1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE : September 2014
TO: Docket EPA

- HQ

- OAR

- 2010

- 0929
FROM: Lisa Grogan

- McCulloch , Climate Change Division, US EPA
SUBJECT: Summary and Explanation of Minor Changes Since the Proposed Rule (78

FR 55994, September 11, 2013)

1.0 INTRODUCTION This memorandum documents minor revisions since proposal (see Section II of the final preamble). As explained in the preamble to the final rule, t he revisions are grouped into the following categories:

 Harmonizing revisions ;

 Clarifying proposed amendments; and

 Correcting proposed amendments. A summary of the changes since proposal and the EPA’s rationale follows, organized by each category of revision type

. Note that the memorandum “Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,” August 2013 is referred to below as the “ 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo” and that the memorandum “List of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Proposed Not To Be Reported,” August 2013 is referred to below as the “ 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo

. ” Likewise, the memorandum “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,” September 2014 is referred to below as the “2014 Harm Evaluation Memo” and that the memorandum “Final List of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data Elements Proposed Not To Be Reported,” September 2014 is referred to below as the “2014 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo

. ” All four m emos are available in Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

- 0929. 2

. 0 HARMONIZING REVISIONS The EPA made the following revisions to harmonize proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 98 to be consistent with other provisions in 40 CFR part 98

.2

 In 40 CFR 98.3 (g) and (g)(2)(i) (subpart A) , the text “v erification software” replaces proposed text “software” to be consistent with the terminology used in 40 CFR 98.5(b) to refer to the inputs verification tool (IVT)

. Also , in 40 CFR 98.3(g)(2)(i) the text

“ specified by the Administrator” has been removed because this text is redundant to the same text referred to in 40 CFR 98.5(b). 40 CFR 98.3(g)(2)(i), instead, refers to verification software “specified in 98.5(b)

. ”

 In 40 CFR 98.56(m)(1) ( subpart E ) , the te rm “tons” replaces proposed text “ metric tons ” to be consistent with the units of measure currently in subpart E.

 In 40 CFR 98.187 (d) (subpart R), “you must retain the records of” replaces “each annual report must contain” so that 40 CFR 98.187 can include a list of equation inputs that must be maintained as records, but that will not be reported (i.e., equation inputs that are entered into IVT). This revision also clarifies that this is a recordkeeping requirement, not a reporting requirement.

 In 40 CFR 98 .196(b)(18) ( subpart S ) , the term “tons” replaces proposed text “metric tons” to be consistent with the units of measure currently in subpart S.

 In 40 CFR 98.226(q) ( subpart V ) , the text “ n itric acid trains” replaces “production units” to be consistent with the terminology used in subpart V.

 In 40 CFR 98.246( b )( 10 ) (subpart X), “product ” replaces proposed text “carbon

containing co

- product” because “carbon

- containing” is already included in the definition of “product” in 40 CFR 98.248.

 In 40 CFR 98.256(i )(7) (subpart Y) , the text “emission factor” has been added to be consistent with the terminology in 40 CFR 98.253(c)(4), which describes the calculation methodology associated with 40 CFR 98.256(i)(7)

.  40 CFR 256(o)(6) and (7), which were deferred to 2015 in the final deferral rulemaking ( 76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011 ), were identified as having disclosure concerns in Appendix B of the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo , listed as an input proposed not to be reported in Table 1 of the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo , and were removed from the list of inputs reporting of which was deferred to 2015 in Table A

- 7 in the proposed amendment. 1 Subsequent to the proposal, these provisions were removed from Part 98 in a November 29, 2013 final action ( 78 FR 71904 ) and are no longer in Table A

7 of part 98. The se provisions are therefore not included in the record keeping provision of subpart Y (which replaces the proposed Table A

- 8) in this final amendment. However, we note that these provisions have not been removed from the code of federal regulations (CFR) or the electronic code of federal regulations (e

- CFR). We want to remind the reporters that 40 CFR 256(o)(6) and (7) are no longer in Part 98. We are working towards making that correction in the CFR and e

- CFR.
3.0 CLARIFYING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The EPA made the following revisions to clarify the EPA’s intent at proposal:

 In 40 CFR 98.3(g) (subpart A ):

1 Table 1 of this memorandum lists the inputs not to be reported to the EPA.3 o The text “reporter” (both instances) is replaced with “owner or operator of a facility” and “for the facility” (respectively) to clarify f or reporting companies with multiple facilities that the five

- year record retention timeframe applies to each reporting facility. o The text “to enter data to calculate the reported GHGs” has been deleted. This text is not needed b ecause 40 CFR 98.3(g) refers to 98.5(b), which already specifies that data are entered into the verification software.

o The text “starting with records for reporting year 2010” has been added to clarify the EPA’s intention at proposal (see section II.C of the preamble to the proposed rule ( 78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013 ) that, if a reporter elects to use IVT, the 5

- year record duration associated with use of IVT applies starting with records for reporting year 2010.

 In 40 CFR 98.76(b)(1 4 ) ( subpart G ) , the text “sum of all process units reported within subpart G” has been added to clarify that ammonia production be reported for all process units combined rather than per process unit

.
 In CFR 98.76(b)(15) ( s ubpart G) the text “if this quantity is no t reported under subpart X of this part” has been removed because it is not needed given that we have c lar ified that this is a process

- level requirement by adding “for each process unit

. ”

 In 40 CFR 98.166( e ) ( s ubpart P) , the text “if this quantity is not re ported under subpart X of this part” has been removed because it is not needed given that we have c lar ified that this is a process

- level requirement by adding “for each process unit

. ”

 In 40 CFR 98.256(h)(5) ( s ubpart Y) , the data element in proposed 40 CFR 98.256(h)(5)(ii)(C) has been moved to and combined with the data element in 40 CFR 98.256(h)(5)(i) to remove the redundancy between these two provisions and clarify that the value of the correction must be reported only if a unit

- specific correction was used.

 40 CFR 98.296(b)(10)(v) and (vi) (subpart CC) are reiterated in Part 98. These provisions, which were promulgated in 2009 and for which reporting was deferred to March 2015 , are current reporting requirements that somehow are not captured in the C ode of F ederal R egulations or the electronic C ode of F ederal Regulations . We are reiterating these provisions in the amendatory text to clarify that they remain requirements of part 98.

4.0 TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The EPA has correct ed technical errors in the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11, 201 3), including corrections addressing errors in proposed Table A

- 8 of Part 98 and in proposed 40 CFR 98.256(f)(10) , as described in sections 4.1 and 4. 2

.
4.1 Corrections Addressing Errors in Proposed Table s A

- 7 and A

- 8 In the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013), the EPA specified which equation inputs would be required to be entered into IVT and to be retained as records by listing the4

associated equations in proposed Table A

- 8 to part 98. In the final rule, the EPA is not retaining proposed T able A

- 8. Instead, t he final rule includes a new “verification software record s ” provision in the recordkeeping section of each affected subpart , and this new provision includes a list of each equation input that must be entered into IVT for the subpart and retained as a record. Refer to section s II.C.2 and 3 of the preamble to the final rule for further discussion of this change. In listing the relevant equation inputs in the new “verification software records” provision in each subpart, we discovered tw o errors in the proposed Table A

- 8 . The errors and the correction in the final rule are described below :

 Equation V

- 1 was inadvertently excluded from the proposed Table A

- 8. The exclusion was an error because in EPA’s analysis accompanying the proposed amendment, the inputs to this calculation method were among the inputs to equations that were found to have disclosure concerns. See the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo. Accordingly , these inputs were included in Table 1 of the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo. The EPA received no comment on the EPA’s analysis for these inputs, which remains unchanged. The inputs to Equation V

- 1 are therefore included in the above

- mentioned new provision (i.e., “verification software records”) in subpart V of the final amendments

 The list of deferred data elements for subpart W specified in revised Table A

- 7 to Part 98 was replaced with the most up

- to

- date list of deferred equation inputs, as amended in August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48088). In 2012, EPA amended subpart W, including inputs in that subpart, and the corresponding revision to Table A

- 7 to s ubpart A of Part 98

. In the rulemakin g proposal for this action , the EPA ’s harm analysis included all subpart W inputs, as amended in the 2012 rulemaking

. See the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo

. However, in the proposal, the EPA inadvertently included an outdated version of Table A

- 7 that did not reflect the list of inputs to equations as amended in 2012.

 Equations Y

- 1a and Y

- 6 were inadvertently included in proposed Table A

- 8 ( which listed equat ions the inputs of which were proposed to be entered into IVT)

. The inclusion was an error because i n the EPA’s analysis accompanying the proposed amendment, the EPA did not find disclosure concerns with respect to the inputs in these two equations. See th e 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo

. The EPA received no comment on the EPA’s analysis for these inputs , which remains unchanged

. These inputs are therefore not included in the above

- mentioned new provision (i.e., “verification software records”) in subpart Y of the final amendments , which replaces the proposed Table A

- 8

.
4.2 Correction to Proposed Amendatory Text to Be Consistent with 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo
In its proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.256(f)(10) (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013) , the EPA inadvertently retained as reporting requirement s the value of the coke burn

- off factor, the annual throughput of unit, and the average carbon content of coke . These equation inputs were among those found to have disclosure concerns in the EPA’s analysis . See the 2013 Harm Evaluation5

Memo

. Accordingly , the se inputs were listed in Table 1 of the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo

. The EPA received no comment on its analysis for these inputs. In the final rule, the EPA has removed from 40 CFR 98.25 6(f)(10) the value of the coke burn

- off factor, the annual throughput of unit, and the average carbon content of coke

. 4.3 Correcting Proposed List of Inputs to Emission Equations For Which Reporting Was Deferred To 2015 In the proposed rule (78 FR 55994, September 11, 2013), the EPA specified the list of inputs to emission equations for which reporting was deferred to 2015 in two supporting memoranda: the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo and the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo . Based on the EPA’s analy sis, the EPA proposed to remove certain inputs from the list of inputs the reporting of which was deferred to 2015 in Table A

- 7 of Part 98. Further, the EPA proposed to include a Table A

- 8 to identify the inputs to be entered in to IVT. However, the EPA did not list the individual inputs in the proposed Table A

- 8; rather, the proposal contained Table A

- 8 listed equations for which the inputs would be entered into IVT. Based on comments received during the proposal (see section 11. 1 of the EPA’s comment response document in Docket ID No. EPA

– HQ

– OAR

– 2010

– 0929 ), in the final rule, the EPA is listing each data element that must be entered into IVT in the recordkeeping section of each subpart. Since proposal, the EPA discovered errors i n the inputs list in the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo

. The errors did not impact the proposed Table A

- 8 because that table did not identify individual inputs and is not finalized. The EPA has corrected these errors as follows:

 The number of equation inputs removed from reporting for 40 CFR 98.176(b) ( s ubpart Q) was consolidated from eight to one, as shown in the 2014 Harm Evaluation Memo and the 2014 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo . In the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo , the EPA parsed this data element by the eight possible furnace types. Since proposal, the EPA realized that the data element in 40 CFR 98.176(b) need not be parsed by furnace type. The EPA made this consolidation in the final supporting memoranda. With respect to the amendment to the regulatory text, the EPA had proposed to remove these inputs from Table A

- 7; in the final amendment, these inputs are removed as proposed. The proposed Table A

- 8, which is not being finalized, did not list the individual inputs that would go into IVT; rather it listed the associated equations. In the final amendatory text, the “verification software records” section for subpart Q, which replaces the proposed Table A

- 8 for identifying subpart Q inputs to be entered into IVT , identifies these inputs in i ts consolidated form.

 The two equation inputs in 40 CFR 98.246(b)(5)(iii) and (iv) ( s ubpart X) were proposed to be removed from reporting in Table A

- 7 and in subpart X, and would instead be6

entered into IVT. However, since proposal, the EPA has removed these two data elements from Part 98 in another rulemaking (see 78 FR 71901, November 29, 2013). As such, the EPA is taking no further action on these two equation inputs.

 The production quantity in 40 CFR 98.466(c)(3)(ii) (subpart TT), for which reportin g was deferred to 2015, was inadvertently excluded from the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo and 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo. Although not specifically mentioned in Appendix B of the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo , which lists the inputs to equations and their evaluation of harm, it falls under the discussion of production quantities which, as discussed in Part 2, section 2.1 of the document, were identified as being detrimental to a firm’s competitiveness. As such, it should have been identified in Appendix B of the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo as well as in Table 1 of the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo as an input not to be reported. However, we did remove this input from Table A

- 7 of our proposal. Consistent with the analysis discussion on production quanti ties , on which we received no comment, we are finalizing this removal from Table A

- 7 as proposed. In addition, we have included it in the “verification software records” provision of subpart TT in the final amendment. We have also included this data elemen t in the 2014 Harm Evaluation Memo, Appendix B and the 2014 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo, Table 1.

 The waste disposal quantity (40 CFR 98.466(c)(3)(ii)) was inadvertently identified as
“ production or raw material data,” in Appendix B of the 2013 Harm Evaluation Memo , which it clearly is not. As a result, this input was incorrectly included in Table 1 of the 2013 Inputs Not To Be Reported Memo as an input proposed not to be reported and removed from Table A

- 7 in the proposed amendment to Part 98. Howeve r, the waste disposal quantity required to be reported in 40 CFR 98.466(c)(3)(ii) is identical to the waste disposal quantity in 98.466(d)(2), an input the reporting of which was deferred to 2013. The EPA previously determined that the waste disposal quant ity reported in 40 CFR 98.466(d)(2) does not “provide any proprietary information about the manufacturing facility or its processes raw materials, and production... [or] any economic information about the landfill” (refer to the memorandum “Summary of Evalua tion of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) Part 98 “Inputs to Emission Equations” Data Elements Deferred Until 2013,” December 17, 2012, available at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/documents/pdf/2012/documents/2013

- inputs

memo.pdf). 40 CFR 98.466(d )(2) has since been required to be reported once its deferral expired on March 31, 2013. Because the waste disposal quantity in 40 CFR 98.466(c)(3)(ii) is redundant to 40 CFR 98.466(d)(2), we removed this input as a reporting requirement in the final rule. In addition, we have clarified in the 2014 Harm Evaluation Memo that 40 CFR 98.466(c)(3)(ii) is not among the inputs that are considered “production or raw material data” and have updated the 2014 Harm Evaluation Memo to be consistent with the above analy sis for 40 CFR 98.466(d)(2).