludes compounds 

whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm 

Hg at 25 degrees C, because in 

applications where temperatures are 

near or below 25 degrees C, such 

compounds are not likely to evaporate 

and enter the atmosphere (74 FR 56348, 

October 30, 2009). However, fluorinated 

HTFs are used in electronics 

manufacturing applications where 

temperatures can be much higher. 

Consequently, even compounds whose 

vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 

25 degrees C can enter the atmosphere 

when used in these applications. For 

this reason, subpart I (Electronics 

Manufacturing) defines fluorinated 

HTFs to include compounds whose 

vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 

25 degrees C (as well as above this level) 

and that are used in temperature 

control, device testing, cleaning 

substrate surfaces and other parts, and 

soldering; and subpart I requires 

electronics manufacturing facilities to 

report emissions of these compounds. 

We are proposing to use essentially the 

same definition for subpart OO. 

Collecting information on the U.S. 

supply of fluorinated HTFs would 

enable us to compare reported supplies 

to the demand for fluorinated HTFs that 

we calculate based on the emissions (1) 

reported under subpart I, and (2) 

estimated for electronics facilities that 

do not report under subpart I (e.g., 

because they fall below the threshold). 

Large differences would imply that 

emissions are being over- or 

underestimated, for example because 

some users and emitters of fluorinated 

HTFs are not being accounted for.25

Because many fluorinated HTFs are 

composed of fully-fluorinated GHGs and 

have GWPs near 10,000, it is important 

to ensure that we are accurately 

accounting for fluorinated HTF 

emissions on a national level. 

Suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would 

be subject to the same thresholds as 

suppliers of fluorinated GHGs. That is, 

there would be no threshold for 

producers of fluorinated HTFs, but the 

threshold for importers, exporters, and 

destroyers of fluorinated HTFs would be 

25,000 mtCO2e of fluorinated HTFs or 

GHGs. We anticipate that few, if any, 

suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be 

required to begin reporting under this 

provision because all suppliers of 

fluorinated HTFs are believed to report 

under subpart OO already. (One 

possible exception is facilities that 

destroy but do not produce or import 

fluorinated HTFs, but this group of 

facilities is included in the set of 

destruction facilities discussed above.) 

The incremental burden associated with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2573 

reporting production, import, export, 

and destruction of fluorinated HTFs that 

are not also fluorinated GHGs is 

expected to be modest, e.g., it may 

involve reporting supplies of one to 

twelve additional compounds by two to 

three suppliers of fluorinated HTFs. 

For more information on subpart OO 

confidentiality determinations resulting 

from these proposed revisions, see 

section IV of this preamble. 

X. Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration 

of Carbon Dioxide 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart RR of Part 98 

(Geologic Sequestration of Carbon 

Dioxide). This section discusses all of 

the proposed changes to subpart RR. 

As discussed in section II.B of this 

preamble, we are proposing revisions 

that would allow the EPA to collect data 

that would improve the EPA’s 

understanding of GHG emissions from 

geologic sequestration, while generally 

resulting in a minimal increase in 

burden for reporters. The EPA is 

proposing to add a data reporting 

element to 40 CFR 98.446 to indicate 

whether the facility is injecting a CO2

stream in subsurface geologic 

formations to enhance the recovery of 

oil or natural gas. This additional data 

element will also allow the EPA to make 

categorical confidentiality 

determinations on data elements related 

to CO2 received and CO2 produced that 

currently have a confidentiality status 

that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

(77 FR 48072, 48081–48083; August 13, 

2012). For more information on subpart 

RR confidentiality determinations 

resulting from this proposed revision, 

see section IV of this preamble. 

Y. Subpart TT—Industrial Waste 

Landfills 

In this action, we are proposing 

amendments to subpart TT of Part 98 

(Industrial Waste Landfills). This 

section discusses the substantive 

changes to subpart TT; one additional 

correction is summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart TT To Improve 

the Quality of Data Collected Under Part 

98 

For the reasons described in section 

II.B of this preamble, the EPA is 

proposing several amendments to Table 

TT–1 to subpart TT of Part 98 that 

would improve the quality of the data 

collected under the GHGRP and 

improve the EPA’s understanding of 

sector GHG emissions, and are 

anticipated to either have no impact on 

the burden for reporters or may reduce 

burden for some facilities currently 

using site-specific factors. During the 

development of subpart TT, we received 

several comments regarding the need to 

provide more default DOC values for 

specific industrial waste streams, 

particularly from the pulp and paper 

industry. Additionally, on May 17, 

2013, we received written comments 

from the American Forest and Paper 

Association and the American Wood 

Council, with input from the National 

Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, on the proposed 2013 

Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule and Proposed 

Confidentiality Determination for New 

or Substantially Revised Data Elements 

(78 FR 19802, April 2, 2013). These 

comments stated that the current DOC 

values in Table TT–1 overstate 

substantially the GHG emissions from 

landfills at pulp and paper mills. (See 

Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012– 

0934). One suggested resolution was for 

the EPA to create separate categories of 

wastes that would include largely 

inorganic waste streams and assign a 

lower DOC value in Table TT–1. At that 

time, the information provided in the 

comments was considered new, the 

comments contained only limited data 

on which to base any changes, and they 

did not address items that were not part 

of the proposal. The EPA also did not 

have data to develop more waste 

specific DOC values for any of the 

industrial waste categories. Instead, we 

provided methods in the rule that 

allowed reporters to develop sitespecific DOC values for wastes that may 

not be well-characterized by the default 

values provided in Table TT–1. While 

we still maintain that site-specific DOC 

values are preferable to the Table TT– 

1 defaults, we reviewed the site-specific 

DOC values reported under subpart TT 

from 2011 to 2013 to determine if we 

had adequate data to develop more 

specific industry default DOC values for 

inclusion in Table TT–1. For most 

industries, we did not have enough data 

from site-specific DOC estimates to 

establish new or revise default DOC 

values for inclusion in Table TT–1. 

However, we had site-specific DOC data 

for over 100 waste streams at pulp and 

paper manufacturing facilities. We note 

that the pulp and paper industry 

accounts for approximately 55 percent 

of the subpart TT reporters and accounts 

for 62 percent of the emissions reported 

during the 2013 reporting year. Within 

the data, we found four general pulp 

and paper waste types for which 

reporters commonly developed sitespecific DOC values. These are: Boiler 

ash, kraft recovery (causticizing) wastes, 

wastewater treatment sludges, and other 

(which included hydropulper rejects, 

bark wastes, and digester knots). We 

found that our general pulp and paper 

waste (other than industrial sludge) 

default DOC value was reasonable for 

the ‘‘other’’ waste category, but 

overestimated DOC content for other 

pulp and paper waste streams. Boiler 

ash and kraft recovery wastes had very 

low DOC values, but not low enough to 

be considered ‘‘inerts.’’ We also found 

that wastewater treatment sludges for 

the pulp and paper industry had, on 

average, a slightly higher DOC content 

than the default for ‘‘industrial sludge.’’ 

See memorandum, ‘‘Review of SiteSpecific Industrial Waste Degradable 

Organic Content Data’’ from Jeff Coburn 

and Katherine Bronstein, RTI 

International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, 

dated June 17, 2015 in Docket Id. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

Based on the available site-specific 

DOC values for these different pulp and 

paper industry wastes, we consider it 

appropriate to provide additional 

default DOC values for the pulp and 

paper industry for the purposes of 

improving the accuracy of the methane 

emissions estimates reported under 

subpart TT. Specifically, we are 

proposing to provide default DOC 

values for the four specific pulp and 

paper industry waste types previously 

listed. The proposed default DOC value 

for boiler ash is 0.06; the proposed 

default DOC value for kraft recovery 

wastes is 0.025. As proposed, these 

values, rather than the previous ‘‘pulp 

and paper waste (other than industrial 

sludge)’’ default value of 0.20 or the 

‘‘Inert Waste [i.e., waste listed in 40 CFR 

98.460(c)(2)]’’ default value of 0, should 

be used for these specific waste streams. 

The proposed default DOC value for 

pulp and paper wastewater sludge is 

0.12, which would be required, as 

proposed, for pulp and paper 

wastewater treatment sludges rather 

than the generic ‘‘Industrial Sludge’’ 

default value of 0.09. The fourth 

category being proposed is ‘‘Other Pulp 

and Paper Wastes (not otherwise 

listed)’’ and is to be used for all other 

pulp and paper wastes not included in 

the three other pulp and paper 

categories; the proposed default DOC 

value for this category is 0.20, which is 

consistent with the previous default for 

general pulp and paper wastes. In 

addition, we are adding a footnote to 

Table TT–1 to explain that kraft 

recovery wastes include green liquor 

dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which 

may also be referred to collectively as 

causticizing or recausticizing wastes. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2574 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Reporters used any and all of these 

terms in their submitted reports to refer 

to these waste types. 

While we are proposing to provide 

these specific defaults for different types 

of waste in the pulp and paper industry, 

we do not intend to prevent the pulp 

and paper industry from using the other 

default values in Table TT–1 that may 

apply. For example, if construction and 

demolition wastes are disposed of in a 

landfill at a pulp and paper 

manufacturing facility, the reporter may 

still use the construction and 

demolition waste default DOC value for 

these waste streams. However, to clarify, 

we intend to require the pulp and paper 

industry to use the industry-specific 

wastewater sludge default DOC value, 

and are therefore proposing to revise the 

‘‘Industrial Sludge’’ category to be 

‘‘Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and 

paper industry sludge).’’ 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications 

to Subpart TT 

For the reasons described in section 

II.D of this preamble, we are proposing 

one minor correction to subpart TT of 

Part 98 that is an editorial change. This 

minor revision is summarized in the 

Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). 

Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, 

and Corrections 

In addition to the substantive 

amendments proposed in sections III.A 

through III.Y of this preamble, for the 

reasons described in section II.D of this 

preamble, we are proposing minor 

revisions, clarifications, and corrections 

to subparts P, U, MM, PP, and UU of 

Part 98. The proposed changes to these 

subparts are provided in the Table of 

Revisions for this rulemaking, available 

in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526, and include clarifying 

requirements to better reflect the EPA’s 

intent, corrections to calculation terms 

or cross-references that do not revise the 

output of calculations, harmonizing 

changes within a subpart (such as 

changes to terminology), simple 

typographical errors, and other minor 

corrections (e.g., removal of redundant 

text). 

IV. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Changed 

Data Reporting Elements 

A. Overview and Background 

In this notice we are proposing 

confidentiality determinations for new 

or substantially revised reporting data 

elements (i.e., the data required to be 

reported would change under the 

proposed revision) in the proposed 

subpart rule amendments. We are also 

proposing confidentiality 

determinations for certain existing data 

elements for which a confidentiality 

determination has not previously been 

proposed or finalized, or where the EPA 

has determined that the current 

determination is no longer appropriate. 

In this action, we are proposing 

confidentiality determinations for 117 

new or substantially revised data 

reporting requirements in 21 subparts. 

We are not proposing new 

confidentially determinations for data 

reporting elements where the change 

does not require an additional or 

different data element to be reported. 

The final confidentiality determinations 

the EPA has previously made for these 

minimally revised data elements are 

unaffected by this proposed amendment 

and continue to apply. 

We are also proposing confidentiality 

determinations for 27 existing data 

elements in subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, 

and RR that are not revised in the 

proposed amendments. These include 

22 data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, 

and RR for which the EPA had not made 

previous confidentiality determinations 

under Part 98, as well as two data 

elements in subpart NN for which a 

previous confidentiality determination 

is proposed to be revised because of 

new information indicating the data 

element is not entitled to confidential 

treatment under the provisions in 40 

CFR 2.208. We are also proposing 

confidentiality determinations for three 

data elements in subpart PP that were 

included in the finalized ‘‘Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from New, Modified, and 

Reconstructed Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units’’ (EGU 

NSPS) (Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2013–0495). 

These proposed confidentiality 

determinations would be finalized 

before the end of 2016 based on public 

comment. The confidentiality 

determinations for new and 

substantially revised data elements 

would apply at the same time as the 

proposed rule amendments described in 

sections II and III of this preamble, as 

described in section I.E of this 

preamble. The confidentiality 

determinations for the existing Part 98 

data elements would apply to reports 

submitted in RY2016 as well as all prior 

reporting years in which the data 

elements applied. This proposal is one 

of a series of rulemakings dealing with 

confidentiality determinations for data 

reported under Part 98. For more 

information on previous confidentiality 

determinations for Part 98 data 

elements, see the following notices: 

• 75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010; hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘July 7, 2010 CBI 

proposal.’’ Describes the data categories 

and category-based determinations the 

EPA developed for the Part 98 data 

elements. 

• 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2011 Final 

CBI Rule.’’ Assigned data elements to 

data categories and published the final 

CBI determinations for the data 

elements in 34 Part 98 subparts, except 

for those data elements that were 

assigned to the ‘‘Inputs to Emission 

Equations’’ data category. 

• 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012, 

hereafter referred to as ‘‘2012 Final CBI 

Determinations Rule.’’ Finalized 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements reported under nine subparts I, 

W, DD, QQ, RR, SS, UU; except for 

those data elements that are inputs to 

emission equations. Also finalized 

confidentiality determinations for new 

data elements added to subparts II and 

TT in the November 29, 2011 Technical 

Corrections Notice (76 FR 73886). 

• 78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013; 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2013 

Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Electronics 

Manufacturing.’’ Finalized 

confidentiality determinations for new 

data elements added to subpart I. 

• 78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013; 

hereafter referred to as the ‘‘2013 

Revisions Rule.’’ Finalized 

determinations for new and revised data 

elements in 15 subparts, except for 

those data elements assigned to the 

‘‘Inputs to Emission Equations’’ data 

category. 

• 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; 

Final Inputs Rule. Revised 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for 23 subparts and 

finalized confidentiality determinations 

for new data elements in 11 subparts. 

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations 

To make the determinations proposed 

in this notice, we applied the same 

approach as previously used for making 

confidentiality determinations for data 

elements reported under the GHGRP, 

which consisted of assigning data 

elements to an appropriate data category 

and then either assigning the previously 

determined category-based 

confidentiality determination or making 

an individual determination if the data 

element is assigned to a category for 

which no category-based determination 

was previously made. The data 

categories used were those finalized in 

the 2011 Final CBI Rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2575 

26See, e.g., FR 48072 (August 13, 2012) and 77 FR 

51477 (August 24, 2012). 

27With the exception of subpart RR, the EPA 

inadvertently did not proposed CBI determinations 

for these data elements. For subpart RR, the EPA 

initially proposed that all data elements were not 

CBI (see Proposed Confidentiality Determinations 

for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting 

of Greenhouse Gases, 77 FR 1434; January 10, 

2012). We then received comment that in certain 

cases, for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas 

(ER), the data would be CBI. In the 2012 Final CBI 

Determinations Rule, the EPA did not have a 

subpart RR data element to distinguish between the 

ER and non-ER facilities. Therefore, the EPA did 

not finalize the CBI determinations for those certain 

cases, but rather noted that the EPA would evaluate 

the confidentiality status on a case-by-case basis. 

The remaining subpart RR data elements (including 

monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) 

plans, annual mass of CO2 emitted by surface 

leakage, and annual mass of CO2 sequestered) were 

determined not to be CBI in the 2012 Final CBI 

Determinations Rule. In this action, we are 

proposing to add a new data element to indicate 

whether a facility is conducting ER, which now 

enables proposed confidentiality determinations to 

be made. 

28See, e.g., ‘‘Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 

2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations 

for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems’’ (79 FR 

70352, November 25, 2014). 

29Excludes data elements assigned to the ‘‘Inputs 

to Emissions Equations’’ data category. ‘‘Inputs to 

Emissions Equations’’ are considered emissions 

data. This memorandum includes the data element 

that is not being assigned to a data category. 

In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, the EPA 

made categorical confidentiality 

determinations for data elements 

assigned to eight direct emitter data 

categories and eight supplier data 

categories. For two direct emitter data 

categories (‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process 

Operating Characteristics that Are Not 

Inputs to Emission Equations,’’) and 

three supplier data categories (‘‘GHGs 

Reported,’’ ‘‘Production/Throughput 

Quantities and Composition,’’ and 

‘‘Unit/Process Operating 

Characteristics’’), the EPA did not make 

categorical CBI determinations; instead 

the EPA determined that none of the 

data elements were emissions data (as 

defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)) and 

made CBI determinations for each 

individual data elements based on the 

criteria in 40 CFR 2.208. In subsequent 

amendments to Part 98,26 the EPA 

assigned each new or substantially 

revised data element to an appropriate 

data category created in the 2011 Final 

CBI Rule and applied the categorical 

confidentiality determination if one was 

established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. 

If a data element was assigned to one of 

the two direct emitter or three supplier 

data categories identified above that do 

not have categorical determinations, the 

EPA made individual CBI 

determinations. 

In this action, we are proposing to 

assign new and substantially revised 

data elements in the proposed 

amendments, as well as certain existing 

data elements in subparts I, Z, II, MM, 

NN, PP, and RR, to the appropriate 

direct emitter or supplier data 

category.27 For new, substantially 

revised, or existing data elements being 

assigned to categories with categorical 

confidentiality determinations, we 

propose to apply the categorical 

determinations made in the 2011 Final 

CBI Rule to the assigned data elements. 

For new, substantially revised, or 

existing reporting elements assigned to 

the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics 

that Are Not Inputs to Emission 

Equations’’ and the ‘‘Unit/Process 

‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not 

Inputs to Emission Equations’’ direct 

emitter data categories or the 

‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and 

Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process 

Operating Characteristics’’ supplier data 

categories, consistent with our approach 

toward data elements previously 

assigned to these data categories, we 

propose that these data elements are not 

emission data, and are making 

individual CBI determinations for the 

data elements in these categories. 

Although the EPA grouped similar 

data into categories and made 

categorical confidentiality 

determinations for a number of data 

categories, the EPA also recognized in 

previous rulemakings that similar data 

elements may not always have the same 

confidentiality status28. In these cases, 

the EPA made individual instead of 

categorical determinations for the data 

elements. In this action, for the reasons 

explained below in section IV.C of this 

preamble, we are proposing to make an 

individual CBI determination for one 

data element for which we are not 

assigning a data category. 

Please see the memorandum titled 

‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments 

and Confidentiality Determinations for 

Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 

Revisions’’ in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526 for a list of the 

proposed new, substantially revised, 

and existing data elements, their 

proposed category assignments, and 

their proposed confidentiality 

determinations (whether categorical or 

individual).29 Section IV.C of this 

preamble discusses the proposed CBI 

determinations and supporting rationale 

for new or substantially revised data 

elements. Section IV.D of this preamble 

describes the proposed CBI 

determinations and supporting rationale 

for existing data elements for which we 

have not previously proposed a 

confidentiality determination. Finally, 

section IV.E of this preamble discusses 

the proposed changes to the 

determinations and rationale for two 

existing data elements in subpart NN for 

which a confidentiality determination 

was previously established. 

C. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Substantially 

Revised Data Reporting Elements 

In this action, the EPA is proposing to 

assign each of the 117 new or 

substantially revised data reporting 

requirements to the appropriate direct 

emitter or supplier data category. New 

and substantially revised data elements 

assigned to categories with categorical 

confidentiality determinations are 

summarized in the memorandum 

‘‘Proposed Data Category Assignments 

and Confidentiality Determinations for 

Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 

Revisions,’’ available in Docket Id. No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. For new 

and substantially revised reporting 

elements assigned to direct emitter or 

supplier data categories without a 

categorical determination, we are 

proposing that these data elements are 

not emission data and are making 

individual CBI determinations for each 

data element. We are proposing 

individual CBI determinations for 48 

data elements assigned to the ‘‘Unit/ 

Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are 

Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and 

‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ direct emitter data 

categories and the ‘‘Production/ 

Throughput Quantities and 

Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process 

Operating Characteristics’’ supplier data 

categories. These data elements consist 

of 17 new data elements in the direct 

emitter subparts C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, 

DD, II, and subpart RR, and 27 new data 

elements in the supplier subpart OO. 

We are also proposing individual CBI 

determinations for four substantially 

revised data elements in subparts Y, DD, 

HH, and II. Table 7 of this preamble 

provides the category assignment and 

proposed rationale for the proposed 

determinations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2576 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR) 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

Direct Emitter Data Category 

C ............. 98.36(c)(1)(iii) (new) ... Cumulative maximum rated 

heat input capacity of the 

group, excluding units less 

than 10 (mmBtu/hr).

Not CBI .............. These data elements consist of descriptions of the 

cumulative heat input capacity for an aggregated 

group of stationary combustion units. These data 

elements do not reveal any proprietary information 

or any other information that could provide insight 

for competitors to gain an advantage because they 

do not provide specific design details. Further, 

these data elements provide information that that is 

generally already available to the public through 

other sources (e.g., operating permits). Therefore, 

we are proposing that these data elements are not 

CBI. 

C ............. 98.36(c)(3)(ii) (new) .... Cumulative maximum rated 

heat input capacity of the 

units served by the common 

pipe, excluding units less 

than 10 (mmBtu/hr).

Not CBI 

E .............. 98.56(f) (new) ............. Date of installation of abatement technology.Not CBI .............. These data elements do not provide insight into current production rates, raw material consumption, or 

other information that competitors could use to discern market share and other sensitive information. 

Information regarding the date of installation of 

abatement devices constitute general information 

that is already available to the public through other 

sources (e.g., construction permits). Therefore, we 

are proposing that this data element is not CBI. 

I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the 

information described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through 

(v) of this section. (iv) . . . 

For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the 

report must describe, where 

available: Wafer size.

Not CBI .............. The data element for the triennial technology review 

report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in 

the prior three years. The EPA previously made a 

determination that 40 CFR 98.96(y)(2)(iv) was 

emission data and, therefore, not CBI. Several of 

the data elements that we are proposing to clarify 

should be included are already reported under 40 

CFR 98.96 (e.g., wafer diameter) and the EPA is 

proposing the same category assignment and confidentiality determination for these data elements, 

including: • the wafer size • substrate type. Wafer 

size and substrate type are data elements that are 

published in datasets available from the World Fab 

Forecast. Furthermore, for the purposes of the triennial report, these data elements may be reported 

by one or multiple semiconductor manufacturing facilities, and may include measurements made by 

tool manufacturers or other fabs in lieu of fab-specific information. Therefore, we have concluded 

that the release of these data elements would not 

cause substantial competitive harm. For these reasons, we are proposing to assign a determination 

of not CBI. 

I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the 

information described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through 

(v) of this section. (iv) . . . 

For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the 

report must describe, where 

available: substrate type.

Not CBI 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2577 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the 

information described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through 

(v) of this section. (iv) . . . 

For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the 

report must describe, where 

available: Film type being 

manufactured.

CBI .................... This data element for the triennial technology review 

report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in 

the prior three years. We are proposing that the 

‘‘film type’’ is CBI because this data element could 

potentially provide insight into facility operating 

practices or proprietary device designs that are 

considered sensitive by the reporter. Information 

provided by semiconductor manufacturers in prior 

rulemakings indicates that this data element is 

closely guarded and protected as sensitive business information. 

I ............... 98.96(y)(2)(iv) (new) ... The report must include the 

information described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) through 

(v) of this section. (iv) . . . 

For any utilization, by-product formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the 

report must describe, where 

available: Linewidth or technology node.

Not CBI .............. The data element for the triennial technology review 

report is being revised to request additional information to be submitted as part of the report, if facilities are submitting data from utilization and byproduct formation rate measurements conducted in 

the prior three years. We are proposing that the 

‘‘linewidth or technology node’’ be categorized as 

‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics That are Not 

Inputs to Emission Equations’’ because this data 

elements describes basic characteristics of the 

products and processes in the facility that do not 

vary with time. We are proposing that the ‘‘the 

linewidth or technology node’’ are Not CBI because 

this data is publicly available. Specifically, these 

data elements are published in datasets available 

from the World Fab Forecast. We have therefore 

concluded that the release of this data will not 

cause substantial competitive harm. 

V .............. 98.226(h) (new) .......... Date of installation of abatement technology.Not CBI .............. This data element does not provide insight into current production rates, raw material consumption, or 

other information that competitors could use to discern market share and other sensitive information. 

Information regarding the date of installation of 

abatement devices constitute general information 

that is already available to the public through other 

sources (e.g., construction permits). Therefore, we 

are proposing that this data element is not CBI. 

Y .............. 98.256(e)(3) (new) ...... An indication of whether or not 

the flare is serviced by a 

flare gas recovery system.

Not CBI .............. The proposed data element, which describes whether 

the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system, is similar to: 40 CFR 98.256(e)(3) (description 

of flare gas service) and 40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual 

operating hours of gas collection system), for which 

we have previously assigned a ‘‘Not CBI’’ designation. Descriptions of flare gas service are not CBI 

because describing the type of flare or whether a 

flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system 

does not reveal any confidential information because flares are commonly used in the industry 

and no detailed specifications are required to be 

reported (see 75 FR 39113, July 7, 2010). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2578 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

DD ........... 98.306(m) (new) ......... Total miles of transmission 

and distribution lines located 

within each state or territory.

Not CBI .............. This data element is the same type of data that must 

be reported by these companies in 40 CFR 

98.306(b) and (c), which requires reporting of the 

aggregate length all transmission lines carrying 

voltages above 35 kilovolt and the aggregate 

length all distribution lines carrying voltages above 

35 kilovolt, for which we previously assigned a determination of not CBI. We had determined that the 

length of distribution lines and length of transmission lines are basic characteristics of equipment, and that facility-specific lines that do not vary 

with time or with the operations of the process. 

Moreover, facilities reporting under this subpart 

consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee 

Valley Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration), and municipally owned 

electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are not affected by competitive 

market conditions that may apply to other industries. Further, data on transmission and distribution 

miles is publicly available in the Platts UDI Directory of Electric Power Producers and Distributers, 

which can be purchased by any interested party. 

Disclosure of this proposed new data element by 

the EPA would not provide any additional insight 

into facility-specific operating conditions or process 

design or to any other proprietary or sensitive information that would give insight for competitors to 

gain an advantage over the reporter. 

DD ........... 98.306(n) (new) .......... The following numbers of 

pieces of equipment:.

(1) New hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during 

the year.

(2) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year.

(3) Retired hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear 

during the year.

(4) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year.

Not CBI .............. Facilities reporting under this subpart consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public 

supply corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power 

Administration), and municipally owned electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities 

that are not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. The reported data relate to maintenance activities and installation of new/replacement of existing gas-insulated equipment (e.g., circuit breakers, switchgear, 

power transformers, etc.) and amounts of SF6 and 

PFC used or recovered in servicing or replacing 

such equipment. These data elements do not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would be proprietary. Therefore, we are proposing that these data 

elements are not CBI. 

II .............. 98.356(a) (revised) ..... The average depth in meters 

of each anaerobic lagoon.

Not CBI .............. For the industries with industrial wastewater treatment, the types of information that are considered 

proprietary or have previously been determined to 

be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI determination 

notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing 

processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because 

this data element would not provide detailed insight 

into the design and operation of the facility’s manufacturing processes, raw materials, or products. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2579 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

II .............. 98.356(a) (revised) ..... Indicate whether biogas generated by each anaerobic 

process is recovered.

Not CBI .............. For these industries, the types of information that are 

considered proprietary or have previously been determined to be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI 

determination notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the 

manufacturing processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. 

We are proposing that this data element is not CBI 

because indicating whether biogas is recovered 

from an anaerobic process would not provide detailed insight into the design and operation of the 

facility’s manufacturing processes, raw materials, 

or products, and provides only general information 

about the wastewater treatment system that is not 

considered sensitive by manufacturers. 

II .............. 98.356(b)(6) (new) ...... For each anaerobic wastewater treatment process (reactor, deep lagoon, or shallow lagoon) you must report: If the facility performs 

an ethanol production processing operation as defined 

in § 98.358 of this subpart, 

you must indicate if the facility uses a wet milling 

process or a dry milling 

process.

Not CBI .............. For the industries with industrial wastewater treatment, the types of information that are considered 

proprietary or have previously been determined to 

be CBI in the May 26, 2011 final CBI determination 

notice include information on quantities and composition of raw materials used in the manufacturing 

processes and information on quantities and compositions of manufactured products. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because 

this data element would not provide detailed insight 

into the design and operation of the facility’s manufacturing processes raw materials, or products that 

is considered sensitive by reporters. This data element indicates only that the facility uses wet and/or 

dry milling, which is information that would be 

available from the facility’s construction and Title V 

operating permits. This data element combined 

with the volume of wastewater entering the treatment plant (reported under 40 CFR 98.356(b)(2)) 

provides information on the quantities of wastewater generated by wet and dry milling activities. 

However, this information does not provide insight 

into any sensitive information, such as the amount 

of grain processed through the wet and dry milling 

processes, the amount of ethanol produced, plant 

production efficiency, or production costs. 

RR ........... 98.446(g) (new) .......... Whether the CO2 stream is 

being injected into subsurface geologic formations 

to enhance the recovery of 

oil or natural gas.

Not CBI .............. This data element would identify whether a facility is 

performing enhanced oil recovery. We are proposing that this data element is not CBI because 

this data element does not reveal any significant 

details regarding the activities at the facility, the 

quantities of CO2 received, or the CO2 utilization 

rates of the facility 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2580 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics That Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

Direct Emitter Data Category 

F .............. 98.66(c)(2) (new) ........ The following PFC-specific information on an annual 

basis: Anode effect minutes 

per cell-day (AE-mins/cellday), anode effect frequency (AE/cell-day), anode 

effect duration (minutes). 

(Or anode effect overvoltage factor ((kg CF4/metric ton Al)/(mV/cell day)), 

potline overvoltage (mV/cell 

day), current efficiency (%).).

CBI .................... While the proposed new data elements share characteristics with data elements previously assigned to 

the ‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations’’ data categories, we have determined that they do not share the same characteristics or confidentiality status as the data elements 

already assigned to this data category. These data 

elements are not inputs to emissions equations. 

Annual anode effect minutes per cell day, anode 

effect frequency, anode effect duration (or annual 

anode effect overvoltage factor, potline overvoltage, and current efficiency) describe operating 

characteristics associated with aluminum production. Our review of these data elements shows that 

they qualify for confidential treatment. We are proposing to classify annual average anode effect 

minutes, anode effect frequency, and anode effect 

duration as CBI because these data elements are 

an important measure of process efficiency (which 

provides insight into a firm’s operational strengths 

and weaknesses) and are not otherwise publicly 

available. 

S .............. 98.196(b)(21) (new) .... Annual average results of 

chemical composition analysis of each type of lime 

product produced and 

calcined product or waste 

sold.

CBI .................... The proposed data elements describe the material 

composition of the products manufactured. These 

values are not used as inputs to emissions equations, rather, they are annual average values for 

the purposes of QA/QC of the composition data 

used as inputs to the emissions calculations. We 

are proposing these data elements as CBI because 

the reported data provides information on the composition of lime produced or raw material. Disclosing information revealing a facility’s product 

compositions could give competitors insight into a 

firm’s local and regional market conditions and expansion plans, enabling competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and to steal market 

share in specific locations. 

X .............. 98.246(a)(14) (new) .... Annual average of the measurements of the carbon content of each feedstock and 

product: (i) For feedstocks 

and products that are gaseous or solid, report this 

quantity in kg carbon per kg 

of feedstock or product.

(ii) For liquid feedstocks and 

products, report this quantity 

either in units of kg carbon 

per kg of feedstock or production or kg C per gallon 

of feedstock or product. 

CBI .................... The proposed data elements describe the carbon 

content and annually averaged weight of feedstocks. This information could disclose a facility’s 

feedstock composition, which could provide insight 

into its operational strengths and weaknesses, expose its competitive and marketing strategies, or 

reveal its suppliers and sourcing strategies. Therefore, we are proposing that these data element 

qualify as CBI. 

X .............. 98.246(a)(15) (new) .... For each gaseous feedstock 

and product, the annual average of the measurements 

of molecular weight in units 

of kg per kg mole.

CBI 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2581 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Y .............. 98.256(e)(6) (revised) Annual mass of flare gas combusted (in kg/yr).Not CBI .............. The proposed data element, which describes the annual mass of flare gas combusted, is similar to: 40 

CFR 98.256(e)(3) (description of flare gas service) 

and 40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual operating hours of 

gas collection system), for which we have previously assigned a ‘‘Not CBI’’ designation. Descriptions of flare gas service are not CBI. Describing 

the annual mass of flare gas combusted during the 

reporting year does not reveal any confidential information because flares are commonly used in the 

industry and no detailed specifications are required 

to be reported (see 75 FR 39113, July 7, 2010). 

HH ........... 98.346(i)(5)(iii)(B) (revised).The annual operating hours 

where active gas flow was 

sent to each destruction device.

Not CBI .............. This data element describes the operating characteristics of a destruction device. Although the proposed data element is similar to the prior data element in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) ‘‘Annual operating 

hours for each destruction device associated with a 

given measurement location,’’ this data element reflects a separate operating parameter. This data 

element is not an input to an emissions equation. 

We are proposing that this data element is Not 

CBI. This data element would not reveal any information about landfill fees, revenues, costs, or contracts. Such information does not reveal any trade 

secrets or other sensitive business information regarding the design or operation of an aeration system or the landfill. Further, this type of data on 

landfills is generally already publicly available from 

the municipalities operating landfills. We have 

therefore concluded that the release of this data 

will not cause substantial competitive harm. 

Date Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ Supplier Data Category 

OO ..........

OO ..........

98.416(a)(1) (new) ......

98.416(a)(2) (new) ......

Mass in metric tons of each 

. . . fluorinated HTF . . . 

produced at that facility by 

process, except for amounts 

that are captured solely to 

be shipped off site for destruction.

Mass in metric tons of each 

. . . fluorinated HTF . . . 

transformed at that facility, 

by process.

CBI ....................

CBI 

These data elements describe production and 

throughput quantities and product compositions (including products produced, imported, or exported). 

These data elements are the same type of data 

that must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for 

which we have previously assigned a determination 

of CBI. The disclosure of annual production quantities and composition of products (i.e., quantities 

sold and/or delivered), could provide insight into a 

firm’s market strength and position. Disclosure of 

facility-level production/throughput quantities and 

product compositions could give competitors insight 

into a firm’s local and regional market conditions 

and expansion plans, enabling competitors to devise strategies to prevent expansion and to steal 

market share in specific locations. Therefore, the 

EPA proposes to determine that these data elements are CBI. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2582 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(3) (new) ...... Mass in metric tons of . . . 

fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that facility and 

that was previously produced as defined at 

§ 98.410(b). Quantities to be 

reported under this paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

include but are not limited to 

quantities that are shipped 

to the facility by another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned 

to the facility for reclamation 

but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated 

and are therefore destroyed.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(5) (new) ...... Total mass in metric tons of 

each . . . fluorinated HTF 

. . . sent to another facility 

for transformation.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(6) (new) ...... Total mass in metric tons of 

each . . . fluorinated HTF 

sent to another facility for 

destruction, except . . . 

fluorinated HTFs that are 

not included in the mass 

produced in § 98.413(a) because they are removed 

from the production process 

as by-products or other 

wastes. Quantities to be reported under this paragraph 

(a)(6) could include, for example, fluorinated GHGs 

that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are 

found to be irretrievably 

contaminated and are therefore sent to another facility 

for destruction.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(7) (new) ...... Total mass in metric tons of 

each . . . fluorinated HTF 

that is sent to another facility for destruction and that is 

not included in the mass 

produced in § 98.413(a) because it is removed from 

the production process as a 

byproduct or other waste.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(11) (new) .... Mass in metric tons of . . . 

fluorinated HTF that is fed 

into the destruction device 

and that was previously produced as defined at 

§ 98.410(b). Quantities to be 

reported under this paragraph (a)(11) of this section 

include but are not limited to 

quantities that are shipped 

to the facility by another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned 

to the facility for reclamation 

but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated 

and are therefore destroyed.

CBI 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2583 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(12) (new) .... Mass in metric tons of . . . 

fluorinated HTF . . . that is 

measured coming out of the 

production process, by process.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(14) (new) .... Quantities (metric tons) of 

. . . of each . . . 

fluorinated HTF that were 

sent to each for transformation.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(a)(15) (new) .... Quantities (metric tons) of 

each . . . fluorinated HTF 

that were sent to each for 

destruction.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(1) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (1) 

Total mass in metric tons of 

. . . each . . . fluorinated 

HTF imported in bulk, including each . . . 

fluorinated HTF constituent 

of the . . . fluorinated HTF 

product that makes up between 0.5 percent and 100 

percent of the product by 

mass.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(2) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (2) 

Total mass in metric tons of 

. . . fluorinated HTF imported in bulk and sold or 

transferred to persons other 

than the importer for use in 

processes resulting in the 

transformation or destruction of the chemical.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(6) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (6) 

Commodity code of the . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . 

shipped.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(8) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (8) 

Total mass in metric tons of 

each . . . fluorinated HTF 

destroyed by the importer.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(9) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (9) 

Quantities of fluorinated 

HTFs sold or transferred to 

each facilities for transformation.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(10) (new) .... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (10) If 

applicable, the quantities 

(metric tons) of each . . . 

fluorinated HTF that were 

sold or transferred to each 

facility for destruction.

CBI 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2584 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

OO .......... 98.416(d)(1) (new) ...... Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide . . . at the corporate 

level . . . (1) Total mass in 

metric tons of . . . each 

. . . fluorinated HTF exported in bulk.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(d)(4) (new) ...... Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide . . . at the corporate 

level . . . (4) Commodity 

code of the . . . fluorinated 

HTFs . . . shipped.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(i) (new) ........... . . . quantities that are 

shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction 

and quantities that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated 

and are therefore destroyed.

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(j) (new) ........... . . . the identities or concentrations of the fluorinated 

HTF or fluorinated GHG 

constituents of a fluorinated 

HTF product have changed, 

then the new or changed 

concentrations . . .

CBI 

Data Elements Proposed To Be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process Operating Characteristics’’ Supplier Data Category 

OO .......... 98.416(b)(1) (new) ...... Any facility that destroys . . . 

fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (1) Destruction efficiency (DE).

Not CBI The proposed data elements, which apply to 

fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that 

must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which 

we have previously assigned a determination of not 

CBI. The EPA previously determined that the destruction efficiency of each fluorinated GHG destruction unit, the chemical identity of the 

fluorinated GHG(s) used in the performance test 

conducted to determine the destruction efficiency, 

and the name of all applicable federal and state 

regulations that may apply to the destruction process are not CBI. The proposed data elements do 

not reveal sensitive business information about the 

process, nor do they reveal the technology used 

for fluorinated GHG destruction, or the operating 

conditions for a particular technology. 

OO .......... 98.416(b)(4) (new) ...... Any facility that destroys . . . 

fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (4) Chemical identity of 

the fluorinated GHG(s) used 

in the performance test conducted to determine DE.

Not CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(b)(5) (new) ...... Any facility that destroys . . . 

fluorinated HTFs shall submit: (5) Name of all applicable federal or state regulations that may apply to the 

destruction process.

Not CBI 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2585 

TABLE 7—NEW AND REVISED DATA ELEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE ASSIGNED TO DATA CATEGORIES WITHOUT CATEGORICAL DETERMINATIONS AND PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS (SUBPARTS C, E, F, I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, 

AND RR)—Continued 

Subpart 

Citation in 40 CFR 

part 98 

(new or revised) 

Data element Confidentiality 

determination Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(3) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (3) 

Date on which the . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . were 

imported.

CBI These data elements describe the dates of import 

and export shipments, and the ports of entry or 

exit. The proposed data elements, which apply to 

fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that 

must be reported for fluorinated GHGs, for which 

we have previously assigned a determination of 

CBI. Release of these data elements to the public 

could allow competitors to link customs records on 

quantities and product composition with the import 

and export data reported under Part 98, thus allowing competitors to determine market share and devise marketing strategies to undermine or weaken 

a competitor’s position. Because disclosure of 

these data elements is likely to cause harm, we 

have determined that these data elements qualify 

as CBI. 

OO .......... 98.416(c)(4) (new) ...... Each bulk importer of . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (4) Port 

of entry through which the 

. . . fluorinated HTFs . . . 

passed 

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(d)(5) (new) ...... Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs . . . at the 

corporate level . . . (5) 

Date on which, and the port 

from which, the . . . 

fluorinated HTFs . . . were 

exported from the United 

States or its territories 

CBI 

OO .......... 98.416(j) (new) ........... If . . . identities or concentrations of the fluorinated HTF 

or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF 

product have changed, the 

date of the change . . . 

Not CBI The proposed data elements, which apply to 

fluorinated HTFs, are the same type of data that 

must be reported for fluorinated GHGs under 40 

CFR 98.416(f), for which we have previously assigned a determination of not CBI. The date on 

which changes were made to the composition of a 

fluorinated HTF product does not disclose the actual composition of the product, the raw materials 

used to make the product, the method of manufacture, or the efficiency of the manufacturing process. 

Therefore, we are proposing that this data element 

is not CBI. 

We are proposing to assign one 

revised data element in subpart Z 

(Phosphoric Acid Production) to the 

‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics 

that are Not Inputs to Emissions 

Equation Category’’ but are not making 

a confidentiality determination for this 

data element. The provision 40 CFR 

98.266(f)(3) requires reporting the 

annual phosphoric acid production 

capacity (tons) for each wet-process 

phosphoric acid process line (metric 

tons). The EPA reviewed the available 

capacity information and determined 

that the situation may vary for 

individual facilities. While the 

production capacity data elements are 

generally publicly available through 

construction and Title V permits, there 

may be facilities where these data are 

not public. Further, the information 

publicly available for facilities may not 

necessarily be the same as the data 

elements required under Part 98. For 

example, capacity data available in the 

Title V permit may be a plant-wide 

throughput capacity rather than the 

capacity of the individual process line 

reported under Part 98. For this reason, 

we have decided not to make a 

confidentiality determination for this 

revised data element, but instead 

determinations for this data element 

will be made on a case-by-case basis. 

This decision not to propose a 

determination for this data element is 

consistent with our treatment of other 

capacity data (e.g., capacity of process 

lines or production units) (see 2011 

Final CBI Rule). 

We are also proposing to make an 

individual confidentiality determination 

for one data element in subpart FF 

without assigning it to a data category. 

While our general approach for making 

confidentiality determination is to 

assign each data element to a data 

category and apply the categorical 

confidentiality determination where one 

has been made, we are not doing so here 

for the following reason. The data 

element at issue is in provision 40 CR 

98.326(u), which requires the annual 

coal production in short tons for the 

reporting year. The proposed data 

element shares characteristics with data 

elements previously assigned to the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2586 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

30MSHA Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) 

(available at: http://www.msha.gov/drs/

drshome.htm) and U.S. Department of Energy, 

Energy Information Administration Mine Level Data 

(available at: http://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/

browser/#/topic/38?agg=1,0&rank=g&geo=

g0000000000003ms&mntp=g&freq=

A&start=2001&end=2012&ctype=linechart<ype=

pin&rtype=b&rse=0&pin=&maptype=0) 

‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are 

Not Inputs to Equations’’ data category, 

which the EPA has categorically 

determined to be CBI. However, unlike 

data elements assigned to that data 

category, the proposed data element is 

publicly available and therefore does 

not qualify as CBI. Coal production data 

are currently published quarterly and 

annually by MSHA and annually by the 

EIA.30 We are therefore not assigning 

this proposed data element to the 

‘‘Production/Throughput Data that are 

Not Inputs to Equations’’ data category. 

Because these data are already 

publically available, we are proposing a 

determination of ‘‘Not CBI.’’ 

D. Proposed Confidentiality 

Determinations for Other Part 98 Data 

Reporting Elements for Which No 

Determination has Been Previously 

Established 

We are proposing categorical 

determinations for 22 data elements 

currently in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR 

for which no determination has been 

previously proposed or finalized under 

Part 98, as well as for three data 

elements that were proposed to be 

included in subpart PP in the finalized 

EGU NSPS. For subpart I, the affected 

data element was revised in final 

subpart I rule amendments on 

November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162) 

following public comment. In this case, 

the EPA had not proposed a 

confidentiality determination for the 

revised data element and therefore did 

not finalize a determination in the final 

rule. For subpart Z, we are proposing to 

clarify the original determination for a 

data element in which it is unclear how 

to apply the final determination 

assigned in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. For 

subpart MM, we are proposing a 

determination for one data element 

where the EPA inadvertently failed to 

finalize a determination in the 2013 

Revisions Rule. We are proposing 

confidentiality determinations for three 

data elements in subpart PP which were 

added to Part 98 in the EGU NSPS. 

Finally, we are proposing 

confidentiality determinations for 16 

data elements in subpart RR. In the 2012 

Final CBI Determinations Rule (77 FR 

48072, August 13, 2012), we did not 

finalize a confidentiality determination 

for these data elements, which relate to 

facility-level and flow meter-level 

quantities of CO2 received onsite, 

because the sensitivity of these data 

elements was dependent on whether the 

reporter conducted enhanced oil and 

gas recovery (ER) activities or non-ER 

activities. In this action, we are 

proposing to require that facilities report 

whether they are conducting ER 

activities. As such, the proposed 

amendments would allow the submitted 

reports to indicate that the facility is 

conducting ER activities and therefore 

would allow for categorical 

confidentiality determinations for these 

data elements. 

Of these data elements, we are 

proposing to assign one data element in 

subpart MM to the ‘‘Amount and 

Composition of Materials Received’’ 

supplier data category, which has a 

categorical confidentiality 

determination of CBI. We are proposing 

to assign the remaining data elements in 

subparts I, Z, PP, and RR to the ‘‘Unit/ 

Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that 

Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

and ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ direct emitter data 

categories and the ‘‘Production/ 

Throughput Quantities and 

Composition’’ supplier data categories, 

and are proposing individual 

confidentiality determinations for these 

data elements. For 16 data elements in 

subpart RR, we are proposing separate 

determinations for each data element for 

facilities conducting ER operations and 

facilities conducting non-ER operations. 

Table 8 of this preamble provides the 

category assignment and proposed 

rationale for the proposed 

determinations for the existing data 

elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and 

RR. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2587 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ Direct 

Emitter Data Category 

I ........... 98.96(a) ...................... Annual manufacturing capacity of each fab at 

your facility used to determine the annual 

manufacturing capacity of your facility in 

Equation I–5 of this subpart.

CBI ........... The EPA revised this data element in the final 

rule published on November 13, 2013 (78 

FR 68162), to apply at the fab level instead 

of at the facility level to be consistent with 

other revised data reporting requirements, 

but did not make a proposed or final confidentiality determination for the revised 

data element in the final rule. The EPA is 

now proposing to revise the confidentiality 

determination for this data element, and to 

consider it as CBI. This data element describes the annual product production capacity of individual fabs, and could cause 

competitive harm if released. Specifically, 

this data element could provide insight into 

facility operating practices that are considered sensitive by the reporter and could 

provide a competitor with a competitive advantage over other facilities. Additional information provided by industry indicates 

that this data element is closely guarded 

and protected by nearly all industry members as sensitive business information. 

Z .......... 98.266(a) .................... Origin of the phosphate rock ........................... CBI ........... In the ‘‘Final Data Category Assignments and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 

Reporting Elements’’ memorandum issued 

April 29, 2011, we categorized the subpart 

Z data element ‘‘Annual phosphoric acid 

production by origin of the phosphate rock’’ 

at 40 CFR 98.266(a) to be production/ 

throughput data that are not inputs to emission equations, and therefore considered to 

be confidential business information. To 

clarify this determination, we are proposing 

to specify that both the annual phosphoric 

acid production and the origin of the phosphate rock are both considered to be confidential business information. This data element describes operating parameters related to the operating processes at the facility and is assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ’Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs 

to Emission Equations’’ data category. We 

are proposing that this data element is CBI 

because the data element could reveal information on the source and composition of 

raw materials used in the manufacturing 

processes, which could provide insight into 

the facility’s raw material suppliers, production costs and manufacturing processes. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2588 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

Direct Emitter Data Category 

I ........... 98.96(q)(2) .................. For all abatement systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled 

emissions, the following: 

(2) If you use default destruction or removal 

efficiency values in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), (b), or (i), certification that the site maintenance plan for 

abatement systems for which emissions are 

being reported contains manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications for installation, operation, and maintenance for each 

abatement system.

Not CBI .... In the final rule amendments published on 

November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162), the 

EPA revised 40 CFR 98.96(q) into four 

paragraphs and added paragraphs (q)(2) to 

(q)(4) to address comments received on the 

proposal related to abatement systems. 

However, because the EPA proposed no 

confidentiality determination for these three 

new paragraphs, the EPA made no final 

CBI determination. These data elements 

are similar to data element 40 CFR 

98.96(q)(1). For 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1), the 

EPA made a final determination that this 

data element should be in the category for 

‘‘Unit/Process ’Operating’ Characteristics 

That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations’’ 

and that that this data element was not 

CBI. Similar to 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1), paragraphs (q)(2) to (q)(4) are certification statements that do not provide detailed information on sensitive business information of a 

competitive nature. Moreover, the EPA certification statements are the same language 

in 40 CFR 98.96(q)(2) through (4) and do 

not include any facility- or process-specific 

information that could be considered exclusive. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that 

these three data elements should also be 

assigned to the category for ‘‘Unit/Process 

’Operating’ Characteristics That are Not Inputs to Emission Equations,’’ and the EPA 

is proposing that these three data elements 

also be classified as ‘‘not CBI.’’ 

I ........... 98.96(q)(3) .................. For all abatement systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled 

emissions, the following: 

(3) If you use default destruction or removal 

efficiency values in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), certification that the abatement systems for 

which emissions are being reported were 

specifically designed for fluorinated GHG or 

N2O abatement, as applicable. You must 

support this certification by providing abatement system supplier documentation stating 

that the system was designed for 

fluorinated GHG or N2O abatement, as applicable.

Not CBI.

I ........... 98.96(q)(4) .................. For all abatement systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or N2O flow at your facility, for which you are reporting controlled 

emissions, the following: 

(4) For all stack systems for which you calculate fluorinated GHG emissions according 

to the procedures specified in § 98.93(i)(3), 

certification that you have included and accounted for all abatement systems and any 

respective downtime in your emissions calculations under § 98.93(i)(3).

Not CBI.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2589 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials Received’’ Supplier Data Category 

MM ...... 98.396(a)(20) .............. For all crude oil that enters the refinery, report 

the annual quantity in barrels.

CBI ........... In rule amendments published on November 

29, 2013 (78 FR 71904), we revised this 

data element from ‘‘the batch volume of 

crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels’’ 

to ‘‘the annual quantity of crude oil that enters the refinery in barrels.’’ However, we 

did not make a confidentiality determination 

for this revised data element at that time. 

We are proposing that the revised data element be assigned to the ‘‘Amount and 

Composition of Materials Received’’ category, which has a categorical confidentiality determination of CBI. 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the ‘‘Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition’’ Supplier Data Category 

PP ....... 98.426(h)(1) ................ If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are subject to subpart RR of 

this part, you must report the facility identification number associated with the annual 

GHG report for the subpart D facility.

Not CBI .... This data element identifies subpart D facilities that transfer CO2 to any facilities that 

are subject to subpart RR of this part. This 

information does not reveal any significant 

details regarding production or production 

and import/export data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that 

this data element is not CBI. 

PP ....... 98.426(h)(2) ................ If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are subject to subpart RR of 

this part, you must report each facility identification number associated with the annual 

GHG reports for each subpart RR facility to 

which CO2 is transferred.

Not CBI .... This data element identifies subpart RR facilities to which CO2 streams are transferred 

from subpart PP. This information does not 

reveal any significant details regarding production or production and import/export 

data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that this data element is not CBI. 

PP ....... 98.426(h)(3) ................ If you capture a CO2 stream from an electricity generating unit that is subject to subpart D of this part and transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are subject to subpart RR of 

this part, you must report the annual quantity of CO2 in metric tons that is transferred 

to each subpart RR facility.

Not CBI .... This data element describes the quantity of 

CO2 that is captured at an electric generating unit that is subject to subpart D and 

transferred to subpart RR facilities. This information does not reveal any significant 

details regarding production or production 

and import/export data that may be considered CBI. Therefore, we are proposing that 

this data element is not CBI. 

RR ....... 98.446(a)(1) ................ For enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) Activities: If you receive CO2 by pipeline, report the following for each receiving flow 

meter: Total net mass of CO2 received 

(metric tons) annually.

CBI ........... We are proposing that these data elements 

are CBI when reported by facilities conducting enhanced oil or natural gas recovery, on the basis that they are not publicly 

available and cannot be derived from publicly available data. Further, the EPA has 

previously determined for subpart UU that 

the quantities of CO2 reported as received 

by specific ER facilities could enable CO2

suppliers and pipeline transportation companies to use the information to their advantage in price negotiations on future contracts with the CO2 purchasers, which 

would lead to an economic disadvantage 

for these facilities. 

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(i) ............. For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): Volumetric flow through a receiving flow meter 

at standard conditions (in standard cubic 

meters) in each quarter.

CBI.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2590 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(ii) ............ For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

volumetric flow through a receiving flow 

meter that is redelivered to another facility 

without being injected into your well (in 

standard cubic meters) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(iii) ........... For ER Activities: If a volumetric flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): 

CO2 concentration in the flow (volume percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) 

in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(i) ............. For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a receiving flow meter 

(in metric tons) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(ii) ............ For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a receiving flow meter 

that is redelivered to another facility without 

being injected into your well (in metric tons) 

in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(iii) ........... For ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

CO2 concentration in the flow (weight percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) 

in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(1) ................ For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or 

volume at standard conditions (in standard 

cubic meters) of contents in containers in 

each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(2) ................ For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Concentration of CO2 of contents in 

containers (volume or wt. % CO2 expressed 

as a decimal fraction) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(3) ................ For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers, report: The mass (in metric tons) or 

volume (in standard cubic meters) of contents in containers that is redelivered to another facility without being injected into your 

well in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(4) ................ For ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in containers: Net mass of CO2 received (metric 

tons) annually.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(c) ..................... For ER Activities: If you use more than one 

receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2

received (metric tons) through all flow meters annually.

CBI.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2591 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(i) .............. For ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For 

each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 mass produced (metric 

tons) annually.

CBI ........... We are proposing that these data elements, 

which are related to the quantity of produced CO2 measured at a separator meter, 

are CBI when reported by facilities performing enhanced oil and gas recovery. 

Previously, commenters have noted31 that 

although some data from ER wells is publicly available, the total mass of produced 

CO2 by well or within a field is not already 

in the public domain. Publication of produced CO2 data, when coupled with publicly available information on oil and gas 

production by well, could enable competitors to calculate CO2 utilization rates for 

both individual wells and fields and possibly 

track changes in CO2 utilization over time. 

This data could be used to gain insight into 

production costs and reservoir performance, 

which could result in competitive harm. 

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(ii) ............. For ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For 

each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 concentration in flow 

(volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iii) ............ For ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a 

volumetric flow meter is used, volumetric 

flow rate at standard conditions (standard 

cubic meters) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iv) ............ For ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a 

mass flow meter is used, mass flow rate 

(metric tons) in each quarter.

CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(1) ................ For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 by 

pipeline, report the following for each receiving flow meter: Total net mass of CO2

received (metric tons) annually.

Not CBI .... For non-ER facilities, we are proposing that 

these data elements are not eligible for CBI 

treatment because these data elements are 

publicly available or can be derived from 

publicly available data. These data can be 

derived from Underground Injection Control 

(UIC) permits, which are issued for each injection well by the EPA or by states that 

have assumed primary enforcement authority for permitting Class II injection wells. Unlike ER facilities, the CO2 received at nonER facilities is not recycled and re-injected. 

The amount of CO2 received at non-ER facilities is equivalent to the amount of CO2

injected (which is reported per UIC permit 

conditions). Information related to the permits is reported to EPA or States at least 

annually and made available to the public 

upon request. Because this information is 

publicly available, the EPA finds that disclosure of these data elements is not likely to 

cause substantial competitive harm to reporters who conduct non-ER activities. The 

EPA proposes to determine that these data 

elements are not CBI. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2592 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(i) ............. For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to 

§ 98.446(a)(4): Volumetric flow through a 

receiving flow meter at standard conditions 

(in standard cubic meters) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(ii) ............ For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to 

§ 98.446(a)(4): The volumetric flow through 

a receiving flow meter that is redelivered to 

another facility without being injected into 

your well (in standard cubic meters) in each 

quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(2)(iii) ........... For Non-ER Activities: If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to 

§ 98.446(a)(4): CO2 concentration in the 

flow (volume percent CO2 expressed as a 

decimal fraction) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(i) ............. For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a receiving flow meter 

(in metric tons) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(ii) ............ For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a receiving flow meter 

that is redelivered to another facility without 

being injected into your well (in metric tons) 

in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(a)(3)(iii) ........... For Non-ER Activities: If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2 report the following unless you reported yes to § 98.446(a)(4): The 

CO2 concentration in the flow (weight percent CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) 

in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(1) ................ For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in 

containers, report: The mass (in metric 

tons) or volume at standard conditions (in 

standard cubic meters) of contents in containers in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(2) ................ For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in 

containers: Concentration of CO2 of contents in containers (volume or wt. % CO2

expressed as a decimal fraction) in each 

quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(3) ................ For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in 

containers, report: The mass (in metric 

tons) or volume (in standard cubic meters) 

of contents in containers that is redelivered 

to another facility without being injected into 

your well in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(b)(4) ................ For Non-ER Activities: If you receive CO2 in 

containers: Net mass of CO2 received (metric tons) annually.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(c) ..................... For Non-ER Activities: If you use more than 

one receiving flow meter: Total net mass of 

CO2 received (metric tons) through all flow 

meters annually.

Not CBI.


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2593 

TABLE 8—PROPOSED CBI DETERMINATIONS FOR OTHER DATA ELEMENTS IN PART 98—Continued 

[Subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR] 

Subpart Citation in 40 CFR part 

98 Data element 

Confidentiality Determination 

Rationale for the proposed CBI determination 

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(i) .............. For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For 

each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 mass produced (metric 

tons) annually.

Not CBI .... For non-ER facilities, we are proposing that 

these data elements are not eligible for CBI 

treatment because these data elements are 

publicly available or can be derived from 

publicly available data. These data can be 

derived from UIC permits, which are issued 

for each injection well by the EPA or by 

states that have assumed primary enforcement authority for permitting Class II injection wells. Unlike ER facilities, the CO2 received at non-ER facilities is not recycled 

and re-injected. The amount of CO2 received at non-ER facilities is equivalent to 

the amount of CO2 injected (which is reported per UIC permit conditions). Information related to the permits is reported to 

EPA or States at least annually and made 

available to the public upon request. Because this information is publicly available, 

the EPA finds that disclosure of these data 

elements is not likely to cause substantial 

competitive harm to reporters who conduct 

non-ER activities. The EPA proposes to determine that these data elements are not 

CBI. 

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(ii) ............. For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): For 

each separator flow meter (mass or volumetric), report CO2 concentration in flow 

(volume or wt. % CO2 expressed as a decimal fraction) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iii) ............ For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a 

volumetric flow meter is used, volumetric 

flow rate at standard conditions (standard 

cubic meters) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

RR ....... 98.446(f)(4)(iv) ............ For Non-ER Activities: If the date specified in 

§ 98.446(e) is during the reporting year for 

this annual report, report the following starting on the date specified in § 98.446(e): If a 

mass flow meter is used, mass flow rate 

(metric tons) in each quarter.

Not CBI.

E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality 

Determination for Subpart NN Data 

Elements 

We are proposing revised 

confidentiality determinations for two 

existing data elements in subpart NN. 

Under subpart NN, local distribution 

companies report the volume of natural 

gas withdrawn from on-system storage 

and the annual volume of liquefied 

natural gas (LNG) withdrawn from 

storage and vaporized for delivery on 

the distribution system (40 CFR 

98.406(b)(3)). The EPA previously 

assigned these data elements to the 

‘‘Amount and Composition of Materials 

Received’’ category, which has a 

confidentiality determination of CBI. 

The EPA is proposing to change these 

data elements’ status from CBI to nonCBI. These data elements are reported to 

the EPA by LDCs subject to subpart W 

of Part 98 (Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Systems) in addition to subpart NN. In 

support of a recent subpart W 

rulemaking (79 FR 70352, November 25, 

2014), review of publicly available data 

found that gas withdrawals from 

underground storage are reported to the 

EIA on form EIA–176 (Annual Report of 

Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply 

and Disposition). As we noted in the 

proposed version of that rule, the EIA 

considers all information submitted on 

EIA–176 to be non-proprietary 

information and publishes the quantity 

of natural gas withdrawn from storage 

on their Web site. Data that are already 

in the public domain are not entitled to 

confidential treatment under the 

provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. Since the 

quantity of natural gas withdrawn from 

storage is publicly available, the EPA 

proposes to assign the confidentiality 

determination for 40 CFR 98.406(b)(3) to 

‘‘not CBI.’’ 

F. Request for Comments on Proposed 

Category Assignments and 

Confidentiality Determinations 

For the CBI component of this 

rulemaking, we are soliciting comment 

on the following specific issues. We 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2594 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

specifically seek comment on the 

proposed data category assignment for 

each of the new and substantially 

revised data elements in the proposed 

amendments, for the existing data 

elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and 

RR for which no determination was 

previously made, and the two data 

elements in subpart NN for which we 

are revising the prior confidentiality 

determination. 

If you believe that the EPA has 

improperly assigned certain new, 

substantially revised, or existing data 

elements in these subparts to any of the 

data categories established in the 2011 

Final CBI Rule, please provide specific 

comments identifying which of the data 

elements may be wrongly assigned 

along with a detailed explanation of 

why you believe them to be incorrectly 

assigned and in which data category you 

believe they belong. In addition, if you 

believe that a data element should be 

assigned to one of the five categories 

that do not have a categorical 

confidentiality determination, please 

also provide specific comment along 

with detailed rationale and supporting 

information on whether such data 

element does or does not qualify as CBI. 

We also seek comment on the proposed 

confidentiality status of the new, 

substantially revised, or existing data 

elements in the direct emitter data 

categories ‘‘Unit/Process ‘Operating’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process 

‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not 

Inputs to Emission Equations’’ and the 

supplier data categories ‘‘Production/ 

Throughput Quantities and 

Composition’’ and ‘‘Unit/Process 

Operating Characteristics.’’ 

By proposing confidentiality 

determinations prior to data reporting 

through this proposal and rulemaking 

process, we provide potential reporters 

an opportunity to submit comments, 

particularly comments identifying data 

they consider sensitive and their 

rationales and supporting 

documentation. This opportunity to 

submit comments is the same 

opportunity that is afforded to 

submitters of information in case-bycase confidentiality determinations. In 

addition, it provides an opportunity to 

rebut the agency’s proposed 

determinations prior to finalization. We 

will evaluate the comments on our 

proposed determinations, including 

claims of confidentiality and 

information substantiating such claims, 

before finalizing the confidentiality 

determinations. Please note that this 

will be reporters’ only opportunity to 

substantiate a confidentiality claim. 

Upon finalizing the confidentiality 

determinations of the data elements 

identified in this rule, the EPA will 

release or withhold these data in 

accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which 

contains special provisions governing 

the treatment of Part 98 data for which 

confidentiality determinations have 

been made through rulemaking. 

When submitting comments regarding 

the confidentiality determinations we 

are proposing in this action, please 

identify each individual proposed new, 

revised, or existing data element you do 

or do not consider to be CBI or emission 

data in your comments. Please explain 

specifically how the public release of 

that particular data element would or 

would not cause a competitive 

disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how 

this data element may be different from 

or similar to data that are already 

publicly available. Please submit 

information identifying any publicly 

available sources of information 

containing the specific data elements in 

question. Data that are already available 

through other sources would likely be 

found not to qualify for CBI protection. 

In your comments, please identify the 

manner and location in which each 

specific data element you identify is 

publicly available, including a citation. 

If the data are physically published, 

such as in a book, industry trade 

publication, or federal agency 

publication, provide the title, volume 

number (if applicable), author(s), 

publisher, publication date, and 

International Standard Book Number 

(ISBN) or other identifier. For data 

published on a Web site, provide the 

address of the Web site, the date you 

last visited the Web site and identify the 

Web site publisher and content author. 

If your concern is that competitors 

could use a particular data element to 

discern sensitive information, 

specifically describe the pathway by 

which this could occur and explain how 

the discerned information would 

negatively affect your competitive 

position. Describe any unique process or 

aspect of your facility that would be 

revealed if the particular proposed new 

or revised data element you consider 

sensitive were made publicly available. 

If the data element you identify would 

cause harm only when used in 

combination with other publicly 

available data, then describe the other 

data, identify the public source(s) of 

these data, and explain how the 

combination of data could be used to 

cause competitive harm. Describe the 

measures currently taken to keep the 

data confidential. Avoid conclusory and 

unsubstantiated statements, or general 

assertions regarding potential harm. 

Please be as specific as possible and 

include all information necessary for the 

EPA to evaluate your comments. 

V. Impacts of the Proposed 

Amendments 

The EPA is proposing amendments to 

Part 98 that would streamline and 

improve implementation of the rule, 

improve the quality and consistency of 

the data collected under the rule, and 

clarify certain provisions. The proposed 

revisions are anticipated to increase 

burden in cases where the proposed 

amendments would expand current 

applicability, monitoring, or reporting, 

and are anticipated to decrease burden 

in cases where the proposed 

amendments would streamline Part 98 

to remove notification or reporting 

requirements or simplify the data that 

must be reported. For most subparts, we 

are proposing both revisions that would 

result in an increase in burden and 

revisions that would result in a decrease 

in burden. In several cases, we are 

proposing changes where we anticipate 

a decrease in burden, but are unable to 

quantify this decrease. This 

conservative approach means that the 

impacts for this proposed rule generally 

reflect an increase in burden for most 

subparts. For example, as discussed in 

section II.C and II.K of this preamble, 

we are proposing amendments to add 

new reporting requirements to subpart E 

and subpart V to improve the quality of 

the data collected under the rule, as 

well as amendments that would 

streamline the rule by conditionally 

removing the annual approval request 

for an alternative method for 

determining N2O emissions currently 

required by reporters and the annual 

request approval by the EPA. The 

proposed changes for the annual 

approval request are anticipated to add 

flexibility for reporters and reduce the 

burden for subpart E and subpart V 

reporters using the alternative method. 

Additionally, we anticipate that the EPA 

burden required to review and approve 

the alternative methods would also be 

reduced. However, because the 

proposed changes would apply to an 

optional calculation method and are not 

required for compliance with Part 98, 

we have not included this reduction in 

burden in our analysis, and have only 

quantified the increase in burden 

associated with the proposed new 

reporting requirements. 

As discussed in section I.E of this 

preamble, we are proposing to 

implement these changes over reporting 

years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to 

stagger the implementation of these 

changes over time and provide time for 

needed software revisions. The burden 

has subsequently been determined 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2595 

based on when the proposed revisions 

would be implemented in each year 

(e.g., the burden for RY2016 only 

reflects changes to subparts I 

(Electronics Manufacturing) and HH 

(Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and 

related changes to subpart A (General 

Provisions)). One-time implementation 

costs would apply for certain revisions 

to applicability and monitoring 

provisions that would be finalized in 

RY2017 and RY2018; therefore, we have 

estimated costs through RY2019 to 

reflect the subsequent year costs 

incurred by industry. The incremental 

implementation costs for all subparts for 

each reporting year are summarized in 

Table 9 of this preamble. The estimated 

incremental burden is $2,049,478 for all 

proposed revisions implemented 

between RY2016 through RY2018, 

including $9,359 from revisions 

implemented in RY2016, $33,782 from 

revisions implemented in RY2017, and 

$2,006,337 from revisions implemented 

in RY2018. The estimated annual 

burden is $1,081,830 per year following 

implementation of all changes. The 

incremental burden by subpart is shown 

in Table 10 of this preamble. One-time 

implementation costs are incorporated 

into first year costs, while subsequent 

year costs represent the annual burden 

that will be incurred in total by all 

impacted reporters. 

TABLE 9—INCREMENTAL BURDEN FOR REPORTING YEARS 2016–2019 

[$/year] 

Cost summary 2016 2017 2018 2019 

First Year Costs ..................................................................... a$9,359 $25,650 b c$1,972,555 ........................

Subsequent Year Annual Costs for Changes Implemented in: 

2016 ....................................................................................... ........................ 8,132 8,132 a9,359 

2017 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 25,650 25,650 

2018 ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ .................................................. 1,046,821 

Total Costs by Year (all subparts) .................................. 9,359 33,782 2,006,337 a1,081,830 

a Includes annual labor costs of $1,226 for reporting additional data elements for subpart I for a triennial report submitted once every three 

years. b Includes one-time implementation costs for new monitoring under subpart FF. 

c Includes one-time implementation costs for new reporters under subparts V and OO. 

TABLE 10—INCREMENTAL BURDEN BY SUBPART

[$2011] 

Subpart 

Costs for additional 

reporters 

Costs for revisions to 

reporting 

Costs for revisions to monitoring provisions Total cost 

First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear 

First-year Subsequentyear 

Changes Implemented in RY2016 

I ......................................... $0 $0 $1,226 a $0 $0 $0 $1,226 a $0 

HH ..................................... 0 0 8,132 8,132 0 0 8,132 8,132 

Total Costs for 

Changes Implemented in RY2016 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 9,359 8,132 

Changes Implemented in RY2017 

A ........................................ 0 0 4,906 4,906 0 0 4,906 4,906 

C ........................................ 0 0 12,139 12,139 0 0 12,139 12,139 

E ........................................ 0 0 10 10 0 0 10 10 

F ........................................ 0 0 73 73 0 0 73 73 

G ........................................ 0 0 228 228 0 0 228 228 

N b ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

O ........................................ 0 0 106 106 0 0 106 106 

Pb ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Q b ..................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

S ........................................ 0 0 744 744 0 0 744 744 

U b ...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

X ........................................ 0 0 1,074 1,074 0 0 1,074 1,074 

Z ........................................ 0 0 40 40 0 0 40 40 

AAb ................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CC ..................................... 0 0 33 33 0 0 33 33 

DD ..................................... 0 0 2,000 2,000 0 0 2,000 2,000 

II ........................................ 0 0 2,562 2,562 0 0 2,562 2,562 

LL c .................................... 0 0 ¥17 ¥17 0 0 ¥17 ¥17 

MM b .................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

NN ..................................... 0 0 1,752 1,752 0 0 1,752 1,752 

PPb ................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

RR d ................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

TT b .................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

UU b ................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2596 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—INCREMENTAL BURDEN BY SUBPART—Continued 

[$2011] 

Subpart 

Costs for additional 

reporters 

Costs for revisions to 

reporting 

Costs for revisions to monitoring provisions Total cost 

First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear First-year Subsequentyear 

First-year Subsequentyear 

Total Costs for 

Changes Implemented in RY2017 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 25,650 25,650 

Changes Implemented in RY2018 

V ........................................ 83,544 66,403 129 129 0 0 83,673 66,531 

Y ........................................ 0 0 1,448 1,448 0 0 1,448 1,448 

FF ...................................... 0 0 2,066 2,066 1,848,571 949,582 1,850,638 951,648 

OO ..................................... 36,215 26,612 582 582 0 0 36,797 27,194 

Total Costs for 

Changes Implemented in RY2018 ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,972,555 1,046,821 

Total (All Subparts) ............... 119,759 93,015 39,234 38,007 1,848,571 949,582 2,006,337 1,081,830 

a Costs for subpart I include new data elements related to the triennial technology report required by § 98.96(y). The first report must be submitted with RY2016 reports on March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with the data elements were included in the total incremental estimates for RY2016 and RY2019 (see Table 9 of this preamble) and not for 

RY2017 or RY2018. bThe proposed changes to this subpart include only minor revisions, clarifications, and corrections that have no impact on the burden to reporters. cThis entry is a negative value because certain reporting requirements were removed from subpart LL and no new reporting requirements were 

added for the subpart, resulting in a net cost savings for this source category. dThere is no increase in costs under subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide) because there are no facilities currently reporting, 

or projected to report, under this source category in the next three years. 

A full discussion of the impacts may 

be found in the memorandum, 

‘‘Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 

Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule,’’ available in Docket Id. 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526. 

A. How was the incremental burden of 

the proposed rule estimated? 

The estimated incremental change in 

burden from the proposed amendments 

to Part 98 include burden associated 

with: (1) Changes to the reporting 

requirements by adding, revising, or 

removing existing reporting 

requirements (21 subparts); (2) revisions 

to the applicability of subparts such that 

additional facilities would be required 

to report under Part 98 (subparts V and 

OO); and (3) additional monitoring 

requirements (subpart FF). 

1. Burden Associated With the Revision 

of Reporting Requirements 

Section III of this preamble describes 

proposed amendments to each subpart 

of Part 98 that improve the quality and 

accuracy of the data collected under the 

GHGRP, improve verification of 

collected data, and provide additional 

data to help improve estimates included 

in the U.S. GHG Inventory. In general, 

these proposed amendments would add 

reporting requirements or revise existing 

reporting requirements to collect more 

detailed facility data. The proposed 

amendments would collectively add or 

revise data elements in 21 subparts of 

Part 98, including 97 data elements that 

were not previously required to be 

collected. With the exception of 

revisions to subpart FF (Underground 

Coal Mines), the collection of these new 

and revised data elements would not 

add new monitoring requirements, and 

would not substantially affect the type 

of information that must be collected. 

For all of these additional data 

elements, the EPA has estimated a 

nominal additional cost to report the 

data element and fulfill the 

recordkeeping requirements. The EPA is 

also proposing to remove 18 data 

elements in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and 

LL. For these data elements, the EPA 

has estimated a nominal reduction in 

cost, since reporters would no longer be 

required to report the data element. The 

total incremental costs from the 

addition, revision, and removal of these 

reporting requirements are anticipated 

at $39,234 annually ($2011). This 

includes $9,359 from revisions 

implemented in RY2016, $25,650 from 

revisions first implemented in RY2017, 

and $4,225 from revisions first 

implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, 

the new data elements in the proposed 

rule pertain to the triennial technology 

report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y), 

which must first be submitted with 

RY2016 reports on or before March 31, 

2017 and every three years thereafter. 

For the purposes of estimating burden, 

the annual costs associated with these 

data elements ($1,226) would apply in 

RY2016 only. For RY2017 and RY2018, 

the estimated incremental cost 

associated with reporting the new, 

revised, and removed data elements for 

all affected source categories is $33,782 

and $38,007, respectively. 

All costs to the regulated industry 

resulting from changes to the reporting 

requirements for the GHGRP are labor 

costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility 

staff to meet the rule’s information 

collection requirements). For each 

subpart, the EPA determined the 

incremental change in annual hourly 

labor estimates by multiplying the 

number of data elements that were 

added, revised, or removed in each 

subpart by the number of hours required 

to review each data element and the 

number of affected reporters for each 

subpart. Where data elements were 

removed in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and 

LL, a reduction in the annual hourly 

labor estimate was assumed. Labor costs 

were applied to the total annual hour 

estimates for each labor category to 

obtain the total costs for each subpart. 

2. Burden Associated With Revisions 

That Affect Applicability 

The EPA is proposing revisions that 

would affect the applicability of two 

subparts of Part 98: Subpart V (Nitric 

Acid Production) and subpart OO 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2597 

32See Supporting Statement Part A: Information 

Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (U.S. EPA, 2013). 

(Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases). The proposed changes would 

apply beginning in RY2018. These 

proposed changes are anticipated to 

require reporting for four additional 

reporters under subpart V, and five to 

ten additional reporters under subpart 

OO. (For the purposes of estimating 

burden, an average of eight additional 

reporters were assumed to be required 

to report under subpart OO of Part 98). 

The majority of facilities within these 

industries already report under Part 98; 

specifically, all four of the affected 

reporters under subpart V already 

submit annual reports. The total 

incremental burden from changes to 

applicability is $119,759 in the first year 

and $93,015 in subsequent years 

($2011). The incremental burden for the 

additional reporters for subpart V 

includes first-year costs of $83,544 

($20,866 per facility) and subsequent 

year costs of $66,403 ($16,601 per 

facility). The incremental burden for the 

additional reporters for subpart OO 

includes first-year costs of $36,215 

($4,527 per facility) and subsequent year 

costs of $26,612 ($3,327 per facility). 

To estimate the cost impacts for 

additional reporters, the recent 

information collection request for the 

GHG reporting program 32 was used to 

obtain the first year average cost per 

facility that is incurred from reporting 

under subparts V and OO (updated to 

$2011) and the subsequent year burden. 

These average costs per facility include 

labor costs, capital costs, and operation 

and maintenance costs. We determined 

total reporting costs for each subpart by 

assigning these costs to model facilities 

that are representative of each industry 

sector. The total cost for each subpart 

was determined by multiplying the 

model facilities cost by the number of 

affected facilities. 

3. Burden Associated With Revisions to 

Monitoring Requirements for 

Underground Coal Mines 

As discussed in section III.R.2 of this 

preamble, we are proposing changes to 

the monitoring requirements of subpart 

FF of Part 98 to remove the option to 

allow MSHA quarterly inspection 

reports to be used as a source of data for 

monitoring methane liberated from 

ventilation systems. Instead, facilities 

would be required to independently 

collect their own grab samples or to use 

CEMS. The incremental increase in 

costs for subpart FF reporters who 

would no longer have the option to use 

MSHA data (and would need to collect 

monthly grab samples) are $28,440 per 

facility in the first year and $14,609 per 

facility in subsequent years ($2011); 

these revisions would affect 

approximately 65 reporters anticipated 

to use MSHA data annually. The 

proposed revisions would have an 

industry-wide incremental cost of 

$1,848,571 in the first year and 

$949,582 in subsequent years. The 

proposed changes would apply 

beginning in RY2018. 

The incremental costs to the regulated 

industry resulting from changes to the 

monitoring requirements for 

Underground Coal Mines are based on 

the collection of independent grab 

samples in ventilation air. Currently, 

about 50 percent of subpart FF reporters 

collect quarterly gas samples. For mines 

that currently use MSHA data, the 

annual incremental costs for taking grab 

samples was estimated as the cost of 

taking the samples, less the avoided cost 

of obtaining, interpreting and reporting 

MSHA data. We assumed that facilities 

would not install a CEMS as a result of 

the monitoring changes. 

The costs resulting from removing the 

use of MSHA quarterly data and 

requiring facilities to collect quarterly 

grab samples include additional labor 

costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility 

staff to meet the rule’s information 

collection requirements), capital costs 

(e.g., the costs of anemometers or 

sample kits, for reporters that are not 

currently conducting sampling), and 

operating and maintenance costs (e.g., 

the cost associated with gas sample 

analysis). Hourly labor costs were 

estimated based on the number of labor 

hours for developing the sampling 

methodology and purchasing the 

devices, and the number of hours 

required for sampling. 

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed 

Revisions to Part 98 

In addition to amendments that 

would revise the existing applicability, 

monitoring, or reporting requirements of 

Part 98, the EPA is proposing additional 

technical revisions and other 

clarifications to several subparts in Part 

98 that are not anticipated to have a 

significant impact on burden. These 

include revisions discussed in section 

III of this preamble that are intended to 

streamline the rule requirements, 

including proposed revisions to clarify 

and revise the requirements of Part 98 

in order to focus GHGRP and reporter 

resources on relevant data, to expand 

and clarify the conditions under which 

a facility can cease reporting, or to 

clarify requirements for facilities that 

report very little or no emissions, and 

revisions that would improve the 

efficiency of the reporting and 

verification process. These changes are 

anticipated to minimally reduce burden 

for reporters. 

The EPA is also proposing revisions 

that are intended to improve the quality 

of the rule but that would not impact 

burden, such as amending calculation 

methods to improve the accuracy of the 

emissions estimate (e.g., subparts I and 

Y); these proposed amendments would 

increase the accuracy of reported 

emissions, but do not require additional 

monitoring or data collection by 

reporters, and would have no additional 

impact on burden. 

We are proposing, for certain 

subparts, to amend monitoring or 

measurement methods to more closely 

align rule requirements with different 

operating scenarios in the industry. 

Other proposed amendments would 

provide flexibility for reporters and 

clarify reporting requirements, as 

described in section II.C of this 

preamble. These proposed amendments 

are anticipated to have no impact or 

minimally decrease burden for 

reporters. 

The proposed revisions also include 

minor amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications, including simple 

revisions of requirements such as 

clarifying changes to definitions, 

calculation methodologies, monitoring 

and quality assurance requirements, 

missing data procedures, and reporting 

requirements. These proposed changes 

clarify Part 98 to better reflect the EPA’s 

intent, and would not present any 

additional burden on reporters. 

A full discussion of the burden 

associated with the proposed revisions 

for each subpart may be found in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Assessment of Burden 

Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ 

available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2015–0526. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is a significant regulatory 

action that was submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review because the proposed 

amendments raise novel legal or policy 

issues. Any changes made in response 

to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. The EPA 

prepared an economic analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. A copy of the analysis 

is available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2598 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

OAR–2015–0526 and is briefly 

summarized in section V of this 

preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection activities 

in this proposed rule have been 

submitted for approval to the OMB 

under the PRA. The Information 

Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned 

EPA ICR number 2300.18. You can find 

a copy of the ICR in the docket for this 

rule, and it is briefly summarized here. 

This action is proposing to amend 

specific provisions in the Greenhouse 

Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and 

improve implementation of the rule, 

improve the quality and consistency of 

the data collected under the rule, and to 

clarify or propose minor updates to 

certain provisions that have been the 

subject of questions from reporting 

entities. These proposed amendments 

would improve the quality and 

consistency of the data collected, as 

well as improve the efficiency of the 

reporting process for both the EPA and 

reporters. The proposed amendments 

are anticipated to increase burden in 

cases where the proposed amendments 

would expand current applicability, 

monitoring, or reporting, and are 

anticipated to decrease burden in cases 

where the proposed amendments would 

streamline Part 98 to remove 

notification or reporting requirements or 

simplify the data that must be reported. 

Specifically, this action proposes to 

amend the reporting requirements to 

add or revise 118 data elements in 21 

subparts of Part 98. These revisions are 

necessary to improve the quality of the 

data collected under the GHGRP. The 

EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data 

elements in five subparts, which would 

streamline rule requirements. This 

action also proposes amendments that 

would affect the applicability of two 

subparts of Part 98: subparts V (Nitric 

Acid Production) and OO (Suppliers of 

Industrial Greenhouse Gases). These 

amendments could increase the number 

of facilities required to report under Part 

98. Finally, this action proposes to 

revise the monitoring requirements of 

subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground 

Coal Mines). The proposed amendments 

would remove the option to allow Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) quarterly inspection reports to 

be used as a source of data for 

monitoring methane liberated from 

ventilation systems, and require 

facilities to independently collect their 

own grab samples or to use continuous 

emissions monitoring. Impacts 

associated with the proposed changes to 

the applicability, monitoring, and 

reporting requirements are detailed in 

the memorandum ‘‘Assessment of 

Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’ (see 

Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015– 

0526). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

The total estimated incremental 

burden and cost associated with the 

proposed revisions is 23,456 hours and 

$2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by 

the information collection. These costs 

include $9,359 in RY2016, $33,782 in 

RY2017, and $2,006,337 in RY2018, 

averaging $683,159 per year over the 

three years. The total estimated number 

of reporters affected by the proposed 

amendments is 8,240. The proposed 

frequency of response for these changes 

is once annually, with the exception of 

certain data elements for subpart I 

which would be submitted once every 

three years. 

The estimated incremental costs and 

hour burden associated with the 

addition and revision of 118 data 

elements and the removal of 18 data 

elements in 21 subparts is 682 hours 

and $39,234 annually ($2011), including 

$9,359 from revisions first implemented 

in RY2016, $25,650 from revisions first 

implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 

from revisions first implemented in 

RY2018. For subpart I, the new data 

elements in the proposed rule pertain to 

the triennial technology report required 

under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first 

be submitted with RY2016 reports on or 

before March 31, 2017 and every three 

years thereafter. For the purposes of 

estimating burden for the three years 

covered by the information collection, 

the annual burden and costs associated 

with these data elements (21 hours and 

$1,226) would apply for RY2016 only. 

Therefore, the estimated incremental 

burden and cost associated with 

reporting the new, revised, and removed 

data elements for all affected source 

categories is 588 hours and $33,782 in 

RY2017, and 661 hours and $38,007 for 

RY2018. The annual reporting burden 

associated with these changes is 

estimated to average 0.17 hour per 

response, and the estimated number of 

reporters affected is 7,127. 

The estimated incremental cost 

burden associated with additional 

reporters to subparts V and OO is 

$119,759 in the first year (RY2018) and 

$93,015 in subsequent years. The 

incremental burden for the additional 

reporters for subpart V includes firstyear costs of $83,544 and subsequent 

year costs of $66,403. The incremental 

burden for the additional reporters for 

subpart OO includes first-year costs of 

$36,215 and subsequent year costs of 

$26,612. The estimated number of likely 

new respondents that would result from 

these amendments is 12, including four 

additional reporters under subpart V, 

and an average of eight additional 

reporters for subpart OO. The annual 

hourly burden for these additional 

reporters is based on the annual average 

hourly burden for existing reporters 

under subparts V and OO, which is 191 

hours and 55 hours per reporter, 

respectively. 

The incremental increase in costs for 

subpart FF reporters from the revised 

monitoring requirements are $28,440 

per facility in the first year (RY2018) 

and $14,609 in subsequent years 

($2011). The proposed revisions are 

estimated to affect 65 respondents and 

would have an industry incremental 

cost of $1,848,571 in the first year 

(RY2018) and $949,582 in subsequent 

years. The annual hourly burden 

associated with these monitoring costs 

are 320 hours per reporter in the first 

year and 165 hours in subsequent years. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the 

agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

the EPA using the docket identified at 

the beginning of this rule. You may also 

send your ICR-related comments to 

OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs via email to oria_

submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: 

Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

receipt, OMB must receive comments no 

later than February 16, 2016. The EPA 

will respond to any ICR-related 

comments in the final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. In making this 

determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic 

impact on small entities. An agency may 

certify that a rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities if 

the rule relieves regulatory burden, has 

no net burden or otherwise has a 

positive economic effect on the small 

entities subject to the rule. The impacts 

to small entities due to the revisions 

was evaluated for each subpart. The 

EPA conducted a screening assessment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2599 

33U.S. EPA. Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Mandatory reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

Subparts T, FF, TT, and II. See Docket Id. No. EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0508–2313. June 2010. 

comparing compliance costs for 

revisions to reporting requirements, 

applicability to new reporters, and 

monitoring revisions under subparts V, 

FF, and OO to specific receipts data for 

establishments owned by small 

businesses in each industry. This ratio 

constitutes a ‘‘sales’’ test that computes 

the annualized compliance costs of this 

rule as a percentage of sales and 

determines whether the ratio exceeds 1 

percent. The cost-to-sales ratios were 

constructed at the establishment level 

(average reporting program costs per 

establishment/average establishment 

receipts) for several business size 

ranges. We determined that the cost-tosales ratios are less than 1 percent for all 

establishments in all business size 

ranges for subparts V, OO, and FF, 

except the ratio for the 1–19 employee 

size range for facilities in subpart FF 

was greater than 1 percent and less than 

2 percent. The sales test for this size 

category was also exceeded in the 

original EIA 33 and the EPA noted that 

mines owned by enterprises with less 

than 19 employees would be unlikely to 

be covered by this rule. Therefore, we 

do not anticipate any impacts on small 

entities for subpart FF reporters, and we 

have determined that there will not be 

a significant economic impact to small 

entities for these three subparts. For all 

other subparts, which are only affected 

by revisions for adding, revising, or 

removing reporting requirements, we 

determined that these facilities will 

experience annual impacts of 

approximately $11 per facility. Because 

this cost is minimal, no small entity 

impacts are anticipated for the 

remaining subparts. 

Although there are no small entity 

impacts associated with these proposed 

revisions, in the development of Part 98, 

the EPA took several steps to reduce the 

impact on small entities. For example, 

the EPA determined appropriate 

thresholds that reduced the number of 

small businesses reporting. In addition, 

the EPA conducted several meetings 

with industry associations to discuss 

regulatory options and the 

corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting. The 

proposed rule amendments are minor 

technical corrections, clarifying, and 

other amendments that will not impose 

any new requirement on small entities 

that are not currently required by the 

regulation of Part 98. We have therefore 

concluded that this action will have no 

net regulatory burden for all directly 

regulated small entities. The EPA 

continues to conduct significant 

outreach on the GHGRP and maintains 

an ‘‘open door’’ policy for stakeholders 

to help inform the EPA’s understanding 

of key issues for the industries. We 

continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

amendments on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain an 

unfunded mandate of $100 million or 

more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538, and does not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

The action implements mandate(s) 

specifically and explicitly set forth in 

CAA section 114(a)(1) without the 

exercise of any policy discretion by the 

EPA. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. The proposed rule 

amendments would not result in any 

changes to the requirements that are not 

currently required for 40 CFR part 98. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. Consistent with the 

EPA Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes, the 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

during the development of the rules for 

Part 98. A summary of that consultation 

is provided in sections VIII.E and VIII.F 

of the preamble to the October 30, 2009 

final GHG reporting rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it does not concern an 

environmental health risk or safety risk. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ because it is not likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution or use of energy. 

Part 98 relates to monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping and does not impact 

energy supply, distribution, or use. This 

final rule amends monitoring, 

calculation, and reporting requirements 

for the GHGRP. In addition, the EPA is 

proposing confidentiality 

determinations for new and revised data 

elements proposed in this rulemaking 

and for certain existing data elements 

for which a confidentiality 

determination has not previously been 

proposed, or where the EPA has 

determined that the current 

determination is no longer appropriate. 

These proposed amendments and 

confidentiality determinations do not 

make any changes to the existing 

monitoring, calculation, and reporting 

requirements under Part 98 that affect 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations because it does not affect 

the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment 

because it is a rule addressing 

information collection and reporting 

procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Suppliers. 

Dated: December 21, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

chapter I, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2600 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

PART 98—MANDATORY 

GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Subpart A—General Provision 

■ 2. Section 98.2 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (i)(1) through 

(3); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (i)(4) through 

(6). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.2 Who must report? 

(a) * * * 

(1) A facility that contains any source 

category that is listed in Table A–3 of 

this subpart. For these facilities, the 

annual GHG report must cover 

stationary fuel combustion sources 

(subpart C of this part), miscellaneous 

use of carbonates (subpart U of this 

part), and all applicable source 

categories listed in Table A–3 and Table 

A–4 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) If reported emissions are less than 

25,000 metric tons CO2e per year for five 

consecutive years, then the owner or 

operator may discontinue complying 

with this part provided that the owner 

or operator submits a notification to the 

Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting and explains the 

reasons for the reduction in emissions. 

The notification shall be submitted no 

later than March 31 of the year 

immediately following the fifth 

consecutive year of emissions less than 

25,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner 

or operator must maintain the 

corresponding records required under 

§ 98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive 

years prior to notification of 

discontinuation of reporting and retain 

such records for three years following 

the year that reporting was 

discontinued. The owner or operator 

must resume reporting if annual 

emissions in any future calendar year 

increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per 

year or more. 

(2) If reported emissions are less than 

15,000 metric tons CO2e per year for 

three consecutive years, then the owner 

or operator may discontinue complying 

with this part provided that the owner 

or operator submits a notification to the 

Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting and explains the 

reasons for the reduction in emissions. 

The notification shall be submitted no 

later than March 31 of the year 

immediately following the third 

consecutive year of emissions less than 

15,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner 

or operator must maintain the 

corresponding records required under 

§ 98.3(g) for each of the three 

consecutive years and retain such 

records for three years prior to 

notification of discontinuation of 

reporting following the year that 

reporting was discontinued. The owner 

or operator must resume reporting if 

annual emissions in any future calendar 

year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e 

per year or more. 

(3) If the operations of a facility or 

supplier are changed such that all 

applicable processes and operations 

subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 

of this section cease to operate, then the 

owner or operator may discontinue 

complying with this part for the 

reporting years following the year in 

which cessation of such operations 

occurs, provided that the owner or 

operator submits a notification to the 

Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting and certifies to 

the closure of all applicable processes 

and operations no later than March 31 

of the year following such changes. If 

one or more processes or operations 

subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) 

of this section at a facility or supplier 

cease to operate, but not all applicable 

processes or operations cease to operate, 

then the owner or operator is exempt 

from reporting for any such processes or 

operations in the reporting years 

following the reporting year in which 

cessation of the process or operation 

occurs, provided that the owner or 

operator submits a notification to the 

Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting for the process or 

operation no later than March 31 of the 

year following such changes. This 

paragraph (i)(3) does not apply to 

seasonal or other temporary cessation of 

operations. This paragraph (i)(3) does 

not apply to facilities with municipal 

solid waste landfills or industrial waste 

landfills, or to underground coal mines 

except those with abandoned status as 

determined by the U.S. Mine Safety & 

Health Administration. The owner or 

operator must resume reporting for any 

future calendar year during which any 

of the GHG-emitting processes or 

operations resume operation. 

(4) The provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) 

and (2) of this section apply to suppliers 

subject to subparts LL through QQ of 

this part by substituting the term 

‘‘quantity of GHG supplied’’ for 

‘‘emissions.’’ For suppliers, the 

provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of 

this section apply individually to each 

importer and exporter and individually 

to each petroleum refinery, fractionator 

of natural gas liquids, local natural gas 

distribution company, and producer of 

CO2, N2O, or fluorinated greenhouse 

gases (e.g., a supplier of industrial 

greenhouse gases might qualify to 

discontinue reporting as an exporter of 

industrial greenhouse gases but still be 

required to report as an importer; or a 

company might qualify to discontinue 

reporting as a supplier of industrial 

greenhouse gases under subpart OO of 

this part but still be required to report 

as a supplier of carbon dioxide under 

subpart PP of this part). 

(5) If the operations of a facility or 

supplier are changed such that a process 

or operation no longer meets the 

‘‘Definition of Source Category’’ as 

specified in an applicable subpart, then 

the owner or operator may discontinue 

complying with any such subpart for the 

reporting years following the year in 

which change occurs, provided that the 

owner or operator submits a notification 

to the Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting for the process or 

operation no later than March 31 of the 

year following such changes. The owner 

or operator must resume complying 

with this part for the process or 

operation starting in any future calendar 

year during which the process or 

operation meets the ‘‘Definition of 

Source Category’’ as specified in an 

applicable subpart. 

(6) If an entire facility or supplier is 

merged into another facility or supplier 

that is already reporting GHG data 

under this part, then the owner or 

operator may discontinue complying 

with this part for the facility or supplier, 

provided that the owner or operator 

submits a notification to the 

Administrator that announces the 

discontinuation of reporting and the eGGRT identification number of the 

reconstituted facility no later than 

March 31 of the year following such 

changes. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 98.3 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(G); and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(8), 

(d)(1)(i), and (h)(4). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.3 What are the general monitoring, 

reporting, recordkeeping and verification 

requirements of this part? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(iii) Annual emissions from each 

applicable source category, expressed in 

metric tons of each applicable GHG 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2601 

listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) 

through (F) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(G) For each reported fluorinated GHG 

and fluorinated heat transfer fluid, 

report the following identifying 

information: 

(1) Chemical name. If the chemical is 

not listed in Table A–1 of this subpart, 

then use the method of naming organic 

chemical compounds as recommended 

by the International Union of Pure and 

Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). 

(2) The CAS registry number assigned 

by the Chemical Abstracts Registry 

Service. If a CAS registry number is not 

assigned or is not associated with a 

single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

heat transfer fluid, then report an 

identification number assigned by EPA’s 

Substance Registry Services. 

(3) Linear chemical formula. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Quantity of each GHG from each 

applicable supply category in Table A– 

5 to this subpart, expressed in metric 

tons of each GHG. For each reported 

fluorinated GHG, report the following 

identifying information: 

(A) Chemical name. If the chemical is 

not listed in Table A–1 of this subpart, 

then use the method of naming organic 

chemical compounds as recommended 

by the International Union of Pure and 

Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). 

(B) The CAS registry number assigned 

by the Chemical Abstracts Registry 

Service. If a CAS registry number is not 

assigned or is not associated with a 

single fluorinated GHG, then report an 

identification number assigned by EPA’s 

Substance Registry Services. 

(C) Linear chemical formula. 

* * * * * 

(8) Each parameter for which a 

missing data procedure was used 

according to the procedures of an 

applicable subpart and the total number 

of hours in the year that a missing data 

procedure was used for each parameter. 

Parameters include not only reported 

data elements, but any data element 

required for monitoring and calculating 

emissions. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) Monitoring methods currently used 

by the facility that do not meet the 

specifications of a relevant subpart. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (h)(1) 

and (2) of this section, upon request by 

the owner or operator, the 

Administrator may provide reasonable 

extensions of the 45-day period for 

submission of the revised report or 

information under paragraphs (h)(1) and 

(2) of this section. If the Administrator 

receives a request for extension of the 

45-day period, by email to an address 

prescribed by the Administrator prior to 

the expiration of the 45-day period, the 

extension request is deemed to be 

automatically granted for 30 days. The 

Administrator may grant an additional 

extension beyond the automatic 30-day 

extension if the owner or operator 

submits a request for an additional 

extension and the request is received by 

the Administrator prior to the expiration 

of the automatic 30-day extension, 

provided the request demonstrates that 

it is not practicable to submit a revised 

report or information under paragraphs 

(h)(1) and (2) of this section within 75 

days. The Administrator will approve 

the extension request if the request 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction that it is not practicable to 

collect and process the data needed to 

resolve potential reporting errors 

identified pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) 

or (2) of this section within 75 days. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 98.4 is amended by adding 

paragraph (i)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 98.4 Authorization and responsibilities of 

the designated representative. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(6) A list of the subparts that the 

owners and operators anticipate will be 

included in the annual GHG report. The 

list of potentially applicable subparts is 

required only for an initial certificate of 

representation that is submitted after 

[date of publication of the final rule in 

the Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility 

or supplier that previously was not 

registered under this part). The list of 

subparts is not required for a revised 

COR. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 98.6 is amended by revising 

the definition for ‘‘Gas collection system 

or landfill gas collection system’’, 

adding a definition for ‘‘Reporting year’’ 

in alphabetical order, and revising the 

definition for ‘‘Ventilation hole or shaft’’ 

to read as follows: 

§ 98.6 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Gas collection system or landfill gas 

collection system means a system of 

pipes used to collect landfill gas from 

different locations in the landfill by 

means of a fan or similar mechanical 

draft equipment (forced convection) to a 

single location for treatment (thermal 

destruction) or use. Landfill gas 

collection systems may also include 

knock-out or separator drums and/or a 

compressor. A single landfill may have 

multiple gas collection systems. Landfill 

gas collection systems do not include 

‘‘passive’’ systems, whereby landfill gas 

flows naturally (without forced 

convection) to the surface of the landfill 

where an opening or pipe (vent) is 

installed to allow for the flow of landfill 

gas to the atmosphere or to a remote 

flare installed to combust landfill gas 

that is passively emitted from the vent. 

Landfill gas collection systems also do 

not include ‘‘active venting’’ systems, 

whereby landfill gas is conveyed to the 

surface of the landfill using forced 

convection, but the landfill gas is never 

recovered or thermally destroyed prior 

to release to the atmosphere. 

* * * * * 

Reporting year means the calendar 

year during which the GHG data are 

required to be collected for purposes of 

the annual GHG report. For example, 

reporting year 2014 is January 1, 2014 

through December 31, 2014, and the 

annual report for reporting year 2014 is 

submitted to EPA on March 31, 2015. 

* * * * * 

Ventilation hole or shaft means a vent 

hole, shaft, mine portal, adit or other 

mine entrance or exits employed at an 

underground coal mine to serve as the 

outlet or conduit to move air from the 

ventilation system out of the mine. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 98.7 is amended by revising 

paragraphs (e)(33) and (l)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.7 What standardized methods are 

incorporated by reference into this part? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(33) ASTM D6866–12 Standard Test 

Methods for Determining the Biobased 

Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous 

Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis, 

IBR approved for §§ 98.34(d), 98.34(e), 

and 98.36(e). 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(1) Coal Mine Safety and Health 

General Inspection Procedures 

Handbook, Handbook Number: PH13– 

V–1, February 2013, IBR approved for 

§ 98.324(b). 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Table A–3 to Subpart A of Part 98 

is amended by revising the entries 

‘‘Source Categories Applicable in 2010 

and Future Years’’ and ‘‘Additional 

Source Categories Applicable in 2011 

and Future Years’’ to read as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2602 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE A–3 TO SUBPART A OF PART 98—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(1) 

Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

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

*******

aSource categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

■ 8. Table A–4 to Subpart A of Part 98 

is amended by revising the entries 

‘‘Source Categories Applicable in 2010 

and Future Years’’ and ‘‘Additional 

Source Categories Applicable in 2011 

and Future Years’’ to read as follows: 

TABLE A–4 TO SUBPART A—SOURCE CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(2) 

Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

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

*******

aSource categories are defined in each applicable subpart. 

■ 9. Table A–5 to Subpart A of Part 98 

is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry ‘‘Supplier 

Categories Applicable in 2010 and 

Future Years’’; 

■ b. Revising the entries associated with 

‘‘Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers 

(subpart OO)’’; and 

■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘Additional 

Supplier Categories Applicable in 2011 

and Future Years.’’ 

The revisions read as follows: 

TABLE A–5 TO SUBPART A—SUPPLIER CATEGORY LIST FOR § 98.2(a)(4) 

Supplier Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years 

* * * * * * * 

Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart OO): 

(A) All producers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids. 

(B) Importers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids with annual bulk imports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, 

fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more. 

(C) Exporters of industrial greenhouse gases with annual bulk exports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2

that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more. 

(D) Facilities that destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually. 

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * * 

aSuppliers are defined in each applicable subpart. 

Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources 

■ 10. Section 98.33 is amended by 

revising parameters ‘‘(HHV)I,’’ ‘‘(Fuel)I,’’ 

and ‘‘n’’ of Equation C–2b in paragraph 

(a)(2)(ii)(A) and revising paragraphs 

(a)(5)(i)(C), (a)(5)(ii)(C), and (a)(5)(iii)(C) 

to read as follows: 

§ 98.33 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * 

(HHV)I = Measured high heat value of the 

fuel, for sample period ‘‘i’’ (which may 

be the arithmetic average of multiple 

determinations), or, if applicable, an 

appropriate substitute data value 

(mmBtu per mass or volume). 

(Fuel)I = Mass or volume of the fuel 

combusted during the sample period ‘‘i,’’ 

(e.g., monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, 

or by lot) from company records (express 

mass in short tons for solid fuel, volume 

in standard cubic feet (e.g., for gaseous 

fuel, and volume in gallons for liquid 

fuel). 

n = Number of sample periods in the year. 

* * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2

mass emissions value by 1.1023 to 

convert it to metric tons. 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2

mass emissions value by 1.1023 to 

convert it to metric tons. 

(iii) * * * 

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2

mass emissions value by 1.1023 to 

convert it to metric tons. 

* * * * * 

■ 11. Section 98.34 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 

as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2603 

§ 98.34 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Except as otherwise provided in 

§ 98.33(b)(1)(vi) and (vii), when 

municipal solid waste (MSW) is either 

the primary fuel combusted in a unit or 

the only fuel with a biogenic component 

combusted in the unit, determine the 

biogenic portion of the CO2 emissions 

using ASTM D6866–12 Standard Test 

Methods for Determining the Biobased 

Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous 

Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

and ASTM D7459–08 Standard Practice 

for Collection of Integrated Samples for 

the Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) 

and Fossil-Derived Carbon Dioxide 

Emitted from Stationary Emissions 

Sources (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 98.7). Perform the ASTM D7459–08 

sampling and the ASTM D6866–12 

analysis at least once in every calendar 

quarter in which MSW is combusted in 

the unit. Collect each gas sample during 

normal unit operating conditions for at 

least 24 total (not necessarily 

consecutive) hours, or longer if the 

facility deems it necessary to obtain a 

representative sample. Notwithstanding 

this requirement, if the types of fuels 

combusted and their relative 

proportions are consistent throughout 

the year, the minimum required 

sampling time may be reduced to 8 

hours if at least two 8-hour samples and 

one 24-hour sample are collected under 

normal operating conditions, and 

arithmetic average of the biogenic 

fraction of the flue gas from the 8-hour 

samples (expressed as a decimal) is 

within ±5 percent of the biogenic 

fraction from the 24-hour test. There 

must be no overlapping of the 8-hour 

and 24-hour test periods. Document the 

results of the demonstration in the 

unit’s monitoring plan. If the types of 

fuels and their relative proportions are 

not consistent throughout the year, an 

optional sampling approach that 

facilities may wish to consider to obtain 

a more representative sample is to 

collect an integrated sample by 

extracting a small amount of flue gas 

(e.g., 1 to 5 cc) in each unit operating 

hour during the quarter. Separate the 

total annual CO2 emissions into the 

biogenic and non-biogenic fractions 

using the average proportion of biogenic 

emissions of all samples analyzed 

during the reporting year. Express the 

results as a decimal fraction (e.g., 0.30, 

if 30 percent of the CO2 is biogenic). 

When MSW is the primary fuel for 

multiple units at the facility, and the 

units are fed from a common fuel 

source, testing at only one of the units 

is sufficient. 

(e) For other units that combust 

combinations of biomass fuel(s) (or 

heterogeneous fuels that have a biomass 

component, e.g., tires) and fossil (or 

other non-biogenic) fuel(s), in any 

proportions, ASTM D6866–12 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

and ASTM D7459–08 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) may be used to 

determine the biogenic portion of the 

CO2 emissions in every calendar quarter 

in which biomass and non-biogenic 

fuels are co-fired in the unit. Follow the 

procedures in paragraph (d) of this 

section. If the primary fuel for multiple 

units at the facility consists of tires, and 

the units are fed from a common fuel 

source, testing at only one of the units 

is sufficient. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 98.36 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and 

(c)(3)(ii) and revising paragraphs 

(e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(x) introductory text, and 

(e)(2)(xi) to read as follows: 

§ 98.36 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Cumulative maximum rated heat 

input capacity of the group (mmBtu/hr). 

The cumulative maximum rated heat 

input capacity shall be determined as 

the sum of the maximum rated heat 

input capacities for all units in the 

group, excluding units less than 10 

(mmBtu/hr). 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) Cumulative maximum rated heat 

input capacity of the units served by the 

common pipe (mmBtu/hr). The 

cumulative maximum rated heat input 

capacity shall be determined as the sum 

of the maximum rated heat input 

capacities for all units served by the 

common pipe, excluding units less than 

10 (mmBtu/hr). 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) For the Tier 1 Calculation 

Methodology, report: 

(A) The total quantity of each type of 

fuel combusted in the unit or group of 

aggregated units (as applicable) during 

the reporting year, in short tons for solid 

fuels, gallons for liquid fuels and 

standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels, or, 

if applicable, therms or mmBtu for 

natural gas. 

(B) If applicable, the moisture content 

used to calculate the wood and wood 

residuals wet basis HHV for use in 

Equations C–1 and C–8, in percent. 

* * * * * 

(x) When ASTM methods D7459–08 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

and D6866–12 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) are used to 

determine the biogenic portion of the 

annual CO2 emissions from MSW 

combustion, as described in § 98.34(d), 

report: 

* * * * * 

(xi) When ASTM methods D7459–08 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7) 

and D6866–12 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) are used in 

accordance with § 98.34(e) to determine 

the biogenic portion of the annual CO2

emissions from a unit that co-fires 

biogenic fuels (or partly-biogenic fuels, 

including tires if you are electing to 

report biogenic CO2 emissions from tire 

combustion) and non-biogenic fuels, 

you shall report the results of each 

quarterly sample analysis, expressed as 

a decimal fraction (e.g., if the biogenic 

fraction of the CO2 emissions is 30 

percent, report 0.30). 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Section 98.37 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraph (b)(37) to read as follows: 

§ 98.37 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(a) The applicable records specified in 

§§ 98.34(f), 98.35(b), and 98.36(e). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(37) Moisture content used to 

calculate the wood and wood residuals 

wet basis HHV (percent), if applicable 

(Equations C–1 and C–8). 

■ 14. Table C–1 to Subpart C of Part 98 

is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the entries ‘‘Petroleum 

Coke’’ under ‘‘Petroleum products’’, 

‘‘Petroleum Coke’’ under ‘‘Other fuels— 

solid’’, and ‘‘Propane Gas’’ under ‘‘Other 

fuels—gaseous’’; 

■ b. Removing the heading ‘‘Petroleum 

products’’ in the ‘‘Fuel type’’ column 

and adding in its place the heading 

‘‘Petroleum products—liquid’’; and 

■ c. Adding heading ‘‘Petroleum 

products—solid’’ and its entry 

‘‘Petroleum Coke’’,and heading 

‘‘Petroleum products—gaseous’’, and its 

entry ‘‘Propane Gas’’ after the entry 

‘‘Crude Oil’’. 

The revisions, and additions read as 

follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2604 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE C–1 TO SUBPART C OF PART 98—DEFAULT CO2 EMISSION FACTORS AND HIGH HEAT VALUES FOR VARIOUS

TYPES OF FUEL

Fuel type Default high heat value 

Default CO2

emission 

factor 

*******

Petroleum products—liquid ............................................... mmBtu/gallon ............................................ kg CO2/mmBtu 

* * * * * * * 

Petroleum products—solid ................................................ mmBtu/short ton ....................................... kg CO2/mmBtu 

Petroleum Coke ................................................................ 30.00 ......................................................... 102.41 

Petroleum products—gaseous .......................................... mmBtu/scf ................................................. kg CO2/mmBtu 

Propane Gas ..................................................................... 2.516 × 10¥3 ............................................ 61.46 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 15. Table C–2 to Subpart C of Part 98 

is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the entry ‘‘Petroleum (All 

fuel types in Table C–1)’’ and adding in 

its place the entry ‘‘Petroleum Products 

(All fuel types in Table C–1)’’; 

■ b. Removing the entry ‘‘Municipal 

Solid Waste’’ and adding in its place the 

entry ’’ Other Fuels—Solid’’; 

■ c. Removing the entry ‘‘Tires’’. 

The additions read as follows: 

TABLE C–2 TO SUBPART C OF PART 98—DEFAULT CH4 AND N2O EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF FUEL

Fuel type Default CH4 emission factor (kg CH4/

mmBtu) 

Default N2O emission factor (kg N2O/

mmBtu) 

*******

Petroleum Products (All fuel types in Table C–1) ............ 3.0 × 10¥03 ............................................... 6.0 × 10¥04

*******

Other Fuels—Solid ............................................................ 3.2 × 10¥02 ............................................... 4.2 × 10¥03

*******

* * * * * 

Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production 

■ 16. Section 98.53 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.53 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Request Administrator approval 

for an alternative method of determining 

N2O emissions according to paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) If you received Administrator 

approval for an alternative method of 

determining N2O emissions in the 

previous reporting year and your 

methodology is unchanged, your 

alternative method is automatically 

approved for the next reporting year. 

(ii) You must notify the EPA of your 

use of a previously approved alternative 

method in your annual report. 

(iii) Otherwise, you must submit the 

request within 45 days following 

promulgation of this subpart or within 

the first 30 days of each subsequent 

reporting year. 

(iv) If the Administrator does not 

approve your requested alternative 

method within 150 days of the end of 

the reporting year, you must determine 

the N2O emissions for the current 

reporting period using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Section 98.56 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 98.56 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) Types of abatement technologies 

used and date of installation for each (if 

applicable). 

* * * * * 

Subpart F—Aluminum Production 

■ 18. Section 98.65 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and Equation F–8 to read as follows: 

§ 98.65 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

* * * * * 

(a) Where anode or paste 

consumption data are missing, CO2

emissions can be estimated from 

aluminum production by using 

Equation F–9 of this section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2605 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Section 98.66 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(2) and revising 

paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 98.66 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Anode effect minutes per cell-day 

(AE-mins/cell-day), anode effect 

frequency (AE/cell-day), anode effect 

duration (minutes). (Or anode effect 

overvoltage factor ((kg CF4/metric ton 

Al)/(mV/cell day)), potline overvoltage 

(mV/cell day), current efficiency (%).) 

(3) Smelter-specific slope coefficients 

(or overvoltage emission factors) and the 

last date when the smelter-specific slope 

coefficients (or overvoltage emission 

factors) were measured. 

* * * * * 

Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing 

■ 20. Section 98.74 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 98.74 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) You may use company records or 

an engineering estimate to determine 

the annual ammonia production and the 

annual methanol production. 

* * * * * 

■ 21. Section 98.76 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (7), 

and revising paragraph (b)(15). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.76 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) If a CEMS is used to measure CO2

emissions, then you must report the 

relevant information required under 

§ 98.36 for the Tier 4 Calculation 

Methodology and the information in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section: 

* * * * * 

(3) Annual ammonia production 

(metric tons, sum of all process units 

reported within subpart G of this part). 

(b) * * * 

(2) Annual quantity of each type of 

feedstock consumed for ammonia 

manufacturing (scf of feedstock or 

gallons of feedstock or kg of feedstock). 

* * * * * 

(7) Annual average carbon content of 

each type of feedstock consumed. 

* * * * * 

(15) Annual methanol production for 

each process unit (metric tons), 

regardless of whether the methanol is 

subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold 

as product. 

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing 

■ 22. Section 98.93 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘Nil’’ and ‘‘Fil’’ 

of Equation I–12 in paragraph (d); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and 

(i)(1)(iv); 

■ d. Revising Equation I–17 in 

paragraph (i)(3)(ii); 

■ e. Revising parameter ‘‘dif’’ of 

Equation I–19 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii); 

■ f. Revising parameter ‘‘dkf’’ of 

Equation I–20 in paragraph (i)(3)(iv); 

■ g. Revising parameter ‘‘dif’’ of 

Equation I–21 in paragraph (i)(3)(v); 

■ h. Revising parameter ‘‘dkf’’ of 

Equation I–22 in paragraph (i)(3)(vi); 

and 

■ i. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(viii) and 

paragraph (i)(4) introductory text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.93 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) If you manufacture 

semiconductors, you must adhere to the 

procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) 

through (iii) of this section. You must 

calculate annual emissions of each 

input gas and of each by-product gas 

using Equations I–6 and I–7 of this 

subpart, respectively. If your fab uses 

less than 50 kg of a fluorinated GHG in 

one reporting year, you may calculate 

emissions as equal to your fab’s annual 

consumption for that specific gas as 

calculated in Equation I–11 of this 

subpart, plus any by-product emissions 

of that gas calculated under paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * 

Nil = Number of containers of size and type 

l used at the fab and returned to the gas 

distributor containing the standard heel of 

input gas i. 

Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and 

type l containing input gas i (kg). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) You must use representative data 

from the previous reporting year to 

estimate the consumption of input gas i 

as calculated in Equation I–13 of this 

subpart and the fraction of input gas i 

and by-product gas k destroyed in 

abatement systems for each stack system 

as calculated by Equations I–24A and I– 

24B of this subpart. If you were not 

required to submit an annual report 

under subpart I for the previous 

reporting year and data from the 

previous reporting year are not 

available, you may estimate the 

consumption of input gas i and the 

fraction of input gas i destroyed in 

abatement systems based on 

representative operating data from a 

period of at least 30 days in the current 

reporting year. When calculating the 

consumption of input gas i using 

Equation I–13 of this subpart, the term 

‘‘fij’’ is replaced with the ratio of the 

number of tools using input gas i that 

are vented to the stack system for which 

you are calculating the preliminary 

estimate to the total number of tools in 

the fab using input gas i, expressed as 

a decimal fraction. You may use this 

approach to determining fij only for this 

preliminary estimate. 

* * * * * 

(iv) If you anticipate an increase or 

decrease in annual consumption or 

emissions of any fluorinated GHG, or 

the number of tools connected to 

abatement systems greater than 10 

percent for the current reporting year 

compared to the previous reporting 

year, you must account for the 

anticipated change in your preliminary 

estimate. You may account for such a 

change using a quantifiable metric (e.g., 

the ratio of the number of tools that are 

expected to be vented to the stack 

system in the current year as compared 

to the previous reporting year, ratio of 

the expected number of wafer starts in 

the current reporting year as compared 

to the previous reporting year), 

engineering judgment, or other industry 

standard practice. 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(ii) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.000</GPH>
2606 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

* * * * * 

(iii) * * * 

* * * * * 

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas 

i destroyed or removed in abatement systems 

connected to process tools in fab f, as 

calculated in Equation I–24A of this subpart 

(expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack 

system does not have abatement systems on 

the tools vented to the stack system, the 

value of this parameter is zero. 

* * * * * 

(iv) * * * 

* * * * * 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG byproduct gas k destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools 

in fab f, as calculated in Equation I–24B of 

this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). 

* * * * * 

(v) * * * 

* * * * * 

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas 

i destroyed or removed in abatement systems 

connected to process tools in fab f that are 

included in the stack testing option, as 

calculated in Equation I–24A of this subpart 

(expressed as decimal fraction). 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

* * * * * 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG byproduct k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab f 

that are included in the stack testing option, 

as calculated in Equation I–24B of this 

subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). 

* * * * * 

(viii) When using the stack testing 

option described in paragraph (i) of this 

section, you must calculate the 

weighted-average fraction of each 

fluorinated input gas i and each 

fluorinated by-product gas k destroyed 

or removed in abatement systems for 

each fab f, as applicable, by using 

Equation I–24A (for input gases) and 

Equation I–24B (for by-product gases) of 

this subpart. 

Where: 

dif = The average weighted fraction of 

fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems in fab f 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). 

dkf = The average weighted fraction of 

fluorinated GHG by-product gas k destroyed 

or removed in abatement systems in fab f 

(expressed as a decimal fraction). 

Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input 

gas i consumed for process type j fed into 

abatement systems in fab f as calculated 

using Equation I–13 of this subpart (kg). 

(1—Uij) = The default emission factor for 

input gas i used in process type j, from 

applicable Table I–3 to I–7 of this subpart. 

Bijk = The default by-product gas formation 

rate factor for by-product gas k from input gas 

i used in process type j, from applicable 

Table I–3 to I–7 of this subpart. 

DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency 

for fluorinated GHG input gas i in abatement 

systems connected to process tools where 

process type j is used (expressed as a decimal 

fraction) determined according to § 98.94(f). 

DREjk = Destruction or removal efficiency 

for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k in 

abatement systems connected to process tools 

where input gas i is used in process type j 

(expressed as a decimal fraction) determined 

according to § 98.94(f). 

f = fab. 

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas. 

j = Process type. 

(4) Method to calculate emissions 

from stack systems that are not tested. 

You must calculate annual fab-level 

emissions of each fluorinated GHG 

input gas and by-product gas for those 

fluorinated GHG listed in paragraphs 

(i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using 

default utilization and by-product 

formation rates as shown in Tables I–11, 

I–12, I–13, I–14, or I–15 of this subpart, 

as applicable, and by using Equations I– 

8, I–9, and I–13 of this subpart. When 

using Equations I–8, I–9, and I–13 of 

this subpart to fulfill the requirements 

of this paragraph, you must use, in place 

of the term Cij in each equation, the total 

consumption of each fluorinated GHG 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) 

of this section or that is used in tools 

vented to the stack systems that meet 

the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this 

section. You must use, in place of the 

term aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) 

of this section used in tools with 

abatement systems or that is used in 

tools with abatement systems that are 

vented to the stack systems that meet 

the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this 

section. You also must use the results of 

Equations I–24A and I–24B of this 

subpart in place of the terms dij in 

Equation I–8 of this subpart and djk in 

Equation I–9 of this subpart, 

respectively, and use the results of 

Equation I–23 of this subpart in place of 

the results of Equation I–15 of this 

subpart for the term UTij. 

* * * * * 

■ 23. Section 98.94 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f) introductory text 

and paragraph (j)(5)(ii) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) If your fab employs abatement 

systems and you elect to reflect 

emission reductions due to these 

systems, or if your fab employs 

abatement systems designed for 

fluorinated GHG abatement and you 

elect to calculate fluorinated GHG 

emissions using the stack test method 

under § 98.93(i), you must comply with 

the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) 

through (3) of this section. If you use an 

average of properly measured 

destruction or removal efficiencies for a 

gas and process sub-type or process type 

combination, as applicable, in your 

emission calculations under § 98.93(a), 

(b), and/or (i), you must also adhere to 

procedures in paragraph (f)(4) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(j) * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.001</GPH> EP15JA16.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2607 

(5) * * * 

(ii) Criteria to test less frequently. 

After the first 3 years of annual testing, 

you may calculate the relative standard 

deviation of the emission factors for 

each fluorinated GHG included in the 

test and use that analysis to determine 

the frequency of any future testing. As 

an alternative, you may conduct all 

three tests in less than 3 calendar years 

for purposes of this paragraph (j)(5)(ii), 

but this does not relieve you of the 

obligation to conduct subsequent annual 

testing if you do not meet the criteria to 

test less frequently. If the criteria 

specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and 

(B) of this section are met, you may use 

the arithmetic average of the three 

emission factors for each fluorinated 

GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product 

for the current year and the next 4 years 

with no further testing unless your fab 

operations are changed in a way that 

triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph 

(j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year 

following the last stack test included in 

the previous average, you must test each 

of the stack systems for which testing is 

required and repeat the relative 

standard deviation analysis using the 

results of the most recent three tests 

(i.e., the new test and the two previous 

tests conducted prior to the 4 year 

period). If the criteria specified in 

paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 

section are not met, you must use the 

emission factors developed from the 

most recent testing and continue annual 

testing. You may conduct more than one 

test in the same year, but each set of 

emissions testing for a stack system 

must be separated by a period of at least 

2 months. You may repeat the relative 

standard deviation analysis using the 

most recent three tests, including those 

tests conducted prior to the 4 year 

period, to determine if you are exempt 

from testing for the next 4 years. 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Section 98.96 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and 

(e); 

■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘dif’’ and 

‘‘dkf’’ of Equation I–28 in paragraph 

(r)(2); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (y)(2)(iv). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.96 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) When you use the procedures 

specified in § 98.93(a), each fluorinated 

GHG emitted from each process type or 

process sub-type as calculated in 

Equations I–8 and I–9 of this subpart, as 

applicable. 

* * * * * 

(d) The method of emissions 

calculation used in § 98.93 for each fab. 

(e) Annual production in terms of 

substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, PVcell, glass) for each fab, including 

specification of the substrate. 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * 

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed 

or removed in abatement systems 

connected to process tools in fab f, as 

calculated from Equation I–24A of this 

subpart, which you used to calculate 

total emissions according to the 

procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as 

a decimal fraction). 

* * * * * 

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product 

k destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab 

f, as calculated from Equation I–24B of 

this subpart, which you used to calculate 

total emissions according to the 

procedures in § 98.93(i)(3) (expressed as 

a decimal fraction). 

* * * * * 

(y) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iv) It must provide any utilization 

and by-product formation rates and/or 

destruction or removal efficiency data 

that have been collected in the previous 

3 years that support the changes in 

semiconductor manufacturing processes 

described in the report. For any 

utilization, by-product formation rate, 

and/or destruction or removal efficiency 

data submitted, the report must 

describe, where available: methods used 

for the measurements, wafer size, film 

type being manufactured, substrate type, 

the linewidth or technology node, 

process type, process subtype for 

chamber clean processes, the input 

gases used and measured, the utilization 

rates measured, and the by-product 

formation rates measured. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Section 98.97 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (d)(5) introductory 

text and (d)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 98.97 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(5) In addition to the inventory 

specified in § 98.96(p), the information 

in paragraphs (d)(5)(i) through (iii) of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

(7) Records of all inputs and results of 

calculations made to determine the 

average weighted fraction of each gas 

destroyed or removed in the abatement 

systems for each stack system using 

Equations I–24A and I–24B of this 

subpart, if applicable. The inputs 

should include an indication of whether 

each value for destruction or removal 

efficiency is a default value or a 

measured site-specific value. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. Table I–3 of subpart I is amended 

to read as follows: 

TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER SIZES

Process type/sub-type 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 

ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING 

1–Ui ................................................... 0.81 0.72 0.51 0.13 0.064 0.70 NA 0.14 0.19 0.55 0.17 0.072 NA 

BCF4 .................................................. NA 0.10 0.085 0.079 0.077 NA NA 0.11 0.0040 0.13 0.13 NA NA 

BC2F6 ................................................ 0.046 NA 0.030 0.025 0.024 0.0034 NA 0.037 0.025 0.11 0.11 0.014 NA 

BC4F6 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC4F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF8 .................................................. 0.0012 NA 0.0012 NA NA NA NA 0.0086 NA NA NA NA NA 

BCHF3 ............................................... 0.10 0.047 NA 0.049 NA NA NA 0.040 NA 0.0012 0.066 0.0039 NA 

CHAMBER CLEANING 

In situ plasma cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................... 0.92 0.55 NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA NA NA 0.14 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2608 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I–3 TO SUBPART I OF PART 98—DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS (1–Uij) FOR GAS UTILIZATION RATES (Uij) AND BYPRODUCT FORMATION RATES (Bijk) FOR SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING FOR 150MM AND 200 MM WAFER

SIZES—Continued 

Process type/sub-type 

Process gas i 

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2 C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O 

BCF4 .................................................. NA 0.19 NA NA NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.050 NA NA NA 0.13 

BCF6 .................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.045 

BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Remote plasma cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.017 NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 .................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.015 NA NA NA NA 

BCF6 .................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

In situ thermal cleaning: 

1–Ui ................................................... NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BCF4 .................................................. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC2F6 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

BC3F8 ................................................ NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not necessarily imply that a particular gas is 

not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type. 

Subpart N—Glass Production 

■ 27. Section 98.144 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 98.144 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Unless you use the default value 

of 1.0, you must measure carbonatebased mineral mass fractions at least 

annually to verify the mass fraction data 

provided by the supplier of the raw 

material; such measurements shall be 

based on sampling and chemical 

analysis using consensus standards that 

specify X-ray fluorescence. For 

measurements made in years prior to 

the emissions reporting year 2014, you 

may also use ASTM D3682–01 

(Reapproved 2006) Standard Test 

Method for Major and Minor Elements 

in Combustion Residues from Coal 

Utilization Processes (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7) or ASTM D6349– 

09 Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Major and Minor 

Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid 

Residues from Combustion of Coal and 

Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma— 

Atomic Emission Spectrometry 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(c) Unless you use the default value 

of 1.0, you must determine the annual 

average mass fraction for the carbonatebased mineral in each carbonate-based 

raw material by calculating an 

arithmetic average of the monthly data 

obtained from raw material suppliers or 

sampling and chemical analysis. 

(d) Unless you use the default value 

of 1.0, you must determine on an annual 

basis the calcination fraction for each 

carbonate consumed based on sampling 

and chemical analysis using an industry 

consensus standard. If performed, this 

chemical analysis must be conducted 

using an x-ray fluorescence test or other 

enhanced testing method published by 

an industry consensus standards 

organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API, 

etc.). 

■ 28. Section 98.146 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory 

text and (b)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 98.146 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Results of all tests, if applicable, 

used to verify the carbonate-based 

mineral mass fraction for each 

carbonate-based raw material charged to 

a continuous glass melting furnace, as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through 

(iii) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(7) Method used to determine decimal 

fraction of calcination, unless you used 

the default value of 1.0. 

* * * * * 

■ 29. Section 98.147 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4) 

introductory text, (d)(2), and (d)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 98.147 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Data on carbonate-based mineral 

mass fractions provided by the raw 

material supplier for all raw materials 

consumed annually and included in 

calculating process emissions in 

Equation N–1 of this subpart, if 

applicable. 

(4) Results of all tests, if applicable, 

used to verify the carbonate-based 

mineral mass fraction for each 

carbonate-based raw material charged to 

a continuous glass melting furnace, 

including the data specified in 

paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (v) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(2) Annual amount of each carbonatebased raw material charged to each 

continuous glass melting furnace (tons) 

(Equation N–1 of this subpart). 

(3) Decimal fraction of calcination 

achieved for each carbonate-based raw 

material for each continuous glass 

melting furnace (specify the default 

value, if used, or the value determined 

according to § 98.144) (percentage, 

expressed as a decimal) (Equation N–1 

of this subpart). 

Subpart O—HCFC–22 Production and 

HFC–23 Destruction 

■ 30. Section 98.156 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) introductory text 

and (d) to read as follows: 

§ 98.156 Data reporting requirements. 

(a) In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(c), the HCFC–22 

production facility shall report the 

following information for each HCFC– 

22 production process: 

* * * * * 

(d) If the HFC–23 concentration 

measured pursuant to § 98.154(l) is 

greater than that measured during the 

performance test that is the basis for the 

destruction efficiency (DE), the facility 

shall report the method used to 

calculate the revised destruction 

efficiency, specifying whether 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2609 

§ 98.154(l)(1) or (2) has been used for 

the calculation. 

* * * * * 

Subpart P—Hydrogen Production 

■ 31. Section 98.163 is amended by 

revising parameter ‘‘CO2’’ of Equation 

P–3 in paragraph (b)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.163 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from fuel and 

feedstock consumption (metric tons/yr). 

* * * * * 

■ 32. Section 98.164 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.164 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Calibrate all oil and gas flow 

meters that are used to measure liquid 

and gaseous fuel and feedstock volumes 

(except for gas billing meters) according 

to the monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements for the Tier 3 methodology 

in § 98.34(b)(1). Perform oil tank drop 

measurements (if used to quantify liquid 

fuel or feedstock consumption) 

according to § 98.34(b)(2). Calibrate all 

solids weighing equipment according to 

the procedures in § 98.3(i). 

* * * * * 

■ 33. Section 98.166 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b)(4), (d), and (e) to 

read as follows: 

§ 98.166 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(4) Annual quantity of ammonia 

intentionally produced as a desired 

product, if applicable (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

(d) Annual quantity of carbon other 

than CO2 collected and transferred off 

site in either gas, liquid, or solid forms 

(kg carbon), excluding methanol. 

(e) Annual quantity of methanol 

intentionally produced as a desired 

product, if applicable, (metric tons) for 

each process unit. 

Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production 

■ 34. Section 98.173 is amended by 

revising Equation Q–5 in paragraph 

(b)(1)(v) to read as follows: 

§ 98.173 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(v) * * * 

* * * * * 

■ 35. Section 98.176 is amended by 

revising Equation Q–10 in paragraph 

(e)(6)(ii), Equation Q–11 in paragraph 

(e)(6)(iii), Equation Q–12 in paragraph 

(e)(6)(iv), and the parameter ‘‘n’’ of 

Equation Q–12 in paragraph (e)(6)(iv) to 

read as follows: 

§ 98.176 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(6) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

* * * * * (iii) * * * 

* * * * * (iv) * * * 

* * * * * 

n = Number of gaseous, liquid, and solid fuel 

inputs to each process unit as used in 

Equation Q–9 of this subpart. 

* * * * * 

Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing 

■ 36. Section 98.196 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

and adding paragraphs (b)(19) through 

(21) to read as follows: 

§ 98.196 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) If a CEMS is not used to measure 

CO2 emissions, then you must report the 

information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (21) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(19) Annual emission factors for each 

lime product type produced. 

(20) Annual emission factors for each 

calcined byproduct/waste by lime type 

that is sold. 

(21) Annual average results of 

chemical composition analysis of each 

type of lime product produced and 

calcined byproduct/waste sold. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.003</GPH> EP15JA16.004</GPH> EP15JA16.005</GPH> EP15JA16.006</GPH>
2610 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Subpart U—Miscellaneous Uses of 

Carbonate 

■ 37. Section 98.216 is amended by 

revising paragraph (e) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 98.216 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) If you followed the calculation 

method of § 98.213(a), you must report 

the information in paragraphs (e)(1) 

through (3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production 

■ 38. Section 98.220 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.220 Definition of source category. 

A nitric acid production facility uses 

one or more trains to produce nitric 

acid. A nitric acid train produces nitric 

acid through the catalytic oxidation of 

ammonia. 

■ 39. Section 98.223 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.223 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Request Administrator approval 

for an alternative method of determining 

N2O emissions according to paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section. 

(i) If you received Administrator 

approval for an alternative method of 

determining N2O emissions in the 

previous reporting year and your 

methodology is unchanged, your 

alternative method is automatically 

approved for the next reporting year. 

(ii) You must notify the EPA of your 

use of a previously approved alternative 

method in your annual report. 

(iii) Otherwise, if you have not 

received Administrator approval for an 

alternative method of determining N2O 

emissions in a prior reporting year or 

your methodology has changed, you 

must submit the request within the first 

30 days of each subsequent reporting 

year. 

(iv) If the Administrator does not 

approve your requested alternative 

method within 150 days of the end of 

the reporting year, you must determine 

the N2O emissions for the current 

reporting period using the procedures 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 40. Section 98.226 is amended by 

revising paragraph (h) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.226 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(h) Abatement technologies used (if 

applicable) and date of installation of 

abatement technology. 

* * * * * 

Subpart X—Petrochemical Production 

■ 41. Section 98.240 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 98.240 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The petrochemical production 

source category consists of processes as 

described in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(3) of this section. 

(1) The petrochemical production 

source category consists of all processes 

that produce acrylonitrile, carbon black, 

ethylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene 

oxide, or methanol, except as specified 

in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this 

section. 

(2) The petrochemical production 

source category includes processes that 

produce the petrochemical as an 

intermediate in the on-site production 

of other chemicals as well as processes 

that produce the petrochemical as an 

end product for sale or shipment off 

site. 

(3) When ethylene dichloride and 

vinyl chloride monomer are produced 

in an integrated process, you may 

consider the entire integrated process to 

be the petrochemical process for the 

purpose of complying with the mass 

balance option in § 98.243(c). If you 

elect to consider the integrated process 

to be the petrochemical process, then 

the mass balance must be performed 

over the entire integrated process. 

* * * * * 

■ 42. Section 98.243 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4) 

introductory text, and (c)(4)(i) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.243 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) Collect a sample of each feedstock 

and product at least once per month and 

determine the molecular weight (for 

gaseous materials when the quantity is 

measured in scf) and carbon content of 

each sample according to the 

procedures of § 98.244(b)(4). If multiple 

valid molecular weight or carbon 

content measurements are made during 

the monthly measurement period, 

average them arithmetically. However, if 

a particular liquid or solid feedstock is 

delivered in lots, and if multiple 

deliveries of the same feedstock are 

received from the same supply source in 

a given calendar month, only one 

representative sample is required. 

Alternatively, you may use the results of 

analyses conducted by a feedstock 

supplier, or product customer, provided 

the sampling and analysis is conducted 

at least once per month using any of the 

procedures specified in § 98.244(b)(4). 

(4) If you determine that the monthly 

average concentration of a specific 

compound in a feedstock or product is 

greater than 99.5 percent by volume or 

mass, then as an alternative to the 

sampling and analysis specified in 

paragraph (c)(3) of this section, you may 

determine molecular weight and carbon 

content in accordance with paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section. 

(i) Calculate the molecular weight and 

carbon content assuming 100 percent of 

that feedstock or product is the specific 

compound. 

* * * * * 

■ 43. Section 98.246 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6)(ii), 

and (a)(6)(iii); 

■ b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) and (15); 

and 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and 

(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.246 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(5) Annual quantity of each type of 

petrochemical produced from each 

process unit (metric tons). If your 

petrochemical process is an integrated 

ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride 

monomer process, report either the 

measured ethylene dichloride 

production (metric tons) or both the 

measured quantity of vinyl chloride 

monomer production (metric tons) and 

an estimate of the ethylene dichloride 

production (metric tons). 

(6) * * * 

(ii) Description of each type of 

measurement device (e.g., flow meter, 

weighing device) used to determine 

volume or mass in accordance with 

§ 98.244(b)(1) through (3). 

(iii) Identification of each method 

(i.e., method number, title, or other 

description) used to determine volume 

or mass in accordance with 

§ 98.244(b)(1) through (3). 

* * * * * 

(14) Annual average of the 

measurements of the carbon content of 

each feedstock and product. 

(i) For feedstocks and products that 

are gaseous or solid, report this quantity 

in kg carbon per kg of feedstock or 

product. 

(ii) For liquid feedstocks and 

products, report this quantity either in 

units of kg carbon per kg of feedstock or 

production, or kg C per gallon of 

feedstock or product. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2611 

(15) For each gaseous feedstock and 

product, the annual average of the 

measurements of molecular weight in 

units of kg per kg mole. 

(b) * * * 

(2) For CEMS used on stacks that 

include emissions from stationary 

combustion units that burn any amount 

of off-gas from the petrochemical 

process, report the relevant information 

required under § 98.36(c)(2) and 

(e)(2)(vi) for the Tier 4 calculation 

methodology. Section 98.36(c)(2)(ii), (ix) 

and (x) does not apply for the purposes 

of this subpart. 

(3) For CEMS used on stacks that do 

not include emissions from stationary 

combustion units, report the 

information required under 

§ 98.36(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii) 

and (e)(2)(vi). 

* * * * * 

(8) Annual quantity of each type of 

petrochemical produced from each 

process unit (metric tons). If your 

petrochemical process is an integrated 

ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride 

monomer process, report either the 

measured ethylene dichloride 

production (metric tons) or both the 

measured quantity of vinyl chloride 

monomer production (metric tons) and 

an estimate of the ethylene dichloride 

product (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

■ 44. Section 98.247 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 98.247 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(a) If you comply with the CEMS 

measurement methodology in 

§ 98.243(b), then you must retain under 

this subpart the records required for the 

Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in 

§ 98.37, records of the procedures used 

to develop estimates of the fraction of 

total emissions attributable to 

petrochemical processing and 

combustion of petrochemical process 

off-gas as required in § 98.246(b), and 

records of any annual average HHV 

calculations. 

* * * * * 

■ 45. Section 98.248 is amended by 

revising the definition for ‘‘Product’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 98.248 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Product means each of the following 

carbon-containing outputs from a 

process: the petrochemical, recovered 

byproducts, and liquid organic wastes 

that are not combusted onsite. Product 

does not include process vent 

emissions, fugitive emissions, or 

wastewater. 

Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries 

■ 46. Section 98.253 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(1)(iii)(B), (h)(1) 

introductory text, and (h)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Revising parameters ‘‘0.98’’ of 

Equations Y–16a and Y–16b and ‘‘0.02’’ 

of Equation Y–17 in paragraph (h)(2); 

and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (i) and 

paragraph (j) introductory text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.253 Calculating GHG emissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) For flares, calculate GHG 

emissions according to the requirements 

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 

section. All gas discharged through the 

flare stack must be considered for the 

flare GHG emissions calculations with 

the exception of gas used for the flare 

pilots, which may be excluded. 

(1) * * * 

(iii) * * * 

(B) For periods of normal operation, 

use the average higher heating value 

measured for the fuel gas used as flare 

sweep or purge gas for the higher 

heating value of the flare gas. If higher 

heating value of the fuel gas is not 

measured, the higher heating value of 

the flare gas under normal operations 

may be estimated from historic data or 

engineering calculations. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) For uncontrolled asphalt blowing 

operations or asphalt blowing 

operations controlled either by vapor 

scrubbing or by another non-combustion 

control device, calculate CO2 and CH4

emissions using Equations Y–14 and Y– 

15 of this section, respectively. 

* * * * * 

(2) For asphalt blowing operations 

controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, 

a flare, or other vapor combustion 

control device, calculate CO2 using 

either Equation Y–16a or Equation Y– 

16b of this section and calculate CH4

emissions using Equation Y–17 of this 

section, provided these emissions are 

not already included in the flare 

emissions calculated in paragraph (b) of 

this section or in the stationary 

combustion unit emissions required 

under subpart C of this part (General 

Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources). 

* * * * * 

(Eq. Y–16a) * * * 

* * * * * 

0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency 

of the control device. 

* * * * * 

(Eq. Y–16b) * * * 

* * * * * 

0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency 

of the control device. 

* * * * * 

(Eq. Y–17) * * * 

* * * * * 

0.02 = Fraction of methane 

uncombusted in the controlled 

stream based on assumed 98% 

combustion efficiency. 

* * * * * 

(i) For each delayed coking unit, 

calculate the CH4 emissions from 

delayed decoking operations (venting, 

draining, deheading, and coke-cutting) 

according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (5) of this 

section. 

(1) Determine the typical dry mass of 

coke produced per cycle from company 

records of the mass of coke produced by 

the delayed coking unit. Alternatively, 

you may estimate the typical dry mass 

of coke produced per cycle based on the 

delayed coking unit vessel (coke drum) 

dimensions and typical coke drum 

outage at the end of the coking cycle 

using Equation Y–18a of this section. 

Where: 

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the 

delayed coking unit vessel at the end of 

the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle). 

rbulk = Bulk coke bed density (metric tons per 

cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value 

of 0.0191 mt/ft3. 

Hdrum = Internal height of delayed coking unit 

vessel (feet). 

Houtage = Typical distance from the top of the 

delayed coking unit vessel to the top of 

the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at 

the end of the coking cycle (feet) from 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.007</GPH>
2612 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

company records or engineering 

estimates. 

D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel 

(feet). 

(2) Determine the typical mass of 

water in the delayed coking unit vessel 

at the end of the cooling cycle prior to 

venting to the atmosphere using 

Equation Y–18b of this section. 

Where: 

Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking 

unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle 

just prior to atmospheric venting (metric 

tons/cycle). 

rwater = Density of water at average 

temperature of the delayed coking unit 

vessel at the end of the cooling cycle just 

prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons 

per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default 

value of 0.0270 mt/ft3. 

Hwater = Typical distance from the bottom of 

the coking unit vessel to the top of the 

water level at the end of the cooling 

cycle just prior to atmospheric venting 

(feet) from company records or 

engineering estimates. 

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the 

delayed coking unit vessel at the end of 

the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as 

determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section. 

rparticle = Particle density of coke (metric tons 

per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default 

value of 0.0382 mt/ft3. 

D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel 

(feet). 

(3) Determine the average temperature 

of the delayed coking unit vessel when 

the drum is first vented to the 

atmosphere using either Equation Y–18c 

or Y–18d of this section, as appropriate, 

based on the measurement system 

available. 

Where: 

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed 

coking unit vessel when the drum is first 

vented to the atmosphere (°F). 

Toverhead = Temperature of the delayed coking 

unit vessel overhead line measured as 

near the coking unit vessel as practical 

just prior to venting to the atmosphere. 

If the temperature of the delayed coking 

unit vessel overhead line is less than 

216 °F, use Toverhead = 216 °F. 

Tbottom = Temperature of the delayed coking 

unit vessel near the bottom of the coke 

bed. If the temperature at the bottom of 

the coke bed is less than 212 °F, use 

Tbottom = 212 °F. 

Where: 

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed 

coking unit vessel when the drum is first 

vented to the atmosphere (°F). 

Poverhead = Pressure of the delayed coking unit 

vessel just prior to opening the 

atmospheric vent (pounds per square 

inch gauge, psig). 

(4) Determine the typical mass of steam 

generated and released per 

decoking cycle using Equation Y– 

18e of this section. 

Where: 

Msteam = Mass of steam generated and 

released per decoking cycle (metric tons/ 

cycle). 

fConvLoss = fraction of total heat loss that is 

due to convective heat loss from the 

sides of the coke vessel (unitless). Use 

the default value of 0.10. 

Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking 

unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle 

just prior to atmospheric venting (metric 

tons/cycle). 

Cp,water = Heat capacity of water (British 

thermal units per metric ton per degree 

Fahrenheit; Btu/mt-°F). Use the default 

value of 2,205 Btu/mt-°F. 

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the 

delayed coking unit vessel at the end of 

the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as 

determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section. 

Cp,coke = Heat capacity of petroleum coke 

(Btu/mt-°F). Use the default value of 584 

Btu/mt-°F. 

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed 

coking unit vessel when the drum is first 

vented to the atmosphere (°F) as 

determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section. 

Tfinal = Temperature of the delayed coking 

unit vessel when steam generation stops 

(°F). Use the default value of 212 °F. 

DHvap = Heat of vaporization of water (British 

thermal units per metric ton; Btu/mt). 

Use the default value of 2,116,000 Btu/ 

mt. 

(5) Calculate the CH4 emissions from 

decoking operations at each delayed 

coking unit using Equation Y–18f of 

this section. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.008</GPH> EP15JA16.009</GPH> EP15JA16.010</GPH> EP15JA16.011</GPH> EP15JA16.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2613 

Where: 

CH4 = Annual methane emissions from the 

delayed coking unit decoking operations 

(metric ton/year). 

Msteam = Mass of steam generated and 

released per decoking cycle (metric tons/ 

cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(3) 

of this section. 

EmFDCU = Methane emission factor for 

delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per 

metric ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam) 

from unit-specific measurement data. If 

you do not have unit-specific 

measurement data, use the default value 

of 7.9 kg CH4/metric ton steam. 

N = Cumulative number of decoking cycles 

(or coke-cutting cycles) for all delayed 

coking unit vessels associated with the 

delayed coking unit during the year. 

0.001 = Conversion factor (metric ton/kg). 

(j) For each process vent not covered 

in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this 

section that can reasonably be expected 

to contain greater than 2 percent by 

volume CO2 or greater than 0.5 percent 

by volume of CH4 or greater than 0.01 

percent by volume (100 parts per 

million) of N2O, calculate GHG 

emissions using Equation Y–19 of this 

section. You must also use Equation Y– 

19 of this section to calculate CH4

emissions for catalytic reforming unit 

depressurization and purge vents when 

methane is used as the purge gas, and 

CO2 and/or CH4 emissions, as 

applicable, if you elected this method as 

an alternative to the methods in 

paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 47. Section 98.254 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j), redesignating 

paragraph (k) as paragraph (l), and 

adding new paragraph (k) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.254 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(j) Determine the quantity of 

petroleum process streams using 

company records. These quantities 

include the quantity of coke produced 

per cycle, asphalt blown, quantity of 

crude oil plus the quantity of 

intermediate products received from off 

site, and the quantity of unstabilized 

crude oil received at the facility. 

(k) Determine temperature or pressure 

of delayed coking unit vessel using 

process instrumentation operated, 

maintained, and calibrated according to 

the manufacturer’s instructions. 

* * * * * 

■ 48. Section 98.256 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (e)(3) and (6), 

(h)(5)(ii)(A), and (k) to read as follows: 

§ 98.256 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) A description of the flare service 

(general facility flare, unit flare, 

emergency only or back-up flare) and an 

indication of whether or not the flare is 

serviced by a flare gas recovery system. 

* * * * * 

(6) If you use Equation Y–1a in 

§ 98.253, an indication of whether daily 

or weekly measurement periods are 

used, annual average carbon content of 

the flare gas (in kg carbon per kg flare 

gas), and, either the annual volume of 

flare gas combusted (in scf/year) and the 

annual average molecular weight (in kg/ 

kg-mole), or, the annual mass of flare 

gas combusted (in kg/yr). 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) The annual volume of recycled 

tail gas (in scf/year). 

* * * * * 

(k) For each delayed coking unit, the 

owner or operator shall report: 

(1) The unit ID number (if applicable). 

(2) Maximum rated throughput of the 

unit, in bbl/stream day. 

(3) Annual quantity of coke produced 

in the unit during the reporting year, in 

metric tons. 

(4) The calculated annual CH4

emissions (in metric tons of CH4) for the 

delayed coking unit. 

(5) The total number of delayed 

coking vessels (or coke drums) 

associated with the delayed coking unit. 

(6) The basis for the typical dry mass 

of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel 

at the end of the coking cycle (mass 

measurements from company records or 

calculated using Equation Y–18a of this 

subpart). 

(7) An indication of the method used 

to estimate the average temperature of 

the coke bed, Tinitial (overhead 

temperature and Equation Y–18c of this 

subpart or pressure correlation and 

Equation Y–18d of this subpart). 

(8) An indication of whether a unitspecific methane emissions factor or the 

default methane emission factor was 

used for the delayed coking unit. 

* * * * * 

■ 49. Section 98.257 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text and (b)(41) through 

(45); 

■ b. Removing paragraph (b)(46) 

■ c. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) 

through (67) as paragraphs (b)(53) 

through (73); 

■ d. Adding new paragraphs (b)(46) 

through (52); and 

■ e. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(65). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.257 Records that must be retained. 

* * * * * 

(b) Verification software records. You 

must keep a record of the file generated 

by the verification software specified in 

§ 98.5(b) for the applicable data 

specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(73) of this section. Retention of this file 

satisfies the recordkeeping requirement 

for the data in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(73) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(41) Typical dry mass of coke in the 

delayed coking unit vessel at the end of 

the coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) 

from company records or calculated 

using Equation Y–18a of this subpart 

(Equations Y–18a, Y–18b and Y–18e in 

§ 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. 

(42) Internal height of delayed coking 

unit vessel (feet) (Equation Y–18a in 

§ 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. 

(43) Typical distance from the top of 

the delayed coking unit vessel to the top 

of the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) 

at the end of the coking cycle (feet) from 

company records or engineering 

estimates (Equation Y–18a in § 98.253) 

for each delayed coking unit. 

(44) Diameter of delayed coking unit 

vessel (feet) (Equations Y–18a and Y– 

18b in § 98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit. 

(45) Mass of water in the delayed 

coking unit vessel at the end of the 

cooling cycle prior to atmospheric 

venting (metric ton/cycle) (Equations Y– 

18b and Y–18e in § 98.253) for each 

delayed coking unit. 

(46) Typical distance from the bottom 

of the coking unit vessel to the top of 

the water level at the end of the cooling 

cycle just prior to atmospheric venting 

(feet) from company records or 

engineering estimates (Equation Y–18b 

in § 98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit. 

(47) Mass of steam generated and 

released per decoking cycle (metric 

tons/cycle) (Equations Y–18e and Y–18f 

in § 98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit. 

(48) Average temperature of the 

delayed coking unit vessel when the 

drum is first vented to the atmosphere 

(°F) (Equations Y–18c, Y–18d, and Y– 

18e in § 98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit. 

(49) Temperature of the delayed 

coking unit vessel overhead line 

measured as near the coking unit vessel 

as practical just prior to venting the 

atmosphere (Equation Y–18c in 

§ 98.253) for each delayed coking unit. 

(50) Pressure of the delayed coking 

unit vessel just prior to opening the 

atmospheric vent (psig) (Equation Y– 

18d in § 98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2614 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(51) Methane emission factor for 

delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per 

metric ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam) 

(Equation Y–18f in § 98.253) for each 

delayed coking unit. 

(52) Cumulative number of decoking 

cycles (or coke-cutting cycles) for all 

delayed coking unit vessels associated 

with the delayed coking unit during the 

year (Equation Y–18f in § 98.253) for 

each delayed coking unit. 

* * * * * 

(65) Specify whether the calculated or 

default loading factor L specified in 

§ 98.253(n) is entered, for each liquid 

loaded to each vessel (methods 

specified in § 98.253(n)). 

* * * * * 

Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid 

Production 

■ 50. Section 98.266 is amended by 

revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.266 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) Annual phosphoric acid 

production capacity (tons) for each wetprocess phosphoric acid process line. 

* * * * * 

Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing 

■ 51. Section 98.273 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and 

(c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 98.273 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Calculate fossil fuel-based CO2

emissions from direct measurement of 

fossil fuels consumed and default 

emissions factors according to the Tier 

1 methodology for stationary 

combustion sources in § 98.33(a)(1). 

Tiers 2 or 3 from § 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may 

be used to calculate fossil fuel-based 

CO2 emissions if the respective 

monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

described in § 98.34 are met. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Calculate fossil CO2 emissions 

from fossil fuels from direct 

measurement of fossil fuels consumed 

and default emissions factors according 

to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology 

for stationary combustion sources in 

§ 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from 

§ 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to 

calculate fossil fuel-based CO2

emissions if the respective monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements described in 

§ 98.34 are met. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) Calculate CO2 emissions from 

fossil fuel from direct measurement of 

fossil fuels consumed and default HHV 

and default emissions factors, according 

to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology 

for stationary combustion sources in 

§ 98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from 

§ 98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to 

calculate fossil fuel-based CO2

emissions if the respective monitoring 

and QA/QC requirements described in 

§ 98.34 are met. 

* * * * * 

■ 52. Section 98.275 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 98.275 Procedures for estimating 

missing data. 

* * * * * 

(b) For missing measurements of the 

mass of spent liquor solids or spent 

pulping liquor flow rates, use the lesser 

value of either the maximum mass or 

fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, 

or the maximum mass or flow rate that 

the fuel meter can measure. 

Alternatively, records of the daily spent 

liquor solids firing rate obtained to 

comply with § 63.866(c)(1) of this 

chapter may be used, adjusting for the 

duration of the missing measurements, 

as appropriate. 

* * * * * 

■ 53. Table AA–2 to Subpart AA of Part 

98 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the column headings for 

‘‘Kraft lime kilns’’ and ‘‘Kraft calciners’’; 

■ b. Revising the entry for ‘‘Petroleum 

coke’’; and 

■ c. Revising the footnotes. 

The revisions read as follows: 

TABLE AA–2 TO SUBPART AA OF PART 98—KRAFT LIME KILN AND CALCINER EMISSIONS FACTORS FOR CH4 AND N2O 

Fuel 

Fossil fuel-based emissions factors 

(kg/mmBtu HHV) 

Kraft rotary lime kilns Kraft calciners a

CH4 N2O CH4 N2O 

*******

Petroleum coke ................................................................................................ 0.0027 0 b NA b NA 

* * * * * * * 

a Includes, for example, fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills. 

bEmission factors for kraft calciners are not available. 

Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing 

■ 54. Section 98.294 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.294 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) Measure the mass of trona input to 

each soda ash manufacturing line on a 

monthly basis using belt scales or 

methods used for accounting purposes. 

* * * * * 

■ 55. Section 98.296 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding 

paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 98.296 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(1) Annual consumption of trona or 

liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility 

level (tons). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(5) Annual consumption of trona or 

liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility 

level (tons). 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2615 

Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission 

and Distribution Equipment Use 

■ 56. Section 98.306 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and 

adding paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (m), and 

(n) to read as follows: 

§ 98.306 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) New hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the year. 

(3) New SF6- or PFC-insulated 

equipment other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year. 

(4) Retired hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during the year. 

(5) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated 

equipment other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year. 

* * * * * 

(m) State(s) or territory in which the 

facility lies and total miles of 

transmission and distribution lines 

located within each state or territory. 

(n) The following numbers of pieces 

of equipment: 

(1) New hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the year. 

(2) New SF6- or PFC-insulated 

equipment other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year. 

(3) Retired hermetically sealedpressure switchgear during the year. 

(4) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated 

equipment other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure switchgear during the 

year. 

Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines 

■ 57. Section 98.323 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising parameter ‘‘n’’ of Equation 

FF–1 in paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(2); 

■ c. Revising parameter ‘‘CH4D’’ and 

‘‘n’’ of Equation FF–3 in paragraph (b); 

and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and 

paragraph (b)(2) introductory text. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.323 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

n = The number of days in the quarter where 

active ventilation of mining operations is 

taking place at the monitoring point. To 

obtain the number of days in the quarter, 

divide the total number of hours in the 

quarter where active ventilation is taking 

place by 24 hours per day. 

* * * * * 

(1) The quarterly periods are: 

* * * * * 

(2) Values of V, C, T, P, and, if 

applicable, (fH2O), must be based on 

measurements taken at least once each 

quarter with no fewer than 6 weeks 

between measurements. If 

measurements are taken more frequently 

than once per quarter, then use the 

average value for all measurements 

taken that quarter. If continuous 

measurements are taken, then use the 

average value over the time period of 

continuous monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * 

CH4D = Weekly CH4 liberated from the 

monitoring point (metric tons CH4). 

* * * * * 

n = The number of days in the week that the 

system is operational at that 

measurement point. To obtain the 

number of days in the week, divide the 

total number of hours that the system is 

operational by 24 hours per day. 

* * * * * 

(1) Values for V, C, T, P, and, if 

applicable, (fH2O), must be based on 

measurements taken at least once each 

calendar week with at least 3 days 

between measurements. If 

measurements are taken more frequently 

than once per week, then use the 

average value for all measurements 

taken that week. If continuous 

measurements are taken, then use the 

average values over the time period of 

continuous monitoring when the 

continuous monitoring equipment is 

properly functioning. 

(2) Quarterly total CH4 liberated from 

degasification systems for the mine 

must be determined as the sum of CH4

liberated determined at each of the 

monitoring points in the mine, summed 

over the number of weeks in the quarter, 

as follows: 

* * * * * 

■ 58. Section 98.324 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(1); 

■ b. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(2); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (h). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.324 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Collect quarterly or more frequent 

grab samples (with no fewer than 6 

weeks between measurements) for 

methane concentration and make 

quarterly measurements of flow rate, 

temperature, pressure, and, if 

applicable, moisture content. The 

sampling and measurements must be 

made at the same locations as Mine 

Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) inspection samples are taken, 

and should be taken when the mine is 

operating under normal conditions. You 

must follow MSHA sampling 

procedures as set forth in the MSHA 

Handbook entitled, Coal Mine Safety 

and Health General Inspection 

Procedures Handbook Number: PH13– 

V–1, February 2013 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 98.7). You must record 

the date of sampling, flow, temperature, 

pressure, and moisture measurements, 

the methane concentration (percent), the 

bottle number of samples collected, and 

the location of the measurement or 

collection. 

* * * * * 

(h) The owner or operator shall 

document the procedures used to ensure 

the accuracy of gas flow rate, gas 

composition, temperature, pressure, and 

moisture content measurements. These 

procedures include, but are not limited 

to, calibration of flow meters, and other 

measurement devices. The estimated 

accuracy of measurements and the 

technical basis for the estimated 

accuracy shall be recorded. 

■ 59. Section 98.326 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f) through (i), (o), 

(r)(2) and (r)(3), and adding paragraph 

(u) to read as follows: 

§ 98.326 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) Quarterly volumetric flow rate for 

each ventilation monitoring point and 

units of measure (scfm or acfm), date 

and location of each measurement, and 

method of measurement (quarterly 

sampling or continuous monitoring), 

used in Equation FF–1 of this subpart. 

Specify whether the volumetric flow 

rate measurement at each ventilation 

monitoring point is on dry basis or wet 

basis; or, if a flow meter is used, 

indicate whether or not the flow meter 

automatically corrects for moisture 

content. 

(g) Quarterly CH4 concentration for 

each ventilation monitoring point, dates 

and locations of each measurement, and 

method of measurement (sampling or 

continuous monitoring). Specify 

whether the CH4 concentration 

measurement at each ventilation 

monitoring point is on dry basis or wet 

basis. 

(h) Weekly volumetric flow rate used 

to calculate CH4 liberated from 

degasification systems and units of 

measure (acfm or scfm), and method of 

measurement (sampling or continuous 

monitoring), used in Equation FF–3 of 

this subpart. Specify whether the 

volumetric flow rate measurement at 

each degasification monitoring point is 

on dry basis or wet basis; or, if a flow 

meter is used, indicate whether or not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2616 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

the flow meter automatically corrects for 

moisture content. 

(i) Quarterly CH4 concentration (%) 

used to calculate CH4 liberated from 

degasification systems, and if the data is 

based on CEMS or weekly sampling. 

Specify whether the CH4 concentration 

measurement at each degasification 

monitoring point is on dry basis or wet 

basis. 

* * * * * 

(o) Temperature (°R), pressure (atm), 

moisture content (if applicable), and the 

moisture correction factor (if applicable) 

used in Equations FF–1 and FF–3 of this 

subpart; and the gaseous organic 

concentration correction factor, if 

Equation FF–9 of this subpart was 

required. Moisture content is required to 

be reported only if CH4 concentration is 

measured on a wet basis and volumetric 

flow is measured on a dry basis, if CH4

concentration is measured on a dry 

basis and volumetric flow is measured 

on a wet basis; or, if a flow meter is 

used, the flow meter does not 

automatically correct for moisture 

content. 

* * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(2) Start date and close date of each 

well, shaft, and vent hole. If the well, 

shaft, or vent hole is operating through 

the end of the reporting year, December 

31st of the reporting year shall be the 

close date for purposes of reporting. 

(3) Number of days the well, shaft, or 

vent hole was in operation during the 

reporting year. To obtain the number of 

days in the reporting year, divide the 

total number of hours that the system 

was in operation by 24 hours per day. 

* * * * * 

(u) Annual coal production in short 

tons for the reporting year. 

Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills 

■ 60. Section 98.346 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (f), (i)(5), and (i)(7), 

and adding paragraph (i)(13) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.346 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) The surface area of the landfill 

containing waste (in square meters), 

identification of the type(s) of cover 

material used (as either organic cover, 

clay cover, sand cover, or other soil 

mixtures). 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(5) An indication of whether 

destruction occurs at the landfill 

facility, off-site, or both. If destruction 

occurs at the landfill facility, also report 

for each measurement location: 

(i) The number of destruction devices 

associated with the measurement 

location. 

(ii) The annual operating hours of the 

gas collection system associated with 

the measurement location, 

(iii) For each destruction device 

associated with the measurement 

location, report: 

(A) The destruction efficiency 

(decimal). 

(B) The annual operating hours where 

active gas flow was sent to the 

destruction device. 

* * * * * 

(7) A description of the gas collection 

system (manufacturer, capacity, and 

number of wells), the surface area 

(square meters) and estimated waste 

depth (meters) for each area specified in 

Table HH–3 to this subpart, the 

estimated gas collection system 

efficiency for landfills with this gas 

collection system and an indication of 

whether the gas collection efficiency 

was determined on an area-weighted 

average basis (Option 1) or a volumeweighted average basis (Option 2), and 

an indication of whether passive vents 

and/or passive flares (vents or flares that 

are not considered part of the gas 

collection system as defined in § 98.6) 

are present at the landfill. 

* * * * * 

(13) Methane emissions for the 

landfill (i.e., the subpart HH total 

methane emissions). Choose the 

methane emissions from either Equation 

HH–6 of this subpart or Equation HH– 

8 of this subpart that best represents the 

emissions from the landfill. If the 

quantity of recovered CH4 from 

Equation HH–4 of this subpart is used 

as the value of GCH4 in Equation HH–6 

of this subpart, use the methane 

emissions calculated using Equation 

HH–8 of this subpart as the methane 

emissions for the landfill. 

■ 61. Section 98.348 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘Active venting,’’ 

‘‘Alternative final cover,’’ ‘‘Intermediate 

or interim cover,’’ and ‘‘Passive vent’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 98.348 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Active venting means a pipe or a 

system of pipes used with a fan or 

similar mechanical draft equipment 

(forced convection) used to actively 

assist the flow of landfill gas to the 

surface of the landfill where the landfill 

gas is discharged either directly to the 

atmosphere or to a non-combustion 

control device (such as a carbon 

absorber) and then to the atmosphere. 

Alternative final cover means 

materials, other than soil, used at a 

landfill that meets final closure 

regulations of the competent federal, 

state, or local authority. Alternative 

final covers may include, but are not 

limited to, evapotranspiration covers, 

capillary barrier covers, asphalt covers, 

or concrete covers. The state, local, or 

other agency responsible for permitting 

the landfill determines whether an 

alternative final cover meets the 

applicable regulatory requirements and 

has been shown to adequately protect 

human health and the environment. 

* * * * * 

Intermediate or interim cover means 

the placement of material over waste in 

a landfill for a period of time prior to 

the disposal of additional waste and/or 

final closure as defined by state 

regulation, permit, guidance or written 

plan, or state accepted best management 

practice. 

* * * * * 

Passive vent means a pipe or a system 

of pipes that allows landfill gas to flow 

naturally, without the use of a fan or 

similar mechanical draft equipment, to 

the surface of the landfill where an 

opening or pipe (vent) allows for the 

free flow of landfill gas to the 

atmosphere or to a passive vent flare 

without diffusion through the top layer 

of surface soil. 

* * * * * 

■ 62. Table HH–3 to Subpart HH of Part 

98 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entry for ‘‘A5’’; 

■ b. Removing the entry ‘‘Area weighted 

average collection efficiency for 

landfills’’; and 

■ c. Adding heading ‘‘Weighted average 

collection efficiency for landfills’’ and 

entries for ‘‘Option 1’’ and ‘‘Option 2’’ 

after the entry for ‘‘A5’’. 

The revision and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE HH–3 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES

Description Landfill gas collection efficiency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2617 

TABLE HH–3 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES—Continued 

Description Landfill gas collection efficiency 

*******

A5: Area with a final soil cover of 3 feet or thicker of clay or alternative 

final cover (as approved by the relevant agency) and/or 

geomembrane cover system and active gas collection.

CE5: 95%. 

Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills: 

Option 1: Area weighted average collection efficiency for landfills .......... CEave1 = (A2*CE2 + A3*CE3 + A4*CE4 + A5*CE5)/(A2 + A3 + A4 + 

A5). 

Option 2: Volume weighted average collection efficiency for landfills, 

where D2, D3, D4 and D5 are the waste depths for areas A2, A3, A4 

and A5, respectively, as described in this table..

CEave1 = (A2*D2*CE2 + A3*D3*CE3 + A4*D4*CE4 + A5*D5*CE5)/

(A2*D2 + A3*D3 + A4*D4 + A5*D5). 

■ 63. Table HH–4 to Subpart HH of Part 

98 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising the entries ‘‘C2’’ through 

‘‘C7’’; 

■ b. Redesignating footnote ‘‘a’’ as 

footnote ‘‘b’’; and 

■ c. Adding new footnote ‘‘a’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE HH–4 TO SUBPART HH OF PART 98—LANDFILL METHANE OXIDATION FRACTIONS

Under these conditions: 

Use this landfill 

methane oxidation 

fraction: 

*******

C2: For landfills that have an alternative final cover (approved by the relevant agency) and/or a geomembrane (synthetic) 

cover with less than 12 inches of cover soil for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste ................................. 0.0 

C3: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and for which you elect not to determine methane flux, or for 

landfills with passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive vents/passive flares or active venting ..................................................................................................... 0.10 

C4: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and that do not have intermediate or interim cover a for greater 

than 50% of the landfill area containing waste .......................................................................................................................... 0.10 

C5: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for 

which the methane flux rate b is less than 10 grams per square meter per day (g/m2/d) ........................................................ 0.35 

C6: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for 

which the methane flux rate b is 10 to 70 g/m2/d ....................................................................................................................... 0.25 

C7: For landfills that have intermediate or interim cover a for greater than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for 

which the methane flux rate b is greater than 70 g/m2/d ........................................................................................................... 0.10 

aWhere a landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate or interim cover requirement, the landfill must have soil cover of 12 

inches or greater in order to use an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. b Methane flux rate (in grams per square meter per day; g/m2/d) is the mass flow rate of methane per unit area at the bottom of the surface 

soil prior to any oxidation and is calculated as follows: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP15JA16.013</GPH>
2618 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

Where: 

MF = Methane flux rate from the landfill in 

the reporting year (grams per square 

meter per day, g/m2/d). 

K = unit conversion factor = 106/365 (g/

metric ton per days/year) or 106/366 for 

a leap year. 

SArea = The surface area of the landfill 

containing waste at the beginning of the 

reporting year (square meters, m2). 

GCH4 = Modeled methane generation rate in 

reporting year from Equation HH–1 of 

this subpart or Equation TT–1 of subpart 

TT of this part, as applicable, except for 

application with Equation HH–6 of this 

subpart (metric tons CH4). For 

application with Equation HH–6 of this 

subpart, the greater of the modeled 

methane generation rate in reporting year 

from Equation HH–1 of this subpart or 

Equation TT–1 of this part, as applicable, 

and the quantity of recovered CH4 from 

Equation HH–4 of this subpart (metric 

tons CH4). 

CE = Collection efficiency estimated at 

landfill, taking into account system 

coverage, operation, and cover system 

materials from Table HH–3 of this 

subpart. If area by soil cover type 

information is not available, use default 

value of 0.75 (CE4 in table HH–3 of this 

subpart) for all areas under active 

influence of the collection system. 

N = Number of landfill gas measurement 

locations (associated with a destruction 

device or gas sent off-site). If a single 

monitoring location is used to monitor 

volumetric flow and CH4 concentration 

of the recovered gas sent to one or 

multiple destruction devices, then N = 1. 

Rn = Quantity of recovered CH4 from 

Equation HH–4 of this subpart for the 

nth measurement location (metric tons). 

fRec,n = Fraction of hours the recovery system 

associated with the nth measurement 

location was operating (annual operating 

hours/8760 hours per year or annual 

operating hours/8784 hours per year for 

a leap year). 

Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment 

■ 64. Section 98.356 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) introductory text 

and adding paragraph (b)(6) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.356 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Identify the anaerobic processes 

used in the industrial wastewater 

treatment system to treat industrial 

wastewater and industrial wastewater 

treatment sludge, provide a unique 

identifier for each anaerobic process, 

indicate the average depth in meters of 

each anaerobic lagoon, and indicate 

whether biogas generated by each 

anaerobic process is recovered. Provide 

a description or diagram of the 

industrial wastewater treatment system, 

identifying the processes used, 

indicating how the processes are related 

to each other, and providing a unique 

identifier for each anaerobic process. 

Each anaerobic processes must be 

identified as one of the following: 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(6) If the facility performs an ethanol 

production processing operation as 

defined in § 98.358, you must indicate 

if the facility uses a wet milling process 

or a dry milling process. 

* * * * * 

■ 65. Section 98.358 is amended by 

adding definitions for ‘‘Dry milling,’’ 

‘‘Wet milling,’’ and ‘‘Weekly average’’ in 

alphabetical order to read as follows: 

§ 98.358 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Dry milling means the process in 

which shelled corn is milled by dry 

process, without an initial steeping step. 

* * * * * 

Wet milling means the process in 

which shelled corn is steeped in a dilute 

solution of sulfurous acid (sulfur 

dioxide dissolved in water) prior to 

further processing. 

Weekly average means the sum of all 

values measured in a calendar week 

divided by the number of 

measurements. 

Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-Based 

Liquid Fuels 

■ 66. Section 98.382 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.382 GHGs to report. 

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels 

must report the CO2 emissions that 

would result from the complete 

combustion or oxidation of fossil-fuel 

products (besides coal or crude oil) 

produced, used as feedstock, imported, 

or exported during the calendar year. 

Additionally, producers must report 

CO2 emissions that would result from 

the complete combustion or oxidation of 

any biomass co-processed with fossil 

fuel-based feedstocks. 

■ 67. Section 98.383 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.383 Calculating GHG emissions. 

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels 

must follow the calculation methods of 

§ 98.393 as if they applied to the 

appropriate coal-to-liquid product 

supplier (i.e., calculation methods for 

refiners apply to producers of coal-toliquid products and calculation 

methods for importers and exporters of 

petroleum products apply to importers 

and exporters of coal-to-liquid 

products). 

(a) In calculation methods in § 98.393 

for petroleum products or petroleumbased products, suppliers of coal-toliquid products shall also include coalto-liquid products. 

(b) In calculation methods in § 98.393 

for non-crude feedstocks or non-crude 

petroleum feedstocks, producers of coalto-liquid products shall also include 

coal-to-liquid products that enter the 

facility to be further processed or 

otherwise used on site. 

(c) In calculation methods in § 98.393 

for petroleum feedstocks, suppliers of 

coal-to-liquid products shall also 

include coal and coal-to-liquid products 

that enter the facility to be further 

processed or otherwise used on site. 

■ 68. Section 98.384 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.384 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels 

must follow the monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements in § 98.394 as if they 

applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid 

product supplier. Any monitoring and 

QA/QC requirement for petroleum 

products in § 98.394 also applies to 

coal-to-liquid products. 

■ 69. Section 98.385 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.385 Procedures for estimating 

missing data. 

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels 

must follow the procedures for 

estimating missing data in § 98.395 as if 

they applied to the appropriate coal-toliquid product supplier. Any procedure 

for estimating missing data for 

petroleum products in § 98.395 also 

applies to coal-to-liquid products. 

■ 70. Section 98.386 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing and reserving paragraphs 

(a)(4) and (8); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a)(9) 

introductory text, (a)(10) introductory 

text, and (a)(11) introductory text; 

■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(a)(15); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(20); 

■ e. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(b)(4); 

■ f. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) 

introductory text and (b)(6) introductory 

text; 

■ g. Removing and reserving paragraph 

(c)(4); and 

■ h. Revising paragraphs (c)(5) 

introductory text and (c)(6) introductory 

text. 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.386 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(9) For every feedstock reported in 

paragraph (a)(2) of this section for 

which Calculation Method 2 in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2619 

§ 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an 

emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(10) For every non-solid feedstock 

reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section for which Calculation Method 2 

in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine 

an emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(11) For every product reported in 

paragraph (a)(6) of this section for 

which Calculation Method 2 in 

§ 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an 

emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(20) Annual quantity of bulk NGLs in 

metric tons or barrels received for 

processing during the reporting year. 

Report only quantities of bulk NGLs not 

reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

(b) * * * 

(5) For each product reported in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section for 

which Calculation Method 2 in 

§ 98.393(f)(2) used was used to 

determine an emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(6) For each non-solid product 

reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this 

section for which Calculation Method 2 

in § 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine 

an emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5) For each product reported in 

paragraph (c)(2) of this section for 

which Calculation Method 2 in 

§ 98.393(f)(2) was used to determine an 

emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

(6) For each non-solid product 

reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section for which Calculation Method 2 

in § 98.393(f)(2) used was used to 

determine an emissions factor, report: 

* * * * * 

■ 71. Section 98.387 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.387 Records that must be retained. 

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels 

must retain records according to the 

requirements in § 98.397 as if they 

applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid 

product supplier (e.g., retaining copies 

of all reports submitted to EPA under 

§ 98.386 and records to support 

information contained in those reports). 

Any records for petroleum products that 

are required to be retained in § 98.397 

are also required for coal-to-liquid 

products. 

Subpart MM—Suppliers of Petroleum 

Products 

§ 98.395 [Amended] 

■ 72. Section 98.395 is amended by 

removing paragraph (c). 

Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas 

and Natural Gas Liquids 

■ 73. Section 98.401 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.401 Reporting threshold. 

Any supplier of natural gas and 

natural gas liquids that meets the 

requirements of § 98.2(a)(4) must report 

GHG emissions associated with the 

products they supply. 

■ 74. Section 98.403 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ b. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–1 in paragraph (a)(1) and 

adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2i’’; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (a)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ d. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–2 in paragraph (a)(2) and 

adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2i’’; 

■ e. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–3 in paragraph (b)(1) and 

adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2j’’; 

■ f. Revising parameter ‘‘Fuel’’ of 

Equation NN–3 in paragraph (b)(1); 

■ g. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–4 in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) 

and adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2k’’; 

■ g. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i) 

and adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2l’’; 

■ h. Revising parameter ‘‘EF’’ of 

Equation NN–5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i); 

■ i. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–5b in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) 

and adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2n’’; 

■ j. Revising the parameters of Equation 

NN–6 in paragraph (b)(4); 

■ k. Removing parameter ‘‘CO2.’’ of 

Equation NN–7 in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) 

and adding in its place a parameter for 

‘‘CO2m’’; 

■ l. Revising parameter ‘‘Fuelg’’ of 

Equation NN–7 in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); 

and 

■ m. Revising the parameters of 

Equation NN–8 in paragraph (c)(2). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.403 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Calculation Methodology 1. NGL 

fractionators shall estimate CO2

emissions that would result from the 

complete combustion or oxidation of the 

product(s) supplied using Equation NN– 

1 of this section. The annual volume of 

each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) 

shall include any amount of that NGL 

supplied in a mixture or blend of two 

or more products listed in Tables NN– 

1 and NN–2 of this subpart. The annual 

volume of each NGL product supplied 

shall exclude any amount of that NGL 

contained in bulk NGLs exiting the 

facility not fractionated by the reporter 

(e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk 

NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2

emissions that would result from the 

complete combustion or oxidation of the 

natural gas received at the city gate 

(including natural gas that is 

transported by, but not owned by, the 

reporter) using Equation NN–1 of this 

section. For each product, use the 

default value for higher heating value 

and CO2 emission factor in Table NN– 

1 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each 

product, a reporter-specific higher 

heating value and CO2 emission factor 

may be used, in place of one or both 

defaults provided they are developed 

using methods outlined in § 98.404. For 

each product, you must use the same 

volume unit throughout the equation. 

* * * * * 

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each product ‘‘h’’ for 

redelivery to all recipients (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

(2) Calculation Methodology 2. NGL 

fractionators shall estimate CO2

emissions that would result from the 

complete combustion or oxidation of the 

product(s) supplied using Equation NN– 

2 of this section. The annual volume of 

each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall 

include any amount of that NGL 

supplied in a mixture or blend of two 

or more products listed in Tables NN– 

1 and NN–2 of this subpart. The annual 

volume of each NGL product supplied 

shall exclude any amount of that NGL 

contained in bulk NGLs exiting the 

facility not fractionated by the reporter 

(e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk 

NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2

emissions that would result from the 

complete combustion or oxidation of the 

natural gas received at the city gate 

(including natural gas that is 

transported by, but not owned by, the 

reporter) using Equation NN–2 of this 

section. For each product, use the 

default CO2 emission factor found in 

Table NN–2 of this subpart. 

Alternatively, for each product, a 

reporter-specific CO2 emission factor 

may be used in place of the default 

factor, provided it is developed using 

methods outlined in § 98.404. For each 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2620 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

product, you must use the same volume 

unit throughout the equation. 

* * * * * 

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each product ‘‘h’’ (metric 

tons) 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas for redelivery to 

transmission pipelines or other LDCs 

(metric tons). 

Fuel = Total annual volume of natural gas 

supplied to downstream gas 

transmission pipelines and other local 

distribution companies (Mscf per year). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to each 

large end-user k, as defined in paragraph 

(b)(2)(i) of this section (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of the net change in natural gas 

stored on system by the LDC within the 

reporting year (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

EF = CO2 emission factor for natural gas 

placed into/removed from storage (MT 

CO2/Mscf). 

(ii) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas received that 

bypassed the city gate and is not 

otherwise accounted for by Equation 

NN–1 or NN–2 of this section (metric 

tons). 

* * * * * 

(4) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to LDC 

end-users not covered in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section (metric tons). 

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas received at the 

city gate as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) 

or (2) of this section (metric tons). 

CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to 

transmission pipelines or other LDCs as 

calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section (metric tons). 

CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to each 

large end-user as calculated in paragraph 

(b)(2) of this section (metric tons). 

CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of the net change in natural gas 

stored by the LDC within the reported 

year as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(i) 

of this section (metric tons). 

CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas that was 

received by the LDC directly from 

sources bypassing the city gate, and is 

not otherwise accounted for in Equation 

NN–1 or NN–2 of this section, as 

calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this 

section (metric tons). 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each fractionated NGL 

product ‘‘g’’ received from other 

fractionators (metric tons). 

Fuelg = Total annual volume of each NGL 

product ‘‘g’’ received from other 

fractionators (bbls). 

* * * * * 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * 

CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered 

to customers or on behalf of customers 

less the quantity received from other 

fractionators (metric tons). 

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered 

to all customers or on behalf of 

customers as calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) or (2) of this section (metric tons). 

CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that 

would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs received 

from other fractionators and calculated 

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

tons). 

■ 75. Section 98.404 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory 

text and paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.404 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) NGL fractionators and LDCs shall 

determine the quantity of NGLs and 

natural gas using methods in common 

use in the industry for billing purposes 

as audited under existing Sarbanes 

Oxley regulation. 

* * * * * 

(3) NGL fractionators shall use 

measurement for NGLs at custody 

transfer meters or at such meters that are 

used to determine the NGL product slate 

delivered from the fractionation facility. 

(4) If a NGL fractionator supplies a 

product that is a mixture or blend of two 

or more products listed in Tables NN– 

1 and NN–2 of this subpart, the NGL 

fractionator shall report the quantities of 

the constituents of the mixtures or 

blends separately. 

* * * * * 

■ 76. Section 98.406 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (6), (12), 

and (13) introductory text; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(14). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.406 Data reporting requirements. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Annual quantity (in barrels) of 

each NGL product supplied (including 

fractionated NGL products received 

from other NGL fractionators) in the 

following product categories: Ethane, 

propane, normal butane, isobutane, and 

pentanes plus (Fuelh in Equations NN– 

1 and NN–2 of this subpart). 

(2) Annual quantity (in barrels) of 

each NGL product received from other 

NGL fractionators in the following 

product categories: Ethane, propane, 

normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes 

plus (Fuelg in Equation NN–7 of this 

subpart). 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Annual volume in Mscf of natural 

gas received by the LDC at its city gate 

stations for redelivery on the LDC’s 

distribution system, including for use by 

the LDC (Fuelh in Equations NN–1 and 

NN–2 of this subpart). 

* * * * * 

(6) Annual volume in Mscf of natural 

gas delivered to downstream gas 

transmission pipelines and other local 

distribution companies (Fuel in 

Equation NN–3 of this subpart). 

* * * * * 

(12) For each large end-user reported 

in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, 

report: 

(i) The customer name, address, and 

meter number(s). 

(ii) Whether the quantity of natural 

gas reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this 

section is the total quantity delivered to 

a large end-user’s facility, or the 

quantity delivered to a specific meter 

located at the facility. 

(iii) If known, report the EIA 

identification number of each LDC 

customer. 

(13) The annual volume in Mscf of 

natural gas delivered by the LDC 

(including natural gas that is not owned 

by the LDC) to each of the following 

end-use categories. For definitions of 

these categories, refer to EIA Form 176 

(Annual Report of Natural Gas and 

Supplemental Gas Supply & 

Disposition) and Instructions. 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2621 

(14) The name of the U.S. state or 

territory covered in this report 

submission. 

* * * * * 

■ 77. Table NN–2 to subpart NN of part 

98 is amended by revising the title to 

the table and the heading of the third 

column to read as follows: 

TABLE NN–2 TO SUBPART NN OF

PART 98—DEFAULT FACTORS FOR

CALCULATION METHODOLOGY 2 OF

THIS SUBPART

Fuel Unit 

Default CO2

emission factor 

(MT CO2/Unit) 1

* * * * * 

1 Conditions for emission value presented in 

MT CO2/bbl are 60 °F and saturation 

pressure. 

Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases 

■ 78. Section 98.410 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) and adding 

paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§ 98.410 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The industrial gas supplier source 

category consists of any facility that 

produces fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated 

HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any bulk 

importer of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any 

bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; and 

any facility that destroys fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs. 

* * * * * 

(d) To produce a fluorinated HTF 

means to manufacture, from any raw 

material or feedstock chemical, a 

fluorinated GHG used for temperature 

control, device testing, cleaning 

substrate surfaces and other parts, and 

soldering in processes including but not 

limited to certain types of electronics 

manufacturing production processes. 

Fluorinated heat transfer fluids do not 

include fluorinated GHGs used as 

lubricants or surfactants. For fluorinated 

heat transfer fluids under this subpart, 

the lower vapor pressure limit of 1 mm 

Hg in absolute at 25 °C in the definition 

of fluorinated greenhouse gas in § 98.6 

shall not apply. Fluorinated heat 

transfer fluids include, but are not 

limited to, perfluoropolyethers, 

perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, 

tertiary perfluoroamines, and 

perfluorocyclic ethers. Producing a 

fluorinated HTF does not include the 

reuse or recycling of a fluorinated HTF, 

the creation of intermediates, or the 

creation of fluorinated HTFs that are 

released or destroyed at the production 

facility before the production 

measurement at § 98.414(a). 

(e) For purposes of this subpart, to 

destroy fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated 

HTFs means to cause the expiration of 

a previously produced (as defined at 

§ 98.410(b) and (d)) fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF to the destruction 

efficiency actually achieved. Such 

destruction does not result in a 

commercially useful end product. For 

purposes of this subpart, such 

destruction does not include HFC–23 

destruction as defined at § 98.150 or the 

dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that 

occurs during electronics manufacturing 

as defined at § 98.90. For example, such 

destruction does not include the 

dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that 

occurs during etch or chamber cleaning 

processes or during use of abatement 

systems that treat the fluorinated GHGs 

vented from such processes at 

electronics manufacturing facilities. 

■ 79. Section 98.412 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.412 GHGs to report. 

You must report the GHG emissions 

that would result from the release of the 

nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF that you produce, 

import, export, transform, or destroy 

during the calendar year. 

■ 80. Section 98.413 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory 

text; 

■ b. Revising the parameters of Equation 

OO–1 in paragraph (a); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory 

text; 

■ d. Revising the parameters of Equation 

OO–2 in paragraph (b); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory 

text; 

■ f. Revising parameters ‘‘T’’ and ‘‘ET’’ 

of Equation OO–3 in paragraph (c); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory 

text; and 

■ h. Revising parameters ‘‘D’’ and ‘‘FD’’ 

of Equation OO–4 in paragraph (d). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 98.413 Calculating GHG emissions. 

(a) Calculate the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide produced annually, except 

for amounts that are captured solely to 

be shipped off site for destruction, by 

using Equation OO–1 of this section: 

* * * * * 

P = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide produced 

annually. 

Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over the 

period ‘‘p’’. 

(b) Calculate the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide produced over the period 

‘‘p’’ by using Equation OO–2 of this 

section: 

* * * * * 

Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over the 

period ‘‘p’’ (metric tons). 

Op = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide that is measured 

coming out of the production process 

over the period p (metric tons). 

Up = Mass of used fluorinated GHG, 

fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is 

added to the production process 

upstream of the output measurement 

over the period ‘‘p’’ (metric tons). 

(c) Calculate the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide transformed by using 

Equation OO–3 of this section: 

* * * * * 

T = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed 

annually (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

ET = The fraction of the fluorinated GHG, 

fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide fed 

into the transformation process that is 

transformed in the process (metric tons). 

(d) Calculate the total mass of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

destroyed by using Equation OO–4 of 

this section: 

* * * * * 

D = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF destroyed annually (metric tons). 

FD = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF fed into the destruction device 

annually (metric tons). 

* * * * * 

■ 81. Section 98.414 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (a) through (i), (l), 

(n) introductory text, (n)(3) through (5), 

and (o) to read as follows: 

§ 98.414 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide 

coming out of the production process 

shall be measured using flowmeters, 

weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements 

with an accuracy and precision of one 

percent of full scale or better. If the 

measured mass includes more than one 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the 

concentrations of each of the fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than 

low-concentration constituents, shall be 

measured as set forth in paragraph (n) 

of this section. For each fluorinated 

GHG or fluorinated HTF, the mean of 

the concentrations of that fluorinated 

GHG (mass fraction) measured under 

paragraph (n) of this section shall be 

multiplied by the mass measurement to 

obtain the mass of that fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF coming out of the 

production process. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2622 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(b) The mass of any used fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or used nitrous 

oxide added back into the production 

process upstream of the output 

measurement in paragraph (a) of this 

section shall be measured using 

flowmeters, weigh scales, or a 

combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with an accuracy and 

precision of one percent of full scale or 

better. If the mass in paragraph (a) of 

this section is measured by weighing 

containers that include returned heels 

as well as newly produced fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, the returned 

heels shall be considered used 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

for purposes of this paragraph (b) of this 

section and § 98.413(b). 

(c) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide fed 

into the transformation process shall be 

measured using flowmeters, weigh 

scales, or a combination of volumetric 

and density measurements with an 

accuracy and precision of one percent of 

full scale or better. 

(d) The fraction of the fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide fed into the transformation 

process that is actually transformed 

shall be estimated considering yield 

calculations or quantities of unreacted 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide permanently removed 

from the process and recovered, 

destroyed, or emitted. 

(e) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide sent 

to another facility for transformation 

shall be measured using flowmeters, 

weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements 

with an accuracy and precision of one 

percent of full scale or better. 

(f) The mass of fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs sent to another facility 

for destruction shall be measured using 

flowmeters, weigh scales, or a 

combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with an accuracy and 

precision of one percent of full scale or 

better. If the measured mass includes 

more than trace concentrations of 

materials other than the fluorinated 

GHG or fluorinated HTF, the 

concentration of the fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF shall be estimated 

considering current or previous 

representative concentration 

measurements and other relevant 

process information. This concentration 

(mass fraction) shall be multiplied by 

the mass measurement to obtain the 

mass of the fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF sent to another facility 

for destruction. 

(g) You must estimate the share of the 

mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated 

HTFs in paragraph (f) of this section that 

is comprised of fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs that are not included 

in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) 

because they are removed from the 

production process as by-products or 

other wastes. 

(h) You must measure the mass of 

each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF that is fed into the destruction 

device and that was previously 

produced as defined at § 98.410(b). Such 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

include but are not limited to quantities 

that are shipped to the facility by 

another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to 

be irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed. You must use 

flowmeters, weigh scales, or a 

combination of volumetric and density 

measurements with an accuracy and 

precision of one percent of full scale or 

better. If the measured mass includes 

more than trace concentrations of 

materials other than the fluorinated 

GHG or fluorinated HTF being 

destroyed, you must estimate the 

concentrations of the fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF being destroyed 

considering current or previous 

representative concentration 

measurements and other relevant 

process information. You must multiply 

this concentration (mass fraction) by the 

mass measurement to obtain the mass of 

the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

fed into the destruction device. 

(i) Very small quantities of fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are 

difficult to measure because they are 

entrained in other media such as 

destroyed filters and destroyed sample 

containers are exempt from paragraphs 

(f) and (h) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(l) In their estimates of the mass of 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

destroyed, facilities that destroy 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

shall account for any temporary 

reductions in the destruction efficiency 

that result from any startups, 

shutdowns, or malfunctions of the 

destruction device, including departures 

from the operating conditions defined in 

state or local permitting requirements 

and/or oxidizer manufacturer 

specifications. 

* * * * * 

(n) If the mass coming out of the 

production process includes more than 

one fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF, you shall measure the 

concentrations of all of the fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than 

low-concentration constituents, as 

follows: 

* * * * * 

(3) Frequency of measurement. 

Perform the measurements at least once 

by February 15, 2011 if the fluorinated 

GHG product is being produced on 

December 17, 2010. Perform the 

measurements within 60 days of 

commencing production of any 

fluorinated GHG product that was not 

being produced on December 17, 2010. 

For fluorinated HTF products, perform 

the measurements at least once by 

February 15, 2017, if the fluorinated 

HTF product is being produced on 

January 1, 2017. Repeat the 

measurements if an operational or 

process change occurs that could change 

the identities or significantly change the 

concentrations of the fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF constituents of the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

product. Complete the repeat 

measurements within 60 days of the 

operational or process change. 

(4) Measure all product grades. Where 

a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF is 

produced at more than one purity level 

(e.g., pharmaceutical grade and 

refrigerant grade), perform the 

measurements for each purity level. 

(5) Number of samples. Analyze a 

minimum of three samples of the 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF 

product that have been drawn under 

conditions that are representative of the 

process producing the fluorinated GHGs 

or fluorinated HTF product. If the 

relative standard deviation of the 

measured concentrations of any of the 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF 

constituents (other than lowconcentration constituents) is greater 

than or equal to 15 percent, draw and 

analyze enough additional samples to 

achieve a total of at least six samples of 

the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

product. 

(o) All analytical equipment used to 

determine the concentration of 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, 

including but not limited to gas 

chromatographs and associated 

detectors, IR, FTIR and NMR devices, 

shall be calibrated at a frequency 

needed to support the type of analysis 

specified in the site GHG Monitoring 

Plan as required under §§ 98.414(n) and 

98.3(g)(5) of this part. Quality assurance 

samples at the concentrations of 

concern shall be used for the 

calibration. Such quality assurance 

samples shall consist of or be prepared 

from certified standards of the analytes 

of concern where available; if not 

available, calibration shall be performed 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2623 

by a method specified in the GHG 

Monitoring Plan. 

* * * * * 

■ 82. Section 98.416 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (a); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (b) 

introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(6); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (c) 

introductory text, (c)(1) through (6), and 

(c)(8) through (10); 

■ d. Revising paragraphs (d) 

introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(4) 

through (6); and 

■ e. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 98.416 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated 

HTF, or nitrous oxide production 

facility shall report the following 

information: 

(1) Mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide produced at that facility 

by process, except for amounts that are 

captured solely to be shipped off site for 

destruction. 

(2) Mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide transformed at that 

facility, by process. 

(3) Mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that 

is destroyed at that facility and that was 

previously produced as defined at 

§ 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported 

under paragraph (a)(3) of this section 

include but are not limited to quantities 

that are shipped to the facility by 

another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to 

be irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed. 

(4) [Reserved] 

(5) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide sent to another facility for 

transformation. 

(6) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

sent to another facility for destruction, 

except fluorinated GHGs and 

fluorinated HTFs that are not included 

in the mass produced in § 98.413(a) 

because they are removed from the 

production process as by-products or 

other wastes. Quantities to be reported 

under paragraph (a)(6) of this section 

could include, for example, fluorinated 

GHGs that are returned to the facility for 

reclamation but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore sent to another facility for 

destruction. 

(7) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that 

is sent to another facility for destruction 

and that is not included in the mass 

produced in § 98.413(a) because it is 

removed from the production process as 

a byproduct or other waste. 

(8)–(9) [Reserved] 

(10) Mass in metric tons of any 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide fed into the 

transformation process, by process. 

(11) Mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that 

is fed into the destruction device and 

that was previously produced as defined 

at § 98.410(b). Quantities to be reported 

under paragraph (a)(11) of this section 

include but are not limited to quantities 

that are shipped to the facility by 

another facility for destruction and 

quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to 

be irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed. 

(12) Mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or 

nitrous oxide that is measured coming 

out of the production process, by 

process. 

(13) Mass in metric tons of each used 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide added back into the 

production process (e.g., for 

reclamation), including returned heels 

in containers that are weighed to 

measure the mass in § 98.414(a), by 

process. 

(14) Names and addresses of facilities 

to which any nitrous oxide, fluorinated 

GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sent for 

transformation, and the quantities 

(metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of 

each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF that were sent to each for 

transformation. 

(15) Names and addresses of facilities 

to which any fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs were sent for 

destruction, and the quantities (metric 

tons) of each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that were sent to each 

for destruction. 

(16) Where missing data have been 

estimated pursuant to § 98.415, the 

reason the data were missing, the length 

of time the data were missing, the 

method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data. 

(b) By March 31, 2017 or within 60 

days of commencing fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF destruction, whichever 

is later, any facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

shall submit a one-time report 

containing the information in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this 

section for each destruction process. 

Facilities that previously submitted a 

one-time report under this paragraph are 

exempt from this requirement unless 

they meet the conditions in paragraph 

(b)(6) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(3) Methods used to record the mass 

of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

destroyed. 

* * * * * 

(6) If any process changes affect unit 

destruction efficiency or the methods 

used to record mass of fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF destroyed, then a 

revised report must be submitted to 

reflect the changes. The revised report 

must be submitted to EPA within 60 

days of the change. 

(c) Each bulk importer of fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide shall submit an annual report that 

summarizes its imports at the corporate 

level, except for shipments including 

less than twenty-five kilograms of 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide, transshipments, and heels 

that meet the conditions set forth at 

§ 98.417(e). The report shall contain the 

following information for each import: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of 

nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk, 

including each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF constituent of the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

product that makes up between 0.5 

percent and 100 percent of the product 

by mass. 

(2) Total mass in metric tons of 

nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF imported in bulk 

and sold or transferred to persons other 

than the importer for use in processes 

resulting in the transformation or 

destruction of the chemical. 

(3) Date on which the fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide were imported. 

(4) Port of entry through which the 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide passed. 

(5) Country from which the imported 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide were imported. 

(6) Commodity code of the fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide shipped. 

* * * * * 

(8) Total mass in metric tons of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

destroyed by the importer. 

(9) If applicable, the names and 

addresses of the persons and facilities to 

which the nitrous oxide, fluorinated 

GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sold or 

transferred for transformation, and the 

quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide 

and of each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that were sold or 

transferred to each facility for 

transformation. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2624 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

(10) If applicable, the names and 

addresses of the persons and facilities to 

which the fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs were sold or 

transferred for destruction, and the 

quantities (metric tons) of each 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that 

were sold or transferred to each facility 

for destruction. 

(d) Each bulk exporter of fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide shall submit an annual report that 

summarizes its exports at the corporate 

level, except for shipments including 

less than twenty-five kilograms of 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide, transshipments, and 

heels. The report shall contain the 

following information for each export: 

(1) Total mass in metric tons of 

nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF exported in bulk. 

* * * * * 

(4) Commodity code of the fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide shipped. 

(5) Date on which, and the port from 

which, the fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were 

exported from the United States or its 

territories. 

(6) Country to which the fluorinated 

GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide were exported. 

* * * * * 

(i) Each facility that destroys 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

but does not otherwise report under this 

section shall report the mass in metric 

tons of each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that 

facility and that was previously 

produced as defined at § 98.410(b) or 

(d), as applicable. Quantities to be 

reported under this paragraph include 

but are not limited to quantities that are 

shipped to the facility by another 

facility for destruction and quantities 

that are returned to the facility for 

reclamation but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed. 

(j) By March 31, 2017, all fluorinated 

HTF production facilities shall submit a 

one-time report that includes the 

concentration of each fluorinated HTF 

or fluorinated GHG constituent in each 

fluorinated HTF product as measured 

under § 98.414(n). If the facility 

commences production of a fluorinated 

HTF product that was not included in 

the initial report or performs a repeat 

measurement under § 98.414(n) that 

shows that the identities or 

concentrations of the fluorinated HTF or 

fluorinated GHG constituents of a 

fluorinated HTF product have changed, 

then the new or changed concentrations, 

as well as the date of the change, must 

be provided in a revised report. The 

revised report must be submitted to EPA 

by the March 31st that immediately 

follows the new or repeat measurement 

under § 98.414(n). 

■ 83. Section 98.418 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Lowconcentration constituent’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.418 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Low-concentration constituent means, 

for purposes of fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF production and export, 

a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

constituent of a fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF product that occurs in 

the product in concentrations below 0.1 

percent by mass. For purposes of 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

import, low-concentration constituent 

means a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF product that occurs in 

the product in concentrations below 0.5 

percent by mass. Low-concentration 

constituents do not include fluorinated 

GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are 

deliberately combined with the product 

(e.g., to affect the performance 

characteristics of the product). 

Subpart PP—Suppliers of Carbon 

Dioxide 

■ 84. Section 98.425 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 98.425 Procedures for estimating 

missing data. 

* * * * * 

(b) Whenever the quality assurance 

procedures in § 98.424(b) cannot be 

followed to determine concentration of 

the CO2 stream, the most appropriate of 

the following missing data procedures 

shall be followed: 

* * * * * 

Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration 

of Carbon Dioxide 

■ 85. Section 98.446 is amended by 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 98.446 Data reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(g) Whether the CO2 stream is being 

injected into subsurface geologic 

formations to enhance the recovery of 

oil or natural gas. 

Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills 

■ 86. Table TT–1 to Subpart TT of Part 

98 is amended by: 

■ a. Removing the entry ‘‘Pulp and 

Paper (other than industrial sludge)’’; 

■ b. Adding a heading entry for ‘‘Pulp 

and Paper Industry:’’, and subordinate 

entries for ‘‘Boiler Ash’’, ‘‘Wastewater 

Sludge’’, ‘‘Kraft Recovery Wastes’’, and 

‘‘Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not 

otherwise listed)’’ to follow the entry for 

‘‘Food Processing (other than industrial 

sludge)’’; 

■ c. Revising the entry ‘‘Industrial 

Sludge’’ and footnote a; and 

■ d. Adding footnote ‘‘b’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

TABLE TT–1 TO SUBPART TT OF PART 98—DEFAULT DOC AND DECAY RATE VALUES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILLS

Industry/Waste Type 

DOC 

(weight fraction, 

wet basis) 

k 

[dry climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

k 

[moderate 

climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

k 

[wet climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

*******

Pulp and Paper Industry: 

Boiler Ash ................................................................................................ 0 .06 0.02 0.03 0.04 

Wastewater Sludge ................................................................................. 0 .12 0.02 0.04 0.06 

Kraft Recovery Wastes b ......................................................................... 0 .025 0.02 0.03 0.04 

Other Pulp and Paper Wastes (not otherwise listed) ............................. 0 .20 0.02 0.03 0.04 

*******

Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper industry sludge) ..................... 0 .09 0.02 0.04 0.06 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / Proposed Rules 2625 

TABLE TT–1 TO SUBPART TT OF PART 98—DEFAULT DOC AND DECAY RATE VALUES FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE

LANDFILLS—Continued 

Industry/Waste Type 

DOC 

(weight fraction, 

wet basis) 

k 

[dry climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

k 

[moderate 

climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

k 

[wet climate a] 

(yr¥1) 

*******

aThe applicable climate classification is determined based on the annual rainfall plus the recirculated leachate application rate. Recirculated 

leachate application rate (in inches/year) is the total volume of leachate recirculated from company records or engineering estimates and applied 

to the landfill divided by the area of the portion of the landfill containing waste [with appropriate unit conversions]. Dry climate = precipitation plus 

recirculated leachate less than 20 inches/year; Moderate climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate from 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive); 

Wet climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate greater than 40 inches/year. Alternatively, landfills that use leachate recirculation can elect 

to use the k value for wet climate rather than calculating the recirculated leachate rate. bKraft Recovery Wastes include green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be referred to collectively as causticizing or 

recausticizing wastes. 

Subpart UU—Injection of Carbon 

Dioxide 

■ 87. Section 98.474 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 98.474 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) You must convert all measured 

volumes of CO2 to the following 

standard industry temperature and 

pressure conditions for use in Equation 

UU–2 of this subpart: Standard cubic 

meters at a temperature of 60 degrees 

Fahrenheit and at an absolute pressure 

of 1 atmosphere. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–32753 Filed 1–14–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2