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, 2014 
2

Table of Contents 

1 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Addition 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-Lived Compounds ..................................................... 11 

1.9 – Grouping Unsaturated HCFCs with Unsaturated HFCs .................................................................. 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 GWPs .......................................................................... 16 

2.2 – Partially Segregated and Non-Segregated Saturated 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-iodine 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 ........................................... 25 
3

3.2 General Confidentiality Claims – Subpart L ...................................................................................... 26 

3.3 Data Elements in Categories with Categorical CBI Determinations – Subpart L .............................. 33 

3.4 Comments on the Inputs to Emission Equations Data Category and the Definition of Emissions 

Data – Subpart L ...................................................................................................................................... 45 

3.5 Comments on the Notice Development Process – Subpart L ........................................................... 49 

3.6 Unit-Level Data should be Confidential – Subpart L ......................................................................... 50 

4 – Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Subpart L Rule .......................................................... 51 

4.1 – Overall Proposal to Establish Aggregate Reporting ....................................................................... 52 

4.2 – Rule Mechanism to Request Confidentiality/Export Control Exemption in the Future ................ 52 

4.3 – Chemical-specific Reporting at the Facility Level ........................................................................... 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 Testing 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 Amendments 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 Vast Majority of HFCs ............................................ 57 

4.18 – Both Atmospheric Lifetime and GWP are Important ................................................................... 60 

4.19 – Request to Describe Adverse Impacts ......................................................................................... 61 

4.20 – Generic Process Identification ..................................................................................................... 61 

 
4

1 –Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Additi Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Addition of Global Warming n of Global Warming 

Potentials Potentialsto 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 Pardee 

DuPont Robert A. Reich 

Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) Mark W. Roberts 

Honeywell International, Inc. Dave Stirpe 

Intel Corporation Tom Higgs 

Private citizen Ronald Marshall 

Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) David Isaacs 

Comments on the Proposed Addition of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) were received from ten 

entities as summarized in the table above. These comments were reviewed and organized into various 

topic areas; comment excerpts and their responses are 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 CO2e emissions calculated and reported by fluorinated GHG producers, suppliers 

and emitters, which can in turn more effectively direct decision-making. 

Response: As discussed in section II,A of the preamble to the final rule, EPA is finalizing the proposed 

addition of chemical-specific and default GWPs to Table 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 CO2e 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 reported under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. In

light of the urgency of the climate crisis, the Center believes that taking this action is of key importance, 

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 chemical-specific GWPs for 103 fluorinated 

greenhouse gases that are drawn from the Fifth Assessment 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-reviewed chemical-specific GWPs for GHGs 

not included in AR4 or AR5, as using a GWP that might be somewhat incorrect is preferable to using an 

effective GWP of zero, that is surely inaccurate (and 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 there are a few instances of duplicate chemicals with 

different GWPs. These chemical CAS numbers are 205367-61-9, 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 chemicalspecific GWPs from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)1

 to Table A-1, 

resulting in a compendium of approximately 170 chemical-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 occurred in the proposed additions to Table A-1, and EPA 

has also corrected the reversals in E/Z notation. Both 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 future add chemical-specific GWPs to Table A-1 that 

have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature but not in an IPCC Report. Please see section II.A.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule for more discussion of this 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 report (AR5) provides the most current 

scientific understanding regarding atmospheric lifetimes 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 creation of new groupings of compounds at the data 

reporting level will create an inconsistent data set and may lead to inaccurate data. 

 

1

IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth 

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.K. Plattner, M. 

Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

2

 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core

Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 
6

Response: As proposed, EPA is adding approximately 100 chemical-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 two or fewer carbon-hydrogen bonds) are required to 

be applied only to fluorinated GHGs that do not have chemical-specific GWPs in Table A-1. This is 

clarified in the revised definition of “Global Warming Potential.” As discussed in the proposed rule 

entitled “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Amendments and Confidentiality Determinations for 

Fluorinated Gas Production” (78 FR 69337, hereinafter referred to as “Proposed Amendments to Subpart 

L”), EPA anticipates that the establishment of standard 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 fluorinated 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 Center shares EPA’s concern that non-peer-reviewed 

GWP values may later prove to be less than fully accurate, 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” results 

in far greater reporting inaccuracy than would reliance 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 default GWPs proposed and listed in 

Table 3 of the proposal preamble as they align reasonably close with the groups and GWPs identified in

the comments submitted by DuPont on February 20, 2014. 

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 Section 2 below for more discussion of Dupont’s February 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 fluorinated 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 materials to Table A-1 makes them automatically subject 

to Title V and PSD provisions for affected facilities. 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 believe it is appropriate to publish new values in Table A-1 

only when they have been through a level of scientific process and peer review that makes future changes 

to the values less likely. In addition, the categories themselves are very broad which may require 

considerable effort for companies to determine which of the materials used at their facility fall into each 

category and therefore trigger regulatory requirements. In the case of a facility with greenhouse gas 

regulatory requirements under the Title V or PSD programs, the regulatory obligations associated with 

these are not limited to the source category definitions in subpart I, and could apply to other operations at 

the facility that are not currently being tracked as part of Subpart I compliance. 

Response: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 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 Table 

A-1 or that will be added to the table under this proposal. 

This part of the proposal should be reconsidered. First, it is inconsistent with the practice of the IPCC and 

therefore diverges from accepted international practice. 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 journal, which EPA acknowledges “helps to ensure that the

data and methods used to evaluate the GWPs are consistent with current scientific good practice and 

thereby helps to ensure that the resulting GWPs are accurate.” For fluorinated greenhouse gases that do 

not have GWPs, it is appropriate to continue to report emissions as in kilograms (kg) instead of carbon 

equivalents. Third, as EPA acknowledges, “adoption of these chemical-specific and default GWPs may 

automatically apply in some state and local PSD programs,” and therefore incorporating these default 

GWPs could have permitting implications in some instances. Since GWPs that have not been through this 

peer review process are more likely to change significantly, we believe it is appropriate to delay adding 

them to these regulatory programs until more of a consensus is reached on the appropriate values. 

Response: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 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 recent version of the IPCC report, which is 

AR5, and in the rare case where a value is not available, 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 Panel 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 default value calculations based on AR5 numbers. EPA 

should use the set of GWPs contained in the AR5 Supplementary 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-specific 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 long-term robustness of the defaults, particularly for 

the non-segregated and partially segregated saturated HFE groups. Overall, EIA continues to support an

expeditious update of the GWPs associated with specific 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 Fifth 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 values as new scientific data becomes 

available and a certain level of scientific consensus is reached on the appropriate values to use for each 

material. The most widely recognized source of scientifically established, peer reviewed values are those 

published in the periodic reports of the Intergovernmental 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 appropriate 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 rule 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 develop the default GWPs, EPA is using a 

combination of AR4 and AR5 GWPs, as proposed. Specifically, EPA is basing the default GWPs on the 
9

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 chemical-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 is internally inconsistent, arbitrary and 

irrational. The deliberate decision to populate EPA’s GHGRP with 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 decision cannot be justified where the agency’s 

rationalization relates to a simple problem of harmonizing 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 the UNFCCC reporting conventions. The Center strongly 

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, consistent with other national and 

international programs increases the predictability, stability and accuracy of the impacts of these GHGs. 

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 methodologies with international standards. 

Response to All Comments in this Section: Please see section II.A.3 of the preamble to the final 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 burden facilities and companies with tracking 

and reporting compounds with such low GWPs (i.e., those compounds for which AR5 listed GWPs as 

“<1” and for which more precise GWPs were calculated). 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 single-digit or low double-digit tons of total product per 

year, and emissions would be some small fraction of that – de minimis in terms of total tons CO2e. 

DuPont believes the significant administrative burden of reporting those emissions as compared to the 

very low levels of those emissions makes it reasonable 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 facilities 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 submits 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 materials 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 permitting programs. It is EPA’s stated intent with this 

proposed rule to provide a more accurate and complete account of the atmospheric impacts of GHG 

emissions. In the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA states their belief that the improvement in accuracy 

associated with listing a GWP in Table A-1 is likely to be large. While Intel supports the notion of 

making reporting as accurate as possible, we are concerned that the addition of a large number of low 

GWP materials to Table A-1 may substantially increase the regulatory reporting burden without 

supporting EPA’s objective of making significant improvements in the accuracy of emissions estimates. 

Commenter Affiliation: Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) 

Commenter Name: David Isaacs 

Comment: Finally, the proposal would regulate greenhouse gases that are not emitted in high quantities 

and that the EPA acknowledges have extremely low global warming impacts. While these materials are 

indeed listed in AR5, we do not believe it is appropriate to subject them to various greenhouse gas 

regulatory programs by adding them to Table A-1. Doing so would result in an increase in the reporting

burden on U.S. semiconductor fabs without significantly increasing the accuracy of facility reporting or 

the Inventory as a whole. To reduce the reporting burden 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 final rule for 

responses to the comments in this section. 

1.7 – Precision of Chemical-Specific GWPs for Short-Lived 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 many substances contain more decimal 

places than necessary. The AR5 rounds the GWP values to whole numbers and Honeywell believes that 

EPA should use those numbers for the sake of consistency. 
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 expresses 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 

CO2e of the corresponding compound. For this reason, EPA calculated more precise GWPs for very 

short-lived compounds based on the radiative efficiencies and atmospheric lifetimes provided in AR5. 

1.8 – Using a Default GWP of 1 for Several Short-Lived Compounds 

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont 

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich 

Comment: DuPont agrees with assigning a GWP of 1 to unsaturated 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 containing very short-lived compounds 

including unsaturated PFCs (e.g., hexafluoropropylene and tetrafluoroethylene), unsaturated HFCs (e.g., 

HFC-1234yf and perfluorobutyl ethene), unsaturated HCFCs, unsaturated halogenated ethers (e.g., 

fluoroxene), unsaturated halogenated esters, fluorinated aldehydes, and fluorinated ketones, as we agree 

with EPA that assigning a default GWP of one simplifies calculations. We also agree that although using 

this default value would lead to an overestimate of CO2e emissions, this overestimate would be extremely 

small in most cases. 

Response to All Comments in this Section: EPA is finalizing the proposed default GWP of 1 for 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 simplifies calculations, and any overestimate of CO2e 

emissions or supplies is likely to be small. 

1.9 – Grouping Unsaturated HCFCs with Unsaturated HFCs 

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) 

Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts 

Comment: Sources including the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change and 2012 Task Force 

Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (Decision XXIII/9), suggest that unsaturated 

HCFCs (HCFOs) being developed as solvents have a GWP 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 group 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 (HCFOs) 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 default. 

Response: As proposed, EPA is grouping unsaturated HCFCs with 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 the UK Department of Energy and Climate 

Change; however, AR5 assigns HCFC-1233zd(E) a GWP of 1. (EPA has calculated a more precise GWP 

of 1.3 for this compound based on the radiative efficiency and atmospheric lifetime provided in AR5.) As 
12

discussed in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs, the AR5 GWPs reflect adjustments to the radiative 

efficiencies of short-lived compounds to better account for the fact that such compounds are not well 

mixed in the atmosphere. GWPs estimated for short-lived 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 efficiencies of these compounds countered this overestimate 

and lowered the estimated GWPs of the short-lived compounds compared to the GWPs published in many 

previous studies. Thus, EPA has determined that a GWP 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 compounds should continue to be treated with other 

compounds that have similar atmospheric lifetimes and 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 saturated 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 default 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 saturated 

HFEs and HCFEs into three groups based on the number 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 GWP more precisely than does the position of the 

fluorine atoms in the compound. Regarding the proposed 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 lower 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 analysis, this is the only group with a standard deviation

of GWP greater than the value of the default GWP itself (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 proposes either a weighted average based on nationwide 

emissions percentage, or subdividing the group into roughly equal distributions of a) "Other fluorinated 

gases with a GWP of < 20' (16 compounds listed in Table 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 “other” category (with a default GWP of 110) 

into three groups: (1) fluorinated acetates, carbonofluoridates, 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 default GWP of 2000). As discussed in II.A.3 of the 

preamble to the final rule, EPA anticipates that the first two changes will significantly increase the

precision of the default GWPs applied to these specific types of compounds, while the third will better 

represent the variability of GWPs for compound groups 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 “other fluorinated GHGs” as suggested in 

Section 10 above, would lead to a better treatment of the outliers within that group at least. For other 

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 fluorinated GHGs whose GWPs were being estimated. 

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

1.13 – Treatment of Blends 

Commenter Affiliation: Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) 

Commenter Name: Mark W. Roberts 

Comment: EIA additionally notes, however, that for any blended 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 accounted 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 CO2e) of blends of different fluorinated 

GHGs, EPA requires reporters to (1) break out the mass of the blend into the masses of its component 

fluorinated GHGs, (2) convert the mass of each of those fluorinated GHGs into CO2 equivalents, and then 

(3) add together the CO2 equivalents of all components. This ensures that the atmospheric impacts of all 

components of the blends are captured accurately. For 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 and 10 metric tons of HFC-32. The supplier would 

then convert each of those masses into CO2 equivalents: 35,000 mtCO2e for the 10 tons of HFC-125 and 

6,750 mtCO2e for the 10 tons of HFC-32. The supplier would then add these together to get the CO2
14

equivalents of the blend: 41,750 mtCO2e in this example. EPA has issued guidance clarifying 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 should be invisible within regulatory tables 

and reporting materials. Materials within this table should be identified by the assigned ASHRAE 

identification number or chemical name. 

Response: In Table A-1, EPA supplements a trade name with chemical 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 HFCs in particular. In the case of asserted CBI 

concerns, the EPA must be able to analyze and regulate 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 final 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 as an option for states to comply with the rule. Guidance 

needs to be provided to states on implementation & administration of any tax, as well as acceptable dollar 

amounts & escalation rates. States should have as many 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 rulemaking. 

Commenter Affiliation: Anonymous 

Commenter Name: Anonymous 

Comment: Global warming is one of the biggest hoaxes made by the EPA. It's just a money making, land 

taking, protect your job and fill your wallet scheme. It was seven degrees warmer when Leif Erikson 

found Greenland. The temperature has not risen in well over a decade. Your pesticides stuff has also been 

a hoax for the most part as well. You removed the best pesticide many years ago. You all need to knock

off the bull and remove all the crazy regulations that you have come up with over the years. If you need to 

save a little minnow at the cost of many farmers and jobs for many you need to build a hatchery for the 

minnow not stop the flow of water. I could list many more but I would run out of letter characters on this 

page. The majority of you people can consider yourselves luck that I am not President or many of you 

would need to be looking for a new line of work. Have a good day. 

Response: This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
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 Gershman 

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 in 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 DuPont, 3M, and ACC—to add compounds to the 

existing groups and to create new groups—were likely to improve the accuracy and precision of the 

default GWPs proposed for subpart L. To do this evaluation, EPA incorporated these suggestions into the 

analysis used to develop the default GWPs for the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L. Specifically, EPA 

analyzed the “other fluorinated compounds” and “saturated 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” into more specific groups (e.g., unsaturated 

halogenated esters, fluorinated aldehydes, fluorotelomer 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 comments provided by ACC because their 

suggested groups were covered by DuPont’s recommendations, and because the groups suggested by 

DuPont were more specific. However, a response to several of ACC’s comments can be found in Section 

2.1 below. 

Table I presents a comparison of the Proposed Amendments 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 fluorinated 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 Subpart L and Commenter Suggested F-GHG 

Groupsa 

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 32 
16

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 «1b

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 «1b

Fluorinated and Fluorotelomer Alcoholsc 1 15 25 <1 

Fluorotelomer Alcoholsd 1 4 <1 «1 

Fluorinated GHGs with one or more carboniodine bonds 1 0 N/A N/A 

Recommended 

by 3Me

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, fluorotelomer 

alcohols, 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, fluorotelomer 

alcohols, fluorinated GHGs with carboniodine bonds, or formates 

20 21 19 <1 

a

 DuPont also recommended grouping 4,4,4-trifluorobutanal (a fluorinated aldehyde) with the fluorinated ketones and vinyl 2,2,2-

trifluoroacetate (an unsaturated ester) with the unsaturated halogenated ethers. 4,4,4-trifluorobutanal and vinyl 2,2,2-

trifluoroacetate are included in the AR5 Comprehensive Review, but were ultimately not published in AR5 because they do not 

have GWPs and are therefore not included in this analysis. 

b

 An average lifetime of «1 denotes a value less than or equal to 1 x 10-2. 

c

 Includes four fluorotelomer alcohols. 

d

 Fluorotelomer alcohols, a subset of fluorinated alcohols, were evaluated separately. 

e

 3M’s suggested default GWPs for partially segregated 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 reviewed scientific determinations for GWPs for 

fluorinated GHGs where there is a significant difference in CO2e emissions through the use of grouping. 
17

This would be rare but necessary to sustain the scientific 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 this 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 category 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 unsaturated HFE, or a fluorinated ketone.

Response: Please see section 1.11 above for the response to this 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 fluorinated greenhouse gases (fluorinated GHG), as this

will serve to ensure protection of CBI. However, the 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 other 

fluorinated GHGs are inappropriate for broad classes of fluorinated gases. This is especially true for

short-lived gases: using the current default GWPs leads to scientifically unsupportable estimated CO2e

emissions for wide classes of fluorinated GHGs. 

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

2.2 – Partially Segregated and Non-Segregated Saturated HFEs and HCFEs 

Commenter Affiliation: 3M 

Commenter Name: Dana M. Schnobrich 

Comment: 3M suggested disaggregating “saturated HFEs and HCFEs” 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 shorter atmospheric lifetimes and lower GWPs than nonsegregated HFEs. 

Response: As discussed below, EPA evaluated this suggestion and 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 in the Proposed Rule to Add GWPs.3 In the final 

rule, EPA is dividing the group of saturated HFEs and HCFEs into three groups based on the number 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). The rationale for this approach is discussed 

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 saturated HFEs and HCFEs into two groups using the 

following classifications: 

 

3

 “Revised Analysis of Atmospheric Lifetimes, Radiative 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 alkyl groups, but are not 

necessarily fully fluorinated. 

For example, HFE-449s1 (C4F9OC2H5) and HFE-569sf2 (C4F9OC2H5) are segregated HFEs with the ether 

oxygen separating a fully fluorinated and a fully hydrogenated alkyl group, while HFE-347pcf 

(CF2HCF2OCH2CF3) is a non-segregated HFE with oxygen separating two partially fluorinated alkyl 

groups (IPCC/TEAP, 2005). 

In its comments, 3M did not explain the mechanism through 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 reducing the atmospheric lifetimes.” Owens further notes that 

fluorine can decrease the activating effect of the ether and states, “although there can be a deactivating 

effect from fluorine atoms across the ether bond, it is much less pronounced than that produced by 

fluorine atoms on the same alkyl group. This segregated structure appears to buffer the hydrogen atoms 

from the very electronegative fluorine atoms taking full advantage of the activating effect of the ether 

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 evaluate whether this separation of saturated HFEs and 

HCFEs is an indicator of whether a compound is likely to have a low or high GWP, and whether this 

separation would therefore be a valuable distinction to make when establishing F-GHG groups. 

Figure I. Histogram comparing GWPs of partially segregated and non-segregated saturated HFEs 

and HCFEs. 

The table below shows the average GWPs, standard deviations, and proposed default GWPs of each subgroup based on EPA’s evaluation, as well as the same 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

10,000

Frequency

GWP Range

Partially Segregated Non-Segregated
19

Table II. Comparison of Average GWPs of Saturated HFE and HCFE Groups 

Saturated HFE Group 

Proposed 

GWP 

 (100-year) 

Average 

GWP 

(100-year) 

Standard 

Deviation 

Average 

Atmospheric 

Lifetime 

Saturated HFEs and HCFEs 1,600a 1,536 2,536 10.0 

Partially segregated saturated HFEs and HCFEs 200 204 227 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 footnote “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 greater than 500. However, there are outliers in both 

groups. For example, the (lower-GWP) partially segregated HFE group with a default GWP of 200 would 

include HFE-143a (CH3OCF3), 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 the HFEs, and potentially assign the saturated HFEs 

and HCFEs more representative GWPs. Therefore, these new groupings are likely to apply to HFEs and 

HCFEs whose atmospheric behavior has not yet been studied. 

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 Saturated Hydrofluoroethers by Number of CarbonHydrogen and Carbon-Fluorine Bonds.” 

Comment: 3M recommended equating the default GWP for HFEs to the median of the available 

chemical-specific GWPs rather than to the average of these GWPs, stating that the average was affected

by the very high GWPs of a few compounds. The commenter observed that the average was higher than 

the GWPs of 73% of the HFEs. 3M suggested that a more accurate default GWP for a saturated HFE is 

obtained by calculating the median value from the available 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 average is sometimes affected by unusually high or 

low GWP values for a few compounds, it is reasonable 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 CO2e 

emissions. (See more discussion of this issue in the proposed Amendments to Subpart L at 78 FR 69347.) 

On average, the facility-wide CO2e emissions for each group are expected to be estimated 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 fluorinated GHGs in the group. Outlier GWPs may occur 

rarely, but they nevertheless occur and affect CO2e emissions. 

2.3 – Unsaturated Halogenated Ethers 

Commenter Affiliation: DuPont 

Commenter Name: Robert A. Reich 
20

Comment: DuPont suggested broadening “unsaturated HFEs” to “unsaturated halogenated ethers” to 

account for the carbon-carbon double bond in unsaturated 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 (CF3OCF=CF2), an unsaturated fully fluorinated ether, has a 

100-year GWP of 0.174

 and lifetime of 8.4 days in IPCC AR5. Additionally, fluoroxene 

(CF3CH2OCH=CH2), an unsaturated ether that is not fully fluorinated, has a 100-year GWP of and 

lifetime of 3.6 days according to IPCC AR5. 

This suggestion revises the classification of all unsaturated fully fluorinated ethers, which were previously 

assigned as “other fluorinated compounds,” instead of unsaturated HFEs, because they do not contain a 

carbon-hydrogen bond. In the revised fluorinated GHG group, all “unsaturated halogenated ethers” must 

contain one or more carbon-carbon multiple bonds, but 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, regardless of the degree of fluorination and/or chlorination 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 physical chemistry viewpoint. As described 

by DuPont, unsaturated halogenated esters have a double 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 GWPs 

for any unsaturated halogenated esters. Hodnebrog et al. (2013) includes a radiative efficiency, but not an 

atmospheric lifetime, for one unsaturated halogenated ester, vinyl, 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate. This radiative 

efficiency, 0.387 Wm-2ppb-1, is an overestimate because it has not been corrected to reflect the (probably 

very short) atmospheric lifetime of vinyl, 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate.5 Nevertheless, when this uncorrected 

radiative efficiency is considered in conjunction with 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 efficiency 

of 0.053, and a GWP of 1.3.6 Hodnebrog et al. (2013) provides an uncorrected radiative efficiency of 0.28 

Wm-2ppb-1 for ethyl 2,2,2,-trifluoroacetate, indicating that the correction factor for this compound (and 

compounds with similar atmospheric lifetimes) is about 0.19. Assuming vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate has a 

lifetime of no more than 21.9 days and that the same correction factor should be applied to its radiative 

efficiency, the GWP for vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate 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 atmospheric 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-mixed in the atmosphere. 

For GHGs with lifetimes of a few months or less, this assumption is not realistic and leads to overestimates of the radiative 

efficiencies (and GWPs) of the GHGs. The GWPs and radiative 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 atmospheric lifetime and the corrected radiative efficiency provided in the AR5. 
21

therefore to have a lower GWP than what was calculated using a lifetime of 21.9 days. For this compound 

to have a GWP of around 1 (applying the same corrected radiative efficiency), its atmospheric lifetime

would have to be approximately 12 days. This is comparable to the average atmospheric lifetimes of the 

unsaturated HFCs and PFCs (10 and 13 days, respectively). 

Looking beyond vinyl 2,2,2-trifluoroacetate, the atmospheric behavior of the saturated and unsaturated

HFCs and PFCs implies that the atmospheric lifetimes 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 atmospheric lifetimes, with HFCs and PFCs having 

average lifetimes of 32 and 5,953 years, respectively, and saturated fluorinated esters having an average 

lifetime of 1.2years. At the same time, the unsaturated 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 unsaturated 

fluorinated esters are also likely to have GWPs below 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 efficiency 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 efficiency (RE) to the molecular weight (MW) (i.e., 

RE/MW) for all of the saturated and unsaturated fluorinated esters, HFCs, and PFCs that are included in 

the default GWP analysis.7

 This exercise evaluated the possibility that the fluorinated 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 unsaturated 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 formates) are higher than the average RE/MW ratios for the 

saturated HFCs and PFCs, but are still within a factor 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 for the 

unsaturated fluorinated esters are likely to be near 1, and that it is appropriate to assign these compounds 

a default GWP of 1. 

Table III. Comparison of Radiative Efficiency to Molecular 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, and because their inherent radiative properties were expected to be similar to those 

of unsaturated fluorinated esters. Uncorrected radiative efficiencies were used in order to permit a comparison between the 

saturated and unsaturated compounds in the absence of atmospheric lifetime.
22

Therefore, the default GWP of 1 is expected to be accurate for the unsaturated halogenated esters whose 

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 compounds.” 

Response: This suggestion would assign fluorinated aldehydes a GWP of 1. This approach is accurate 

and well defined from a physical chemistry viewpoint. As noted by DuPont, peer-reviewed literature 

suggests similarities between the behavior of fluorinated ketones and aldehydes as they photodissociate 

readily in hours or days. Photolysis lifetimes of aldehydes and ketones in the sunlit troposphere are 

approximately several days (Derwent, 1995). This behavior indicates that these compounds have short 

atmospheric lifetime and therefore low GWPs. 

For example, 3,3,3 –trifluoro-propanal has a 100-year GWP of 0.018 and lifetime of 2.0 days according to 

IPCC AR5. EPA’s evaluation shows that this group could be added to the previously existing group of 

compounds assigned a GWP of 1 (see Table I). EPA expects this categorization to be accurate for the 

fluorinated aldehydes whose atmospheric behavior has 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, fluorotelomer alcohols. DuPont noted that all 

fluorotelomer alcohols are likely to have short atmospheric lifetimes and therefore low GWPs. 

Response: In the final rule, EPA has removed both fluorotelomer alcohols and other fluorinated alcohols 

from the “Other” category and is including them in separate fluorinated GHG groups. As discussed 

further below, fluorotelomer alcohols are very short-lived in the atmosphere and are therefore being 

assigned a default GWP of 1. Other fluorinated alcohols are longer-lived than fluorotelomer alcohols but 

still have a considerably lower average GWP (40) than the default GWP proposed for the “other” group in 

the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L (100). 

A study of the kinetics of the reactions of fluorotelomer alcohols with OH radicals indicates that the

atmospheric lifetime of fluorotelomer alcohols, regardless of the length of the molecule, is approximately 

20 days, or 0.05 years (Ellis et al., 2003). Additionally, IPCC AR5 assigns GWPs of less than one to all 

four of the fluorotelomer alcohols included in AR5. For example, 3,3,3-trifluoropropan-1-ol has a GWP

of 0.357

 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 0.437

 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 assigning all 

 

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

fluorinated alcohols a GWP of 1 is not accurate. Additionally, a study of the kinetics of the reactions of a 

series of fluorinated alcohols with OH radicals indicates 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 fluorotelomer alcohols and other fluorinated alcohols in the final 

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 fluorinated compounds containing one or 

more carbon-iodine bonds, because any fluorinated compound with a carbon-iodine bond is expected to 

photodissociate readily, resulting in an atmospheric lifetime of a few hours and an approximate GWP of

1. 

Response: EPA found the following evidence to support this suggestion: 

• A three-dimensional global chemistry-transport model (CTM) of the troposphere and stratosphere 

was used to evaluate the potential effects of CF3I, a very short-lived iodinated compound. The 

model indicated that this compound has a lifetime of 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, CF3I has a direct 100-year GWP of 0.4 

and lifetime of 0.005 years. This direct GWP does not account for any stratospheric ozone 

depletion by CF3I, which is likely to be negligible and would be expected to decrease the GWP. 

• A study on the reactions of fluorotelomer iodide (n-C4F9CH2CH2I) 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 very 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 proposes to break the group into subgroups 

based on atmospheric lifetimes or other characteristics to further identify more representative default 

GWPs. The preferred approach of the default GWP for this group at 2,200 does not reflect the true nature 

of the range of the gases in this group as some gases 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 group. EPA should consider an atmospheric threshold that 

is not arbitrary and most precisely reflects the purpose of the GHG Reporting Program. 

To the extent that producers may require further investigation to determine the characteristics such as 

atmospheric lifetimes of the gases, all producers subject to this regulation are very sophisticated 

companies with sufficient resources and capabilities 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 regulation and the potential impact to the climate. 
24

Response: In the final rule, EPA is breaking saturated HFCs into two groups based on the number of 

carbon-hydrogen bonds in the compound, which is correlated with atmospheric lifetime and GWP. This 

considerably increases the precision of the default GWPs that will be applied to saturated HFCs that do 

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 bonds in the compound is known. Please see section 

II.A of the preamble to the final rule for more discussion 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 default 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 the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final 

Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially 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-influenced 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 reasonable approach that has been widely accepted by

the international community. If the EPA were to adopt a 20-year GWP solely for HFCs, it would 

introduce a metric that is inconsistent with both the 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, calculating the impact of short-lived climate forcers 

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 standard metric for defining GWPs in the GHGRP. 

In general, EPA has developed the default GWPs to be unbiased predictors of the GWPs of the 

fluorinated GHGs in each fluorinated GHG group. That 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 CO2e emissions and supplies. 

 
25

3 –Response to Comments on CBI Determinations for 40 Response to Comments on CBI Determinations for 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart I, FR Part 98, Subpart I, 

Proposed on January 10, 2012 Proposed on January 10, 2012 

This document lists and provides responses to public comments on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) “Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule” (77 FR 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 in 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 Subpart L rule). We proposed these amendments in the 

proposed rule entitled, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production” (hereinafter 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 final rule titled, “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: 

Addition of Global Warming Potentials to the General Provisions and Amendments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Fluorinated Gas Production” (hereinafter referred to as “Final Amendments to Subpart 

L”). As discussed in the Proposed Amendments to Subpart L, the changes are intended to (1) address 

concerns that that the disclosure of the identity and quantities of the fluorinated GHGs emitted at the 

process level would reveal “trade secrets” regarding individual chemical production processes, and (2)

ensure that we nevertheless obtain the data necessary to inform the development of future GHG policies

and programs. Thus, the rationale we provided for the Proposed and Final Amendments to Subpart L 

responds to the comments below, and the responses here point to where that rationale can be found in the 

preambles to those actions. 

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

Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regulatory 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 status 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 initial scoping speciation of fluorinated greenhouse gases 

pursuant to 40 CFR 98.124(a). 3M agrees with EPA’s analysis as to why this element is CBI. In its cogent 

analysis at 77 FR 1442, EPA shows that it understands why releasing this information to the public could 

create “substantial competitive harm” to 3M and others covered by this subpart: 

“EPA finds that this data element could provide insight into the manufacturing process and the 

configuration of the facility, such as which process equipment is sending streams to which process 

equipment. This could reveal information about configuration efficiencies that the reporter has developed, 

generally at great expense and time investment, to minimize manufacturing cost and to maximize the 

manufacturing rate. If a competitor could review such information on configuration, the competitor would 

be able to adopt the reporter’s efficiency practices with less development time and expense and would 

gain competitive advantage at the expense of the reporter’s competitive advantage. Therefore, EPA finds 

that releasing the data element describing the location and function of the process streams would likely 
26

result in substantial competitive harm, and EPA proposes to determine that this data element qualifies for 

protection as confidential business information.” 

Response: 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 

preamble to the Final Amendments to Subpart L. 

Comment Excerpt Number: 9 

Comment: . . . 3M supports EPA’s analysis of its proposed determinations at 77 FR 1442 that seven of 

the 22 data elements included in Best Available Monitoring Method (BAMM) use extension requests are 

CBI because they would implicate trade secret and confidential business information. 3M supports EPA’s

recognition that this type of information could give a reporter’s competitors information on configuration 

or operational efficiencies, or potential shutdowns and decreases in product supply, all of which could 

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 Regulatory 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 reporting of fluorinated greenhouse gases for 

certain Subpart L facilities on a combined basis for the facility as a whole, in CO2 equivalents. This

accomplishes the purposes of the law: reporting of greenhouse gas emissions over certain thresholds. It is 

consistent with the intent of the Clean Air Act to require disclosure of emission data only “as necessary” 

to show emissions. It is also consistent with similar reporting rules, the Toxic Release Inventory and

California’s Greenhouse Gas reporting rule. This reporting as a whole would avoid trade secret and export 

control concerns. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 6 

Comment: As noted in the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) September 7, 2010 comments on 

EPA’s initial proposed CBI rule, which included comments on Subpart L, information that EPA is 

requiring to be disclosed under the MRR includes information that is controlled for export by various 

United States agencies for reasons including, but not limited, to, national security. In addition, in the 

ACC’s March 7, 2011 comments on confidentiality concerns regarding inputs to emission equations, 

ACC again noted concerns that EPA is requesting export-controlled information, and specifically 

mentioned that this is a concern for information EPA is demanding under Subpart L. 3M is a member 

company of the ACC and contributed to those comments. 
27

In EPA’s proposed rule for Subpart L, EPA has not addressed these concerns regarding export-controlled

information or proposed ways in which EPA will manage 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, without advance assurances in writing as to how this 

information will be managed in accordance with export 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 information 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 federal 

agency that another federal agency prohibits 3M from 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 including, but not limited to, national security, anti-terrorism, 

nuclear non-proliferation, and chemical and biological weapons security. Once the EPA receives this 

information, it will become responsible to ensure that it controls this information in compliance with all 

United States export control regulations. 

The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), managed 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 modified for military use and are on the Munitions List, 

prohibits virtually all exports to every country without export authorization by the State Department,

following review by the Departments of State and Commerce. 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, 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 production, 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 engineering, manufacture, integration, 

assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, quality assurance.” 

Use: means “operation, installation (including on-site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, 

overhaul and refurbishing.” 

For example, under EAR ECCN 1E001 alone - the EAR prohibits 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 form 
28

• gas mask filter canisters and decontamination equipment for defense against biological agents, 

radiological agents, chemical warfare agents or riot 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 physical 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, refugees or asylees of the United States and possess 

citizenship of countries to which the technical data 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 controlled technology requires the prior written approval 

of the cognizant government agency. In other words, to require the public release of ITAR controlled 

technology, the EPA or the company would likely first need to obtain the approval of the cognizant 

agency, which could vary depending on the information in question. See 22 CFR 120.11(a)(7) (definition

of public domain) and http://www.aia-aerospace.org/assets/security_handbook_07.pdf (handbook 

explaining the process to get approval for public release of ITAR controlled technology). 

In consideration of United States export control regulations, 3M scientists have evaluated the level and 

detail of process-specific emissions information currently required by this Subpart L proposal, and have 

advised that providing such emission information would 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 information that EPA is proposing to hold as CBI under 

Subpart L as well as information that is not designated by EPA as CBI because EPA has labeled it 

“emission data.” 

In response, to remain in compliance with United States export control regulations, EPA personnel would 

need either to request authorization to publicly release such information or to implement an export control 

plan to ensure compliance with all United States export control regulations. It would need to ensure that it 

can identify and segregate such information on United States based servers with restrictions on sharing 

internally and externally with anyone to whom the technology would be controlled. It would also 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 maintain in general - compounded by the fact 

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 pursues 

the approach of implementing an export control plan to protect against unauthorized disclosure of export 

controlled process-related information to the public, EPA would need to reconcile this control or nondisclosure with its standard position to the contrary, that emission data should be available to the public. 

 . . .if EPA decides not to pursue the export control plan and requests and obtains authorization to publicly 

release export controlled data (which seems unlikely 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 even 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 these 

comments. In addition, subsequent reporting under Subpart L must be submitted electronically in EPA’s 

e-GGRT database. 3M has been advised by its legal counsel that posting any export controlled technical

data on any site that does not have controls to prohibit 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-controlled will be made available to the public as emission 

data, because EPA has proposed to categorize it as “emission data.” 

We have been advised that 3M not post such information, but identify that we have it, that it is export 

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 to someone at EPA who can accept it without 3M 

obtaining a license, (b) it is clearly marked as export 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 Subpart L until these export control issues and CBI issues 

can be resolved in a manner consistent with other Subparts, including OO and I, and in a manner 

consistent with EPA's authorization. 

As requested previously in ACC comments, to mitigate 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. One solution would be for EPA to instead report 

facility-wide information in CO2 equivalents in the same manner that it is being reported for Subpart OO. 

To the extent that any process-specific emissions information 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 comply with export control regulations. EPA should 

assure that its practices for handling CBI are consistent with those practices utilized by the Department of 

Commerce for material and technologies/processes that are export controlled. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on export control concerns 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: 11 

Comment: A fundamental problem with EPA’s CBI designations is that these determinations are based 

on the emission calculation methods and not on whether the information is actually business confidential. 

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 balance method, which is the approach under Section 

98.126(b), much of the information regarding process inputs and outputs would be made publicly 

available. All of this information may be routinely protected by state agencies when contained in permit 

or emissions reporting documents, however. For some processes, the information reported under 

§98.126(b) may be much more detailed than what would be required under §98.126(c) (the emission 

factor approach). Another example that was previously 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 does not consider the information CBI. In the case of
30

fugitive emissions, some processes will allow for the consolidation of emissions over a large process 

while emissions in other cases will be reflective of very specific chemistries and processes. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail has been provided in 

section II.A of the 2013 Proposed Amendments to Subpart L, and in section II.B of theFinal 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. 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 Subpart L. 

Comment Excerpt Number: 13 

Comment: More important than the inequity that may result from differences in the emissions calculation 

methods is the fact that 3M as a United States supplier and manufacturer would be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage with foreign manufacturers and suppliers. 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 locations. In addition, the CBI practices at foreign

locations are much more protective of process information than what is being proposed under the MRR. 

In almost all cases, government agencies outside the United States limit the information requested so it 

does not implicate trade secret information. 

On Tuesday, February 29, 2012, President Obama signed 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 enforcement by monitoring and enforcing US rights under

international and domestic trade rules and countering unfair subsidies that tilt the global market against 

US firms.” As reported by the Associated Press (AP), the office will expand the administration's ability to 

challenge unfair trading practices in China and elsewhere.” AP noted: The President “has accused China

of subsidizing homegrown companies and allowing counterfeiting and intellectual piracy. The president's 

most recent budget proposal asks Congress for millions of dollars for the new enforcement center and 

more US inspectors in China.” 

3M is aware that manufacturers outside the United States would welcome information on 3M’s trade 

secret manufacturing processes at facilities subject to Subpart L. EPA should not be adopting rules that 

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 piracy 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 emission 

information for purposes of the greenhouse gas emission reporting rules, EPA will be forcing public 

disclosure of sensitive business information that includes company trade secret information. 

It is important to understand this issue from an intellectual property law and research and development 

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 details of a company’s manufacturing and process 

information. This information has economic value only as long as the information remains confidential 

and, therefore, unavailable to competitors. This is trade secret information, a long recognized form of 

intellectual property in the United States and elsewhere 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 property, 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 potentially significant economic rewards that are 

available in the commercial marketplace. This potential 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 the 

world later copy or reverse engineer and manufacture technologies developed here in America at a much 

lower cost. But because of our framework of intellectual property laws that to date have encouraged and 

protected R&D and innovation, many of the great ideas 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 property and the recognition that trade secrets and 

competitively sensitive information are important and valuable assets to American companies. 

EPA’s proposed rule that would require disclosure of 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 throughout 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 investment. It creates an unfair competitive advantage for 

the companies that use this information, and obviously 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 force 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 value of company trade secret information and safeguard 

that information. EPA should not be adopting regulations that force disclosure of and thereby take away 

valuable company trade secret information, promoting intellectual piracy by other countries and 

damaging the global competitiveness of American companies. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 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 Subpart L, however, have customized configurations 

and customized process characteristics. 3M has invested over $100 million and six decades in R&D to 

develop the unique processes at its facilities. Some 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 subject to 

export control requirements, and certain information may not be released to the public sector. Competitive 

fluorochemicals are to 3M’s knowledge not manufactured by any other company in the United States, but 

they may be manufactured by companies in overseas locations. While 3M does not possess detailed 

information on the locations and manufacturing configurations of its competition, we believe many of 

their products are produced outside the United States where Subpart L data is not being reported. An 

overwhelming majority of 3M’s fluorinated gas production is located within the United States. 

Accordingly, 3M may be uniquely affected by this proposed rule. 3M may be the only manufacturer of 

fluorinated gases that faces the possibility that its trade secret manufacturing information will be released 

as a result of EPA’s determinations that certain process-related chemical identities and other information 

is not CBI. 

There is no patent for process-related information. 3M relies on trade secret protection to maintain the 

value of its investment in technology. 3M is very careful to take measures to preserve the secrecy of this 

information, including (a) requesting that the information be held confidential in this and other 

submissions to federal, state and local agencies, (b) keeping the information in secure buildings, protected 

by security guards at entrances, to which non-company personnel do not have access (unless given special 

security clearance or escort), (c) entering confidentiality agreements with its employees, and (d) entering 

confidentiality agreements with its consultants, contractors and customers. 

If the specific chemical identities in emission streams, by process, and other process-related information 

described . . . are made public this would reveal highly confidential aspects of process configurations and 

characteristics for 3M’s facilities subject to Subpart L. It would include data on product chemical 

compositions. It could allow competitors to duplicate the process and create the products without having 

to make the multi-million dollar research and development 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 level of reporting detail 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: 29 

Comment: EPA’s proposal would allow competitors to learn process-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 competitors substantial competitive advantages. EPA’s 

advance determinations on CBI do not adequately take into account the possibility that United States 

manufacturing facilities will innovate and change or come up with unique manufacturing methods in the 

future that will need CBI protections. EPA’s advance determinations seem to contain the assumption that 

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 manufacturing 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 level of reporting detail 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. 

3.3 Data Elements in Categories with Categorical CBI Determinations – Subpart L 

Commenter Name: Bredan Mascarenhas, Manager of Regulatory and Technical 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 proposal submitted by ACC member 3M, the 

emissions streams produced as a result of a particular process may contain information that is identical to 

the chemical identities used in the process. This information, if made available to the public, would allow 

for others, particularly overseas competitors, to easily reverse engineer a production process and thus 

obtain critical trade secrets. As this information can contain sensitive CBI, the Agency should not require 

its disclosure as information open to the public, but rather classify this data element as confidential. 

Concerns with some of the specific proposed CBI determinations in Subpart L are provided below. 

A. Sections 98.126(a)(2)(i)-(iv)--Total mass of each F-GHG emitted from each fluorinated gas 

production process (metric tons), and from all fluorinated gas production processes combined; total mass 

of F-GHG emitted from certain fluorinated gas transformation 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 where this information would be considered CBI. 

Reporting emissions for specific processes would result in the availability of process-specific information 

that has not been placed in the public domain. This could reveal trade secret information about the 

number of process steps, which is technologically sensitive information that facilities take great care in 

protecting. 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 some cases, disclose sensitive trade secret information. In many cases, the chemical composition 

of the product or an isolated intermediate can be determined from the emissions stream. Subpart L 

reporting is different from other environmental reporting in that the emissions from the process may be 

the product or byproducts of a reaction. Accordingly, this type of information can easily reveal novel

production methods. The availability of this information 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 previously. For example, in air permitting or emissions

reporting, these emission constituents have been reported as Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) or 

another, more general descriptor, therefore allowing for the information‘s accurate reporting while 

appropriately protecting specific chemical identities. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 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 Section 98.126(a)(3) raises significant concerns for the 

protection of confidential business information of Subpart L reporters. ACC and its members believe that 

the determinations under this section deserve further review by the Agency before finalization. 

In EPA‘s December 2011 memo (Memorandum A) accompanying the proposal, the data reported under 

§98.126(a)(3) for chemical identities of the contents of the stream(s) (including process, and destroyed 

streams) analyzed under the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG at 40 CFR 98.124(a), by 

process were correctly determined to be data that is CBI and thus eligible for confidential treatment. As 

this scoping analysis contains integral data regarding the process streams in production, a CBI 

determination is appropriate in order to protect the sensitive information being disclosed. 

However, the determination for the other scoping report data element, chemical identities of the contents 

of the stream(s) (including emissions) analyzed under the initial scoping of fluorinated GHG at 40 CFR

98.124(a), raises serious CBI concerns. In the matrix in Memorandum A, EPA determines this element to 

be available to the public as emission data, and thus not eligible for confidential treatment. This 

determination is apparently based on the Agency’s broad interpretation of emission data, a classification 

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 are attached in Appendix A) on EPA’s July 2010 

confidentiality determinations for data under the Mandatory Reporting Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2009-0924). The comments state that EPA has mistakenly defined emission data to be every piece 

of information or data upon which GHG emissions might be calculated. ACC goes on to recommend that 

when determining what information should be publicly 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 Agency 

should allow facilities to report emissions as aggregate CO2e emissions, consistent with Subpart OO. 

The request for chemical identities in §98.124(a) has the potential to provide chemical-specific 

information, by process, on not only how the manufacturing 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 identities of process streams and destroyed streams under

Subpart L. The chemical identities in §98.124(a) are the same type of trade secret information. ACC 

would point out that this determination unfairly targets those facilities or processes where a reporter 

decided to measure vent gas composition for scoping analysis and that EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations were made after reporters had already made these decisions. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. 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 Subpart L. 

Comment Excerpt Number: 3 

Comment: As there are clear CBI concerns with information reported under §98.124(a)(4), ACC requests 

that EPA extend the current deadline of March 31, 2012 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 as a static unit/process operational characteristic as 

opposed to emission data, given that it is baseline information that is not provided along with reported 

emission amounts. EPA has considered similar information for facilities subject to Subpart I as nonemission data, including disclosure of the “recipes” (e.g., specific combination of gases used to fabricate a 
35

specific 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 manufacturing 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 2012 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 

Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Elements of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” 

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) is emissions data and therefore cannot be CBI. 

However, this determination could result in the disclosure of sensitive information. An example of this is 

the case of fugitive air emissions, which may be determined using various methods. Fugitive emissions in 

this source category are very low, but because this information is being reported by process and because 

all amounts are reportable, the composition of the product or an isolated intermediate can be determined 

from fugitive emissions information. For an operation that involves the handling of the final product, the 

composition of the fugitive air emission stream could easily be identical to the product content, since 

fugitive emissions are assumed to be reflective of the process fluids. EPA has considered this type of

composition information CBI under Subpart OO and under §98.126(a)(6). Although EPA proposed that 

equipment leak information 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 the 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., VOCs. Reporting this type of 

information by process in the specificity required under Subpart L has not been required under air rules to 

date, and could result in the disclosure of CBI. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 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 security, 

antiterrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, and chemical and biological weapons security. Once the Agency 

receives this information, it becomes responsible for 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 principal U.S. export control regimes. ITAR, 

applicable to those products and technical data that are specifically designed or modified for military use 

and are on the Munitions List, prohibits virtually all exports to every country without export authorization 

by the State Department, following review by the Departments of State and Commerce. The EAR 

controls products, intermediate materials, raw materials 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 production, 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 engineering, manufacture, integration, 

assembly (mounting), inspection, testing, quality assurance.” 

Use: means “operation, installation (including on-site installation), maintenance (checking), repair, 

overhaul and refurbishing.” 

For example, under EAR ECCN 1E001, the EAR prohibits 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 form; 

• gas mask filter canisters and decontamination equipment for defense against biological agents 

radiological agents, chemical warfare agents or riot 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 technology, and other risks. 

The prohibitions against exports include not only physical 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 ITAR-controlled technology would require the prior 

written approval of the appropriate government agency. In other words, to require the public release of 

ITAR-controlled technology, the requiring company (in this case, EPA) would first need to obtain the 

approval of the appropriate agency, which could vary depending on the information in question. This 

process is described in 22 CFR 120.11(a)(7) (definition of public domain), as a handbook that outlines the 

process to obtain approval for public release of ITAR 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 such 

emission information could constitute the disclosure of controlled production technology and possibly 

technical data to the EPA. 

To remain in compliance with U.S. export control regulations, EPA personnel would need either to 

request authorization to publicly release such information, or implement an export control plan to assure 

compliance with all U.S. export control regulations. The Agency would need to ensure that it can identify 
37

and segregate such information on U.S. based servers 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 maintain. This problem would be compounded by the fact

that EPA will not necessarily be in possession of the additional scientific information that would enable it 

to evaluate which data it possesses that may trigger export control requirements. 

For all of the reasons noted above, this information should be treated as CBI and not publicly disclosed. 

EPA should also implement whatever additional restrictions are necessary to comply with export control

regulations. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on export control concerns 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: 6 

Comment: EPA‘s proposed determinations in Subpart L create the strong likelihood of a competitive 

disadvantage for companies that may face serious discrepancies in the treatment of reported data. For 

example, if a company reports under Subpart L §98.126(b), all process inputs and outputs would be made

available to the public, information that is routinely protected as CBI in permit or emissions reporting 

documents sent to state agencies. However, if a company reports under §98.126(c), much less information 

would be available to the public, allowing this company to protect its sensitive business information. To 

afford adequate protection to all U.S. companies, EPA should determine that all of the data is business 

confidential, regardless of the method of calculating emissions. 

More important than the inequity that may result from 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 process information than what is being proposed in this 

rulemaking. In almost all cases, government agencies outside the U.S. limit the information requested so 

they do not implicate trade secret information. 

On Tuesday, February 29, 2012, President Obama signed 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 enforcement by monitoring and enforcing U.S. rights 

under international and domestic trade rules and countering unfair subsidies that tilt the global market 

against U.S. firms.” [Footnote: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/executive-orderestablishment-interagency-trade-enforcement-center]. As reported by the Associated Press, the office 

“will expand the administration‘s ability to challenge 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 intellectual piracy. The president's most recent budget 

proposal asks Congress for millions of dollars for the new enforcement center and more US inspectors in 

China.” 

It is recognized that manufacturers outside the United States would welcome information on 

manufacturing processes at facilities subject to Subpart L. EPA should not be adopting rules that have the 

effect of promoting intellectual piracy in China or other countries, especially as the White House 
38

simultaneously recognizes the substantial threat that piracy poses and chooses to spend millions of dollars 

in enforcement money to counter it. 

By including process-related emission information for greenhouse gas reporting, EPA‘s interpretation of 

the term “emission data” is over broad. This interpretation 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 potential negative consequences this issue poses, it is 

important to acknowledge it from an intellectual property 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 order to develop and improve valuable product and process 

information. 

Sensitive R&D information is reflected in the details of a company‘s manufacturing and process 

information. This information has economic value only as long as the information remains confidential 

and, therefore, unavailable to competitors. Trade secret information represents a long recognized form of 

intellectual property in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Companies invest in R&D efforts in 

reliance on the protection that U.S. Federal and state laws provide for their intellectual property. These 

laws allow them to protect their trade secrets and confidential information long enough for them to recoup 

their R&D investment and realize the potentially significant economic rewards that are available in the 

commercial marketplace. This potential 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. Silicon 

Valley, Microsoft, Apple, and 3M all represent companies whose notable innovation has been a direct 

result of the protection of intellectual property. The danger of overseas competitors illegally copying or 

reverse engineering manufacturing technologies is very 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 the 

opportunity to grow and develop into essential products. Indeed, one of our nation‘s strongest credits is 

the creation of a framework that promotes an accessible marketplace which welcomes new ideas and 

technology. A critical piece of that framework is the protection of intellectual property and the 

recognition that trade secrets and competitively sensitive information are important and valuable assets to 

American companies. 

EPA‘s proposal, which requires disclosure of process-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. Companies throughout the world could use this 

information to copy the technology or processes that 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 American companies that lose their valuable trade secret

information. 

Instead of fostering innovation, proposals such as this one force disclosure of trade secrets that stifle 

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 ideas and 

R&D investments. The determinations in this proposal may well promote intellectual piracy by overseas 

competitors and damage the global competitiveness of American companies. Rather than adopting 
39

regulations that force disclosure of valuable company trade secret information, EPA should adopt 

regulations that recognize the inherent value of this data and attempt to safeguard it. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. 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 Regulatory 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 some of the information requested is 

confidential business information (CBI), particularly trade secret information related to location and

function of certain processes in those facilities. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 10 

Comment: 3M also supports EPA’s determination that under reporting section 98.126(a)(3), the 

“chemical identities of the contents of the stream(s)” for process and destroyed streams analyzed under 

the initial scoping speciation of fluorinated GHG at 98.124(a), by process, are CBI. EPA Table A-1: List 

of Proposed Data Category Assignments and CBI Determinations for Direct Emitter Subparts L, DD, II, 

RR, SS, and TT, p. 6. As discussed in more detail below, these chemical identities, if identified by 

process, would give 3M’s competitors trade secret information 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 would 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 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 Subpart L. 

Comment Excerpt Number: 19 

Comment: §98.126(c)(1)-(3)—Identity of the process activity used to estimate emissions (tons of product 

or tons of reactant consumed); mass of each F-GHG emitted for each process vent (metric tons): Whereas 

information contained in other paragraphs of §98.126 would be sufficient alone to compromise trade 

secrets, the information contained in these reporting elements is highly confidential because it could be 

used to determine the quantities and contents of all manufacturing streams. Since §98.126 (a)(3) is simply 

the product of §§98.126 (c)(1) and (2), reporting any 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 are 

similar to those expressed previously for §98.126(a) with the additional concern that reporting emissions 

by "process vent" has the potential to provide even more detail than emissions by process. The examples 
40

cited previously with respect to the CBI determinations made for 98.126 (a) would also pertain to this

paragraph. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 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 could 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 are reportable, the composition of the product or of an 

isolated intermediate can be determined from this information. For an operation that involves the handling 

of the final product, the composition of the fugitive air emission stream could easily be identical to the 

product content, since fugitive emissions are assumed 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 information 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 the 

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., VOCs. 

Reporting this type of information by process in the 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 level of reporting detail 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: 21 

Comment: §98.126(b)(7): EPA appropriately recognizes this element as CBI. The mass and chemical 

formula of each fluorine-containing product produced by the process is confidential information. EPA has 

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 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. 

Comment Excerpt Number: 22 

Comment: §98.126(b)(4) and (5)-- Mass and chemical formula of 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 CBI; however, it is CBI. The information being reported 

under these subsections may not have been placed in the public domain. As indicated earlier, emissions 

are not always associated with the manufacture of a specific product. More importantly, the data elements 

in conjunction with reactant inputs and other outputs will provide one of the elements that is necessary to 
41

determine the process yield. It provides information on manufacturing formulas and process yields that

could be used by a competitor to try to duplicate the manufacturing process. The mass and composition of 

the process inputs and outputs could also be used to 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 Amendments 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 information, the mass of each reactant fed into the 

production process would provide competitors information on specific production quantities and process

yields. This information is not in the public domain. The mass and composition of the process inputs and 

outputs could also be used to determine the presence and elemental composition of proprietary chemicals. 

It is confidential information alone; in combination with the addition of the mass of product produced

(§98.126(b)(7)), the mass of product emitted (§98.126(b)(4), and mass of each byproduct emitted 

(§98.126(b)(5)), all of this would provide competitors a detailed understanding of the manufacturing 

process at a particular Subpart L facility. Because some Subpart L facilities have invested substantial 

R&D in the millions of dollars and over 60 years of experience in developing unique process 

characteristics, the mass of reactants could be highly confidential information. For some facilities, the 

basic chemical equations for a process may have been 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 create 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 Amendments 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 product, by chemical and 

process (metric tons); chemical formula of each fluorinated gas product, by chemical and process. EPA 

has proposed that this information is CBI. 3M supports this determination. This is consistent with those 

determinations made for the same information that is being reported under Subpart OO although this 

same information, i.e., production volume, would not be considered CBI under Section 98.126(a)(2)(i) as 

mass of each F-GHG emitted from each process (because the fluorinated gas is, in fact, the “fluorinated 

gas product”). In addition, EPA’s determination that the “chemical formula of each fluorinated gas 

product” is CBI is inconsistent with EPA’s determination (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 information is being reported by process vent. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 25 
42

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 and therefore not CBI. However, the same analysis that 

EPA uses above to conclude that “location and function” of the process are CBI, and the chemical 

identities of contents of process and destroyed streams are CBI, also applies to the chemical identities of 

the contents of emission streams, for many of the 3M 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 processes. The chemical identities involve trade secret 

information. In addition, the information by process could provide insight into the manufacturing process 

and facility configuration, such as which intermediate 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 discussed 

above. This request for chemical identities has the potential to provide chemical-specific information, by 

process, on how the manufacturing process is configured and on chemical formulas in the manufacturing 

process. EPA has conceded that this type of information is CBI when it involves chemical identities of

process streams and destroyed streams under Subpart L—this is the same type of trade secret information. 

We would point out that this determination unfairly targets those facilities or processes where a reporter 

decided to measure vent gas composition for scoping analysis and that EPA’s proposed CBI 

determinations were made after reporters had already made these decisions. This is the information that 

EPA is requesting by March 31, 2012, and therefore 3M asks for an extension on submission of this until 

the CBI issue is resolved. Some of this information will also be subject to export control laws. 3M asks 

that EPA consider this information as a static unit/process operational characteristic as opposed to 

“emission data,” given that it is baseline information that is not provided along with reported emission 

amounts. EPA has considered similar information for facilities subject to Subpart I as non-emission data, 

including disclosure of the “recipes” (e.g., specific combination of gases used to fabricate a specific 

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 manufacturing performance. EPA could use the same type 

of rationale for this “chemical identity” information. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. 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 fluorinated gas 

production process (metric tons), and from all fluorinated gas production processes combined; total mass 

of F-GHG emitted from certain fluorinated gas transformation 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 the 

availability of process specific information that has not been placed in the public domain. This is CBI 

data, and the release of this data has the potential to provide road-maps for the process and how it is 
43

configured. This will reveal trade secret information on the number of process steps. Appendix A to these 

comments includes a diagram showing how emissions from a packaging process can provide competitors 

information on the amount of product manufactured. Facilities exercise great care protecting all of this 

technology-sensitive information and production volumes. 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 secret 

information. The chemical composition of the product can be determined from the emissions stream. 

Subpart L reporting is unique from other environmental reporting in that the emissions from the process 

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, emissions may indicate the presence of unique chemicals. 

See Appendix B to these comments, which is a non-CBI diagram showing how emissions from a specific 

process can give insights into trade secret information on chemical inputs and reactants. Although it is a 

hypothetical example, it illustrates the point that disclosure of emissions by process or operating unit as 

opposed to disclosure of facility-wide emissions is what allows a competitor to determine the CBI 

associated with a particular product or intermediate. Accordingly, this type of information requested in 

this element of Subpart L may be unique and can reveal novel production methods. It is similar to the 

unique process data reflecting novel production methods 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 process 

gases typically found in the effluent streams. For purposes of 3M air permit applications or air emission 

reporting to date, these emission constituents have been reported as Total Organic Carbon or a Volatile 

Organic Compound, and therefore the specific chemical 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 Pollutant 

which may be used as a processing aid, e.g. cleaning solvents, but the process emissions are not the 

product of the process. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. With respect to container heel venting, a discussion and response to this 

document has been provided in section II.B of the Final 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 being reported in §98.126 would provide detailed 

information on a fluorinated gas manufacturing facility. Unlike many other source categories where 

reported emissions will be limited to carbon dioxide alone, Subpart L data will be chemical specific. 

Subpart L covers “fluorinated gas production,” and because EPA is asking for the chemical identities in 

emissions from each discrete process in a Subpart L facility, rather than from the facility as a whole, EPA 

in essence is asking for information that will reveal to competitors the trade secret manufacturing process 

and chemical recipe for how to make the product (the fluorinated gas), process step by process step. This 

will include data on product chemical compositions (also required under Subpart OO but there treated as 

CBI). It will reveal to competitors trade secret information on the number of process steps involved in 

making a fluorinated gas product. In addition, reports on emissions of the fluorinated gas will be the

equivalent of trade secret information on the amount of the fluorinated gas product produced, which EPA 

has determined is CBI under Subpart OO, and the amounts of all isolated intermediates. 
44

Competitors may well be able to use all of this detailed information to determine how the manufacturing 

facility is configured, and to determine novel manufacturing methods developed by 3M at great expense 

and over 60 years of research and development experience. 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, potentially allowing them to take advantage of this 

information. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 30 

Comment: EPA’s recent proposed confidentiality determinations for Subpart I of the MRR provide 

confidentiality justifications that apply to the information 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. 22, 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 knowledge of this type of exclusive method, they could 

undercut the facility’s competitive advantage by replicating it at less expense. EPA acknowledged that

this “would likely result in substantial competitive harm.” 77 FR at 10439. EPA also recognized that the 

number of abatement systems at an electronics manufacturing facility was CBI because it could provide 

insight into the number of tools at the facility, which coupled with production capacity could enable 

competitors to reverse-engineer the facility’s approximate 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 process 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 used 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 provide insight into how the reporting facility is 

configured and achieves its specific manufacturing performance. Competitors could use this to replicate 

the manufacturing configuration and undercut the reporting facility’s competitive advantage. Id. at 10441. 

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 products), by discrete process and for each process within 

the facility, would reveal trade secret information on 3M’s novel production methods, on 3M’s unique 

configurations and the number of processes and process steps used to produce a product, and on the 

unique intermediate chemistries leading up to production of fluorinated gas products. As EPA recognized 

for Subpart I facilities, this could give competitors 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 N2O in the effluent stream to the abatement 

system” was not CBI because “[t]he type of fluorinated gas in the effluent stream would not likely cause 

substantial competitive harm if released, because all facilities use the same types of process gases that are 

typically found in effluent streams. The type of gas does not provide any insight into the costs of 

producing semiconductors at the facility or any novel production methods that may have been developed 
45

by the facility to improve manufacturing efficiencies, reduce manufacturing costs, or improve product 

performance.” Id. at 10444. By contrast, however, the type of fluorinated gases in effluent streams subject 

to Subpart L for some 3M products would in fact reveal novel production methods developed by 3M at 

great expense and over many years of research and development, to improve manufacturing efficiencies 

and improve product performance. This information should be held as CBI by EPA because it would 

cause substantial competitive harm if released. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. 

3.4 Comments on the Inputs to Emission Equations Data Category and the Definition of 

Emissions Data – Subpart L 

Commenter Name: Bredan Mascarenhas, Manager of Regulatory and Technical 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 be enhanced with a simple language 

clarification in the text of the proposal. Specifically, in the Memorandum A matrix, the reporting § 

98.126(c)(1) for Subpart L is identified as “the identity of the process activity used to estimate emissions 

(e.g. tons of product or tons of reactant consumed).” This data is correctly determined to be “emission 

data” and available to the public in the matrix. However, the corresponding text in the proposal (Section 

1, Fluorinated Gas Production), which should merely restate the matrix determinations, lists the data 

element as “the identity and quantity of the process activity used to estimate emissions...”, [Footnote: 77 

Fed. Reg. 1442, January 10, 2012] which the rule states 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. In fact, 

the Agency’s August 2011 Inputs to Emission Equations deferral correctly identifies the quantity portion 

of this requirement as subject to the reporting deferral of March 2015 [Footnote: 76 Fed. Reg. 53057, 

August 25, 2011]. In order to avoid any potential confusion, ACC suggests that EPA separate the 

paragraphs in the text of the rule. For example, the section that announces the determination for emissions 

data available to the public should list only the identity 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, 2015. This solution presents a relatively simple fix

that would significantly reduce confusion about reporting requirements under the proposal. More 

importantly, it would allow for the full consideration of sensitive data elements that contain CBI. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 8 

Comment: The Clean Air Act, EPA’s regulations, and the 1991 EPA notice support a narrow 

interpretation of “emissions data” for purposes of Part 98. 

The purpose of Section 114, in pertinent part, is to allow EPA to require a party to provide information to 

assist the Agency in developing or implementing an implementation plan under Section 110, emission 

standards under Sections 111 or 112, etc., or to determine if a person is in violation of those standards or 
46

implementation plan. It is not the purpose of Section 114 for EPA to require the submittal of voluminous 

amounts of data, including CBI, so that EPA can release all of that data to the public in a misguided effort 

to be “transparent”. 

Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that “[a]ny records, reports, or information obtained under [CAA 

section 114(a)] shall be available to the public, except 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 trade 

secrets * * *, the Administrator shall consider such record, report, or information or particular portion 

thereof confidential * * *.” 

Congress clearly understood and recognized in Section 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 secrets and 

confidential business information.” 75 Fed. Reg. at 39100. Only “emission data” collected by the Agency 

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 quality) of any emission which has been emitted by the source 

(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 quality) of the emissions, which, under an applicable standard 

or limitation, the source was authorized to emit (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a 

description of the manner or rate of operation of the source); and, 

(C) A general description of the location and/or nature of the source to the extent necessary to identify the 

source and to distinguish it from other sources (including, to the extent necessary for such purposes, a 

description of the device, installation, or operation constituting the source). 

EPA last clarified the type of information that EPA generally considers being “emission data”, and which 

cannot qualify as confidential under either Section 114(c) or Section 110, in a notice published almost 

twenty years ago. In a February 21, 1991 Federal Register notice (56 Fed. Reg. 7042), EPA listed the 

specific data fields that it considered to be emission data. EPA first identified the data fields related to 

facility identification, which we do not address in these comments. EPA then listed the data fields needed 

to establish the characteristics of the emissions or “emission parameters”: 

• Emission type (e.g., nature of emissions such as CO2) 

• Emission rate (e.g., amount released to the atmosphere 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 molecular weight 
47

• Boiler or process design capacity 

• Emission estimation method 

• Percent space heat 

• Hourly maximum design rate 

At the end of the Federal Register notice, EPA noted that “after consideration of comments on this policy, 

a revised policy/determination may be published.” We have been unable to locate the comments 

submitted on this notice (they are not available electronically and could not be located at EPA) to inform 

ourselves of the issues raised by commenters for EPA’s consideration. However, it does not appear any 

revised policy determination has ever been published. 

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

Section 114(c), as well as federal case law interpreting that language and the federal regulations, support a 

more narrow reading of “emission data”, especially when applied to the unprecedented and voluminous 

amounts of information EPA is requiring to be submitted under Part 98. 

Moreover, we question the basis for the 1991 Federal Register proposed policy that the “emission rate”, 

“hourly maximum design rate”, and “boiler or process design capacity” should be considered “emission 

data”. These pieces of information can be trade secrets, because they can show the amount of production 

or capacity by a source. Additionally, the submittal of this data is not necessary for a source to comply 

with Part 98’s reporting of GHG emissions, and the information is not necessary to determine actual 

emissions or facility identity. If EPA determines this data must be submitted pursuant to Part 98, it should 

be identified as CBI and protected from public disclosure. 

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

We believe that Section 114(c) and case law reviewing 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 district 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 other 

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 nature 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 through 
48

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 statute.” 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” to determine emissions should it be considered “emission 

data”, and the Agency should consider alternative methods 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 “necessary to determine” 

requirement). 

Of the voluminous amounts of information that EPA is requesting in Part 98, very little rises to the level 

of information “necessary to determine” actual emissions or facility identity. First, unlike the situation 

with most EPA air emission rules, Part 98 merely requires the reporting of GHG emissions, not 

compliance with an emission limit or standard. EPA has neither proposed nor established emission limits 

or standards for GHGs. Accordingly, much of the data that EPA is requiring facilities to submit to the

Agency is not “necessary” pursuant to 40 CFR Section 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) and (C). Nonetheless, EPA is 

requiring a facility to submit this additional information, rather than allowing the information to remain 

onsite and subject to request or review by the Agency as needed. Because this information is not 

“emission data” and is sensitive information related to chemical manufacturing and production, it is 

entitled to confidential treatment because disclosure is likely to cause substantial harm to the competitive 

position of the facilities required to report this information. 

We agree with EPA’s conclusion that because there are 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. Reg. 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 company trade secret information to the extent 

possible. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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: 21 

Comment: In EPA’s previous communications, 3M as a member company 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 development and not to “verify reported GHG emissions.” 

Much of [the] data being reported by EPA, however, would do little in verifying emission estimates. For 

example under §98.126(c), the quantity of the activity measurement ((c)(1)) is used to convert the process 

vent specific emission factor ((c)(2)), into the mass of each fluorinated GHG emitted ((c)(3)). Based on 

the language in the request for comments, the purpose of reporting both the production quantity and the 

emission factor is presumed to allow EPA to verify that the mass reported in (c)(3) is correct. This is 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 calculation process. True “verification” of the emission 

factor could only occur by an evaluation of the detailed engineering calculations or emission testing 
49

results that that [sic] serve as the basis of the emission factor. We would also point out that the production 

quantity being reported under these sections may be identical to the values being reported under Subpart 

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 in the final rule entitled “Confidentiality 

Determinations for Data Required Under the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 

Amendments to Special Rules Governing Certain Information 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 – Subpart L 

Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regulatory 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 covered 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 confidentiality will not be finalized by that date. Much of this 

requested information would be CBI for 3M, and 3M does 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 extension of the time period for reporting this information 

until the CBI and export control issues are resolved. 

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 2012 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 

Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Elements of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” 

published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477). 

Comment Excerpt Number: 10 

Comment: 3M recognizes that EPA was under tight Congressional deadlines to propose and finalize a 

MRR for GHG emissions. We acknowledge and appreciate all the work that has gone into the MRRrelated rulemakings to date. However, we are frustrated with the way EPA chose to sequence its proposal, 

i.e., EPA issued this CBI proposal after it finalized the main MRR and the Subpart L reporting rule. At 

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 CBI concerns based on the unprecedented and 

substantial amount of data EPA proposed to be required for submittal to the Agency. Specifically, in 

3M’s June 2009 comments 3M noted that EPA was asking 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 submitted 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 the 
50

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 handling procedures. 

Without knowing what the final rule would require or how EPA would protect data and information we 

believe is CBI, 3M and other companies were unable to consider, let alone propose specific alternatives to 

the submittal of all of that data and information. For example, in lieu of reporting sensitive data such as 

process-specific information that could expose trade secrets to the public, we might have found it 

preferable to agree to third-party audits. But we did 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 2012 and 2013, in the final action entitled “2012 

Technical Corrections, Clarifying and Other Amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Certain Data Elements of the Fluorinated Gas Source Category,” 

published on August 24, 2012 (77 FR 51477). 

3.6 Unit-Level Data should be Confidential – Subpart L 

Commenter Name: Jeffrey C. Muffat, Manager of Environmental Regulatory 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 Emissions Information Goes Beyond its 

Authorization Under the Law 

EPA’s mandatory reporting rules were adopted pursuant to H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2008 . . . EPA’s authorization in this Act is 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 certain 

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 processes 

within the facility. 3M contends that EPA has gone beyond its authorization in the law if it requires 

reporting of emissions by individual processes within a facility. From the beginning of the rulemaking

process, 3M has encouraged EPA to adopt the alternative approach of requiring reporting for the facility 

as a whole in CO2 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 approaches especially where these emissions would be 

very low. 

Response: A discussion and response to this comment on level of reporting detail 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. 
51

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

On November 19, 2013, the U. S. Environmental Protection 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 proposed changes were requested when the proposal was 

published in the Federal Register, and the public comment period lasted from November 19, 2014 to 

February 20, 2014. Comments were received from 5 sources, including fluorinated gas producers, 

industry trade associations, environmental groups, and other interested parties. These letters have been 

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 affiliations, and the recorded docket item number assigned to 

their correspondence (i.e., the four digits added to the end of the Docket No.). 

All of the comments submitted by these 5 sources, and 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 Amendments 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 Investigation 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, University of California 

San Diego 
52

4.1 – Overall Proposal to Establish Aggregate Reporting 

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 chemical-specific emissions at the process level with a 

reporting requirement that uses some level of aggregation of compounds (i.e., combines two levels of 

reporting). 

Commenters ACC and DuPont supported the idea of grouping F GHGs. Commenter DuPont agreed that 

reporting F GHG emissions in grouped classes of compounds 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. Commenter EIA stated the current proposal to require 

less information and generic, melded information—instead 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 materially reduce the amount and quality of information 

available to inform future policy. Commenter EIA stated that certain facilities that meet specified criteria 

could report their fluorinated GHG emissions in a less detailed manner depending such as whether the 

facility is producing a unique product. The commenter indicated the proposal will require significantly 

fewer facilities to submit data compared to the original rule. 

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

4.2 – Rule Mechanism to Request Confidentiality/Export Control Exemption in the 

Future 

Comment: With respect to potential conflicts with export control requirements, Commenter (3M) stated 

that EPA’s proposal addressed concerns previously raised in comments. Commenters ACC and 3M noted 

that in future reporting years, facilities would be obligated to comply with export control requirements 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 control information, other CBI issues that were not 

reasonably understood at rule promulgation). 

Response: See section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that in order to protect industry concerns about reporting export 

control information, EPA should consider alternative reporting mechanisms that would report facilitywide information in CO2e in the same or similar manner 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 restrictions are necessary to comply with export control 

regulations. 

Response: See section II.B.3 of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 
53

4.3 – Chemical-specific Reporting at the Facility Level 

Comment: Commenters DuPont, ACC, 3M noted that chemical-specific 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 inform 

efforts to reconcile bottom-up emission estimates with top-down atmospheric measurements. Commenter 

Scripps stated it is critical for regulators to appreciate that the uncertainties in “bottom-up” emissions 

inventory reporting when compared to “top-down” assessments 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 resolving the bottom-up vs. top-down reporting 

discrepancies can only be done if “bottom-up” reporting is also by specific compound. Commenter 

Scripps noted that specific compound reporting is most important at the facility level, not at the process 

level. Commenter Scripps stated that reporting specific compounds at the facility level should protect 

industry’s need to protect trade secrets while also supporting verifiable emissions reporting. 

Commenter Scripps provided two articles in their comments, as follows: 

• Top-Down Versus Bottom-Up, by E. Nisbet and R. Weiss, which noted that the atmospheric 

measurement data [for compound-specific GHGs] suggest that the actual emissions of industrial 

GHGs are often greater than reported. 

• Quantifying greenhouse-gas emissions from atmospheric 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 rule 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 mtCO2e 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 exceed 1,000 mtCO2e, where emissions less than 1,000 

mtCO2e would be reported only by group at the facility level. Commenter EIA stated the change to 

reporting by F GHG group undermines EPA’s ability to 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 fluorinated GHG (compound-specific) threshold in 

CO2e, below which emissions would not have to be reported, 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 emission of each compound per facility as a starting place. 
54

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

emissions threshold and the setting of the threshold based on nationwide or facility level emissions for 

individual fluorinated GHG. 

With the 1000 mtCO2e threshold, EPA would still gather emissions data in CO2e for process vents and 

equipment leaks if those were below 1000 mtCO2e, and EPA would gather emissions data by chemical if 

those were above 1000 mtCO2e for irregular emissions.

With respect to the comments that a threshold be set for each fluorinated GHG, on a compound –specific

basis, based on nationwide production levels, it is important to note that disclosure concerns often exist 

for production levels of individual fluorinated GHG that are final products. In addition, many fluorinated 

GHG compounds are emitted as reactants or byproducts 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 producing 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 rule for a response to the comments. 

4.6 – Effective Destruction Efficiency 

Comment: Commenter ACC stated the proposed ranges for [effective] reporting destruction efficiency 

are sufficient for the purposes of the GHGRP. Commenter 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 efficiencies alone are not indicative of the effectiveness of a 

control device. 

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rule 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 key 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 the DE and the downtime. The commenter suggested that 

facilities also report whether they have in-line destruction equipment or they collect and transport HFCs 

[fluorinated GHGs] to a central destruction facility. 

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

4.7 – Reporting Container Heels 

Comment: Commenter 3M believed that these chemical specific emissions in 98.126(a)(6) should be 

reported as part of the facility-wide totals required 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 information on a specific product that may be CBI 

under subpart OO. 

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rule 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 its acceptance of peer-reviewed 

scientific determinations for GWPs for fluorinated GHGs where there is a significant difference in CO2e 

emissions through the use of grouping. Commenter 3M supported expeditious updates of Table A-1 when 

adequate technical demonstrations support more specific values. Commenters ACC, 3M encouraged EPA 

to provide updates (Commenter 3M requested “expeditious updates”) to Table A-1 when scientifically 

robust data (3M says “adequate technical demonstrations”) is/are provided. 

Commenter EIA urged use of GWP values (for HFCs) established by the IPCC or other internationally 

recognized scientific body. The commenter noted that where GWPs have not been established, they 

support establishment of consistent default GWPs rather 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 rule 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 appropriate method for determining 

GWPs when they are not listed in Table A-1. However, the commenter appreciated EPA’s need to 

provide a consistent method for all reporters and the F-GHG groupings provided in Table L-1 are 

acceptable. 

Commenter EIA supported the establishment of consistent default GWPs and noted that the best-estimate 

GWP process setup in the temporary subpart L reporting changes 98.126(j)(3) led to doubts about the 

accuracy, reliability, and comparability of the data. 

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rule 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 that when Table A-1 contains a GWP for a F 

GHG, that value will be used to calculate and report emissions. The commenter stated that Table L-1 

default values would only be used when Table A-1 values are not available. The commenter further noted 

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 Testing if Vent Emissions Exceed 10,000 

mtCO2e based on New Default GWPs. 

Comment: Commenters ACC, 3M stated it is their understanding that the introduction of the new default 

GWPs would not impact threshold evaluations and testing that has already been conducted (e.g., 

preliminary engineering estimates, emission testing triggered by process vent thresholds, RSD 

calculations conducted to determine testing accuracy). With the revised GWPs, Commenter ACC noted it 

is possible that changes would occur in the calculations 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 this 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 this to be completed. 

Response: See section II.B of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 
56

4.12 – 15 Percent Criterion 

Comment: Commenter 3M stated that in assessing the “15 percent criteria” for different operating 

scenarios, the same group of GWP values would be used in making these comparisons. Commenter 3M 

stated the comparison should be made against the same 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 emitting 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 rule for a response to the comments. 

4.13 – Removal of Mass-Balance Approach 

Comment: Three commenters (EIA, DuPont, ACC) provided input 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-balance approach be included as an appendix to part 98 

rather than referring back to the 2010 final rule FRN. 

Commenter EIA stated that they understood removal of 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 rule for a response to the comments. 

4.14 – Emission Testing and Reporting (Proposed Amendments to 98.124(c)(1)) 

Comment: Two commenters (DuPont, ACC) provided input on the language change regarding the 

emission test to remove “that occurs in more than trace 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 remove the phrase “or is otherwise known to 

occur in the vent stream” from 98.124(c)(1). Commenter ACC stated the language change would require 

facilities to conduct all new scoping speciations and stack tests in order to identify miniscule quantities of 

fluorinated GHGs that had previously been excluded from testing. Commenter ACC indicated facilities 

and laboratories would have to develop costly new protocols for these very small quantities of fluorinated 

GHGs, and this expensive testing would reveal little, 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 that ... 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 original 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 exemption 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 [calibration gases] for every F GHG that may be produced. 

Commenter DuPont stated EPA has not demonstrated the significance to emissions of trace 

concentrations of F GHGs that may be “otherwise known to occur.” The commenter indicated the 

original trace concentration threshold of 0.1 percent was based on reasonable judgment that these 

compounds would have minor impact on the nationwide CO2e emissions. 

 Commenter DuPont requested that EPA clarify that the text modifications to 98.124(c)(1) do not require 

retesting under 98.124(c), as facilities have already spent time and resources in performing first round 

process vent testing and should not be penalized for a late change in language. 

Response: Please see section II.D of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 

Comment: Commenter DuPont stated the change to emission factor testing requirements related to trace 

concentration extends to the reporting requirement for past years, in that 98.126(k) requires submission of 

complete reporting year 2011, 2012, and 2013 GHG reports. 

Response: Please see section II.D of the preamble to the final rule for a response to the comments. 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated F gas producers should report by process the chemical identities of 

the contents of streams analyzed under the initial scoping speciation as well as the location and function 

of those streams. 

Response: EPA has finalized requirements to continue requiring 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 content on stream could reveal fluorinated GHG reactants and 

byproducts in the process and provide the process fingerprint. EPA concluded that these data are not 

necessary for verifying the fluorinated GHG emissions data or to inform future GHG policy and 

programs. 

4.15 – Proposed CBI Determinations 

Comment: Commenters DuPont, ACC find the proposed CBI determinations 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 rule for a response to the comments. 

4.16 – Environmental Justice 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that EPA’s environmental justice certification does not account for 

the disproportionate impact of climate change on low-income and minority populations. The commenter 

stated climate change impacts and extreme weather events have a greater impact on these populations. 

Response: As is consistent with every rulemaking action for Part 98, Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting, the subpart L reporting rule for Fluorinated Gas Production is a rule addressing information 

collection and reporting procedures and does not require controlling GHG emissions from facilities. 

4.17 – Aggregate Reporting is Unnecessary for the Vast Majority of HFCs 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that for the GHGRP, “[t]he purpose of the rule is to collect accurate 

and timely GHG data to inform future policy decisions.” 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 favor of facility level reporting, combining emissions 
58

from multiple process lines; (3) combining HFCs by GWP, atmospheric lifetime, or other mechanism that 

eviscerates EPA’s ability to target specific HFCs for reduction; and (4) reducing the amount, specificity, 

and granularity of information available to inform future policy decisions. Commenter EIA stated that

losing information on how much of what HFCs are emitted at a particular stage in a given process 

compromises the ability to identify the most efficient and effective ways to reduce HFC emissions in the 

future, as well as the identity of the processes/facilities with largest potential for future reductions by 

specific HFC. Commenter EIA stated it will be impossible to determine industry best practice in leakage 

and venting control operations. 

Commenter EIA cited section 114(c) of the CAA and apparently 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 trade secrets” in the production of commercial HFCs. The 

commenter stated that all HFCs in commercial production were developed in the 1930s and 1940s, the 

methods of production are known throughout the industry and no evidence has been presented that 

justifies the restriction of disclosure of emissions from these commercial production facilities. 

Commenter EIA stated the commercial production of common HFCs cannot meet the criteria for “entitled 

to protection as trade secrets” and cannot be exempted from disclosure in contravention of CAA section

114(c). With respect to the FOIA, Commenter EIA stated the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled 

that exemptions are to be “narrowly construed,” however according to the commenter EPA is relying on a

narrow construction of potential CBI concerns and the unique case of one company/facility’s (3M) 

specialty chemical production. Commenter EIA stated EPA must balance CBI concerns against the need 

for transparency and public interest and meet the standards for exemptions from disclosure established by 

the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The commenter stated EPA should create a narrow exception to reporting process steps only where 

companies can prove actual CBI concerns or export control concerns from this disclosure, which is highly 

unlikely for commercial production of common HFCs. 

The commenter asserted that the majority of GHG emissions 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 production is not a valid CBI concern and should not 

restrict the information on commercial HFC production made available to the public. 

Commenter EIA said that one company/facility (3M) claims to make specialty HFCs for particular uses, 

and the processes are not public and revealing the information related to this production could disclose 

CBI. The commenter stated that if legally proven to be confidential, trade secrets, and strategic military 

importance, a narrow exemption should be drafted for 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 accurate, actual emissions data would not disclose any 

confidential information. 

Commenter EIA stated EPA fails to distinguish between commercial production of the commonly 

produced HFCs and specialty production. The commenter noted that one company stated in previous 

comments that “3M may be uniquely affected by the proposed rule. 3M may be the only manufacturer of 

F gases that faces the possibility that its trade secret manufacturing information will be released as a result 

of EPA’s determinations that certain process-related chemical identities and other information is not 
59

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 take 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 EPA’s conclusions for subpart I that emissions of 

other GHG in effluent streams are not CBI. Commenter EIA further stated there has been no showing 

that emissions from commercial production operations for most commonly used HFCs are any different 

than the emissions considered for subpart I. Commenter EIA indicated the proposed reporting should not 

be applied to any commercial HFC production that cannot make a specific showing that their production 

actually constitutes a trade secret. 

Commenter EIA noted that F GHGs have the highest GWPs 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 ability 

to distinguish between downstream emissions and upstream emissions and their ability to analyze the 

impacts of these type of policies. 

Commenter EIA stated EPA should withdraw portions of the reporting requirements that do not protect 

true CBI concerns and undermine the public’s ability to track GHG emissions from HFC production. In 

particular, ordinary commercial production of common 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 monitor 

emissions of specific HFCs and to compare operations across the industry. Commenter EIA stated the 

rule should be withdrawn and narrowed to address only the HFC production processes that truly meet the

CBI definitions. Commenter EIA stated that facilities that seek generic reporting should request an 

exemption or waiver from EPA based on specific evidence that disclosure would contribute to loss in 

marketability. Commenter EIA urged EPA to retain the 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 final 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 HFCs, adding narrow exemption criteria, and issues 

related to analyzing the impacts of upstream and downstream 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 will 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 CBI protection. Rather, the subpart L amendments will 

address disclosure concerns while allowing the EPA to collect the data necessary to inform the 

development of future GHG policies and programs. Regarding the commenter’s statement that 

exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 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 under 

subpart L as amended by this rule or to our decision 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. Fluorinated gas production facilities will continue to be 
60

required to report their emissions accurately; they will simply report some of those emissions in metric 

tons of CO2e by fluorinated GHG group rather than in metric tons of individual chemicals. As discussed 

in the preamble to the Proposed Amendments to Subpart 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 actually 

improve both the accuracy and completeness of reported CO2e emissions compared to the 2010 Final 

Subpart L Rule and the temporary subpart L reporting requirements. To calculate CO2e emissions, 

fluorinated gas production facilities will be required to apply chemical-specific GWPs where those exist, 

and where chemical-specific GWPs do not exist, facilities will be required to apply default GWPs. This

will ensure that all emissions are accounted for in CO2e calculations and reporting. 

The commenter asserted that majority of GHG emissions 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 CO2e, 

allowing EPA to not only identify processes with high potential for emissions reduction but also to 

identify processes with increasing emissions from year to year. 

The commenter also refers to inconsistencies between EPA’s conclusions regarding subpart I (electronics 

manufacturing) reporting of compound-specific fluorinated GHGs and subpart L reporting of compoundspecific fluorinated GHGs. However, these inconsistencies are actually fairly small, and where they exist, 

they are justified by real differences between the conditions under which fluorinated GHGs are emitted by 

these two types of facilities. First, under subpart 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 already aggregated to a considerable extent, which 

chemical-specific emissions from individual subpart L processes would not be. Second, subpart I facilities 

use similar process gases drawn from a relatively small 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 sensitive information regarding the nature of an 

individual electronics manufacturing process. On the other hand, subpart L facilities produce and emit far 

more unique sets of fluorinated GHGs, including reactants, products, and by-products, that could reveal 

detailed process information (e.g., production pathways) if reported at the process level. 

4.18 – Both Atmospheric Lifetime and GWP are Important 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated both atmospheric lifetime and 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 EIA 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 with high GWPs that have both low [long] and short 

atmospheric lifetimes. Commenter EIA stated that with aggregation, EPA and the public lose the ability 

to target the most harmful HFC emissions first. 

Commenter EIA asked EPA to imagine if this approach was suggested for toxicity under the Toxic Use 

Reduction Act, would anyone think that all short-lived (ammonia and CO2) 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, to 
61

develop a rational plan to eliminate these super GHGs, both atmospheric life and GWP need to be 

disclosed. 

Response: The final rule includes reporting of emissions at 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 accounted for in this approach. Use of fluorinated 

GHG groups for reporting fluorinated GHG provides general information on both the GWPs and 

atmospheric lifetimes, and the atmospheric lifetimes and GWPs fall into relatively limited ranges. While 

the commenter makes an analogy to toxic chemicals, for HFCs, atmospheric lifetime is the most 

important predictor of GWP (see discussion in section 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 determination, EPA go through each of these 

identified adverse impacts and describe the actual effect and the CBI, trade secrets, or foreign disclosures 

for the entire fluorinated gas industry that justify 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 identified the reporting approach being finalized in 

this action (i.e., process-specific reporting by fluorinated GHG group and facility-level reporting by

chemical and by fluorinated GHG group) as our preferred approach. We also identified several 

alternatives to this approach that would involve less detailed reporting, discussed the potential adverse 

impacts of these alternatives, and asked for public comment on the alternatives. While we discussed these 

alternative approaches, we indicated that they were not our preferred approach. We did not receive any 

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 compare processes that make similar products at 

different facilities. 

Commenter EIA further stated that reporting by emission type [i.e., process vent and equipment leaks] 

allows EPA to identify and evaluate potential reduction opportunities. Commenter EIA believed that 

instead of losing any one level of information [process level or emission type information] and 

aggregating it into either “by process” or “by chemical,” 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 compare between operations, as there is great potential 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 proposal fails to collect the data that would allow targeting 

specific processes or specific HFCs because of weak, combined, and high-level reporting. 

Response: As part of addressing the disclosure issues related to detailed process information, EPA has 

finalized a requirement for facilities to report process information with a generic identifier, along with 

other process specific information such as the process type (production process and transformation 

process), a characterization of the process (reaction, distillation, and packaging), the emission type

(process vents and equipment leaks), and the methods used to determine emissions from the process. 
62

Reporting of the chemical formula and the mass of the product produced has been removed from the 

reporting requirements. For final products, this data element for mass of product produced is reported 

under subpart OO and treated as CBI. 

EPA continues to believe the promulgated level of reporting 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 process would reveal final products and the emissions 

associated with them, which may provide detailed information 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 process mechanisms used to manufacture the final product. 

The final reporting data allow identification of both 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 and mass of the product produced by the process allows 

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 would 

be lost under the proposed amendments. However, many 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, such as thermal combustion or plasma, can be used for 

a number of different processes producing different products. While the cost-effectiveness of these 

technologies varies depending on the GWP of the compound(s) emitted, EPA will be collecting 

information on the GWP (by requiring reporting by fluorinated GHG group). To the extent that emission 

reduction techniques, such as process optimization, may be particular to individual processes or products, 

these techniques are often proprietary, making them difficult to apply to the same process at facilities 

owned by different firms. Thus, EPA has concluded that the reporting that will occur under the amended

subpart L will be adequate to inform analyses of potential GHG programs and policies. 

Comment: Commenter EIA stated that without reporting of the number of process steps, EPA and the 

public will not be able to monitor emissions by process, to see if particular processes or process steps 

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 detailed process information, EPA has finalized a 

requirement for facilities to report process information 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), and the methods used to determine emissions from the 

process. Because each process will be reported by a generic identifier that remains the same from year to 

year, the public will be able to track the increases and decreases of fluorinated GHG emissions from each 

process. In addition, the magnitude of emissions in metric ton CO2e will also be reported, so the public 

will be able to identify those processes with high emissions due to large emissions of F GHG or with high 

GWP F GHG.