1 

# Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Response to Public Comments on Proposed Addition of GWPs to Subpart A and Proposed Amendments to Subpart L

November 25, 20142 

## Table of Contents

1 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Add ition of Global Warming Potentials to Subpart A 4 1.1 – General Support .............................

................................................... ............................................... 4 1.2 - Addition of Chemical-Specific GWPs ..........

................................................... ................................... 4

1.3 – Addition of Default GWPs ....................

................................................... ......................................... 5

1.4 – Source for GWP Values .......................

................................................... .......................................... 7 1.5 – Harmonizing EPA’s Reporting Requirements with International Standards .......................... .......... 9 1.6 – Reporting of Low-GWP GHGs ...................

................................................... ..................................... 9 1.7 – Precision of Chemical-Specific GWPs for Short -Lived Compounds................................... ............. 10 1.8 – Using a Default GWP of 1 for Several Short-Li ved Compounds ..................................... ................ 11 1.9 – Grouping Unsaturated HCFCs with Unsaturated H FCs ............................................... ................... 11

1.10 – Saturated HFEs .............................

................................................... ............................................. 12

1.11 – Other Fluorinated GHGs .....................

................................................... ....................................... 12

1.12 – Treatment of Outliers ......................

................................................... ......................................... 13

1.13 – Treatment of Blends ........................

................................................... ......................................... 13

1.14 – Commercial References ......................

................................................... ...................................... 14 1.15 – Data Availability for the Public ...........

................................................... ....................................... 14

1.16 – Other ......................................

................................................... ................................................... 14 2 – Response to Public Comments on the GWP-Related Provisions in the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L .........................................

................................................... ................................................... ...... 15 2.1 – Addition of Chemical-Specific and Default GWP s ................................................. ......................... 16 2.2 – Partially Segregated and Non-Segregated Satur ated HFEs and HCFEs ............................... ........... 17 2.3 – Unsaturated Halogenated Ethers ..............

................................................... .................................. 19 2.4 – Unsaturated Halogenated Esters ..............

................................................... .................................. 20 2.5 – Fluorinated Ketones and Aldehydes ...........

................................................... ................................ 22 2.6 – Fluorinated Alcohols (including Fluorotelomer Alcohols) ........................................ ...................... 22

2.7 – Fluorinated GHGs with One or More Carbon-iodi ne Bond ........................................... ................. 23 2.8 – Fluorinated GHG Groups and GWPs are Too Broad

.................................................. .................... 23

2.8 – EPA Should Use 20-Year GWPs for HFCs ........

................................................... ............................. 24 3 – Response to Comments on CBI Determinations for 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart I, Proposed on January 10, 2012 ..........................................

................................................... ................................................... ...... 25 3.1 CBI Determination for Unit/Process Static Data Elements – Subpart L ............................. .............. 253

3.2 General Confidentiality Claims – Subpart L ....

................................................... ............................... 26 3.3 Data Elements in Categories with Categorical CB I Determinations – Subpart L ...................... ........ 33 3.4 Comments on the Inputs to Emission Equations Da ta Category and the Definition of Emissions Data – Subpart L ..................................

................................................... ................................................. 4 5 3.5 Comments on the Notice Development Process – Su bpart L ........................................... ................ 49 3.6 Unit-Level Data should be Confidential – Subpar t L ............................................... .......................... 50 4 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Sub part L Rule ....................................... ................... 51 4.1 – Overall Proposal to Establish Aggregate Repor ting .............................................. ......................... 52 4.2 – Rule Mechanism to Request Confidentiality/Exp ort Control Exemption in the Future ............... . 52 4.3 – Chemical-specific Reporting at the Facility L evel .............................................. ............................. 53

4.4 – Emissions Threshold .........................

................................................... ........................................... 53 4.5 – Facility Making One Product .................

................................................... ...................................... 54 4.6 – Effective Destruction Efficiency ............

................................................... ...................................... 54 4.7 – Reporting Container Heels ...................

................................................... ....................................... 54 4.8 – Use of Chemical-specific, Peer-Reviewed GWPs in Table A-1 vs. Default GWPs ..................... ...... 55 4.9 – Removal of Option to Use “Best-Estimate” GWPs

.................................................. ....................... 55 4.10 – Request for Clarification on Use of Table A- 1 GWPs vs. Default GWP Values ..................... ........ 55 4.11 – Don’t Require Facilities to Perform Stack Te sting if Vent Emissions Exceed 10,000 mtCO2e based on New Default GWPs. ........................

................................................... ...................................... 55

4.12 – 15 Percent Criterion .......................

................................................... ........................................... 56 4.13 – Removal of Mass-Balance Approach ...........

................................................... ............................. 56 4.14 – Emission Testing and Reporting (Proposed Ame ndments to 98.124(c)(1))........................... ...... 56 4.15 – Proposed CBI Determinations ................

................................................... ................................... 57

4.16 – Environmental Justice ......................

................................................... ......................................... 57 4.17 – Aggregate Reporting is Unnecessary for the V ast Majority of HFCs .............................. .............. 57 4.18 – Both Atmospheric Lifetime and GWP are Import ant ............................................... .................... 60 4.19 – Request to Describe Adverse Impacts ........

................................................... .............................. 61

4.20 – Generic Process Identification .............

................................................... ..................................... 614



## 1 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Additi n of Global Warming Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Additio n of Global Warming Potentials Potentials to Subpart A to Subpart A to Subpart A

Commenter Affiliation Commenter Name 3M Dana Schnobrich Anonymous Anonymous Arkema Inc. Matthew T. Ritter Center for Biological Diversity (Center) Vera Parde e DuPont Robert A. Reich Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Mark W. Ro berts Honeywell International, Inc. Dave Stirpe Intel Corporation Tom Higgs Private citizen Ronald Marshall Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) David Isaa cs

Comments on the Proposed Addition of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) were received from ten entities as summarized in the table above. These co mments were reviewed and organized into various topic areas; comment excerpts and their responses a re presented in the following sections. Original submissions of these public comments are available in Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927. 

### 1.1 – General Support Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA supports the changes contained in the proposed rule, as they will increase the accuracy and completeness of the CO 2 e emissions calculated and reported by fluorinated GHG producers, suppliers and emitters, which can in turn more effectively di rect decision-making.

Response: As discussed in section II,A of the preamble to th e final rule, EPA is finalizing the proposed addition of chemical-specific and default GWPs to T able A-1 of subpart A, with certain changes in response to comments. EPA appreciates the commenter ’s support in its efforts to increase the precision and accuracy of calculated CO 2 e emissions and reporting under the GHGRP.



### 1.2 - Addition of Chemical-Specific GWPs Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity (Center) Commenter Name: Vera Pardee Comment: The Center fully supports EPA’s decision to add the chemical-specific global warming potentials of 103 fluorinated greenhouse gases repo rted under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. In light of the urgency of the climate crisis, the Cen ter believes that taking this action is of key impo rtance, and urges the agency to finalize and implement the rulemaking as quickly as possible.

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Commenter Name: David Isaacs Comment: SIA generally supports EPA’s proposal to add chemic al-specific GWPs for 103 fluorinated greenhouse gases that are drawn from the Fifth Asse ssment Report (AR5) published by the IPCC in 2013, with the exception of some of the low GWP materials

.5

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA agrees with the EPA approach to use peer-review ed chemical-specific GWPs for GHGs not included in AR4 or AR5, as using a GWP that mig ht be somewhat incorrect is preferable to using an effective GWP of zero, that is surely inaccurate (a nd hence could wrongly impact decision-making based on climate concerns).

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont believes it is good practice to require that a chemical-specific GWP to be included in Table A-1 be published in a peer-reviewed journal, although they note that other manner of peer-review may also be appropriate.

Commenter Affiliation: 3M Commenter Name: Dana Schnobrich Comment: I'm providing the following summary to the apparent GWP discrepancies in the proposed modifications to Table A-1. In the proposed rule t here are a few instances of duplicate chemicals wit h different GWPs. These chemical CAS numbers are 205 367-61-9, 173350-37-3, 920-66-1, and 375-01-9. Additionally, there are two compounds that are not aligned with IPCC AR5, 1645-86-6 and 29118-25-0. These two chemicals are stereoisomers, but the E/Z notation is flipped on them.

Response to All Comments in this Section: As proposed, EPA is adding approximately 100 chemic alspecific GWPs from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) 1 to Table A-1, resulting in a compendium of approximately 170 chem ical-specific GWPs based on both AR5 and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 2 . As discussed in section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA has removed the duplicate chemicals that occurr ed in the proposed additions to Table A-1, and EPA has also corrected the reversals in E/Z notation. B oth AR4 and AR5 GWPs are based on GWPs that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. EPA is not currently aware of any GWPs that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature but that were not included in AR4 or AR5; however, as noted in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs, EPA may in the futur e add chemical-specific GWPs to Table A-1 that have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature but n ot in an IPCC Report. Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for more discussion of t his issue.



### 1.3 – Addition of Default GWPs Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Commenter Name: Matthew T. Ritter Comment: Arkema is of the opinion that the latest IPPC repor t (AR5) provides the most current scientific understanding regarding atmospheric life times and/or radiative behavior of GHGs. Arkema believes that GWP values should be continued to be used for the saturated HFCs and other groups to maintain the consistency of the program. The creati on of new groupings of compounds at the data reporting level will create an inconsistent data se t and may lead to inaccurate data.

1 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Scien ce Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fi fth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattn er, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge Univers ity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 15 35 pp.
2 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribut ion of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds. )]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.6

Response: As proposed, EPA is adding approximately 100 chemic al-specific GWPs from AR5 to Table A-1, resulting in a compendium of approximately 170 chemical-specific GWPs based on both AR5 and AR4. Where fluorinated GHGs have chemical-specific GWP values in Table A-1, the final rule requires that the chemical-specific GWPs be applied to those fluorinated GHGs. Default GWPs that are based on fluorinated GHG groups (e.g., saturated HFCs with t wo or fewer carbon-hydrogen bonds) are required to be applied only to fluorinated GHGs that do not hav e chemical-specific GWPs in Table A-1. This is clarified in the revised definition of “Global Warm ing Potential.” As discussed in the proposed rule entitled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Amendme nts and Confidentiality Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production” (78 FR 69337, hereinaft er referred to as “Proposed Amendments to Subpart L”), EPA anticipates that the establishment of stan dard default GWPs by fluorinated GHG group for fluorinated GHGs that do not have chemical-specific GWPs on Table A-1 will enhance the accuracy, precision, and consistency of the GWPs applied to f luorinated GHGs.

Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity (Center) Commenter Name: Vera Pardee Comment: The Center supports EPA’s decision to list default GWPs for greenhouse gases for which peer-reviewed GWPs are not available. Though the Ce nter shares EPA’s concern that non-peer-reviewed GWP values may later prove to be less than fully ac curate, they also agree with EPA’s conclusion that reporting the GWP value of all GHGs for which peer- reviewed literature is not available as “zero” resu lts in far greater reporting inaccuracy than would reli ance on non-peer-reviewed literature.

Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed addition to Table A-1 of default GWPs, with certain changes in response to comments. Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for more discussion of this issue.

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont agrees with the fluorinated GHG groups and d efault GWPs proposed and listed in Table 3 of the proposal preamble as they align reas onably close with the groups and GWPs identified in the comments submitted by DuPont on February 20, 20 14.

Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed addition to Table A-1 of default GWPs, with certain changes in response to comments. Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for more discussion of this issue. In addition, please see Table I of Sect ion 2 below for more discussion of Dupont’s Februar y 20, 2014 comments on the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L.

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA supports the proposed default GWPs of fluorinat ed GHGs and HTFs that do not have peer-reviewed chemical-specific GWPs, as using the default values gives a better idea of their atmospheric impacts than using the effective GWP of zero.

Response: EPA is finalizing the proposed addition to Table A-1 of default GWPs, with certain changes in response to comments. Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule for more discussion of this issue.7

Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Commenter Name: Tom Higgs Comment: Intel also does not agree with the proposal to add default GWP values for materials for which no peer reviewed GWPs are available. Adding materia ls to Table A-1 makes them automatically subject to Title V and PSD provisions for affected faciliti es. Since these values have not been peer reviewed, they are much more likely to undergo considerable change in the future which may have considerable compliance implications. For that reason, we believ e it is appropriate to publish new values in Table A-1 only when they have been through a level of scienti fic process and peer review that makes future chang es to the values less likely. In addition, the categor ies themselves are very broad which may require considerable effort for companies to determine whic h of the materials used at their facility fall into each category and therefore trigger regulatory requireme nts. In the case of a facility with greenhouse gas regulatory requirements under the Title V or PSD pr ograms, the regulatory obligations associated with these are not limited to the source category defini tions in subpart I, and could apply to other operat ions at the facility that are not currently being tracked a s part of Subpart I compliance.

Response: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the fi nal rule for a response to this comment.

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Commenter Name: David Isaacs Comment: SIA disagrees with EPA’s proposal to amend Table A– 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to add default GWPs for fluorinated gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTFs) for which peer-reviewed GWPs are not available. EPA proposes to establish default GWPs based on the average of the chemical-specific GWPs of chemicals that belong to that group and that are either currently on Tab le A-1 or that will be added to the table under this p roposal.
This part of the proposal should be reconsidered. F irst, it is inconsistent with the practice of the I PCC and therefore diverges from accepted international prac tice. As a result, U.S. facilities would be subject to a different standard from competitors in the WSC and elsewhere. Second, these default values have not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journa l, which EPA acknowledges “helps to ensure that the data and methods used to evaluate the GWPs are cons istent with current scientific good practice and thereby helps to ensure that the resulting GWPs are accurate.” For fluorinated greenhouse gases that d o not have GWPs, it is appropriate to continue to rep ort emissions as in kilograms (kg) instead of carbo n equivalents. Third, as EPA acknowledges, “adoption of these chemical-specific and default GWPs may automatically apply in some state and local PSD pro grams,” and therefore incorporating these default GWPs could have permitting implications in some ins tances. Since GWPs that have not been through this peer review process are more likely to change signi ficantly, we believe it is appropriate to delay add ing them to these regulatory programs until more of a c onsensus is reached on the appropriate values.

Response: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the fi nal rule for a response to this comment.



### 1.4 – Source for GWP Values Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Inc. Commenter Name: Matthew T. Ritter Comment: Arkema believes that EPA should rely on the most re cent version of the IPCC report, which is AR5, and in the rare case where a value is not avai lable, AR4 would be acceptable.

Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity (Center)8

Commenter Name: Vera Pardee Comment: Wherever updated GWP values for GHGs are contained in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) published in 2013 by the Intergovernmental Pa nel on Climate Change, EPA must use these AR5 values rather than rely on information contained in the now outdated Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The Center strongly urges EPA to establish its defa ult value calculations based on AR5 numbers. EPA should use the set of GWPs contained in the AR5 Sup plementary Material which have been adjusted to reflect feedback mechanisms that increase the GWPs by between 10 and 22 percent, depending on the atmospheric lifetime of the GHG. Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: While DuPont has not evaluated the specific list of proposed new GWPs, they agree with EPA’s proposed approach to setting the compound-spe cific GWPs in Table A-1, including 1) maintaining the current GWPs for the tables currently in Table A-1, and 2) setting the new compound-specific GWPs based on AR4, where available, or AR5 if AR4 values are not available. DuPont believes that the rationale EPA used for defaulting to AR4 values is sound.

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA supports calculating the default GWPs based on the AR5 GWPs for the chemicals in each group. As discussed in the proposed rule, AR5 reflects the most current scientific understanding of the atmospheric lifetimes and/or radiative behavior of these GHGs. Basing defaults on these newly assigned GWPs would increase the accuracy and the l ong-term robustness of the defaults, particularly f or the non-segregated and partially segregated saturat ed HFE groups. Overall, EIA continues to support an expeditious update of the GWPs associated with spec ific chemicals as well as chemical groups, to best reflect global scientific consensus.

Commenter Affiliation: Honeywell International, Inc. Commenter Name: Dave Stirpe Comment: Honeywell generally supports EPA’s proposal to use the GWPs stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fi fth Assessment Report (AR5). EPA should adopt the IPCC AR5 GWP values in the final rule.

Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Commenter Name: Tom Higgs Comment: Intel supports the concept of updating the GWP val ues as new scientific data becomes available and a certain level of scientific consens us is reached on the appropriate values to use for each material. The most widely recognized source of scie ntifically established, peer reviewed values are th ose published in the periodic reports of the Intergover nmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC recently released their 5th assessment report with updated Global Warming Potential (GWP) values. As such, Intel acknowledges that it is generally appro priate to align the values published in 40CFR part 98 Table A-1 with the GWP values in the latest version of the IPCC report.

Response to All Comments in this Section: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to this r ule for responses to the comments related to the source(s) for the chemical-specific GWPs being added to Table A-1. Regarding the source(s) of the GWPs used to de velop the default GWPs, EPA is using a combination of AR4 and AR5 GWPs, as proposed. Speci fically, EPA is basing the default GWPs on the9

chemical-specific GWPs for the compounds in Table A -1 as revised by this rule. This will provide consistency between the default GWPs and the chemic al-specific GWPs on Table A-1.



### 1.5 – Harmonizing EPA’s Reporting Requirements with International Standards Commenter Affiliation: Center for Biological Diversity (Center) Commenter Name: Vera Pardee Comment: The decision to use AR5 in most but not all cases i s internally inconsistent, arbitrary and irrational. The deliberate decision to populate EPA’s GHGRP wit h GWP values the agency knows are inaccurate will inevitably affect, if not undermine , these decisions and render them less reliable and more subject to criticism, doubt and attack. Such a deci sion cannot be justified where the agency’s rationalization relates to a simple problem of harm onizing information with the UNFCC reporting conventions. EPA should consistently use AR5 values for its domestic reporting and decision-making, while also creating a set of tables that reflects t he UNFCCC reporting conventions. The Center strongl y urges EPA to use AR5 values for all purposes in the Proposed Rule as well as all other Clean Air Act carbon reduction regulations.

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont acknowledges that it may be appropriate to update such values at a later time based on changes to globally recognized convention, such as the UNFCCC reporting requirements.

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: The updating of the set of GWPs under the GHGRP, co nsistent with other national and international programs increases the predictability , stability and accuracy of the impacts of these GH Gs.

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Commenter Name: David Isaacs Comment: The semiconductor industry has consistently urged EPA (and other governments around the world) to harmonize reporting requirements and meth odologies with international standards.

Response to All Comments in this Section: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the fi nal rule for responses to the comments in this section.



### 1.6 – Reporting of Low-GWP GHGs Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont asks why the reporting system needs to burd en facilities and companies with tracking and reporting compounds with such low GWPs (i.e., t hose compounds for which AR5 listed GWPs as “<1” and for which more precise GWPs were calculate d). Specifically, DuPont notes EPA’s rationale for instead setting the GWPs of such compounds at “1,” which would “lead to an overestimate of CO2e emissions,” which “would be extremely small in some cases.” These are specialty products: production plants typically will have a capacity to produce si ngle-digit or low double-digit tons of total produc t per year, and emissions would be some small fraction of that – de minimis in terms of total tons CO2e. DuPont believes the significant administrative burd en of reporting those emissions as compared to the very low levels of those emissions makes it reasona ble to not require their reporting.10

EPA should carefully consider whether the value of obtaining emissions information on compounds with such low GWPs justifies the burden placed on facili ties and companies for tracking and reporting them under the GHG Mandatory Reporting Requirements.

Commenter Affiliation: Intel Corporation Commenter Name: Tom Higgs Comment: The IPCC 5th Assessment Report established GWPs for a significant number of materials which previously had no values established. Many of these newly listed materials have been assigned very low GWPs, in many cases less than 1. Intel sub mits that in these cases, the IPCC has in fact concluded that these materials are not significant contributors to global warming, and it is therefore our belief that it is not appropriate to add these mate rials to Table A-1, thereby making them subject to regulation under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and also potentially under the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permitt ing programs. It is EPA’s stated intent with this proposed rule to provide a more accurate and comple te account of the atmospheric impacts of GHG emissions. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EP A states their belief that the improvement in accur acy associated with listing a GWP in Table A-1 is likel y to be large. While Intel supports the notion of making reporting as accurate as possible, we are co ncerned that the addition of a large number of low GWP materials to Table A-1 may substantially increa se the regulatory reporting burden without supporting EPA’s objective of making significant im provements in the accuracy of emissions estimates.

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Commenter Name: David Isaacs Comment: Finally, the proposal would regulate greenhouse gas es that are not emitted in high quantities and that the EPA acknowledges have extremely low gl obal warming impacts. While these materials are indeed listed in AR5, we do not believe it is appro priate to subject them to various greenhouse gas regulatory programs by adding them to Table A-1. Do ing so would result in an increase in the reporting burden on U.S. semiconductor fabs without significa ntly increasing the accuracy of facility reporting or the Inventory as a whole. To reduce the reporting b urden on the U.S. industry, EPA should modify the definition of fluorinated greenhouse gas to exclude those fluorinated compounds with minimal global warming impact.

Response to All Comments in this Section: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the fi nal rule for responses to the comments in this section.



### 1.7 – Precision of Chemical-Specific GWPs for Short-Li ved Compounds Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont believes that it is appropriate to calculate more precise GWPs for these compounds based on the radiative efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes provided for the compounds in AR5.

Commenter Affiliation: Honeywell International, Inc. Commenter Name: Dave Stirpe Comment: EPA’s proposed chemical-specific GWP values for ma ny substances contain more decimal places than necessary. The AR5 rounds the GWP value s to whole numbers and Honeywell believes that EPA should use those numbers for the sake of consis tency.11

Response to All Comments in this Section: EPA is finalizing the more precise GWPs as proposed . As discussed in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs, AR5 exp resses the GWPs for several very short-lived compounds as “<1,” but a point estimate of each GWP is necessary to calculate and report metric tons CO 2 e of the corresponding compound. For this reason, E PA calculated more precise GWPs for very short-lived compounds based on the radiative effici encies and atmospheric lifetimes provided in AR5.



### 1.8 – Using a Default GWP of 1 for Several Short-Liv ed Compounds Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont agrees with assigning a GWP of 1 to unsatura ted fluorinated GHGs and fluorotelomer alcohols, rather than the average of the compounds evaluated which is below 1.

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA supports the usage of GWP of 1 for the group co ntaining very short-lived compounds including unsaturated PFCs (e.g., hexafluoropropyle ne and tetrafluoroethylene), unsaturated HFCs (e.g.
, HFC-1234yf and perfluorobutyl ethene), unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated halogenated ethers (e.g., fluoroxene), unsaturated halogenated esters, fluori nated aldehydes, and fluorinated ketones, as we agr ee with EPA that assigning a default GWP of one simpli fies calculations. We also agree that although usin g this default value would lead to an overestimate of CO2e emissions, this overestimate would be extreme ly small in most cases.

Response to All Comments in this Section: EPA is finalizing the proposed default GWP of 1 fo r the three fluorinated GHG groups composed of very short -lived compounds. As noted in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs and by one of the commenters, this simp lifies calculations, and any overestimate of CO 2 e emissions or supplies is likely to be small.



### 1.9 – Grouping Unsaturated HCFCs with Unsaturated HF Cs Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: Sources including the UK Department of Energy and C limate Change and 2012 Task Force Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Pa nel (Decision XXIII/9), suggest that unsaturated HCFCs (HCFOs) being developed as solvents have a GW P of less than 10. The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, for instance, lists HCFC 1233zd as having a 100-yr GWP of 4.5. Keeping these chemicals grouped in the very-short-lived gro up assigned a default GWP of 1 could prove to be an inaccurate under-accounting of CO2e emissions over the longer term if there is significant growth in production of HCFOs as a replacement for higher-GWP chemicals. EIA therefore recommends that these unsaturated HCFCs be treated as a separate group (H CFOs) and that where available, their peer-reviewed GWP be used. Where peer-reviewed GWPs do not exist, EIA suggests that the weighted average of the known GWPs for unsaturated HCFCs be used as a defau lt.

Response: As proposed, EPA is grouping unsaturated HCFCs wit h unsaturated HFCs and is assigning the group (which includes very short-lived compounds) a default GWP of 1. The commenter mentions that HCFC-1233zd(E) has been assigned a GWP of 4.5 by th e UK Department of Energy and Climate Change; however, AR5 assigns HCFC-1233zd(E) a GWP o f 1. (EPA has calculated a more precise GWP of 1.3 for this compound based on the radiative eff iciency and atmospheric lifetime provided in AR5.) As12

discussed in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs, the AR5 GWPs reflect adjustments to the radiative efficiencies of short-lived compounds to better acc ount for the fact that such compounds are not well mixed in the atmosphere. GWPs estimated for short-l ived compounds are often based on the assumption that the compounds are well mixed in the atmosphere , and this assumption can lead to overestimated GWPs. AR5’s adjustment to the radiative efficiencie s of these compounds countered this overestimate and lowered the estimated GWPs of the short-lived c ompounds compared to the GWPs published in many previous studies. Thus, EPA has determined that a G WP near 1 is appropriate for HCFC-1233zd(E) and that a GWP of 1 is appropriate for the fluorinated GHG group that includes unsaturated HCFCs.

Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Commenter Name: Matthew T. Ritter Comment: In order to ascertain that the most accurate GWPs are being used for a fluorinated GHG that contain chlorine, Arkema believes that these compou nds should continue to be treated with other compounds that have similar atmospheric lifetimes a nd GWPs.

Response : Please see the response immediately above.



### 1.10 – Saturated HFEs Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont agrees with recommendation to divide saturat ed HFEs into partially segregated and non-segregated.

Commenter Affiliation: Honeywell International, Inc. Commenter Name: Dave Stirpe Comment: With respect to EPA’s proposed default GWP values, we suggest that for partially segregated saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) listed in Table 3, EPA’s proposed default GWP value of 200 is too low. Many HFEs, such as C4F9-O-CH3 isomers, have a GWP value in the range of 407 to 486, as shown in reference 11 cited by EPA. A more accurate defau lt GWP for these substances is thus closer to 500.

Response to All Comments in this Section: In the final rule, EPA is dividing the group of sat urated HFEs and HCFEs into three groups based on the numbe r of carbon-hydrogen bonds in the compound rather than two groups based on the position of the fluorine atoms in the compound (segregated vs. partially segregated). As discussed in section II.A .2 of the preamble to the final rule, we concluded that the number of carbon-hydrogen bonds predicts the GW P more precisely than does the position of the fluorine atoms in the compound. Regarding the propo sed default GWP for the partially segregated saturated HFEs, this value was based on the average of the chemical-specific GWPs for the compounds in that group. Average values will necessarily be lowe r than the values for some members of the group and higher than the values for others.



### 1.11 – Other Fluorinated GHGs Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: This group [Other fluorinated GHGs] as is currently proposed includes 34 chemicals with GWPs ranging from 0.05 to 588. As per EPA's analysi s, this is the only group with a standard deviation of GWP greater than the value of the default GWP it self (a relative standard deviation of 159%).13

Assigning an average value to this wide of a range may not be meaningful unless there is some kind of weighting or sub-division of the group. EIA propose s either a weighted average based on nationwide emissions percentage, or subdividing the group into roughly equal distributions of a) "Other fluorinat ed gases with a GWP of < 20' (16 compounds listed in T able A-1), b) Other fluorinated gases with a GWP of 20 to 100 (10 compounds listed in Table A-1) and c) "Other fluorinated gases with a GWP of >100" (9 compounds listed in Table A-1).

Response: In the final rule, EPA is dividing the proposed “o ther” category (with a default GWP of 110) into three groups: (1) fluorinated acetates, carbon ofluoridates, and fluorinated alcohols other than fluorotelomer alcohols (with a default GWP of 30), (2) fluorinated formates (with a default GWP of 350 ), and (3) other fluorinated GHGs and HTFs (with a def ault GWP of 2000). As discussed in II.A.3 of the preamble to the final rule, EPA anticipates that th e first two changes will significantly increase the precision of the default GWPs applied to these spec ific types of compounds, while the third will bette r represent the variability of GWPs for compound grou ps whose GWPs have not been published in the peer-reviewed literature.



### 1.12 – Treatment of Outliers Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA believes that the subdivision of the group “ot her fluorinated GHGs” as suggested in Section 10 above, would lead to a better treatment of the outliers within that group at least. For oth er groups, EIA agrees with EPA’s approach of including outliers where the possibility cannot be ruled out that such outliers may also occur among the fluorin ated GHGs whose GWPs were being estimated.

Response: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to this r ule.



### 1.13 – Treatment of Blends Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: EIA additionally notes, however, that for any blend ed compounds containing both very shortlived fluorinated gases and longer lived GHGs that the longer atmospheric life must be taken into account. EIA requests that the EPA include specific guidance in the rule about how blended compounds that are not listed on Table A-1 are to be accounte d for and recommends that blends containing components from more than one group be assigned the default GWP of the group with the highest
average.

Response: To assess the GWP-weighted mass (i.e., tons of C O 2 e) of blends of different fluorinated GHGs, EPA requires reporters to (1) break out the m ass of the blend into the masses of its component fluorinated GHGs, (2) convert the mass of each of t hose fluorinated GHGs into CO 2 equivalents, and then (3) add together the CO 2 equivalents of all components. This ensures that t he atmospheric impacts of all components of the blends are captured accurately. F or example, if an HFC supplier imported 20 metric tons of R-410A (composed of 50% HFC-125 and 50% HFC -32 by weight), the supplier would break out the 20 metric tons into 10 metric tons of HFC-125 a nd 10 metric tons of HFC-32. The supplier would then convert each of those masses into CO 2 equivalents: 35,000 mtCO 2 e for the 10 tons of HFC-125 and 6,750 mtCO 2 e for the 10 tons of HFC-32. The supplier would the n add these together to get the CO 214

equivalents of the blend: 41,750 mtCO 2 e in this example. EPA has issued guidance clarifyi ng this. Please

see http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage .action?pageId=91259576.



### 1.14 – Commercial References Commenter Affiliation: Arkema Commenter Name: Matthew T. Ritter Comment: Arkema believes specific commercial references sho uld be invisible within regulatory tables and reporting materials. Materials within this tabl e should be identified by the assigned ASHRAE identification number or chemical name.

Response: In Table A-1, EPA supplements a trade name with che mical name for clarity purposes. 

### 1.15 – Data Availability for the Public Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts Comment: It is of primary concern to EIA that highest level of information be made available to the public concerning the emissions of all GHGs and HFC s in particular. In the case of asserted CBI concerns, the EPA must be able to analyze and regul ate the impacts of fluorinated GHGs on the climate, and should construe any such CBI claims narrowly to as not to deprive the public of vital information.

Response: Please see section III of the preamble of the fina l rule for a response to this comment.



### 1.16 – Other Commenter Affiliation: Private Citizen Commenter Name: Ronald Marshall Comment Thank you for your work protecting our environment . It is important to me that the final rule for Clean Power Plan explicitly list a carbon tax a s an option for states to comply with the rule. Gui dance needs to be provided to states on implementation & administration of any tax, as well as acceptable do llar amounts & escalation rates. States should have as m any options as possible available to them, as long as they are effective in reducing carbon emissions

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaki ng.

Commenter Affiliation: Anonymous Commenter Name: Anonymous Comment: Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes made b y the EPA. It's just a money making, land taking, protect your job and fill your wallet schem e. It was seven degrees warmer when Leif Erikson found Greenland. The temperature has not risen in w ell over a decade. Your pesticides stuff has also b een a hoax for the most part as well. You removed the b est pesticide many years ago. You all need to knock off the bull and remove all the crazy regulations t hat you have come up with over the years. If you ne ed to save a little minnow at the cost of many farmers an d jobs for many you need to build a hatchery for th e minnow not stop the flow of water. I could list man y more but I would run out of letter characters on this page. The majority of you people can consider yours elves luck that I am not President or many of you would need to be looking for a new line of work. Ha ve a good day.

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaki ng.15



## 2 – Response Response Response to Public Comments to Public Comments to Public Comments on the

GWP - Related Provisions in the Related Provisions in the Related Provisions in the Proposed

Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Amendments to Subpart L

Commenter Affiliation Commenter Name 3M Company Dana M. Schnobrich American Chemistry Council (ACC) Lorraine Krupa Ger shman DuPont Robert A. Reich Environmental Investigation Agency Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra

Specific suggestions related to the construction of the F-GHG groups were received from three entities : DuPont, 3M Company, and American Chemistry Council (ACC). These commenters provided suggestions to improve the default GWPs presented i n the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L. Original submissions of these public comments are available in Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927.
EPA evaluated whether the suggestions provided by D uPont, 3M, and ACC—to add compounds to the existing groups and to create new groups—were likel y to improve the accuracy and precision of the default GWPs proposed for subpart L. To do this eva luation, EPA incorporated these suggestions into th e analysis used to develop the default GWPs for the P roposed Amendments to Subpart L. Specifically, EPA analyzed the “other fluorinated compounds” and “sat urated HFEs and HCFEs” groups from the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L and assigned each compound a more specific group designation. By disaggregating the “other fluorinated compounds” in to more specific groups (e.g., unsaturated halogenated esters, fluorinated aldehydes, fluorote lomer alcohols, fluorinated alcohols, formates, etc .), it was possible to evaluate the GWPs of each group and compare them to the previously proposed GWP of 100 (see Table I). A similar approach was adopted for the compounds in the proposed group “saturated HFEs and HCFEs.” EPA did not specifically address c omments provided by ACC because their suggested groups were covered by DuPont’s recommend ations, and because the groups suggested by DuPont were more specific. However, a response to s everal of ACC’s comments can be found in Section 2.1 below.
Table I presents a comparison of the Proposed Amend ments to Subpart L’s F-GHG groups and the commenters’ suggested F-GHG groups. In most cases, the F-GHG compounds in the suggested new groups were originally part of the “other fluorinat ed compounds” group in the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L; the exceptions were the compounds in the suggested new groups, “partially segregated saturated HFEs” and “non-segregated saturated HFEs, ” which were originally part of the “saturated HFEs and HCFEs” group.

Table I. Comparison of Proposed Amendments to Subpa rt L and Commenter Suggested F-GHG Groups a

Source Fluorinated GHG Group GWP Suggested by Source (100- year) Number

of Chemicals in Group Average

GWP (100- year) Average

Lifetime (years)

Fully fluorinated GHGs 10,000 15 9,857 5,953 Saturated hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) 2,200 26 2,187 3216

Source Fluorinated GHG Group GWP Suggested by Source (100- year) Number

of Chemicals in Group Average

GWP (100- year) Average

Lifetime (years)

Proposed Amendments to Subpart L Saturated hydrofluoroethers (HFEs) and

saturated hydrochlorofluoroethers (HCFEs) 1,600 61 1,536 10

Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs, unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated HFEs, and fluorinated ketones 1 23 <1 «1 b

Other fluorinated compounds 100 32 94 <1

Recommended by DuPont Unsaturated PFCs, unsaturated HFCs,

unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated halogenated ethers, unsaturated halogenated esters, fluorinated ketones, and fluorinated aldehydes 1 25 <1 «1 b

Fluorinated and Fluorotelomer Alcohols c 1 15 25 <1 Fluorotelomer Alcohols d 1 4 <1 «1Fluorinated GHGs with one or more carboniodine bonds 1 0 N/A N/A

Recommended by 3M e Partially segregated saturated HFEs 230 25 204 2

Non-segregated saturated HFEs 2,800 37 2,436 15

Evaluated by EPA Other fluorinated compounds without fully

fluorinated unsaturated halogenated ethers, fluorinated aldehydes, fluorotelomeralcohols, or fluorinated GHGs with carboniodine bonds 110 33 112 1

Evaluated by EPA Formates 350 8 349 3

Evaluated by EPA Other fluorinated compounds without fully

fluorinated unsaturated halogenated ethers, fluorinated aldehydes, fluorotelomeralcohols, fluorinated GHGs with carboniodine bonds, or formates 20 21 19 <1

a DuPont also recommended grouping 4,4,4-trifluorobu tanal (a fluorinated aldehyde) with the fluorinated ketones and vinyl 2,2,2- trifluoroacetate (an unsaturated ester) with the un saturated halogenated ethers. 4,4,4-trifluorobutana l and vinyl 2,2,2- trifluoroacetate are included in the AR5 Comprehens ive Review, but were ultimately not published in AR 5 because they do not have GWPs and are therefore not included in this an alysis.
b An average lifetime of «1 denotes a value less tha n or equal to 1 x 10 -2

.
c Includes four fluorotelomer alcohols.
d Fluorotelomer alcohols, a subset of fluorinated al cohols, were evaluated separately.

e 3M’s suggested default GWPs for partially segregat ed and non-segregated saturated HFEs were based the median rather than the average of the available chemical-specific GWPs

.


### 2.1 – Addition of Chemical-Specific and Default GWPs Commenter Affiliation: ACC Commenter Name: Lorraine Krupa Gershman Comment: EPA should continue its acceptance of peer reviewe d scientific determinations for GWPs for fluorinated GHGs where there is a significant diffe rence in CO2e emissions through the use of grouping

.17

This would be rare but necessary to sustain the sci entific validity of GHG emissions reporting. We encourage EPA to provide updates to Table A-1 when scientifically robust data is provided.

Response: Please see section 1.3 above for a response to thi s comment.

Comment: ACC suggests that EPA create an additional category that would account for fluorinated GHGs with GWPs at or near a value of 10. This categ ory should be appropriate for unsaturated ethers, fluorinated alkanes, and unsaturated perfluorinated ethers. This category is necessary to account for those compounds that have GWPs less than 100 but are not considered to be an unsaturated PFC, an unsaturated HFC, an unsaturated HCFC, an unsaturate d HFE, or a fluorinated ketone.

Response: Please see section 1.11 above for the response to t his comment

. Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont generally supports the Agency’s proposal to introduce Chemical Classes as the basis for default global warming potentials (GWP) of fluo rinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHG), as this will serve to ensure protection of CBI. However, th e default GWP of 2,000 provided in the 2010 Final Rule, and the temporary reporting provisions of 10, 000 for fully fluorinated GHGs, and 2,000 for all o ther fluorinated GHGs are inappropriate for broad classe s of fluorinated gases. This is especially true for short-lived gases: using the current default GWPs l eads to scientifically unsupportable estimated CO2e emissions for wide classes of fluorinated GHGs.

Response: Please see section II.A.2 of the preamble to the fi nal rule for the response to this comment. 

### 2.2 – Partially Segregated and Non-Segregated Satura ted HFEs and HCFEs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Commenter Name: Dana M. Schnobrich Comment: 3M suggested disaggregating “saturated HFEs and HC FEs” into ‘partially segregated’ and ‘non-segregated’ HFEs and HCFEs to more accurately reflect the GWPs of this group. 3M noted that partially segregated HFEs display significantly sho rter atmospheric lifetimes and lower GWPs than nonsegregated HFEs.
Response: As discussed below, EPA evaluated this suggestion a nd proposed it as the lead option for assigning default GWPs to HFEs in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs. However, EPA also evaluated the option of assigning default GWPs to HFEs (and HFCs) based on the number of carbon-hydrogen (C-H) in the compound and requested comment on this option i n the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs. 3 In the final rule, EPA is dividing the group of saturated HFEs a nd HCFEs into three groups based on the number of carbon-hydrogen bonds in the compound rather than t wo groups based on the position of the fluorine atoms in the compound (segregated vs. partially seg regated). The rationale for this approach is discus sed in section 1.10 above and in section II.A.2 of the preamble to the final rule.
EPA evaluated 3M’s suggestion by disaggregating sat urated HFEs and HCFEs into two groups using the following classifications:

3 “Revised Analysis of Atmospheric Lifetimes, Radiat ive Efficiencies, and Global Warming Potentials of Saturated Hydrofluoroethers by Number of Carbon-Hydrogen and Carbon-Fluorine Bonds,” available in docket EPA-HQ- OAR2009-0927.18

• Partially segregated

compounds contain a fully hydrogenated alkyl group on one side of the oxygen with no fluorine substitutes and a partially or fully fluorinated alkyl group on the other side.

• Non-segregated

compounds contain fluorine substitutes on all alky l groups, but are not necessarily fully fluorinated.

For example, HFE-449s1 (C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 ) and HFE-569sf2 (C 4 F 9 OC 2 H 5 ) are segregated HFEs with the ether oxygen separating a fully fluorinated and a fully h ydrogenated alkyl group, while HFE-347pcf (CF 2 HCF 2 OCH 2 CF 3 ) is a non-segregated HFE with oxygen separating tw o partially fluorinated alkyl groups (IPCC/TEAP, 2005).
In its comments, 3M did not explain the mechanism t hrough which the segregation of fluorine atoms in HFE molecules leads to shorter lifetimes. However, Owens (1999) notes that the “segregated structure maximizes the effect of the ether oxygen in reducin g the atmospheric lifetimes.” Owens further notes that fluorine can decrease the activating effect of the ether and states, “although there can be a deactiva ting effect from fluorine atoms across the ether bond, i t is much less pronounced than that produced by fluorine atoms on the same alkyl group. This segre gated structure appears to buffer the hydrogen atom s from the very electronegative fluorine atoms taking full advantage of the activating effect of the eth er oxygen.”
The histogram below shows the GWPs of the saturated HFEs and HCFEs sorted into partially segregated and non-segregated HFEs and HCFEs in order to evalu ate whether this separation of saturated HFEs and HCFEs is an indicator of whether a compound is like ly to have a low or high GWP, and whether this separation would therefore be a valuable distinctio n to make when establishing F-GHG groups.

Figure I. Histogram comparing GWPs of partially seg regated and non-segregated saturated HFEs and HCFEs. The table below shows the average GWPs, standard de viations, and proposed default GWPs of each subgroup based on EPA’s evaluation, as well as the sam e values for the aggregated group of saturated HFEs and HCFEs. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 to 100 100 to 250250 to 500500 to 750 750 to 1,000 1,000 to

2,500 2,500 to

5,000 5,000 to

7,500 7,500 to

10,000 Over

10,000Frequency

GWP Range Partially Segregated Non-Segregated19 Table II. Comparison of Average GWPs of Saturated H FE and HCFE Groups

Saturated HFE Group Proposed GWP (100-year) Average

GWP (100-year) Standard

Deviation Average

Atmospheric Lifetime Saturated HFEs and HCFEs 1,600 a 1,536 2,536 10.0 Partially segregated saturated HFEs and HCFEs 200 2 04 227 1.8 Non-segregated saturated HFEs and HCFEs 2,400 2,436 2,967 15.5

a Default proposed in Proposed Amendments to Subpart L based on previously calculated average GWP (see f ootnote “a” to Table I). As shown by Figure I and Table II, the distinction between the partially segregated and non-segregated saturated HFEs and HCFEs captures pervasive (though not universal) differences in GWPs among the saturated HFEs and HCFEs. Most partially segregated HFEs and HCFEs have GWPs below 500, while most non-segregated HFEs and HCFEs have GWPs greate r than 500. However, there are outliers in both groups. For example, the (lower-GWP) partially segr egated HFE group with a default GWP of 200 would include HFE-143a (CH 3 OCF 3 ), which has a lifetime of 4.3 years and GWP of 756

. Despite these known outliers, the two sub-groups of saturated HFEs and HCFEs are based on chemical structure, which could more accurately categorize t he HFEs, and potentially assign the saturated HFEs and HCFEs more representative GWPs. Therefore, thes e new groupings are likely to apply to HFEs and HCFEs whose atmospheric behavior has not yet been s tudied.
As noted above, additional analysis of the GWPs of saturated HFEs and HCFEs, including an analysis of the relationship between these GWPs and the numbers of carbon-hydrogen (C-H) and carbon-fluorine (CF) bonds in the molecule, can be found in “Revised Analysis of Atmospheric Lifetimes, Radiative Efficiencies, and Global Warming Potentials of Satu rated Hydrofluoroethers by Number of CarbonHydrogen and Carbon-Fluorine Bonds.”

Comment: 3M recommended equating the default GWP for HFEs t o the median of the available chemical-specific GWPs rather than to the average o f these GWPs, stating that the average was affected by the very high GWPs of a few compounds. The comm enter observed that the average was higher than the GWPs of 73% of the HFEs. 3M suggested that a mo re accurate default GWP for a saturated HFE is obtained by calculating the median value from the a vailable data rather than the arithmetic average.

Response: For each fluorinated GHG group, EPA is basing the default GWP on the average of the known GWPs of the compounds in that group. While this av erage is sometimes affected by unusually high or low GWP values for a few compounds, it is reasonabl e to assume that the GWPs of the compounds in the group that have not been measured exhibit a similar range and will have a similar impact on CO 2 e emissions. (See more discussion of this issue in th e proposed Amendments to Subpart L at 78 FR 69347.) On average, the facility-wide CO 2 e emissions for each group are expected to be estim ated accurately by a default GWP based on the average GWP for the group, even if the default over- or underestimates the GWPs of more than half of the individual fluorinate d GHGs in the group. Outlier GWPs may occur rarely, but they nevertheless occur and affect CO 2 e emissions. 

### 2.3 – Unsaturated Halogenated Ethers Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich20

Comment: DuPont suggested broadening “unsaturated HFEs” to “ unsaturated halogenated ethers” to account for the carbon-carbon double bond in unsatu rated ethers that results in a short atmospheric lifetime and low GWP for these compounds.
Response: As explained by DuPont, the degree of fluorination of the compound has a small effect on the lifetime and GWP. For example, HFE-216 (CF 3 OCF=CF 2 ), an unsaturated fully fluorinated ether, has a 100-year GWP of 0.17 4 and lifetime of 8.4 days in IPCC AR5. Additionally , fluoroxene (CF 3 CH 2 OCH=CH 2 ), an unsaturated ether that is not fully fluorinat ed, has a 100-year GWP of and lifetime of 3.6 days according to IPCC AR5.
This suggestion revises the classification of all u nsaturated fully fluorinated ethers, which were pre viously assigned as “other fluorinated compounds,” instead of unsaturated HFEs, because they do not contain a carbon-hydrogen bond. In the revised fluorinated GH G group, all “unsaturated halogenated ethers” must contain one or more carbon-carbon multiple bonds, b ut can have any degree of fluorine or chlorine substitution in the alkyl groups. EPA expects this categorization to be accurate and to appropriately categorize all unsaturated fluorinated ethers, rega rdless of the degree of fluorination and/or chlorin ation in the alkyl groups. 

### 2.4 – Unsaturated Halogenated Esters Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont suggested assigning unsaturated halogenated esters, which were previously categorized as “other fluorinated compounds,” a GWP of 1.
Response: This approach is accurate and well defined from a p hysical chemistry viewpoint. As described by DuPont, unsaturated halogenated esters have a do uble carbon-carbon bond whose reactivity results in a short atmospheric lifetime and therefore low GWP.
A search of the peer-reviewed literature, including AR5 and Hodnebrog et al. (2013), did not yield GWP s for any unsaturated halogenated esters. Hodnebrog e t al. (2013) includes a radiative efficiency, but n ot an atmospheric lifetime, for one unsaturated halogenat ed ester, vinyl, 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate. This radi ative efficiency, 0.387 Wm -2 ppb -1 , is an overestimate because it has not been correc ted to reflect the (probably very short) atmospheric lifetime of vinyl, 2,2,2-tr ifluoroacetate. 5 Nevertheless, when this uncorrected radiative efficiency is considered in conjunction w ith the atmospheric behavior of a saturated nearrelative of vinyl, 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate, ethyl 2, 2,2-trifluoroacetate, some conclusions may be drawn regarding the GWP of the former.
According to AR5, ethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate has a lifetime of 21.9 days, a corrected radiative effi ciency of 0.053, and a GWP of 1.3. 6 Hodnebrog et al. (2013) provides an uncorrected ra diative efficiency of 0.28 Wm -2 ppb -1 for ethyl 2,2,2,-trifluoroacetate, indicating that the correction factor for this compound (and compounds with similar atmospheric lifetimes) is ab out 0.19. Assuming vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate ha s a lifetime of no more than 21.9 days and that the sam e correction factor should be applied to its radiat ive efficiency, the GWP for vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetat e is estimated to be 1.8. Because vinyl 2,2,2- trifluoroacetate is unsaturated, it is likely to be more short-lived than ethyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate and

4 This precise GWP was calculated using the atmospher ic lifetime and the corrected radiative efficiency provided in the AR5.
5 Many estimates of GHGs’ radiative efficiencies are based on the assumption that the GHGs are well-mix ed in the atmosphere. For GHGs with lifetimes of a few months or less, th is assumption is not realistic and leads to overest imates of the radiative efficiencies (and GWPs) of the GHGs. The GWPs and r adiative efficiencies included in Hodnebrog et al. (2013) and AR5 reflect corrections to the radiative efficiencies of short- lived GHGs to mitigate this overestimate.
6 This precise GWP was calculated using the atmosphe ric lifetime and the corrected radiative efficiency provided in the AR5.21

therefore to have a lower GWP than what was calcula ted using a lifetime of 21.9 days. For this compoun d to have a GWP of around 1 (applying the same correc ted radiative efficiency), its atmospheric lifetime would have to be approximately 12 days. This is co mparable to the average atmospheric lifetimes of th e unsaturated HFCs and PFCs (10 and 13 days, respecti vely).
Looking beyond vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate, the at mospheric behavior of the saturated and unsaturated HFCs and PFCs implies that the atmospheric lifetime s and GWPs of unsaturated fluorinated esters are likely to be low. Specifically, the saturated HFCs and PFCs have average GWPs of 2,187 and 9,857 respectively, considerably higher than the average GWP of the saturated fluorinated esters, 162. This difference is largely driven by the difference in a tmospheric lifetimes, with HFCs and PFCs having average lifetimes of 32 and 5,953 years, respective ly, and saturated fluorinated esters having an aver age lifetime of 1.2years. At the same time, the unsatu rated HFCs and PFCs have average GWPs of 0.4 and 0.7 respectively, reflecting atmospheric lifetimes of days or weeks. Because unsaturated fluorinated esters are expected to have lifetimes as brief (or briefer) than those of HFCs and PFCs, the unsaturat ed fluorinated esters are also likely to have GWPs bel ow 1.
This conclusion is expected to be valid as long as the other compound-dependent term in the GWP calculation, specifically, the ratio of radiative e fficiency to molecular weight, is also similar for unsaturated esters and unsaturated HFCs and PFCs. To further investigate the latter assumption, EPA calculated the ratio of the uncorrected radiative e fficiency (RE) to the molecular weight (MW) (i.e., RE/MW) for all of the saturated and unsaturated flu orinated esters, HFCs, and PFCs that are included i n the default GWP analysis. 7 This exercise evaluated the possibility that the f luorinated esters have significantly higher RE/MW ratios than the HFCs and PFCs, which would indicate that even if the unsaturated esters are as short-lived as the unsatu rated HFCs and PFCs, they could have significantly higher GWPs. Based on the ratios shown in Table III below, the average RE/MW ratios for the saturated fluorinated esters (fluorinated acetates and format es) are higher than the average RE/MW ratios for th e saturated HFCs and PFCs, but are still within a fac tor of two. Similarly, the RE/MW ratio for vinyl 2 ,2,2- trifluoroacetate (unsaturated ester) is higher than the RE/MW ratios of the unsaturated HFCs and PFCs, but is still within a factor of two. Based on this analysis, it appears likely that the average GWPs f or the unsaturated fluorinated esters are likely to be nea r 1, and that it is appropriate to assign these com pounds a default GWP of 1.
Table III. Comparison of Radiative Efficiency to Mo lecular Weight Ratios of Saturated and Unsaturated HFCs and PFCs Fluorinated GHG Group RE/MW Ratio
Saturated PFC 0.0014
Saturated HFC 0.0015
Unsaturated PFC 0.0015
Unsaturated HFC 0.0018
Fluorinated Acetates 0.0025
Formate 0.0025
Unsaturated Ester 0.0027

7 Saturated fluorinated esters were included because radiative efficiency information was available for only one unsaturated fluorinated ester, vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate, an d because their inherent radiative properties were expected to be similar to those of unsaturated fluorinated esters. Uncorrected radi ative efficiencies were used in order to permit a c omparison between the saturated and unsaturated compounds in the absence of atmospheric lifetime.22

Therefore, the default GWP of 1 is expected to be a ccurate for the unsaturated halogenated esters whos e atmospheric behavior has not yet been studied. EPA’ s analysis suggests that this group be could added to the previously existing group of compounds assigned a GWP of 1. 

### 2.5 – Fluorinated Ketones and Aldehydes Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont suggested expanding fluorinated ketones to include fluorinated aldehydes, which were previously categorized as “other fluorinated c ompounds.”

Response: This suggestion would assign fluorinated aldehydes a GWP of 1. This approach is accurate and well defined from a physical chemistry viewpoin t. As noted by DuPont, peer-reviewed literature suggests similarities between the behavior of fluor inated ketones and aldehydes as they photodissociat e readily in hours or days. Photolysis lifetimes of a ldehydes and ketones in the sunlit troposphere are approximately several days (Derwent, 1995). This be havior indicates that these compounds have short atmospheric lifetime and therefore low GWPs.
For example, 3,3,3 –trifluoro-propanal has a 100-ye ar GWP of 0.01 8 and lifetime of 2.0 days according to IPCC AR5. EPA’s evaluation shows that this group co uld be added to the previously existing group of compounds assigned a GWP of 1 (see Table I). EPA ex pects this categorization to be accurate for the fluorinated aldehydes whose atmospheric behavior ha s not yet been studied. 

### 2.6 – Fluorinated Alcohols (including Fluorotelomer Alcohols) Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont suggested that all fluorinated alcohols be assigned a GWP of 1 based on their analysis of the GWPs of a subset of fluorinated alcohols, fl uorotelomer alcohols. DuPont noted that all fluorotelomer alcohols are likely to have short atm ospheric lifetimes and therefore low GWPs.
Response: In the final rule, EPA has removed both fluorotelomer alcohols and oth er fluorinated alcohols from the “Other” category and is including them in separate fluorinated GHG groups. As discussed further below, fluorotelomer alcohols are very shor t-lived in the atmosphere and are therefore being assigned a default GWP of 1. Other fluorinated alco hols are longer-lived than fluorotelomer alcohols b ut still have a considerably lower average GWP (40) th an the default GWP proposed for the “other” group i n the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L (100).
A study of the kinetics of the reactions of fluorot elomer alcohols with OH radicals indicates that the atmospheric lifetime of fluorotelomer alcohols, reg ardless of the length of the molecule, is approxima tely 20 days, or 0.05 years (Ellis et al., 2003). Additi onally, IPCC AR5 assigns GWPs of less than one to a ll four of the fluorotelomer alcohols included in AR5. For example, 3,3,3-trifluoropropan-1-ol has a GWP of 0.35 7 and an atmospheric lifetime of 12.0 days and 3,3,4 ,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,7-Undecafluoroheptan-1-ol has a GWP of 0.43 7 and an atmospheric lifetime of 20.0 days; both of these compounds are fluorotelomer alcohols.
DuPont’s comments recommend combining fluorotelomer alcohols and fluorinated alcohols into a single group with an assigned GWP of 1. However, as shown in Table I above, the average GWP of fluorinated alcohols, including the four fluorotelomer alcohols , is greater than 1 (i.e., 25), and therefore assig ning all

8 This precise GWP was calculated using the atmospher ic lifetime and the corrected radiative efficiency provided in the AR5.23

fluorinated alcohols a GWP of 1 is not accurate. Ad ditionally, a study of the kinetics of the reaction s of a series of fluorinated alcohols with OH radicals ind icates that the atmospheric lifetime of fluorinated alcohols is approximately 164 days, or 0.45 years ( Hurley et al., 2004). As noted above, EPA is establishing separate default GWPs for fluorotelome r alcohols and other fluorinated alcohols in the fi nal rule.



### 2.7 – Fluorinated GHGs with One or More Carbon-iodine Bond Commenter Affiliation: DuPont Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich Comment: DuPont suggested forming an additional group for f luorinated compounds containing one or more carbon-iodine bonds, because any fluorinated c ompound with a carbon-iodine bond is expected to photodissociate readily, resulting in an atmospheri c lifetime of a few hours and an approximate GWP of 1.
Response: EPA found the following evidence to support this su ggestion:

• A three-dimensional global chemistry-transport mode l (CTM) of the troposphere and stratosphere was used to evaluate the potential effects of CF 3 I, a very short-lived iodinated compound. The model indicated that this compound has a lifetime o f 5.03 days and 1.13 days for emissions assumed to be evenly distributed over land surfaces at mid-latitudes and the tropics, respectively (Youn et al., 2010). Furthermore, according to IPCC AR4, CF 3 I has a direct 100-year GWP of 0.4 and lifetime of 0.005 years. This direct GWP does n ot account for any stratospheric ozone depletion by CF 3 I, which is likely to be negligible and would be ex pected to decrease the GWP.

• A study on the reactions of fluorotelomer iodide (n -C 4 F 9 CH 2 CH 2 I) calculated that the atmospheric lifetime of this iodinated compound is determined by photolysis and is a few days (Young et al., 2008).

• Approximately ten fluorinated iodine compounds have been examined by scientists, and all have very short lifetimes (i.e. 5 days or less) because they photolyze rapidly resulting in GWP values less than 1 (Wuebbles, 2014).
Based on the results of these studies and DuPont’s supporting information, any fluorinated compound with a carbon-iodine bond is expected to have a ver y short atmospheric lifetime and could therefore be assigned a GWP of 1. 

### 2.8 – Fluorinated GHG Groups and GWPs are Too Broad Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra Comment: For the saturated hydrofluorocarbons group, EPA pr oposes to break the group into subgroups based on atmospheric lifetimes or other characteris tics to further identify more representative defaul t GWPs. The preferred approach of the default GWP for this group at 2,200 does not reflect the true natu re of the range of the gases in this group as some gas es in this group are outliers with GWPs well over 2,000. For example, HFC-236fa has a global warming potential (GWP) of 9,650 which is nearly 500% greater than the preferred default GWP for this gro up. EPA should consider an atmospheric threshold th at is not arbitrary and most precisely reflects the pu rpose of the GHG Reporting Program.
To the extent that producers may require further in vestigation to determine the characteristics such a s atmospheric lifetimes of the gases, all producers s ubject to this regulation are very sophisticated companies with sufficient resources and capabilitie s to conduct the research necessary to fulfill obligations under this regulation. Any added burden to determine this will be insignificant and comparable to other requirements under this regulat ion and the potential impact to the climate.24

Response: In the final rule, EPA is breaking saturated HFCs i nto two groups based on the number of carbon-hydrogen bonds in the compound, which is cor related with atmospheric lifetime and GWP. This considerably increases the precision of the default GWPs that will be applied to saturated HFCs that d o not have chemical-specific GWPs on Table A-1. It is also straightforward for fluorinated gas producers to implement, since the number of carbon-hydrogen bond s in the compound is known. Please see section II.A of the preamble to the final rule for more dis cussion of this issue.



### 2.8 – EPA Should Use 20-Year GWPs for HFCs Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency Commenter Name: Mark Roberts and Avipsa Mahapatra Comment: Given the short atmospheric lifetimes of HFCs, if d efault values are going to be used, they should be based on a 20 year GWP so the values are truly conservative.

Response : As noted in the final rule, “2013 Revisions to th e Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substanti ally Revised Data Elements,” (48 FR 71904; November 29, 2013), the EPA selected the 100- year GWPs for a number of reasons. In brief, 100-year GWPs are the internationally accepted standard for reporting GHG emissions and have been used in multiple EPA analyses and programs. Human-influence d climate change occurs on both short (decadal) and long (millennial) timescales. While there is no single best way to value both short and long-term impacts in a single metric, the 100-year GWP is a r easonable approach that has been widely accepted by the international community. If the EPA were to ado pt a 20-year GWP solely for HFCs, it would introduce a metric that is inconsistent with both t he GWPs used for the remaining Table A-1 gases and with the reporting guidelines issued by the UNFCCC and used by the Inventory and other EPA programs. Additionally, the EPA and other federal agencies, c alculating the impact of short-lived climate forcer s using 100-year GWPs, are making reduction of short- lived climate forcers a priority. For these reasons
, EPA is retaining a 100-year time horizon as the sta ndard metric for defining GWPs in the GHGRP.
In general, EPA has developed the default GWPs to b e unbiased predictors of the GWPs of the fluorinated GHGs in each fluorinated GHG group. Tha t is, the default GWPs are intended to be best estimates rather than “conservative” or upper-bound estimates. This approach is expected to result in the most accurate estimates of CO 2 e emissions and supplies.25



## 3 – Response to Comments on CBI Determinations for 40 FR Part 98, Subpart I, Response to Comments on CBI Determinations for 40 C FR Part 98, Subpart I, Proposed on January 10, 2012 Proposed on January 10, 2012

This document lists and provides responses to publi c comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “Proposed Confidentiali ty Determinations for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” (77 F R 1434, January 10, 2012), where those data elements were required to be reported under subpart L, Fluorinated Gas Production. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room. Comment letters are also available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR2011-0028.

Largely in response to the public comments listed i n this document, we are amending certain provisions of the Fluorinated Gas Production source category to reduce the level of detail in which emissions are reported (as compared to the 2010 Sub part L rule). We proposed these amendments in the proposed rule entitled, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting P rogram: Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production” (her einafter referred to as “Proposed Amendments to Subpart L”), published on November 19, 2013 (78 FR 69337). We are finalizing the amendments, with limited changes in response to comments, in the fin al rule titled, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Addition of Global Warming Potentials to the Genera l Provisions and Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production” (her einafter referred to as “Final Amendments to Subpar t L”). As discussed in the Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, the changes are intended to (1) address concerns that that the disclosure of the identity a nd quantities of the fluorinated GHGs emitted at th e process level would reveal “trade secrets” regardin g individual chemical production processes, and (2) ensure that we nevertheless obtain the data necessa ry to inform the development of future GHG policies and programs. Thus, the rationale we provided for t he Proposed and Final Amendments to Subpart L responds to the comments below, and the responses h ere point to where that rationale can be found in t he preambles to those actions.


### 3.1 CBI Determination for Unit/Process Static Data Elements – Subpart L Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regul atory Affairs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018 Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: 3M supports EPA’s proposed determination of CBI st atus for the Subpart L data element “location and function of the stream(s) (including process streams, emission streams, and destroyed streams).” This element is analyzed under the initi al scoping speciation of fluorinated greenhouse gas es pursuant to 40 CFR 98.124(a). 3M agrees with EPA’s analysis as to why this element is CBI. In its coge nt analysis at 77 FR 1442, EPA shows that it understan ds why releasing this information to the public cou ld create “substantial competitive harm” to 3M and oth ers covered by this subpart:

“EPA finds that this data element could provide ins ight into the manufacturing process and the configuration of the facility, such as which proces s equipment is sending streams to which process equipment. This could reveal information about conf iguration efficiencies that the reporter has develo ped, generally at great expense and time investment, to minimize manufacturing cost and to maximize the manufacturing rate. If a competitor could review su ch information on configuration, the competitor wou ld be able to adopt the reporter’s efficiency practice s with less development time and expense and would gain competitive advantage at the expense of the re porter’s competitive advantage. Therefore, EPA find s that releasing the data element describing the loca tion and function of the process streams would like ly26

result in substantial competitive harm, and EPA pro poses to determine that this data element qualifies for protection as confidential business information.”

Response : A discussion and response to this comment on rep orting for the scoping speciation has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amend ments to Subpart L, and in section II.B of the preamble to the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 9

Comment: . . . 3M supports EPA’s analysis of its proposed d eterminations at 77 FR 1442 that seven of the 22 data elements included in Best Available Mon itoring Method (BAMM) use extension requests are CBI because they would implicate trade secret and c onfidential business information. 3M supports EPA’s recognition that this type of information could giv e a reporter’s competitors information on configura tion or operational efficiencies, or potential shutdowns and decreases in product supply, all of which coul d give competitors advantages at the expenses of the reporter.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on BAMM requests/submittals has been provided in section III.A of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.


### 3.2 General Confidentiality Claims – Subpart L Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regul atory Affairs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018 Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: 3M proposes as an alternative that EPA allow repor ting of fluorinated greenhouse gases for certain Subpart L facilities on a combined basis fo r the facility as a whole, in CO2 equivalents. This accomplishes the purposes of the law: reporting of greenhouse gas emissions over certain thresholds. I t is consistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act to require disclosure of emission data only “as necess ary” to show emissions. It is also consistent with simil ar reporting rules, the Toxic Release Inventory and California’s Greenhouse Gas reporting rule. This re porting as a whole would avoid trade secret and exp ort control concerns.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: As noted in the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) September 7, 2010 comments on EPA’s initial proposed CBI rule, which included com ments on Subpart L, information that EPA is requiring to be disclosed under the MRR includes in formation that is controlled for export by various United States agencies for reasons including, but n ot limited, to, national security. In addition, in the ACC’s March 7, 2011 comments on confidentiality con cerns regarding inputs to emission equations, ACC again noted concerns that EPA is requesting exp ort-controlled information, and specifically mentioned that this is a concern for information EP A is demanding under Subpart L. 3M is a member company of the ACC and contributed to those comment s.27

In EPA’s proposed rule for Subpart L, EPA has not a ddressed these concerns regarding export-controlled information or proposed ways in which EPA will mana ge the information to avoid export control concerns. Because of requirements under the United States export control laws, 3M cannot submit information to EPA that is export controlled, witho ut advance assurances in writing as to how this information will be managed in accordance with expo rt control laws. In specific, 3M cannot submit information that EPA has requested companies submit in just a few weeks (by March 31 2012) because 3M does not know who will be receiving this informa tion at EPA or that it will be safeguarded. 3M is being placed in the extremely difficult position of being required to submit information by one federa l agency that another federal agency prohibits 3M fro m submitting.

3M therefore asks for an extension on all reporting deadlines under Subpart L of MRR until the export control issues as well as CBI issues are resolved.

Information required to be disclosed under the MRR includes information that is controlled for export by various United States agencies for reasons includin g, but not limited to, national security, anti-terr orism, nuclear non-proliferation, and chemical and biologi cal weapons security. Once the EPA receives this information, it will become responsible to ensure t hat it controls this information in compliance with all United States export control regulations.

The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), manage d by the United States Commerce Department and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR ), managed by the United States Department of State
, are the two principal United States export control regimes. ITAR, applicable to those products and technical data that are specifically designed or mo dified for military use and are on the Munitions Li st, prohibits virtually all exports to every country wi thout export authorization by the State Department, following review by the Departments of State and Co mmerce. The EAR controls products, intermediate materials, raw materials components and accessories , technology, software and manufacturing that meet very detailed specifications delineated in the EAR.

ITAR defines “technical data” as “ information which is required for the design, devel opment, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance, or modification of ‘defense articles’ .” Similarly, the EAR prohibits the export of controll ed “development”, “production” and/or “use” technology:

Development : “is related to all stages prior to serial productio n, such as: design, design research, design analyses, design concepts, assembly and testing of prototypes, pilot production schemes, design data, process of transforming design data into a product, configuration design, integration design, layouts. ”

Production: “ means all production stages, such as: product engin eering, manufacture, integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, quality a ssurance.”

Use: means “ operation, installation (including on-site installa tion), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul and refurbishing.”

For example, under EAR ECCN 1E001 alone - the EAR p rohibits the export of development and production technology for a wide number of products and intermediate materials that are EAR-controlled
, including:

• components made from fluorinated compounds

• composite structures or laminates made from certain organic, metal or carbon matrices,

• carbon filamentary materials, certain non-aromatic polymides in film, sheet, tape or ribbon form28

• gas mask filter canisters and decontamination equip ment for defense against biological agents, radiological agents, chemical warfare agents or rio t control agents

• body armor

• equipment and devices designed to initiate charges

• devices containing energetic materials.

This technology is expressly controlled for export due to national security, nuclear non-proliferation , antiterrorism, missile technology, and other risks.

The prohibitions against exports include not only p hysical exports of product or technology, but also “deemed exports”, (the sharing within the United States of controlled technology to those who are not United States citizens or permanent residents, refu gees or asylees of the United States and possess citizenship of countries to which the technical dat a is controlled).

While it is possible to publish and make “publicly available” EAR-controlled technology without violating the EAR, to release to the public ITAR co ntrolled technology requires the prior written appr oval of the cognizant government agency. In other words, to require the public release of ITAR controlled technology, the EPA or the company would likely fir st need to obtain the approval of the cognizant agency, which could vary depending on the informati on in question. See 22 CFR 120.11(a)(7) (definition of public domain) and http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/security_handbo ok_07.pdf (handbook explaining the process to get approval for public r elease of ITAR controlled technology).

In consideration of United States export control re gulations, 3M scientists have evaluated the level a nd detail of process-specific emissions information cu rrently required by this Subpart L proposal, and ha ve advised that providing such emission information wo uld include the disclosure of controlled production technology and possibly, technical data to the EPA, i.e., technical data related to perfluorochemical manufacturing. This information includes informatio n that EPA is proposing to hold as CBI under Subpart L as well as information that is not design ated by EPA as CBI because EPA has labeled it “emission data.”

In response, to remain in compliance with United St ates export control regulations, EPA personnel woul d need either to request authorization to publicly re lease such information or to implement an export co ntrol plan to ensure compliance with all United States ex port control regulations. It would need to ensure t hat it can identify and segregate such information on Unit ed States based servers with restrictions on sharin g internally and externally with anyone to whom the t echnology would be controlled. It would also need t o put in place controls to protect against unauthoriz ed disclosure by employees and others at the EPA. T his would be a difficult and detailed process to implem ent and maintain in general - compounded by the fac t that the EPA will not necessarily be in possession of the additional scientific information to enable it to evaluate which data it possesses that triggers the export control requirements.

EPA has proposed categorizing a substantial amount of process-related information under Subpart L as non-CBI because EPA believes it is “emission data” and therefore available to the public. If EPA pursu es the approach of implementing an export control plan to protect against unauthorized disclosure of expo rt controlled process-related information to the publi c, EPA would need to reconcile this control or nondisclosure with its standard position to the contra ry, that emission data should be available to the p ublic.

. . .if EPA decides not to pursue the export contr ol plan and requests and obtains authorization to p ublicly release export controlled data (which seems unlikel y due to the nature of this information), 3M would still consider this information trade secret and CBI, and would object to release of that information as not within EPA’s authorization under the law.29

An EPA process to manage this information is made e ven more complicated by the fact that the information EPA requires 3M to report under Subpart L must be submitted as early as March 31, 2012 (effective April 2, 2012 due to the weekend), only a little over two weeks after the deadline for thes e comments. In addition, subsequent reporting under S ubpart L must be submitted electronically in EPA’s e-GGRT database. 3M has been advised by its legal c ounsel that posting any export controlled technical data on any site that does not have controls to pro hibit viewing by those from whom the technical data should be controlled would be a violation of export laws by 3M.

Accordingly, 3M cannot submit the export-controlled information at this point (whether EPA has preliminarily determined it CBI or not). Moreover, under the proposed rule, 3M is concerned that some of this process-specific information that is export-co ntrolled will be made available to the public as em ission data, because EPA has proposed to categorize it as “emission data.”

We have been advised that 3M not post such informat ion, but identify that we have it, that it is expor t controlled, and that 3M desires to discuss with the EPA how to provide the required information in a manner that ensures that (a) it is being provided t o someone at EPA who can accept it without 3M obtaining a license, (b) it is clearly marked as ex port controlled, and (c) we provide it in a format/ manner that does not constitute a violation (e.g. not put it on an open server). 3M asks for an extension of the deadline for submission of information under Subpar t L until these export control issues and CBI issue s can be resolved in a manner consistent with other S ubparts, including OO and I, and in a manner consistent with EPA's authorization.

As requested previously in ACC comments, to mitigat e risk to the United States and to avoid export control issues for Subpart L facilities as well as for EPA, such detailed process-specific emissions information should not be required under the MRR. O ne solution would be for EPA to instead report facility-wide information in CO 2 equivalents in the same manner that it is being re ported for Subpart OO. To the extent that any process-specific emissions i nformation is required, any controlled technology information should be determined to be CBI for FOIA purposes, and EPA should also implement whatever additional restrictions are necessary to c omply with export control regulations. EPA should assure that its practices for handling CBI are cons istent with those practices utilized by the Departm ent of Commerce for material and technologies/processes th at are export controlled.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on expo rt control concerns has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 11

Comment: A fundamental problem with EPA’s CBI designations is that these determinations are based on the emission calculation methods and not on whet her the information is actually business confidenti al. In certain cases significant amounts of information would become publicly available and for similar processes elsewhere much less information would be made available to outside parties. For example, under Subpart L, if a facility utilizes the mass ba lance method, which is the approach under Section 98.126(b), much of the information regarding proces s inputs and outputs would be made publicly available. All of this information may be routinely protected by state agencies when contained in perm it or emissions reporting documents, however. For some processes, the information reported under §98.126(b) may be much more detailed than what woul d be required under §98.126(c) (the emission factor approach). Another example that was previous ly cited is the scoping analysis required under §98.126(c)(3). If process streams are used for this determination, the information is considered CBI; if vent gases are used for the scoping analysis EPA do es not consider the information CBI. In the case of30

fugitive emissions, some processes will allow for t he consolidation of emissions over a large process while emissions in other cases will be reflective o f very specific chemistries and processes.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of theFinal Amendments to Subpart L. A discussion and response to this co mment on the mass balance approach has been provided in sections II.A and II.B of the 2013 Prop osed Amendments to Subpart L and has been provided in section II.C of the Final Amendments to Subpart L. A discussion and response to this comment on scoping speciation has been provided in sections II .A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Subpart L and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subp art L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: More important than the inequity that may result f rom differences in the emissions calculation methods is the fact that 3M as a United States supp lier and manufacturer would be placed at a competit ive disadvantage with foreign manufacturers and supplie rs. ACC member companies have reviewed CBI practices at non-United States locations. Much more information will be reported under the MRR rule than is customarily reported at non-United States l ocations. In addition, the CBI practices at foreign locations are much more protective of process infor mation than what is being proposed under the MRR. In almost all cases, government agencies outside th e United States limit the information requested so it does not implicate trade secret information.

On Tuesday, February 29, 2012, President Obama sign ed an executive order creating the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. The White House said the order “will institute a more aggressive 'whole-ofgovernment' approach to getting tough on trade enfo rcement by monitoring and enforcing US rights under international and domestic trade rules and counteri ng unfair subsidies that tilt the global market aga inst US firms.” As reported by the Associated Press (AP) , the office will expand the administration's abili ty to challenge unfair trading practices in China and els ewhere.” AP noted: The President “has accused China of subsidizing homegrown companies and allowing cou nterfeiting and intellectual piracy. The president' s most recent budget proposal asks Congress for milli ons of dollars for the new enforcement center and more US inspectors in China.”

3M is aware that manufacturers outside the United S tates would welcome information on 3M’s trade secret manufacturing processes at facilities subjec t to Subpart L. EPA should not be adopting rules th at have the effect of promoting intellectual piracy in China or other countries, at the same time as the Administration is recognizing the real threat of pi racy and in fact proposing millions of dollars in enforcement money to counter it.

By taking an unnecessarily broad interpretation of “emission data” as including process-specific emiss ion information for purposes of the greenhouse gas emis sion reporting rules, EPA will be forcing public disclosure of sensitive business information that i ncludes company trade secret information.

It is important to understand this issue from an in tellectual property law and research and developmen t perspective. Trade secret information is developed through company research and development. Companies spend years and years, and millions, and even billions, of dollars for R&D in developing and continually improving valuable product and process information. As an example, in 2009 3M invested $1.293 billion in R&D and related expenditures. 3M invested $6.861 billion in R&D and related expenditures for the past five years.31

Sensitive R&D information is reflected in the detai ls of a company’s manufacturing and process information. This information has economic value on ly as long as the information remains confidential and, therefore, unavailable to competitors. This is trade secret information, a long recognized form o f intellectual property in the United States and else where in the world. Companies like 3M invest in R&D efforts in reliance on the protection that federal and state laws provide for their intellectual prope rty, laws that allow them to protect their trade secrets and confidential information long enough to allow them to recoup their R&D investment and to realize the pote ntially significant economic rewards that are available in the commercial marketplace. This poten tial for economic reward provides significant commercial incentive to companies doing business in the United States.

America's intellectual property laws have created a framework in which American companies have been encouraged to invest in research in development, to innovate and develop new technologies. Examples of this are the Silicon Valley, Microsoft, Apple, and 3M. We have seen that companies in other parts of t he world later copy or reverse engineer and manufactur e technologies developed here in America at a much lower cost. But because of our framework of intelle ctual property laws that to date have encouraged an d protected R&D and innovation, many of the great ide as have started and been developed into products here in America. Arguably one of the things we have done best in this country is to create the right framework for bringing new ideas and technology to the marketplace. A significant part of that framework is the protection of intellectual propert y and the recognition that trade secrets and competitively sensitive information are important a nd valuable assets to American companies.

EPA’s proposed rule that would require disclosure o f process-specific trade secret information changes this framework. Through one deliberate action, EPA could compromise multi-million dollar R&D investments by American companies. Companies throug hout the world could use this information to copy the technology or processes that American companies have worked so hard and invested so much to create, without having to make that same R&D invest ment. It creates an unfair competitive advantage fo r the companies that use this information, and obviou sly damages the financial wherewithal and global competitiveness of the American companies that lost their valuable trade secret information.

Instead of fostering innovation, EPA rules that for ce disclosure of trade secrets could discourage innovation by discouraging companies from investing in R&D here in the United States. These types of rules may cause companies to decide to locate their facilities in other parts of the world in order to protect their ideas and their R&D investments.

EPA should adopt regulations that recognize the val ue of company trade secret information and safeguar d that information. EPA should not be adopting regula tions that force disclosure of and thereby take awa y valuable company trade secret information, promotin g intellectual piracy by other countries and damaging the global competitiveness of American com panies.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 27

Comment: 3M’s facilities subject to Subpart L are involved in specialized materials manufacturing. Most other entities with facilities subject to Subpart L are manufacturing common commercial chemicals for which detailed process and chemical information is available in the public sector.32

Most of 3M’s manufacturing processes covered by Sub part L, however, have customized configurations and customized process characteristics. 3M has inve sted over $100 million and six decades in R&D to develop the unique processes at its facilities. Som e of the chemicals and products manufactured by 3M at facilities in the United States are produced by no other facility in the world. Some of these are subj ect to export control requirements, and certain informatio n may not be released to the public sector. Competi tive fluorochemicals are to 3M’s knowledge not manufactu red by any other company in the United States, but they may be manufactured by companies in overseas l ocations. While 3M does not possess detailed information on the locations and manufacturing conf igurations of its competition, we believe many of their products are produced outside the United Stat es where Subpart L data is not being reported. An overwhelming majority of 3M’s fluorinated gas produ ction is located within the United States. Accordingly, 3M may be uniquely affected by this pr oposed rule. 3M may be the only manufacturer of fluorinated gases that faces the possibility that i ts trade secret manufacturing information will be r eleased as a result of EPA’s determinations that certain pr ocess-related chemical identities and other informa tion is not CBI.

There is no patent for process-related information. 3M relies on trade secret protection to maintain t he value of its investment in technology. 3M is very c areful to take measures to preserve the secrecy of this information, including (a) requesting that the info rmation be held confidential in this and other submissions to federal, state and local agencies, ( b) keeping the information in secure buildings, pro tected by security guards at entrances, to which non-compa ny personnel do not have access (unless given speci al security clearance or escort), (c) entering confide ntiality agreements with its employees, and (d) ent ering confidentiality agreements with its consultants, co ntractors and customers.

If the specific chemical identities in emission str eams, by process, and other process-related informa tion described . . . are made public this would reveal h ighly confidential aspects of process configuration s and characteristics for 3M’s facilities subject to Subp art L. It would include data on product chemical compositions. It could allow competitors to duplica te the process and create the products without havi ng to make the multi-million dollar research and devel opment investments, thus giving them a substantial competitive advantage. Because they have not had to incur the R&D costs, it could allow competitors to out-compete these facilities, causing loss of sales , business, and potentially loss of jobs.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: EPA’s proposal would allow competitors to learn pr ocess-related trade secret information when 3M first reports the information, and it would also allow competitors to see how 3M might change its processes, configurations and chemistries as 3M reports this information in the future. This would be potentially very damaging to 3M and would give comp etitors substantial competitive advantages. EPA’s advance determinations on CBI do not adequately tak e into account the possibility that United States manufacturing facilities will innovate and change o r come up with unique manufacturing methods in the future that will need CBI protections. EPA’s advanc e determinations seem to contain the assumption tha t a currently non-CBI process will always remain non- CBI, or that processes will always remain the same. They do not seem to allow for novel changes in manu facturing processes or production methods that a facility would want to protect as trade secret. By not allowing facilities to make CBI claims as they arise, EPA is not being realistic about the possibility of developments in manufacturing and in effect is discouraging innovation.33

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.



### 3.3 Data Elements in Categories with Categorical CB I Determinations – Subpart L Commenter Name: Bredan Mascarenhas, Manager of Regulatory and Tec hnical Affairs Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0017 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: As referenced in the separate comments on this pro posal submitted by ACC member 3M, the emissions streams produced as a result of a particu lar process may contain information that is identic al to the chemical identities used in the process. This i nformation, if made available to the public, would allow for others, particularly overseas competitors, to e asily reverse engineer a production process and thu s obtain critical trade secrets. As this information can contain sensitive CBI, the Agency should not re quire its disclosure as information open to the public, b ut rather classify this data element as confidentia l. Concerns with some of the specific proposed CBI det erminations in Subpart L are provided below.

A. Sections 98.126(a)(2)(i)-(iv)-- Total mass of each F-GHG emitted from each fluorina ted gas production process (metric tons), and from all fluo rinated gas production processes combined; total ma ss of F-GHG emitted from certain fluorinated gas trans formation processes; mass of F-GHG emitted from venting of residual F-GHGs from containers returned from the field :
EPA has proposed that this information is not CBI, but reportable as emission data. ACC disagrees with this determination because specific cases exist whe re this information would be considered CBI. Reporting emissions for specific processes would re sult in the availability of process-specific inform ation that has not been placed in the public domain. This could reveal trade secret information about the number of process steps, which is technologically s ensitive information that facilities take great car e in protecting. The emissions information that is repor ted under §98.126(a)(2)(i), combined with the mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process vent (metric tons) being reported under §98.126 (c)(3), will, in some cases, disclose sensitive trade secre t information. In many cases, the chemical composit ion of the product or an isolated intermediate can be d etermined from the emissions stream. Subpart L reporting is different from other environmental rep orting in that the emissions from the process may be the product or byproducts of a reaction. Accordingl y, this type of information can easily reveal novel production methods. The availability of this inform ation would obviate the need for research and development investments by competitors to replicate the process. Chemical-specific information of this type has not been made available to the public prev iously. For example, in air permitting or emissions reporting, these emission constituents have been re ported as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or another, more general descriptor, therefore allowin g for the information‘s accurate reporting while appropriately protecting specific chemical identiti es.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Section 98.126(a)(3)— Chemical identities of the contents of the emission stream analyzed under the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG, by process :34

The proposed EPA determination for reporting Sectio n 98.126(a)(3) raises significant concerns for the protection of confidential business information of Subpart L reporters. ACC and its members believe th at the determinations under this section deserve furth er review by the Agency before finalization.

In EPA‘s December 2011 memo (Memorandum A) accompan ying the proposal, the data reported under §98.126(a)(3) for chemical identities of the conten ts of the stream(s) (including process, and destroy ed streams) analyzed under the initial scoping speciat ion of fluorinated GHG at 40 CFR 98.124(a), by process were correctly determined to be data that i s CBI and thus eligible for confidential treatment. As this scoping analysis contains integral data regard ing the process streams in production, a CBI determination is appropriate in order to protect th e sensitive information being disclosed.

However, the determination for the other scoping re port data element, chemical identities of the conte nts of the stream(s) (including emissions) analyzed und er the initial scoping of fluorinated GHG at 40 CFR 98.124(a), raises serious CBI concerns. In the matr ix in Memorandum A, EPA determines this element to be available to the public as emission data, and th us not eligible for confidential treatment. This determination is apparently based on the Agency’s b road interpretation of emission data, a classificat ion that does not qualify the data for treatment as CBI . The concerns with EPA’s broad interpretation are described in comments from ACC (excerpts of which a re attached in Appendix A) on EPA’s July 2010 confidentiality determinations for data under the M andatory Reporting Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2009-0924). The comments state that EPA has mis takenly defined emission data to be every piece of information or data upon which GHG emissions mig ht be calculated. ACC goes on to recommend that when determining what information should be publicl y available, EPA follow the model established by other reporting systems (e.g., TRI and California’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Reporting system), discussed in more detail in attached Appendix A. In order to fully protect this information, the Agenc y should allow facilities to report emissions as aggr egate CO 2 e emissions, consistent with Subpart OO.

The request for chemical identities in §98.124(a) h as the potential to provide chemical-specific information, by process, on not only how the manufa cturing process is configured, but also on the chemical formulas used in the manufacturing process . EPA has already conceded that this type of information is CBI when it involves chemical identi ties of process streams and destroyed streams under Subpart L. The chemical identities in §98.124(a) ar e the same type of trade secret information. ACC would point out that this determination unfairly ta rgets those facilities or processes where a reporte r decided to measure vent gas composition for scoping analysis and that EPA’s proposed CBI determinations were made after reporters had alread y made these decisions.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L. A discussion and response to this comment on scoping speciation has been provided in sections II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amen dments to Subpart L and in section II.B of the Fina l Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 3

Comment: As there are clear CBI concerns with information r eported under §98.124(a)(4), ACC requests that EPA extend the current deadline of March 31, 2 012 for Subpart L reporters. Further, some of this information also will be subject to export control laws, a fact that raises another set of concerns . . .. ACC member 3M asks that EPA consider this information a s a static unit/process operational characteristic as opposed to emission data, given that it is baseline information that is not provided along with report ed emission amounts. EPA has considered similar inform ation for facilities subject to Subpart I as nonemission data, including disclosure of the “recipes ” (e.g., specific combination of gases used to fabr icate a35

specific feature on a film or substrate), process s ub-type, or type associated with each abatement sys tem for specific process steps, because EPA recognized that it would provide insight into how the reportin g facility is configured and achieves its specific ma nufacturing performance. EPA should use the same rationale for this “chemical identity” information.

Response: EPA addressed the reporting deadline for subpart L by allowing subpart L facilities to report GHG emission in a more aggregated manner for RY 201 2 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendme nts to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Ele ments of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477).

Comment Excerpt Number: 4

Comment: Section 98.126(c)(4)— Mass of each F-GHG emitted from equipment leaks : EPA has proposed that the information under §98.126(c)(4) i s emissions data and therefore cannot be CBI. However, this determination could result in the dis closure of sensitive information. An example of thi s is the case of fugitive air emissions, which may be de termined using various methods. Fugitive emissions in this source category are very low, but because this information is being reported by process and becau se all amounts are reportable, the composition of the product or an isolated intermediate can be determin ed from fugitive emissions information. For an operati on that involves the handling of the final product, the composition of the fugitive air emission stream cou ld easily be identical to the product content, sinc e fugitive emissions are assumed to be reflective of the process fluids. EPA has considered this type of composition information CBI under Subpart OO and un der §98.126(a)(6). Although EPA proposed that equipment leak information is not subject to CBI pr otection, when this same information is reported pursuant to §98.126(a)(6), the chemical formula and total mass produced of the fluorinated gas product in metric tons, by chemical and process, EPA determine d it is CBI. All of the above information on production outputs and F-GHGs from process vents an d processes should be held confidential. Normally, reports of process fugitive emissions are aggregate d for an entire facility. In addition, this emissio ns information typically has been reported as part of a chemical group, i.e., VOCs. Reporting this type o f information by process in the specificity required under Subpart L has not been required under air rul es to date, and could result in the disclosure of CBI.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 5

Comment: Information required to be disclosed under Part 98 , Subpart L includes content that is controlled for export by various U.S. agencies for reasons including, but not limited to, national sec urity, antiterrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, and chemi cal and biological weapons security. Once the Agenc y receives this information, it becomes responsible f or ensuring that it controls this information in compliance with all U.S. export control regulations

. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR 730-780, and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 22 CFR 120-130, are the two pri ncipal U.S. export control regimes. ITAR, applicable to those products and technical data tha t are specifically designed or modified for militar y use and are on the Munitions List, prohibits virtually all exports to every country without export authori zation by the State Department, following review by the De partments of State and Commerce. The EAR controls products, intermediate materials, raw mate rials components and accessories, technology,36

software and manufacturing that meet very detailed specifications delineated in the EAR. ITAR defines technical data as information which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance, or modification of

― defense articles. Similarly, the EAR prohibits the export of controlled “development ”, ”production” and/or “use” technology:

Development: “is related to all stages prior to serial productio n, such as: design, design research, design analyses, design concepts, assembly and testing of prototypes, pilot production schemes, design data, process of transforming design data into a product, configuration design, integration design, layouts. ”

Production: “means all production stages, such as: product engi neering, manufacture, integration, assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, quality a ssurance.”

Use: means “operation, installation (including on-site i nstallation), maintenance (checking), repair, overhaul and refurbishing.”

For example, under EAR ECCN 1E001, the EAR prohibit s the export of development and production technology for a wide number of products and interm ediate materials that are EAR-controlled, including :

• components made from fluorinated compounds;

• composite structures or laminates made from certain organic, metal or carbon matrices;

• carbon filamentary materials, certain non-aromatic polymides in film, sheet, tape or ribbon form;

• gas mask filter canisters and decontamination equip ment for defense against biological agents radiological agents, chemical warfare agents or rio t control agents;

• body armor;

• equipment and devices designed to initiate charges; and

• devices containing energetic materials.

This technology is expressly controlled for export due to concerns with national security, nuclear nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, missile technolog y, and other risks.

The prohibitions against exports include not only p hysical exports of products or technology, but also “deemed exports”, i.e., the sharing within the U.S. of controlled technology to those who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.

While it is possible to publish and make “publicly available” EAR-controlled technology without violating the EAR, the release to the public of ITA R-controlled technology would require the prior written approval of the appropriate government agen cy. In other words, to require the public release o f ITAR-controlled technology, the requiring company ( in this case, EPA) would first need to obtain the approval of the appropriate agency, which could var y depending on the information in question. This process is described in 22 CFR 120.11(a)(7) (defini tion of public domain), as a handbook that outlines the process to obtain approval for public release of IT AR controlled technology.4

In consideration of U.S. export control regulations , ACC member company scientists have evaluated the level and detail of emissions information currently required by Part 98, and advised that providing su ch emission information could constitute the disclosur e of controlled production technology and possibly technical data to the EPA.

To remain in compliance with U.S. export control re gulations, EPA personnel would need either to request authorization to publicly release such info rmation, or implement an export control plan to ass ure compliance with all U.S. export control regulations . The Agency would need to ensure that it can ident ify37

and segregate such information on U.S. based server s with restrictions on sharing internally and externally with anyone to whom the technology would be controlled. It also would need to put in place controls to protect against unauthorized disclosure by employees and others at the EPA. This would be a difficult and detailed process to implement and mai ntain. This problem would be compounded by the fact that EPA will not necessarily be in possession of t he additional scientific information that would ena ble it to evaluate which data it possesses that may trigge r export control requirements.

For all of the reasons noted above, this informatio n should be treated as CBI and not publicly disclos ed. EPA should also implement whatever additional restr ictions are necessary to comply with export control regulations.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on expor t control concerns has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 6

Comment: EPA‘s proposed determinations in Subpart L create the strong likelihood of a competitive disadvantage for companies that may face serious di screpancies in the treatment of reported data. For example, if a company reports under Subpart L §98.1 26(b), all process inputs and outputs would be made available to the public, information that is routin ely protected as CBI in permit or emissions reporti ng documents sent to state agencies. However, if a com pany reports under §98.126(c), much less informatio n would be available to the public, allowing this com pany to protect its sensitive business information. To afford adequate protection to all U.S. companies, E PA should determine that all of the data is busines s confidential, regardless of the method of calculati ng emissions.

More important than the inequity that may result fr om differences in the emissions calculation methods that are used at U.S. locations, is the fact that U .S. suppliers and manufacturers would be placed at a competitive disadvantage with foreign manufacturers and suppliers. ACC member companies have reviewed CBI practices at non-U.S. locations. Much more information will be submitted and disclosed under the MRR than is customarily released at non-U .S. locations. In addition, the CBI practices at foreign locations are much more protective of proce ss information than what is being proposed in this rulemaking. In almost all cases, government agencie s outside the U.S. limit the information requested so they do not implicate trade secret information.

On Tuesday, February 29, 2012, President Obama sign ed an executive order creating the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center. The White House said the order “will institute a more aggressive ‘whole-ofgovernment’ approach to getting tough on trade enfo rcement by monitoring and enforcing U.S. rights under international and domestic trade rules and co untering unfair subsidies that tilt the global mark et against U.S. firms.” [Footnote: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-offi ce/2012/02/28/executive-orderestablishment-interagency-trade-enforcement-center] . As reported by the Associated Press, the office “will expand the administration‘s ability to challe nge unfair trading practices in China and elsewhere .” The Associated Press also noted that the President “has accused China of subsidizing homegrown companies and allowing counterfeiting and intellect ual piracy. The president's most recent budget proposal asks Congress for millions of dollars for the new enforcement center and more US inspectors i n China.”

It is recognized that manufacturers outside the Uni ted States would welcome information on manufacturing processes at facilities subject to Su bpart L. EPA should not be adopting rules that have the effect of promoting intellectual piracy in China or other countries, especially as the White House38

simultaneously recognizes the substantial threat th at piracy poses and chooses to spend millions of do llars in enforcement money to counter it.

By including process-related emission information f or greenhouse gas reporting, EPA‘s interpretation o f the term “emission data” is over broad. This interp retation also forces public disclosure of sensitive business information that likely includes a company ‘s trade secret information.

In order to fully grasp the wide breadth of the pot ential negative consequences this issue poses, it i s important to acknowledge it from an intellectual pr operty law and research and development (R&D) perspective. R&D is responsible for the development of trade secret information, sometimes after multiple years and millions of dollars spent in ord er to develop and improve valuable product and proc ess information.

Sensitive R&D information is reflected in the detai ls of a company‘s manufacturing and process information. This information has economic value on ly as long as the information remains confidential and, therefore, unavailable to competitors. Trade s ecret information represents a long recognized form of intellectual property in the United States and else where in the world. Companies invest in R&D efforts in reliance on the protection that U.S. Federal and st ate laws provide for their intellectual property. T hese laws allow them to protect their trade secrets and confidential information long enough for them to re coup their R&D investment and realize the potentially si gnificant economic rewards that are available in th e commercial marketplace. This potential for economic reward provides significant commercial incentive t o companies doing business in the United States.

America's intellectual property laws have created a framework in which American companies have been encouraged to invest in research in development, to innovate and develop new technologies. Silicon Valley, Microsoft, Apple, and 3M all represent comp anies whose notable innovation has been a direct result of the protection of intellectual property. The danger of overseas competitors illegally copyin g or reverse engineering manufacturing technologies is v ery real and very damaging. However, due to the U.S.‘s framework of intellectual property laws that safeguard R&D and innovation, simple ideas have th e opportunity to grow and develop into essential prod ucts. Indeed, one of our nation‘s strongest credits is the creation of a framework that promotes an access ible marketplace which welcomes new ideas and technology. A critical piece of that framework is t he protection of intellectual property and the recognition that trade secrets and competitively se nsitive information are important and valuable asse ts to American companies.

EPA‘s proposal, which requires disclosure of proces s-specific trade secret information, destroys this framework. Through one deliberate action, EPA could unintentionally compromise multi-million dollar investments into R&D by American companies. Compani es throughout the world could use this information to copy the technology or processes tha t American companies have invested in and worked hard to create without having to make that same R&D investment. This creates an unfair competitive advantage for overseas companies that may use this information, while obviously damaging the financial wherewithal and global competitiveness of the Ameri can companies that lose their valuable trade secret information.

Instead of fostering innovation, proposals such as this one force disclosure of trade secrets that sti fle innovation by discouraging companies from investing in R&D in the U.S. Companies may rather decide to relocate their facilities to other parts of the world in search of adequate protection for their id eas and R&D investments. The determinations in this proposa l may well promote intellectual piracy by overseas competitors and damage the global competitiveness o f American companies. Rather than adopting39

regulations that force disclosure of valuable compa ny trade secret information, EPA should adopt regulations that recognize the inherent value of th is data and attempt to safeguard it.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L. A discussion and response to this comment on the mass balance approach has been provided in sections II.A and II.B of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Subpart L and has been provided in section II.C of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regul atory Affairs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018 Comment Excerpt Number: 1

Comment: 3M supports EPA’s proposed determinations that som e of the information requested is confidential business information (CBI), particular ly trade secret information related to location and function of certain processes in those facilities.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: 3M also supports EPA’s determination that under re porting section 98.126(a)(3), the “chemical identities of the contents of the stream( s)” for process and destroyed streams analyzed unde r the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG a t 98.124(a), by process, are CBI. EPA Table A-1: List of Proposed Data Category Assignments and CBI Deter minations for Direct Emitter Subparts L, DD, II, RR, SS, and TT, p. 6

. As discussed in more detail below, these chemical i dentities, if identified by process, would give 3M’s competitors trade secret i nformation on 3M’s specific manufacturing processes
, which 3M has invested millions of dollars and many years in developing. It would give competitors information on operational strategies that they wou ld not need to invest their own research and development dollars to develop, all of which would put 3M at a competitive advantage.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on scop ing speciation has been provided in sections II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Su bpart L and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 19

Comment: §98.126(c)(1)-(3)— Identity of the process activity used to estimate e missions (tons of product or tons of reactant consumed); mass of each F-GHG e mitted for each process vent (metric tons) : Whereas information contained in other paragraphs of §98.12 6 would be sufficient alone to compromise trade secrets, the information contained in these reporti ng elements is highly confidential because it could be used to determine the quantities and contents of al l manufacturing streams. Since §98.126 (a)(3) is si mply the product of §§98.126 (c)(1) and (2), reporting a ny two elements will allow for the third to be calculated. Although EPA has deferred the reporting of §§98.126 (c)(1) and (2) because it considers it "inputs to emission equations,"3M has concerns with the information required in §98.126(a)(3). They ar e similar to those expressed previously for §98.126(a ) with the additional concern that reporting emissi ons by "process vent" has the potential to provide even more detail than emissions by process. The example s40

cited previously with respect to the CBI determinat ions made for 98.126 (a) would also pertain to this paragraph.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 20

Comment: §98.126(c)(4)— Mass of each F-GHG emitted from equipment leaks : EPA has proposed that this is emissions data and not CBI. However, this c ould result in the disclosure of CBI. Fugitive air emissions may be determined using various methods. Fugitive emissions are very low, with some methods predicting emissions that are less than 0.1 % of process emissions. Because this information is being reported by process and because all amounts a re reportable, the composition of the product or of an isolated intermediate can be determined from this i nformation. For an operation that involves the hand ling of the final product, the composition of the fugiti ve air emission stream could easily be identical to the product content, since fugitive emissions are assum ed to be reflective of the process fluid. EPA has considered this type of composition information CBI under Subpart OO and under §98.126(a)(6). Although EPA proposed that equipment leak informati on is not subject to CBI protection, when this same information is reported pursuant to §98.126(a)(6), “the chemical formula and total mass produced of th e fluorinated gas product in metric tons, by chemical and process,” EPA determined it is CBI. All of the above information on production outputs and F-GHGs from process vents and processes should be held confidential. Normally reports of process fugitive emissions are aggregated for an entire facility. In addition, this emissions information typically has been reported as part of a chemical group, i.e., VO Cs. Reporting this type of information by process in th e specificity required under Subpart L has not been required under air rules to date, and would likely result in the disclosure of CBI.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: §98.126(b)(7): EPA appropriately recognizes this e lement as CBI. The mass and chemical formula of each fluorine-containing product produce d by the process is confidential information. EPA h as recognized this in its determination under §98.126( a)(6) and in Subpart OO where production volume information is being treated universally as CBI.

Response: A discussion and response on the mass balance app roach has been provided in sections II.A and II.B of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Subpart L and has been provided in section II.C of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 22

Comment: §98.126(b)(4) and (5)-- Mass and chemical formula o f the F-GHG product emitted from the process, mass and chemical formula of the F-GHG by- product emitted from the process : EPA has proposed this is emission data and therefore not CB I; however, it is CBI. The information being report ed under these subsections may not have been placed in the public domain. As indica t ed earlier, emissions are not always associated with the manufacture of a specific product. More importantly, the data eleme nts in conjunction with reactant inputs and other outpu ts will provide one of the elements that is necessa ry to41

determine the process yield. It provides informatio n on manufacturing formulas and process yields that could be used by a competitor to try to duplicate t he manufacturing process. The mass and composition of the process inputs and outputs could also be used t o determine the presence and elemental composition of proprietary chemicals. It is not public information

. Response: A discussion and response to this comment on the mass balance approach has been provided in sections II.A and II.B of the 2013 Proposed Amen dments to Subpart L and has been provided in section II.C of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 23

Comment: §98.126(b)(3) and (4)—Mass and chemical formula of each F-GHG reactant emitted from the
process: EPA has proposed that this is emission data and not CBI; however, this information is CBI. Because the balanced chemical equation is public in formation, the mass of each reactant fed into the production process would provide competitors inform ation on specific production quantities and process yields. This information is not in the public domai n. The mass and composition of the process inputs a nd outputs could also be used to determine the presenc e and elemental composition of proprietary chemical s. It is confidential information alone; in combinatio n with the addition of the mass of product produced (§98.126(b)(7)), the mass of product emitted (§98.1 26(b)(4), and mass of each byproduct emitted (§98.126(b)(5)), all of this would provide competit ors a detailed understanding of the manufacturing process at a particular Subpart L facility. Because some Subpart L facilities have invested substantia l R&D in the millions of dollars and over 60 years of experience in developing unique process characteristics, the mass of reactants could be hig hly confidential information. For some facilities, the basic chemical equations for a process may have bee n placed in the public sector. However for other facilities, this type of detailed information would provide competitors with information on specific production quantities and process yields, and creat e substantial harm to the competitive position.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on the mass balance approach has been provided in sections II.A and II.B of the 2013 Proposed Amen dments to Subpart L and has been provided in section II.C of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 24

Comment: § 98.126(a)(6)— Total production mass of each fluorinated gas produ ct, by chemical and process (metric tons); chemical formula of each flu orinated gas product, by chemical and process. EPA has proposed that this information is CBI. 3M suppo rts this determination. This is consistent with tho se determinations made for the same information that i s being reported under Subpart OO although this same information, i.e., production volume, would not be considered CBI unde r Section 98.126(a)(2)(i) as mass of each F-GHG emitted from each process (becau se the fluorinated gas is, in fact, the “fluorinate d gas product”). In addition, EPA’s determination tha t the “chemical formula of each fluorinated gas product” is CBI is inconsistent with EPA’s determin ation (above) that “chemical identities of contents of the emission stream” is not CBI — they can amount to the same information when the emission stream is in fact the gas product, especially if this informa tion is being reported by process vent

. Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 2542

Comment: Although EPA is proposing that chemical identities of contents of process and destroyed streams, by process, are CBI, EPA is proposing that chemical identities of the contents of emission streams, by process, are not CBI. EPA Table A-1, p. 6, reporting section 98.126(a)(3). EPA is characterizing this information as emission data an d therefore not CBI. However, the same analysis tha t EPA uses above to conclude that “location and funct ion” of the process are CBI, and the chemical identities of contents of process and destroyed str eams are CBI, also applies to the chemical identiti es of the contents of emission streams, for many of the 3 M processes at facilities subject to Subpart L. The information on chemical identities, by process, can reveal information on the chemistries that 3M employs at various steps in its manufacturing proce sses. The chemical identities involve trade secret information. In addition, the information by process could provide insight into the manufacturing proces s and facility configuration, such as which intermedi ate process equipment is sending streams to which intermediate or final process equipment. . . .

§ 98.126(a)(3)— Chemical identities of the contents of the emission stream analyzed under the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG, by process : The confidential nature of this element is discus sed above. This request for chemical identities has the potential to provide chemical-specific information , by process, on how the manufacturing process is config ured and on chemical formulas in the manufacturing process. EPA has conceded that this type of informa tion is CBI when it involves chemical identities of process streams and destroyed streams under Subpart L—this is the same type of trade secret informatio n. We would point out that this determination unfairly targets those facilities or processes where a repo rter decided to measure vent gas composition for scoping analysis and that EPA’s proposed CBI determinations were made after reporters had alread y made these decisions. This is the information tha t EPA is requesting by March 31, 2012, and therefore 3M asks for an extension on submission of this unti l the CBI issue is resolved. Some of this information will also be subject to export control laws. 3M as ks that EPA consider this information as a static unit /process operational characteristic as opposed to “emission data,” given that it is baseline informat ion that is not provided along with reported emissi on amounts. EPA has considered similar information for facilities subject to Subpart I as non-emission da ta, including disclosure of the “recipes” (e.g., specif ic combination of gases used to fabricate a specifi c feature on a film or substrate), process sub-type, or type associated with each abatement system for specific process steps, because EPA recognized that it would provide insight into how the reporting facility is configured and achieves its specific ma nufacturing performance. EPA could use the same typ e of rationale for this “chemical identity” informati on.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L. A discussion and response to this comment on reporting for the scoping speciation has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Subpart L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 26

Comment: Sections 98.126(a)(2)(i)-(iv)-- Total mass of each F-GHG emitted from each fluorina ted gas production process (metric tons), and from all fluo rinated gas production processes combined; total ma ss of F-GHG emitted from certain fluorinated gas trans formation processes; mass of F-GHG emitted from venting of residual F-GHGs from containers returned from the field :
EPA has proposed that this information is not CBI, but reportable as emission data. 3M disagrees and contends that this should be held as CBI. Reporting emissions for specific processes would result in t he availability of process specific information that h as not been placed in the public domain. This is CB I data, and the release of this data has the potentia l to provide road-maps for the process and how it i s43

configured. This will reveal trade secret informati on on the number of process steps. Appendix A to th ese comments includes a diagram showing how emissions f rom a packaging process can provide competitors information on the amount of product manufactured. Facilities exercise great care protecting all of th is technology-sensitive information and production vol umes. The emissions information that is reported under §98.126(a)(2)(i), combined with the “mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted from each process vent (metric tons)” being reported under §98.126 (c )(3), will in many cases provide sensitive trade se cret information. The chemical composition of the produc t can be determined from the emissions stream.

Subpart L reporting is unique from other environmen tal reporting in that the emissions from the proces s may contain the product or byproducts of a reaction . The emissions are the same as the fluorinated gas product produced by the facility. In other cases, e missions may indicate the presence of unique chemic als. See Appendix B to these comments, which is a non-CB I diagram showing how emissions from a specific process can give insights into trade secret informa tion on chemical inputs and reactants. Although it is a hypothetical example, it illustrates the point that disclosure of emissions by process or operating un it as opposed to disclosure of facility-wide emissions is what allows a competitor to determine the CBI associated with a particular product or intermediat e. Accordingly, this type of information requested in this element of Subpart L may be unique and can rev eal novel production methods. It is similar to the unique process data reflecting novel production met hods that EPA determined was CBI for purposes of Subpart I. It is very different from the emissions information EPA reviewed for purposes of Subpart I and found it was not CBI because it was not unique: all of the facilities there used the same type of proc ess gases typically found in the effluent streams. For purposes of 3M air permit applications or air emiss ion reporting to date, these emission constituents have been reported as Total Organic Carbon or a Volatil e Organic Compound, and therefore the specific chemic al identities have not been revealed as public information. Many of the Maximum Achievable Control Technologies rules require detailed emissions information in semi-annual reporting, but in almost all cases the emissions are Hazardous Air Pollutan t which may be used as a processing aid, e.g. cleanin g solvents, but the process emissions are not the product of the process.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L. With respect to container heel venting, a discussion and response to this document has been provided in section II.B of the F inal Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 29

Comment: Based on EPA’s CBI determinations and the methods that are used to determine fluorinated greenhouse gas (F-GHG) emissions, the information b eing reported in §98.126 would provide detailed information on a fluorinated gas manufacturing faci lity. Unlike many other source categories where reported emissions will be limited to carbon dioxid e alone, Subpart L data will be chemical specific. Subpart L covers “fluorinated gas production,” and because EPA is asking for the chemical identities i n emissions from each discrete process in a Subpart L facility, rather than from the facil ity as a whole, EPA in essence is asking for information that will reve al to competitors the trade secret manufacturing pr ocess and chemical recipe for how to make the product (th e fluorinated gas), process step by process step. T his will include data on product chemical compositions (also required under Subpart OO but there treated a s CBI). It will reveal to competitors trade secret in formation on the number of process steps involved i n making a fluorinated gas product. In addition, repo rts on emissions of the fluorinated gas will be the equivalent of trade secret information on the amoun t of the fluorinated gas product produced, which EP A has determined is CBI under Subpart OO, and the amo unts of all isolated intermediates.44

Competitors may well be able to use all of this det ailed information to determine how the manufacturin g facility is configured, and to determine novel manu facturing methods developed by 3M at great expense and over 60 years of research and development exper ience. It could allow them to reverse engineer products, some of which are currently manufactured by 3M alone. Once they have reverse engineered the products, it would allow them insight into capacity and capacity utilization, which are important to assessing competitive positions and pricing, potent ially allowing them to take advantage of this information.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 30

Comment: EPA’s recent proposed confidentiality determinatio ns for Subpart I of the MRR provide confidentiality justifications that apply to the in formation EPA is requesting from 3M under Subpart L

. See “Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule: Confidentiality Determinations and Best Available Monitoring Methods Provisions,” 77 FR 10434 (Feb. 2 2, 2012). In that proposed rule, EPA proposed that a description of manufacturing processes used at an electronics manufacturing facility would be CBI, because EPA recognized that facilities might employ an uncommon process, which could cover novel production methods that may have been developed by the reporting facility, generally at great expense and time investment. If competitors gained knowledg e of this type of exclusive method, they could undercut the facility’s competitive advantage by re plicating it at less expense. EPA acknowledged that this “would likely result in substantial competitiv e harm.” 77 FR at 10439. EPA also recognized that t he number of abatement systems at an electronics manuf acturing facility was CBI because it could provide insight into the number of tools at the facility, w hich coupled with production capacity could enable competitors to reverse-engineer the facility’s appr oximate manufacturing costs using the competitor’s own tool operating costs. Id. at 10440. Similarly, EPA recognized that disclosure of the type or description of manufacturing tools for specific pro cess steps was CBI because it would provide insight into how a Subpart I facility is configured and how it achieves its specific manufacturing performance . Id. at 10441. EPA also proposed that the disclosure of the recipes (e.g., specific combination of gases us ed to fabricate a specific feature on a film or substrate ), process sub-type, or type associated with each abatement system for specific process steps would p rovide insight into how the reporting facility is configured and achieves its specific manufacturing performance. Competitors could use this to replicat e the manufacturing configuration and undercut the re porting facility’s competitive advantage. Id. at 10 441.

All of the above types of CBI are implicated by EPA ’s proposed Subpart L disclosure requirements. EPA’s requests for information on emissions, which can be the same as the fluorinated gas products (or intermediates leading to the production of these pr oducts), by discrete process and for each process w ithin the facility, would reveal trade secret information on 3M’s novel production methods, on 3M’s unique configurations and the number of processes and proc ess steps used to produce a product, and on the unique intermediate chemistries leading up to produ ction of fluorinated gas products. As EPA recognize d for Subpart I facilities, this could give competito rs the ability to replicate these processes and manufacturing configurations at significantly less expense, resulting in substantial harm to 3M.

In Subpart I, EPA determined that the “fluorinated GHG and N 2 O in the effluent stream to the abatement system” was not CBI because “[t]he type of fluorina ted gas in the effluent stream would not likely cau se substantial competitive harm if released, because a ll facilities use the same types of process gases t hat are typically found in effluent streams. The type of ga s does not provide any insight into the costs of producing semiconductors at the facility or any nov el production methods that may have been developed45

by the facility to improve manufacturing efficienci es, reduce manufacturing costs, or improve product performance.” Id. at 10444. By contrast, however, t he type of fluorinated gases in effluent streams su bject to Subpart L for some 3M products would in fact rev eal novel production methods developed by 3M at great expense and over many years of research and d evelopment, to improve manufacturing efficiencies and improve product performance. This information s hould be held as CBI by EPA because it would cause substantial competitive harm if released.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.



### 3.4 Comments on the Inputs to Emission Equations Da ta Category and the Definition of Emissions Data – Subpart L Commenter Name: Bredan Mascarenhas, Manager of Regulatory and Tec hnical Affairs Commenter Affiliation: American Chemistry Council (ACC) Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0017 Comment Excerpt Number: 7

Comment: The effectiveness of the Reporting Program could b e enhanced with a simple language clarification in the text of the proposal. Specific ally, in the Memorandum A matrix, the reporting § 98.126(c)(1) for Subpart L is identified as “the id entity of the process activity used to estimate emi ssions (e.g. tons of product or tons of reactant consumed) .” This data is correctly determined to be “emissio n data” and available to the public in the matrix. Ho wever, the corresponding text in the proposal (Sect ion 1, Fluorinated Gas Production), which should merely restate the matrix determinations, lists the data element as “the identity and quantity of the proces s activity used to estimate emissions...”, [Footnote: 77 Fed. Reg. 1442, January 10, 2012] which the rule st ates is available to the public. While the identity of the process activity is “emissions data”, the quantity of the process activity should be treated as CBI. I n fact, the Agency’s August 2011 Inputs to Emission Equatio ns deferral correctly identifies the quantity porti on of this requirement as subject to the reporting def erral of March 2015 [Footnote: 76 Fed. Reg. 53057, August 25, 2011]. In order to avoid any potential c onfusion, ACC suggests that EPA separate the paragraphs in the text of the rule. For example, th e section that announces the determination for emis sions data available to the public should list only the i dentity of the process activity, just as the matrix in Memorandum A does. A separate section could mention that the quantity is subject to EPA’s Inputs to Emission Equations deferral deadline of March 31, 2 015. This solution presents a relatively simple fix that would significantly reduce confusion about rep orting requirements under the proposal. More importantly, it would allow for the full considerat ion of sensitive data elements that contain CBI.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 8

Comment: The Clean Air Act, EPA’s regulations, and the 199 1 EPA notice support a narrow interpretation of “emissions data” for purposes of Part 98.

The purpose of Section 114, in pertinent part, is t o allow EPA to require a party to provide informati on to assist the Agency in developing or implementing an implementation plan under Section 110, emission standards under Sections 111 or 112, etc., or to de termine if a person is in violation of those standa rds or46

implementation plan. It is not the purpose of Secti on 114 for EPA to require the submittal of volumino us amounts of data, including CBI, so that EPA can rel ease all of that data to the public in a misguided effort to be “transparent”.

Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that “[a]ny reco rds, reports, or information obtained under [CAA section 114(a)] shall be available to the public, e xcept that upon a showing satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that records, reports, or information, or particular part thereof, (other than emission data) * * * if made public, would divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trad e secrets * * *, the Administrator shall consider suc h record, report, or information or particular port ion thereof confidential * * *.”

Congress clearly understood and recognized in Secti on 114(c) the importance of protecting trade secret information, specifically stating that methods and processes can be claimed confidential. EPA has correctly interpreted Section 114(c) of the CAA “to afford confidential treatment to both trade secret s and confidential business information.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39100. Only “emission data” collected by the Agenc y under Section 114(a) is an exception to the ability to claim information as trade secret.

EPA defines “emission data” at 40 CFR Section 2.301 (a)(2)(i) as:

(A) Information necessary to determine the identity , amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quali ty) of any emission which has been emitted by the s ource (or of any pollutant resulting from any emission by the source), or any combination of the foregoing;

(B) Information necessary to determine the identity , amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics (to the extent related to air quali ty) of the emissions, which, under an applicable st andard or limitation, the source was authorized to emit (i ncluding, to the extent necessary for such purposes , a description of the manner or rate of operation of t he source); and,

(C) A general description of the location and/or na ture of the source to the extent necessary to ident ify the source and to distinguish it from other sources (in cluding, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a description of the device, installation, or operati on constituting the source).

EPA last clarified the type of information that EPA generally considers being “emission data”, and whi ch cannot qualify as confidential under either Section 114(c) or Section 110, in a notice published almos t twenty years ago. In a February 21, 1991 Federal Re gister notice (56 Fed. Reg. 7042), EPA listed the specific data fields that it considered to be emiss ion data. EPA first identified the data fields rela ted to facility identification, which we do not address in these comments. EPA then listed the data fields ne eded to establish the characteristics of the emissions o r “emission parameters”:

• Emission type (e.g., nature of emissions such as CO 2)

• Emission rate (e.g., amount released to the atmosph ere over time)

• Release height

• Description of terrain and surrounding structures

• Stack or vent diameter at point of emissions

• Release velocity

• Release temperature

• Frequency of release

• Duration of release

• Concentration

• Density of the emissions stream or average molecula r weight47

• Boiler or process design capacity

• Emission estimation method

• Percent space heat

• Hourly maximum design rate

At the end of the Federal Register notice, EPA note d that “after consideration of comments on this pol icy, a revised policy/determination may be published.” W e have been unable to locate the comments submitted on this notice (they are not available el ectronically and could not be located at EPA) to in form ourselves of the issues raised by commenters for EP A’s consideration. However, it does not appear any revised policy determination has ever been publishe d.

Contrary to EPA’s instincts to expand its interpret ation, ACC believes that the language of CAA

Section 114(c), as well as federal case law interpr eting that language and the federal regulations, su pport a more narrow reading of “emission data”, especially when applied to the unprecedented and voluminous amounts of information EPA is requiring to be submi tted under Part 98.

Moreover, we question the basis for the 1991 Federa l Register proposed policy that the “emission rate”
, “hourly maximum design rate”, and “boiler or proces s design capacity” should be considered “emission data”. These pieces of information can be trade sec rets, because they can show the amount of productio n or capacity by a source. Additionally, the submitta l of this data is not necessary for a source to com ply with Part 98’s reporting of GHG emissions, and the information is not necessary to determine actual emissions or facility identity. If EPA determines t his data must be submitted pursuant to Part 98, it should be identified as CBI and protected from public disc losure.

B. Case law supports a narrow interpretation of “em ission data”.

We believe that Section 114(c) and case law reviewi ng EPA’s regulations implementing that section show that Congress tried to strike a balance between the public’s right to access records, reports or other information obtained by EPA pursuant to Section 114 (a) and a person’s right to protect certain records
, reports or other information from public disclosure because it is CBI. In

RSR Corp. v. EPA , 588 F. Supp. 1251 (N.D. Tex. 1984) the federal di strict court took a careful look at CAA Section 114(c) and the definition of “emission data” in 40 CFR Section

2.301(a)(2)(1). The court emphasized the “necessary to determine” portion of Section 2.301(a)(2)(i) in quoting the definition, as follows:

“(A) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration or o ther characteristics . . . of any emission . . .;

(B) Information necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other characteristics . . . of the emissions . . .; and

(C) A general description of the location and/or na ture of the source to the extent necessary to identify the source and distinguish it from other sources . . . .”

588 F. Supp. 1251, 1255 (emphasis in the original). In RSR Corp., EPA had claimed that certain documents were disclosable “emission data” because they were necessary to determine emissions through48

a material balance calculation. The court concluded that EPA’s decision was arbitrary and capricious ( and therefore improper) because EPA did not provide any information that EPA considered alternative methods of identifying or measuring pollutants, “so that the release of information claimed to be proprietary could be avoided unless required by sta tute.” 588 F. Supp. at 1256.

The court emphasized the word “necessary” in 40 CFR Section 2.301(a)(2)(i). According to the court, only if certain information is really “necessary” t o determine emissions should it be considered “emis sion data”, and the Agency should consider alternative m ethods of identifying information to determine emissions, so that confidential information is not compromised. See NRDC v. Leavitt, 2006 WL 667327 (D. D.C. 2006) (citing RSR and adopting a strict interpretation of the “necess ary to determine” requirement).

Of the voluminous amounts of information that EPA i s requesting in Part 98, very little rises to the l evel of information “ necessary to determine” actual emissions or facility identity . First, unlike the situation with most EPA air emission rules, Part 98 merely re quires the reporting of GHG emissions, not compliance with an emission limit or standard. EPA has neither proposed nor established emission limit s or standards for GHGs. Accordingly, much of the dat a that EPA is requiring facilities to submit to the Agency is not “necessary” pursuant to 40 CFR Sectio n 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) and (C). Nonetheless, EPA is requiring a facility to submit this additional info rmation, rather than allowing the information to re main onsite and subject to request or review by the Agen cy as needed. Because this information is not “emission data” and is sensitive information relate d to chemical manufacturing and production, it is entitled to confidential treatment because disclosu re is likely to cause substantial harm to the compe titive position of the facilities required to report this information.

We agree with EPA’s conclusion that because there a re no established GHG emission standards or limitations for the facilities subject to Part 98, Section 2.301(a)(2)(i)(B) does not apply. 75 Fed. R eg. at 39100. Similarly, because there are no proposed or existing standards or limitations, we believe that the provisions in Section 2.301(a)(2)(ii) do not apply.

For the purpose of the MRR, Section 114 of the CAA, EPA’s regulations and the case law all support a narrow reading of “emission data” that safeguards c ompany trade secret information to the extent possible.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.

Comment Excerpt Number: 21

Comment: In EPA’s previous communications, 3M as a member c ompany of ACC has been led to understand that the purpose of these broad requests for detailed process information were intended to provide the basis for future policy and rule develo pment and not to “verify reported GHG emissions.” Much of [the] data being reported by EPA, however, would do little in verifying emission estimates. Fo r example under §98.126(c), the quantity of the activ ity measurement ((c)(1)) is used to convert the pro cess vent specific emission factor ((c)(2)), into the ma ss of each fluorinated GHG emitted ((c)(3)). Based on the language in the request for comments, the purpo se of reporting both the production quantity and th e emission factor is presumed to allow EPA to verify that the mass reported in (c)(3) is correct. This i s a simple multiplication and there is little value in reporting this information. It is unlikely that any errors or omissions will occur at this step in the emission c alculation process. True “verification” of the emis sion factor could only occur by an evaluation of the det ailed engineering calculations or emission testing49

results that that [sic] serve as the basis of the e mission factor. We would also point out that the pr oduction quantity being reported under these sections may be identical to the values being reported under Subpa rt OO where EPA has provided broad CBI protections.

Response: EPA’s definition of “emission data” at 40 C.F.R. 2.301(a)(2)(i) and our use of this concept in our categorical CBI determinations were discussed i n the final rule entitled “Confidentiality Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandator y Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain Infor mation Obtained Under the Clean Air Act”, published on May 26, 2011 (76 FR 30782) and in the final rule entitled “Final Confidentiality Determinations for Regulations Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule”, published August 13, 2012 (77 FR 48072).



### 3.5 Comments on the Notice Development Process – Su bpart L Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regul atory Affairs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018 Comment Excerpt Number: 2

Comment: Some of the information requested by EPA and cover ed by EPA’s confidentiality determinations under this proposed rule are scoping analyses that would need to be reported by 3M by March 31, 2012. EPA’s proposed rule on confidential ity will not be finalized by that date. Much of thi s requested information would be CBI for 3M, and 3M d oes not believe its trade secrets would be adequately protected if it submits this information without certainty in the rules on whether EPA will protect it. Moreover, 3M is prohibited from making certain information available under export control laws. Accordingly, 3M asks that EPA grant an extens ion of the time period for reporting this informati on until the CBI and export control issues are resolve d.

Response: EPA addressed the reporting deadline for subpart L by allowing subpart L facilities to report GHG emission in a more aggregated manner for RY 201 2 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendme nts to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Ele ments of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477).

Comment Excerpt Number: 10

Comment: 3M recognizes that EPA was under tight Congression al deadlines to propose and finalize a MRR for GHG emissions. We acknowledge and appreciat e all the work that has gone into the MRRrelated rulemakings to date. However, we are frustr ated with the way EPA chose to sequence its proposa l, i.e., EPA issued this CBI proposal after it finaliz ed the main MRR and the Subpart L reporting rule. A t the time EPA proposed the MRR requirements, we had no idea how EPA would handle CBI. Nonetheless, comments by ACC on proposed Subpart L in June of 2010 as well as 3M’s and ACC’s comments in June of 2009 communicated the initial C BI concerns based on the unprecedented and substantial amount of data EPA proposed to be requi red for submittal to the Agency. Specifically, in 3M’s June 2009 comments 3M noted that EPA was askin g for reporting of highly confidential information, and asked that EPA provide guidance in the reporting rule as to whether EPA planned to hold this information as CBI. In ACC’s comments sub mitted in June of 2010, ACC noted that it was very concerned about the required submission of CBI and that it jeopardized member companies’ international competitiveness, in that it details how ACC member companies manufacture fluorinated GHGs. At the50

time, ACC urged EPA to release its CBI proposals as soon as possible so that companies could evaluate and gauge the protectiveness of EPA’s proposed hand ling procedures.

Without knowing what the final rule would require o r how EPA would protect data and information we believe is CBI, 3M and other companies were unable to consider, let alone propose specific alternative s to the submittal of all of that data and information. For example, in lieu of reporting sensitive data su ch as process-specific information that could expose trad e secrets to the public, we might have found it preferable to agree to third-party audits. But we d id not know then what we know now and as such have been disadvantaged by EPA’s finalization of the MRR and in specific, Subpart L, before EPA’s proposal on CBI.

Response: EPA addressed the reporting deadline for subpart L by allowing subpart L facilities to report GHG emission in a more aggregated manner for RY 201 2 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendme nts to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Ele ments of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477).



### 3.6 Unit-Level Data should be Confidential – Subpar t L Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regul atory Affairs Commenter Affiliation: 3M Company Document Control Number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0028-0018 Comment Excerpt Number: 13

Comment: EPA’s Demands for Process-Specific Emissi ons Information Goes Beyond its Authorization Under the Law

EPA’s mandatory reporting rules were adopted pursua nt to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 . . . EPA’s authorization in this Act i s limited to requiring reporting of greenhouse gas emissions “above appropriate thresholds.”

In the mandatory reporting rule that EPA eventually adopted, this threshold was set by facility at a c ertain number of metric tons of emissions per year. It is implicit in the law and in the rules adopted by EPA that reporting should be at the facility-wide level and for large levels, not at the level of individual pr ocesses within the facility. 3M contends that EPA has gone beyond its authorization in the law if it requires reporting of emissions by individual processes with in a facility. From the beginning of the rulemaking process, 3M has encouraged EPA to adopt the alterna tive approach of requiring reporting for the facili ty as a whole in CO 2 equivalents as is done under other reporting rules , including those related to greenhouse gas reporting. Where published GWP data is not available, 3M has estimated these values based on sound science and EPA could use similar ap proaches especially where these emissions would be very low.

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on leve l of reporting detail has been provided in section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Sub part L, and in section II.B of the Final Amendments to Subpart L.51



## 4 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Subpar L Rule Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Subpart L Rule L Rule

On November 19, 2013, the U. S. Environmental Prote ction Agency (EPA) proposed amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Rule for Fluorinated Gas Production (40 CFR part 98, subpart L). Public comments on EPA’s prop osed changes were requested when the proposal was published in the Federal Register, and the public c omment period lasted from November 19, 2014 to February 20, 2014. Comments were received from 5 s ources, including fluorinated gas producers, industry trade associations, environmental groups, and other interested parties. These letters have b een place in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0927). Table 1 lists the names of the persons submitting comments, their affiliati ons, and the recorded docket item number assigned t o their correspondence (i.e., the four digits added t o the end of the Docket No.).
All of the comments submitted by these 5 sources, a nd EPA’s responses to the comments, are summarized in this document or the preamble to the final amendments. The summary and EPA’s responses form part of the basis for the revisions made to the rule requirements between proposal and promulgation.
Table 1. List of Commenters on the Proposed Amendm ents to 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart L

Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009- 0927- Commenter and Affiliation

0300 L. Gershman, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
0302 M. Roberts and A. Mahapatra, Environmental Inv estigation Agency (EIA)
0303 (duplicate 0306) R. Reich, DuPont Company
0304 L. Gershman, American Chemistry Council (ACC)
0305 D. Schnobrich, 3M

0307 R. Weiss, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Univ ersity of California

San Diego52



### 4.1 – Overall Proposal to Establish Aggregate Repor ting Comment: Three commenters (DuPont, ACC, 3M) supported the proposed approach to establish aggregate reporting to address disclosure concerns. One commenter (ACC) strongly supported EPA’s proposal to replace the requirement to report chemi cal-specific emissions at the process level with a reporting requirement that uses some level of aggre gation of compounds (i.e., combines two levels of reporting).
Commenters ACC and DuPont supported the idea of gro uping F GHGs. Commenter DuPont agreed that reporting F GHG emissions in grouped classes of com pounds is an appropriate approach and will aid in CBI protection. Commenter 3M stated EPA’s proposed approach to address CBI concerns is acceptable, with limited exceptions.
One commenter objected to aggregate reporting. Com menter EIA stated the current proposal to require less information and generic, melded information—in stead of process-specific and/or chemical specific information—will undermine EPA’s mission to protect the health and safety of the American public and the environment and the public’s ability to monitor the use of HFCs nationwide.
Commenter EIA believed EPA’s proposal will material ly reduce the amount and quality of information available to inform future policy. Commenter EIA s tated that certain facilities that meet specified c riteria could report their fluorinated GHG emissions in a l ess detailed manner depending such as whether the facility is producing a unique product. The commen ter indicated the proposal will require significant ly fewer facilities to submit data compared to the ori ginal rule.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.2 – Rule Mechanism to Request Confidentiality/Exp ort Control Exemption in the Future Comment: With respect to potential conflicts with export c ontrol requirements, Commenter (3M) stated that EPA’s proposal addressed concerns previously r aised in comments. Commenters ACC and 3M noted that in future reporting years, facilities would be obligated to comply with export control requiremen ts in the event that any portion reported was subject to those regulations. Commenters ACC and 3M requested that EPA provide a mechanism within subpart L (ACC mentioned a “CBI petition process”) to provide for this possibility (e.g., exemptions for export c ontrol information, other CBI issues that were not reasonably understood at rule promulgation).
Response: See section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final r ule for a response to the comments.

Comment : Commenter EIA stated that in order to protect in dustry concerns about reporting export control information, EPA should consider alternativ e reporting mechanisms that would report facilitywide information in CO2e in the same or similar man ner to information reported for subpart O [likely referring to subpart OO]. The commenter indicated that for any process-specific emissions information required, any export control technology information should be determined to be CBI for FOIA purposes, and EPA should implement whatever additional restri ctions are necessary to comply with export control regulations.
Response: See section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final r ule for a response to the comments.53



### 4.3 – Chemical-specific Reporting at the Facility Le vel Comment: Commenters DuPont, ACC, 3M noted that chemical-sp ecific reporting at the facility level is acceptable with proposed threshold [i.e., site-wide emissions of that F GHG are greater than 1,000 mtCO2/yr].
Commenter Scripps indicated that chemical-specific reporting at the facility level is adequate to info rm efforts to reconcile bottom-up emission estimates w ith top-down atmospheric measurements. Commenter Scripps stated it is critical for regulators to app reciate that the uncertainties in “bottom-up” emiss ions inventory reporting when compared to “top-down” ass essments of emissions based on direct atmospheric measurements can be very large. Commenter Scripps noted that because atmospheric measurements are made by specific compound, identifying and resolvin g the bottom-up vs. top-down reporting discrepancies can only be done if “bottom-up” repor ting is also by specific compound. Commenter Scripps noted that specific compound reporting is m ost important at the facility level, not at the pro cess level. Commenter Scripps stated that reporting spe cific compounds at the facility level should protec t industry’s need to protect trade secrets while also supporting verifiable emissions reporting.
Commenter Scripps provided two articles in their co mments, as follows:

• Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up , by E. Nisbet and R. Weiss, which noted that the a tmospheric measurement data [for compound-specific GHGs] sugge st that the actual emissions of industrial GHGs are often greater than reported.

• Quantifying greenhouse-gas emissions from atmospher ic measurements: a critical reality check for climate legislation , by R. Weiss and R. Prinn, which elaborated on the necessity of resolving the discrepancies between “bottom-up” and “top-down ” emissions reporting. (Scripps)

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments.



### 4.4 – Emissions Threshold Comment: Commenters (DuPont, ACC) agreed with reporting F GHG emissions by chemical when emissions of that F GHG exceed 1,000 mtCO2e for the facility as a whole. Commenter DuPont agreed with reporting emissions that do not exceed 1,000 m tCO2e at the facility level by F GHG group.
Commenter EIA disagreed with the idea of reporting by F GHG group at the facility level, for the chemical-specific threshold for emissions that exce ed 1,000 mtCO2e, where emissions less than 1,000 mtCO2e would be reported only by group at the facil ity level. Commenter EIA stated the change to reporting by F GHG group undermines EPA’s ability t o collect data on emissions from irregular sources such as venting and leaks. Commenter EIA urged EPA to maintain the original reporting requirement [by F GHG for each process and process vent] and not to adopt any of the other options suggested.
Commenter EIA stated EPA provided no basis for the 1,000 mtCO2e threshold. Commenter EIA stated facilities that would like to protect disclosure of confidential catalysts or additives should provide an argument based on actual production practices that justify such a high threshold, and noted that a threshold of 100 mtCO2e may be protective.
Commenter EIA agreed that the threshold be in CO2e.
Commenter Scripps suggested that an individual fluo rinated GHG (compound-specific) threshold in CO2e, below which emissions would not have to be re ported, be set as a percentage of total national emissions of that compound, in order to assist with verification. Commenter Scripps suggested a range of approximately 0.1% of national production or emissi on of each compound per facility as a starting plac e.54

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments on the emissions threshold and the setting of the threshol d based on nationwide or facility level emissions f or individual fluorinated GHG.
With the 1000 mtCO2e threshold, EPA would still gat her emissions data in CO2e for process vents and equipment leaks if those were below 1000 mtCO2e, an d EPA would gather emissions data by chemical if those were above 1000 mtCO2e for irregular emission s. With respect to the comments that a threshold be se t for each fluorinated GHG, on a compound –specific basis, based on nationwide production levels, it is important to note that disclosure concerns often e xist for production levels of individual fluorinated GHG that are final products. In addition, many fluori nated GHG compounds are emitted as reactants or byproduct s rather than products, so this approach would not work for them. 

### 4.5 – Facility Making One Product Comment: Commenters (DuPont, ACC) agreed that a facility pro ducing only one fluorinated gas report emissions only by fluorinated GHG group, unless the emissions consist of a major fluorinated GHG constituent of the fluorinated GHG product and that product is sold or transferred to another facility (ACC).
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.6 – Effective Destruction Efficiency Comment: Commenter ACC stated the proposed ranges for [eff ective] reporting destruction efficiency are sufficient for the purposes of the GHGRP. Comm enter ACC did, however, question whether that information will be more useful to EPA than simply requiring yes/no that each process is controlled. Commenter ACC indicated that destruction efficienci es alone are not indicative of the effectiveness of a control device.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments.

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that reporting the effective DE for processes >10,000 mtCO2e will greatly benefit the reporting program effectiveness and enhance data reliability. Commenter EIA noted that the operation of destruction technology is a k ey element of best practices. Commenter EIA stated DD downtime cannot be considered CBI and should be disclosed. The commenter stated there is no significant burden for facilities to report both th e DE and the downtime. The commenter suggested tha t facilities also report whether they have in-line de struction equipment or they collect and transport H FCs [fluorinated GHGs] to a central destruction facilit y. Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.7 – Reporting Container Heels Comment: Commenter 3M believed that these chemical specifi c emissions in 98.126(a)(6) should be reported as part of the facility-wide totals requir ed in 98.122(d). The commenter indicated it is not clear whether chemical-specific emissions reported under 98.12[6](d)(6)(ii) would impact the confidentiality issues that EPA is addressing for subpart OO. The commenter noted that container heel venting for materials “returned from the field” would provide i nformation on a specific product that may be CBI under subpart OO.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments.55



### 4.8 – Use of Chemical-specific, Peer-Reviewed GWPs in Table A-1 vs. Default GWPs Comment: Commenters ACC, 3M indicated EPA should continue it s acceptance of peer-reviewed scientific determinations for GWPs for fluorinated GHGs where there is a significant difference in CO2 e emissions through the use of grouping. Commenter 3M supported expeditious updates of Table A-1 when adequate technical demonstrations support more spec ific values. Commenters ACC, 3M encouraged EPA to provide updates (Commenter 3M requested “expedit ious updates”) to Table A-1 when scientifically robust data (3M says “adequate technical demonstrat ions”) is/are provided.
Commenter EIA urged use of GWP values (for HFCs) es tablished by the IPCC or other internationally recognized scientific body. The commenter noted th at where GWPs have not been established, they support establishment of consistent default GWPs ra ther than allowing industry to calculate their own GWP. Commenter EIA strongly urged EPA to establish GWPs for commonly used HFCs without GWPs.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.9 – Removal of Option to Use “Best-Estimate” GWPs Comment: Commenter 3M continued to believe that the “best estimate” approach currently contained in the rule [98.126(j)(3)] as an interim reporting construct is the most appro priate method for determining GWPs when they are not listed in Table A-1. Howeve r, the commenter appreciated EPA’s need to provide a consistent method for all reporters and t he F-GHG groupings provided in Table L-1 are acceptable.

Commenter EIA supported the establishment of consis tent default GWPs and noted that the best-estimate GWP process setup in the temporary subpart L report ing changes 98.126(j)(3) led to doubts about the accuracy, reliability, and comparability of the dat a. Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.10 – Request for Clarification on Use of Table A-1 GWPs vs. Default GWP Values Comment: Commenter 3M stated it is their understanding tha t when Table A-1 contains a GWP for a F GHG, that value will be used to calculate and repor t emissions. The commenter stated that Table L-1 default values would only be used when Table A-1 va lues are not available. The commenter further note d that emissions for each fluorinated GHG group would include compounds whose GWPs could come from either table.
Response: See section II.A and II.B of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 

### 4.11 – Don’t Require Facilities to Perform Stack Tes ting if Vent Emissions Exceed 10,000 mtCO2e based on New Default GWPs. Comment : Commenters ACC, 3M stated it is their understand ing that the introduction of the new default GWPs would not impact threshold evaluations and tes ting that has already been conducted (e.g., preliminary engineering estimates, emission testing triggered by process vent thresholds, RSD calculations conducted to determine testing accurac y). With the revised GWPs, Commenter ACC noted it is possible that changes would occur in the calcula tions that are conducted under §98.123(c)(1) or (2) and that calculated emissions could increase above the 10,000 mtCO2e per year reporting threshold. Commenter 3M stated their understanding is that thi s would only be required for new processes or process changes. Commenter ACC requested that EPA clearly state that additional testing would not be required until some other process change required t his to be completed.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments.56



### 4.12 – 15 Percent Criterion Comment: Commenter 3M stated that in assessing the “15 per cent criteria” for different operating scenarios, the same group of GWP values would be us ed in making these comparisons. Commenter 3M stated the comparison should be made against the sa me GWP values.
Commenter ACC noted that 98.123(c)(3)(ii) requires testing for operating scenarios that differ by more than 15 percent from the ECF of the largest emittin g operating scenario and stated that in future assessments they assume the same GWP list would be used in old and new EFs for comparison.
Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.13 – Removal of Mass-Balance Approach Comment: Three commenters (EIA, DuPont, ACC) provided inpu t on removal of the mass-balance approach. Commenters agreed with (ACC) or have no comment on (DuPont) removal of the massbalance approach but requested that the mass-balanc e approach be included as an appendix to part 98 rather than referring back to the 2010 final rule F RN.
Commenter EIA stated that they understood removal o f the mass balance approach, given that few facilities have used it to date, and those who did have reported they no longer use.
Response: See section II.C of the preamble to the final rul e for a response to the comments. 

### 4.14 – Emission Testing and Reporting (Proposed Ame ndments to 98.124(c)(1)) Comment: Two commenters (DuPont, ACC) provided input on th e language change regarding the emission test to remove “that occurs in more than t race concentration” and to include fluorinated GHGs “identified in the initial scoping speciation or is otherwise known to occur in the vent stream.”
Commenters (DuPont, ACC) strongly recommended EPA r emove the phrase “or is otherwise known to occur in the vent stream” from 98.124(c)(1). Comme nter ACC stated the language change would require facilities to conduct all new scoping speciations a nd stack tests in order to identify miniscule quant ities of fluorinated GHGs that had previously been excluded from testing. Commenter ACC indicated facilities and laboratories would have to develop costly new p rotocols for these very small quantities of fluorin ated GHGs, and this expensive testing would reveal littl e, if any additional emissions information.
Commenter DuPont is concerned regarding this added language, when combined with the requirement in the same paragraph “if you do not detect a F GHG th at ... is otherwise known to occur in the vent stream
, assume that F GHG was emitted at one half the DL”. Commenter DuPont stated it is unreasonable to report compounds at half the DL for compounds that are “otherwise known to occur in the vent stream,” as concentrations may be well below the DL.
Commenter DuPont recommended maintaining the origin al phrase “that occurs in more than trace concentration” in 98.124(c)(1), and while redundant with 98.124(a), it confirms the requirement. Commenter ACC strongly opposed removing the exempti on of trace F GHG concentrations from the reporting and testing requirements.
Commenter DuPont noted that removing the exclusion language for trace concentrations will result in confusion by reporting facilities and agencies that inspect the facilities and will bring enforcement actions.57

Commenter DuPont noted it is unreasonable to expect a facility to conduct testing and possibly develop testing protocols for such compounds; testing will extremely expensive and complicated, as analytical laboratories do not have testing standards [calibra tion gases] for every F GHG that may be produced.

Commenter DuPont stated EPA has not demonstrated th e significance to emissions of trace concentrations of F GHGs that may be “otherwise kno wn to occur.” The commenter indicated the original trace concentration threshold of 0.1 perce nt was based on reasonable judgment that these compounds would have minor impact on the nationwide CO2e emissions.
Commenter DuPont requested that EPA clarify that t he text modifications to 98.124(c)(1) do not requir e retesting under 98.124(c), as facilities have alrea dy spent time and resources in performing first rou nd process vent testing and should not be penalized fo r a late change in language.
Response: Please see section II.D of the preamble to the fi nal rule for a response to the comments.

Comment: Commenter DuPont stated the change to emission fa ctor testing requirements related to trace concentration extends to the reporting requirement for past years, in that 98.126(k) requires submissi on of complete reporting year 2011, 2012, and 2013 GHG re ports.
Response: Please see section II.D of the preamble to the fi nal rule for a response to the comments.

Comment: Commenter EIA stated F gas producers should repor t by process the chemical identities of the contents of streams analyzed under the initial scoping speciation as well as the location and func tion of those streams.
Response: EPA has finalized requirements to continue requi ring records of the contents, location, and function of streams analyzed in the initial scoping speciation but has removed the requirement for facilities to report them. The details on the cont ent on stream could reveal fluorinated GHG reactant s and byproducts in the process and provide the process f ingerprint. EPA concluded that these data are not necessary for verifying the fluorinated GHG emissio ns data or to inform future GHG policy and
programs. 

### 4.15 – Proposed CBI Determinations Comment: Commenters DuPont, ACC find the proposed CBI dete rminations acceptable given other changes to the rule and the transition to reporting by F GHG groups (DuPont).
Response: See section III.B of the preamble to the final ru le for a response to the comments.



### 4.16 – Environmental Justice Comment: Commenter EIA stated that EPA’s environmental jus tice certification does not account for the disproportionate impact of climate change on lo w-income and minority populations. The commenter stated climate change impacts and extreme weather e vents have a greater impact on these populations.
Response: As is consistent with every rulemaking action fo r Part 98, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting, the subpart L reporting rule for Fluorin ated Gas Production is a rule addressing informatio n collection and reporting procedures and does not re quire controlling GHG emissions from facilities. 

### 4.17 – Aggregate Reporting is Unnecessary for the V ast Majority of HFCs Comment: Commenter EIA stated that for the GHGRP, “[t]he p urpose of the rule is to collect accurate and timely GHG data to inform future policy decisio ns.” Commenter EIA stated the bulk of proposed changes to the current subpart L defy this purpose by: (1) compromising accuracy of information reported; (2) reducing process level reporting in f avor of facility level reporting, combining emissio ns58

from multiple process lines; (3) combining HFCs by GWP, atmospheric lifetime, or other mechanism that eviscerates EPA’s ability to target specific HFCs f or reduction; and (4) reducing the amount, specific ity, and granularity of information available to inform future policy decisions. Commenter EIA stated that losing information on how much of what HFCs are emi tted at a particular stage in a given process compromises the ability to identify the most effici ent and effective ways to reduce HFC emissions in t he future, as well as the identity of the processes/fa cilities with largest potential for future reductio ns by specific HFC. Commenter EIA stated it will be impo ssible to determine industry best practice in leaka ge and venting control operations.
Commenter EIA cited section 114(c) of the CAA and a pparently believed that EPA had determined data elements it proposed to remove from the rule to be CBI. Commenter EIA stated that there are no “methods or processes entitled to protection as tra de secrets” in the production of commercial HFCs. The commenter stated that all HFCs in commercial produc tion were developed in the 1930s and 1940s, the methods of production are known throughout the indu stry and no evidence has been presented that justifies the restriction of disclosure of emission s from these commercial production facilities.
Commenter EIA stated the commercial production of c ommon HFCs cannot meet the criteria for “entitled to protection as trade secrets” and cannot be exemp ted from disclosure in contravention of CAA section 114(c). With respect to the FOIA, Commenter EIA st ated the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that exemptions are to be “narrowly construed,” how ever according to the commenter EPA is relying on a narrow construction of potential CBI concerns and t he unique case of one company/facility’s (3M) specialty chemical production. Commenter EIA state d EPA must balance CBI concerns against the need for transparency and public interest and meet the s tandards for exemptions from disclosure established by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The commenter stated EPA should create a narrow exc eption to reporting process steps only where companies can prove actual CBI concerns or export c ontrol concerns from this disclosure, which is high ly unlikely for commercial production of common HFCs.
The commenter asserted that the majority of GHG emi ssions are from commercial production of common HFCs where disclosure of accurate, actual emissions data would not disclose any confidential information.
Commenter EIA stated that protecting quantity of pr oduction is not a valid CBI concern and should not restrict the information on commercial HFC producti on made available to the public.
Commenter EIA said that one company/facility (3M) c laims to make specialty HFCs for particular uses, and the processes are not public and revealing the information related to this production could disclo se CBI. The commenter stated that if legally proven t o be confidential, trade secrets, and strategic mil itary importance, a narrow exemption should be drafted fo r this type of production performed by certain facilities or companies. The commenter stated the majority of GHG emissions are from commercial production of common HFCs where disclosure of accur ate, actual emissions data would not disclose any confidential information.
Commenter EIA stated EPA fails to distinguish betwe en commercial production of the commonly produced HFCs and specialty production. The commen ter noted that one company stated in previous comments that “3M may be uniquely affected by the p roposed rule. 3M may be the only manufacturer of F gases that faces the possibility that its trade s ecret manufacturing information will be released as a result of EPA’s determinations that certain process-relate d chemical identities and other information is not59

CBI.” Commenter EIA stated companies that produce specialty HFCs can be required to prove actual CBI or exports restriction concerns.
Commenter EIA stated the proposed changes do not ta ke into account the publicly available information on the F gas industry in the European Union, where the vast majority of the production processes for HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs are freely available.
Commenter EIA stated the proposed changes ignore EP A’s conclusions for subpart I that emissions of other GHG in effluent streams are not CBI. Comment er EIA further stated there has been no showing that emissions from commercial production operation s for most commonly used HFCs are any different than the emissions considered for subpart I. Comme nter EIA indicated the proposed reporting should no t be applied to any commercial HFC production that ca nnot make a specific showing that their production actually constitutes a trade secret.
Commenter EIA noted that F GHGs have the highest GW Ps of all GHGs and that HFCs are the only GHG in the U.S. whose emissions are increasing.

Commenter EIA indicated that EPA itself has stated that the proposed rule will interfere with their ab ility to distinguish between downstream emissions and ups tream emissions and their ability to analyze the impacts of these type of policies.
Commenter EIA stated EPA should withdraw portions o f the reporting requirements that do not protect true CBI concerns and undermine the public’s abilit y to track GHG emissions from HFC production. In particular, ordinary commercial production of commo n HFCs such as HFC-134a, HFC-404a, and HFC410A does not protect any legally valid CBI concern and will make it impossible for the public to moni tor emissions of specific HFCs and to compare operation s across the industry. Commenter EIA stated the rule should be withdrawn and narrowed to address on ly the HFC production processes that truly meet the CBI definitions. Commenter EIA stated that facilit ies that seek generic reporting should request an exemption or waiver from EPA based on specific evid ence that disclosure would contribute to loss in marketability. Commenter EIA urged EPA to retain t he original subpart L requirements for F gas producers to reports GHG emissions by both process and chemical.
Response: Please see section II.B of the preamble to the f inal rule for responses to the comments on common versus unique HFC processes, the amounts of each chemical emitted from a given process, targeting specific processes for the reduction of H FCs, adding narrow exemption criteria, and issues related to analyzing the impacts of upstream and do wnstream policies.
While the commenter requests that EPA withdraw the rule, EPA has concluded that the fluorinated GHG data that will be collected under the final rule wi ll meet the GHGRP objectives, and EPA does not plan to withdraw the rule.
Contrary to the commenter’s assumption, the EPA has not determined that the elements removed from subpart L through this rulemaking are entitled to C BI protection. Rather, the subpart L amendments wi ll address disclosure concerns while allowing the EPA to collect the data necessary to inform the development of future GHG policies and programs. Re garding the commenter’s statement that exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act (FOI A) must be narrowly construed, FOIA applies to information in the government’s possession. It does not apply to data that we will not be collecting u nder subpart L as amended by this rule or to our decisio n not to collect that data.
The commenter asserts that the proposed changes to subpart L will compromise the accuracy of the information reported. This is not the case. Fluorin ated gas production facilities will continue to be60

required to report their emissions accurately; they will simply report some of those emissions in metr ic tons of CO 2 e by fluorinated GHG group rather than in metric to ns of individual chemicals. As discussed in the preamble to the Proposed Amendments to Subpa rt L (78 FR 69347-48) and in the preamble to the final rule (Section II.A), the addition of chemical -specific and default GWPs to Table A-1 will actual ly improve both the accuracy and completeness of repor ted CO 2 e emissions compared to the 2010 Final Subpart L Rule and the temporary subpart L reportin g requirements. To calculate CO 2 e emissions, fluorinated gas production facilities will be requi red to apply chemical-specific GWPs where those exi st, and where chemical-specific GWPs do not exist, faci lities will be required to apply default GWPs. This will ensure that all emissions are accounted for in CO 2 e calculations and reporting.
The commenter asserted that majority of GHG emissio ns are from commercial production of common HFCs. This is questionable. Some of the facilities reporting the largest emissions under subpart L do not produce significant quantities of HFCs for sale.
With respect to the comment regarding HFC emissions increasing, as noted in the preamble discussion in section II.B, emissions are reported at the process level by fluorinated GHG group in metric tons CO 2 e, allowing EPA to not only identify processes with hi gh potential for emissions reduction but also to identify processes with increasing emissions from y ear to year.

The commenter also refers to inconsistencies betwee n EPA’s conclusions regarding subpart I (electronic s manufacturing) reporting of compound-specific fluor inated GHGs and subpart L reporting of compoundspecific fluorinated GHGs. However, these inconsis tencies are actually fairly small, and where they e xist, they are justified by real differences between the conditions under which fluorinated GHGs are emitted by these two types of facilities. First, under subpar t I, facilities report emissions by process type (e .g., etch vs. chemical vapor deposition chamber clean) rather than by individual process. Thus, the chemicalspecific emissions reported under subpart I are alr eady aggregated to a considerable extent, which chemical-specific emissions from individual subpart L processes would not be. Second, subpart I facili ties use similar process gases drawn from a relatively s mall set of possibilities, and these process gases produce a similarly limited and broadly recognized set of by-product gases. Thus, the identities of individual emitted gases are unlikely to disclose s ensitive information regarding the nature of an individual electronics manufacturing process. On th e other hand, subpart L facilities produce and emit far more unique sets of fluorinated GHGs, including rea ctants, products, and by-products, that could revea l detailed process information (e.g., production path ways) if reported at the process level. 

### 4.18 – Both Atmospheric Lifetime and GWP are Import ant Comment: Commenter EIA stated both atmospheric lifetime an d GWP need to be disclosed. Commenter EIA stated both atmospheric lifetime and GWP are important factors to determining the damage an HFC will do to the climate. Commenter EI A cited loss of valuable information and noted that aggregating emissions by either factor alone masks opportunities to eliminate HFCs emissions that are most damaging to the climate. Commenter EIA noted there are HFCs with long atmospheric lifetime that have both low and high GWPs, and there are HFCs wit h high GWPs that have both low [long] and short atmospheric lifetimes. Commenter EIA stated that w ith aggregation, EPA and the public lose the abilit y to target the most harmful HFC emissions first.
Commenter EIA asked EPA to imagine if this approac h was suggested for toxicity under the Toxic Use Reduction Act, would anyone think that all short-li ved (ammonia and CO 2 ) or long-lived toxics (PCBs and TFA) should be amalgamated or that amalgamating chemicals by toxicity without considering whether the toxicity is acute or based upon a long exposure makes sense? The same applies to HFCs, to61

develop a rational plan to eliminate these super GH Gs, both atmospheric life and GWP need to be disclosed.
Response : The final rule includes reporting of emissions a t the process level by fluorinated GHG groups. Since proposal, the list of fluorinated GHG groups has expanded to 12 fluorinated GHG groups based on public comment. Because the fluorinated GHG groups are based on chemical structure of the compounds, both atmospheric lifetime and GWP are ac counted for in this approach. Use of fluorinated GHG groups for reporting fluorinated GHG provides g eneral information on both the GWPs and atmospheric lifetimes, and the atmospheric lifetime s and GWPs fall into relatively limited ranges. Wh ile the commenter makes an analogy to toxic chemicals, for HFCs, atmospheric lifetime is the most important predictor of GWP (see discussion in secti on II.A of the final preamble), and GWP is timeintegrated, unlike toxicity. 

### 4.19 – Request to Describe Adverse Impacts Comment: Commenter EIA requested that in its final determi nation, EPA go through each of these identified adverse impacts and describe the actual effect and the CBI, trade secrets, or foreign discl osures for the entire fluorinated gas industry that justif y this reduction in reporting and a description of how the EPA will overcome the adverse impact caused by the reduced reporting.
Response: In the preamble to the proposed rule, we identifi ed the reporting approach being finalized in this action (i.e., process-specific reporting by fl uorinated GHG group and facility-level reporting by chemical and by fluorinated GHG group) as our prefe rred approach. We also identified several alternatives to this approach that would involve le ss detailed reporting, discussed the potential adve rse impacts of these alternatives, and asked for public comment on the alternatives. While we discussed t hese alternative approaches, we indicated that they were not our preferred approach. We did not receive an y comments supporting the alternatives and we are not finalizing them in this rule. Thus, we are not presenting any additional analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of these alternative approaches.



### 4.20 – Generic Process Identification Comment: Commenter EIA stated that reporting the identity and mass of the product produced by the process identifies the process and allows EPA to co mpare processes that make similar products at different facilities.
Commenter EIA further stated that reporting by emis sion type [i.e., process vent and equipment leaks] allows EPA to identify and evaluate potential reduc tion opportunities. Commenter EIA believed that instead of losing any one level of information [pro cess level or emission type information] and aggregating it into either “by process” or “by chem ical,” facilities should report on both.
Commenter EIA stated EPA and the public need to be able to identify specific emissions from venting and leakage of all HFCs and need the ability to com pare between operations, as there is great potentia l for major GHG emission reductions. The commenter cited an example of HFC-23 emission reductions of 2 million mtCO2 from HCFC-22 production by promoting the best practices (i.e., destruction and process optimization). The commenter indicated the proposa l fails to collect the data that would allow target ing specific processes or specific HFCs because of weak , combined, and high-level reporting.
Response: As part of addressing the disclosure issues rela ted to detailed process information, EPA has finalized a requirement for facilities to report pr ocess information with a generic identifier, along with other process specific information such as the proc ess type (production process and transformation process), a characterization of the process (reacti on, distillation, and packaging), the emission type (process vents and equipment leaks), and the method s used to determine emissions from the process.62

Reporting of the chemical formula and the mass of t he product produced has been removed from the reporting requirements. For final products, this d ata element for mass of product produced is reporte d under subpart OO and treated as CBI.
EPA continues to believe the promulgated level of r eporting meets the objectives of the GHGRP, i.e., allows emissions verification and provides the data needed to inform future GHG policies and programs. Providing the identity of the product for each proc ess would reveal final products and the emissions associated with them, which may provide detailed in formation on the production process. Providing the identity of the product for each process would also identify intermediates from processes, and this information could provide details on the exact proc ess mechanisms used to manufacture the final produc t. The final reporting data allow identification of bo th the processes and the emission types with high emissions, allows comparison of changing emissions from year to year, and allows analysis of reduction options.
The commenter stated that reporting the identity an d mass of the product produced by the process allow s EPA to compare processes that make similar products at different facilities and to identify emission reduction options. The commenter implied that the ability to identify emission reduction options woul d be lost under the proposed amendments. However, ma ny of the most important emission reduction options for HFCs and other fluorinated GHGs are the same across processes producing different products

. For example, technologies that destroy emissions, s uch as thermal combustion or plasma, can be used fo r a number of different processes producing different products. While the cost-effectiveness of these technologies varies depending on the GWP of the com pound(s) emitted, EPA will be collecting information on the GWP (by requiring reporting by f luorinated GHG group). To the extent that emission reduction techniques, such as process optimization, may be particular to individual processes or produ cts, these techniques are often proprietary, making them difficult to apply to the same process at faciliti es owned by different firms. Thus, EPA has concluded t hat the reporting that will occur under the amended subpart L will be adequate to inform analyses of po tential GHG programs and policies.

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that without reporting of th e number of process steps, EPA and the public will not be able to monitor emissions by pro cess, to see if particular processes or process ste ps have more HFC emissions and which processes should be targeted for emission reductions.
Response: EPA requested comment on several issues related to reporting the number of process steps. In part due to the disclosure concerns related to d etailed process information, EPA has finalized a requirement for facilities to report process inform ation with a generic identifier that is consistent from year to year, the process type (production process and transformation process), a characterization of the process (reaction, distillation, and packaging), an d the methods used to determine emissions from the process. Because each process will be reported by a generic identifier that remains the same from yea r to year, the public will be able to track the increase s and decreases of fluorinated GHG emissions from e ach process. In addition, the magnitude of emissions i n metric ton CO2e will also be reported, so the pub lic will be able to identify those processes with high emissions due to large emissions of F GHG or with h igh GWP F GHG.