EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the following document on December 21, 

2015, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). 

While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of 

the document, it is not the official version. Please refer to the official 

version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government 

Printing Office's FDSys website 

(http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action). {It will also appear on 

Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526}.

6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526; FRL-9934-93-OAR]

RIN 2060-AS60

2015 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; Proposed Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; grant of reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend specific 

provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to streamline and improve implementation of 

the rule, to improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify 

or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from 

reporting entities. This action also proposes confidentiality determinations for the reporting of 

certain data elements to the program. This action also proposes action in response to a petition to 

reconsider specific aspects of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 45 days after publication in 

the Federal Register]. 
Page 2 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Public hearing. The EPA does not plan to conduct a public hearing unless requested. To 

request a hearing, please contact the person listed in the following FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section by [insert date 5 days after publication in the Federal 

Register]. If requested, the hearing will be conducted on [insert date 15 days after publication 

in the Federal Register], in the Washington, DC area. The EPA will provide further information 

about the hearing on its Web site (http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/index.html) if a hearing is 

requested.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or 

withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 

other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission 

(i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general 

guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9263; fax 
Page 3 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

number: (202) 343-2342; email address: GHGReporting@epa.gov. Alternatively, you may

contact the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Helpline at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrule_contactus.htm or Carole Cook at 202–

343–9263.

Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of 

today's proposal will also be available through the WWW. Following the Administrator's 

signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

website at http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated entities. These proposed revisions affect 

entities that must submit annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reports under the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program (GHGRP) (40 CFR part 98). This proposed rule would impose on entities 

across the U.S. a degree of reporting consistency for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from most 

sectors of the economy and therefore is “nationally applicable” within the meaning of section 

307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the EPA concludes that the rule is nationally 

applicable, the EPA is also making a determination, for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1), that 

this action is of nationwide scope and effect and is based on such a determination. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(1) (a petition for review may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia “if such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect 

and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on 

such a determination”). Further, the Administrator has determined that rules codified in 40 CFR 

part 98 are subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA section 

307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator 

may determine”). These are proposed amendments to existing regulations. If finalized, these 
Page 4 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

amended regulations would affect owners or operators of certain suppliers and direct emitters of 

GHGs. Regulated categories and entities include, but are not limited to, those listed in Table 1 of 

this preamble:

Table 1. Examples of Affected Entities by Category

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities

General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources .........

Facilities operating boilers, process 

heaters, incinerators, turbines, and 

internal combustion engines.

211 Extractors of crude petroleum and 

natural gas.

321 Manufacturers of lumber and wood 

products.

322 Pulp and paper mills.

325 Chemical manufacturers.

324 Petroleum refineries, and 

manufacturers of coal products.

316, 326, 339 Manufacturers of rubber and 

miscellaneous plastic products.

331 Steel works, blast furnaces.

332 Electroplating, plating, polishing, 

anodizing, and coloring.

336 Manufacturers of motor vehicle 

parts and accessories. 

221 Electric, gas, and sanitary services.

622 Health services.

611 Educational services.

Acid Gas Injection Projects 211111 or 

211112

Projects that inject acid gas 

containing CO2 underground.

Adipic Acid Production 325199 Adipic acid manufacturing facilities.

Aluminum Production 331312 Primary aluminum production 

facilities.

Ammonia Manufacturing 325311 Anhydrous and aqueous ammonia 

manufacturing facilities.

CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas 

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

Electrical Equipment Use 221121 Electric bulk power transmission 

and control facilities.

Electronics Manufacturing 334111 Microcomputers manufacturing 

facilities.

334413

Semiconductor, photovoltaic (solidstate) device manufacturing 

facilities.
Page 5 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities

334419

LCD unit screens manufacturing 

facilities. MEMS manufacturing 

facilities.

Geologic Sequestration Sites N/A CO2 geologic sequestration projects.

Glass Production 327211 Flat glass manufacturing facilities.

327213 Glass container manufacturing 

facilities.

327212 Other pressed and blown glass and 

glassware manufacturing facilities.

HCFC–22 Production and HFC–

23 Destruction 325120 Chlorodifluoromethane manufacturing facilities

Hydrogen Production 325120 Hydrogen manufacturing facilities.

Iron and Steel Production 331111

Integrated iron and steel mills, steel 

companies, sinter plants, blast 

furnaces, basic oxygen process 

furnace shops.

Lime Production 327410

Calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, 

dolomitic hydrates manufacturing 

facilities.

Nitric Acid Production 325311 Nitric acid manufacturing facilities.

Petrochemical Production 32511 Ethylene dichloride manufacturing 

facilities.

325199 Acrylonitrile, ethylene oxide, 

methanol manufacturing facilities.

325110 Ethylene manufacturing facilities. 

325182 Carbon black manufacturing 

facilities.

Phosphoric Acid Production 325312 Phosphoric acid manufacturing 

facilities.

Petroleum Refineries 324110 Petroleum refineries.

Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

322110 Pulp mills.

322121 Paper mills.

322130 Paperboard mills.

Municipal Solid Waste Landfills 562212 Solid waste landfills.

221320 Sewage treatment facilities.

Soda Ash Manufacturing 325181 Akalies and chlorine manufacturing 

facilities.

212391 Soda ash, natural, mining and/or 

beneficiation.

Suppliers of Coal Based Liquids 

Fuels 211111 Coal liquefaction at mine sites.

Suppliers of Petroleum Products 324110 Petroleum refineries.

Suppliers of Natural Gas and 

NGLs 221210 Natural gas distribution facilities. 
Page 6 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities

211112 Natural gas liquid extraction 

facilities. 

Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing facilities.

Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide 325120 Industrial gas manufacturing 

facilities.

Underground Coal Mines 212113 Underground anthracite coal mining 

operations.

212112 Underground bituminous coal 

mining operations.

Industrial Wastewater Treatment 322110 Pulp mills.

322121 Paper mills.

322122 Newsprint mills.

322130 Paperboard mills.

311611 Meat processing facilities.

311411 Frozen fruit, juice, and vegetable 

manufacturing facilities.

311421 Fruit and vegetable canning 

facilities.

325193 Ethanol manufacturing facilities.

324110 Petroleum refineries.

Industrial Waste Landfills 562212 Solid waste landfills.

221320 Sewage treatment facilities.

322110 Pulp mills.

322121 Paper mills.

322122 Newsprint mills.

322130 Paperboard mills.

311611 Meat processing facilities.

311411 Frozen fruit, juice and vegetable 

manufacturing facilities.

311421 Fruit and vegetable canning 

facilities.

Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for 

readers regarding facilities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of facilities than those 

listed in the table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine whether you are 

affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria found in 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart A or the relevant criteria in the sections related to industrial gas suppliers and 

direct emitters of GHGs. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
Page 7 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

particular facility, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section. Many facilities that are affected by 40 CFR part 98 have GHG emissions 

from multiple source categories listed in Table 1 of this preamble.

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and abbreviations are used in this 

document. 

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CAA Clean Air Act

CAS Chemical Abstracts Service

CBI confidential business information

CEMS continuous emission monitoring system

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent

DE destruction efficiency

EDC ethylene dichloride

e-GGRT electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool

EF emission factor

EGU NSPS Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, 

and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

EIA Energy Information Administration

EO Executive Order

ER enhanced oil and gas recovery

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FR Federal Register

GHG greenhouse gas

GHGRP Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

GWP Global warming potential

Hg mercury

HHV high heat value

ICR Information Collection Request

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISBN International Standard Book Number

IUPAC International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry

IVT Inputs Verification Tool
Page 8 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

kg kilograms

LDC local distribution company

LNG liquefied natural gas

mmBtu/hr million British thermal units per hour

mmcfd million cubic feet per day

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

MSW municipal solid waste

mtCO2e metric tons of CO2 equivalents

N2O nitrous oxide

NGL natural gas liquid

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

ODS ozone-depleting substances

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PFC perfluorocarbon

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

RY Reporting year

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

UIC Underground Injection Control

U.S. United States

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

VCM vinyl chloride monomer

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

B. Executive Summary

C. Background on this Proposed Rule

D. Legal Authority

E. When would the proposed amendments apply?

F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule?

G. Methods Incorporated by Reference

II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98

A. Revisions to Streamline Implementation of Part 98

B. Revisions to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG 

Inventory

C. Other Amendments
Page 9 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions

III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart

A. Subpart A – General Provisions

B. Subpart C — General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

C. Subpart E — Adipic Acid Production

D. Subpart F — Aluminum Production

E. Subpart G — Ammonia Manufacturing

F. Subpart I — Electronics Manufacturing

G. Subpart N – Glass Production

H. Subpart O — HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

I. Subpart Q – Iron and Steel Production

J. Subpart S — Lime Manufacturing

K. Subpart V — Nitric Acid Production

L. Subpart X — Petrochemical Production

M. Subpart Y — Petroleum Refineries

N. Subpart Z — Phosphoric Acid Production

O. Subpart AA — Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

P. Subpart CC — Soda Ash Manufacturing

Q. Subpart DD — Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment

R. Subpart FF — Underground Coal Mines

S. Subpart HH — Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

T. Subpart II — Industrial Wastewater Treatment

U. Subpart LL — Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

V. Subpart NN — Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

W. Subpart OO — Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

X. Subpart RR – Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Y. Subpart TT — Industrial Waste Landfills

Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections

IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data Reporting 

Elements

A. Overview and Background

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting 

Elements

D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for 

which No Determination has been Previously Established

E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data Elements

F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and Confidentiality 

Determinations

V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated?

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Page 10 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations

I. Background

A. How is this preamble organized?

The first section of this preamble contains background information regarding the origin 

of the proposed amendments. This section also discusses the EPA’s legal authority under the 

CAA to promulgate (including subsequent amendments to) the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 

codified at 40 CFR part 98 (hereinafter referred to as “Part 98”) and the EPA’s legal authority to 

make confidentiality determinations for new or revised data elements required by this

amendment or for existing data elements for which a confidentiality determination has not 

previously been proposed. Section I of this preamble also discusses when the proposed 

amendments would apply and provides additional information regarding materials referenced in 

this rulemaking. Section II of this preamble describes the types of amendments included in this 

rulemaking, and includes the rationale for each type of proposed change. Section III of this 

preamble is organized by Part 98 subpart and contains detailed information on the proposed 

revisions to each subpart and the rationale for the proposed revisions in each section. Section IV 

of this preamble discusses the proposed confidentiality determinations for new or substantially

revised (i.e., requiring additional or different data to be reported) data reporting elements, as well 

as proposed confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, 
Page 11 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

MM, NN, PP, and RR for which the EPA has not previously made a determination or where the 

EPA has determined that the current determination is no longer appropriate. Section V of this

preamble discusses the impacts of the proposed amendments. Finally, section VI of this

preamble describes the statutory and executive order requirements applicable to this action.

B. Executive Summary 

The GHGRP is a well-known, reliable source for high-quality, timely greenhouse gas 

emissions data that enables key stakeholders to understand greenhouse gas emissions, identify 

emission reduction opportunities, and take action. Since the first year of data collection through 

the GHGRP, the EPA has responded to tens of thousands of questions from reporters, engaged in 

stakeholder outreach through compliance assistance webinars, solicited feedback via a public 

testing process to help improve the EPA’s electronic Greenhouse Gas Reporting Tool (e-GGRT), 

and learned about various site specific scenarios via interaction with reporters during the 

verification of submitted data. Through these extensive outreach efforts, the EPA has improved 

our understanding of the technical challenges and burden associated with implementation of the 

Part 98 provisions, as well as issues that may impact the quality of the data received. The 

proposed changes would amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule to 

streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the 

data collected under the rule, and clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have 

been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting entities. 

The EPA is proposing amendments that can be categorized as follows: 

 Revisions to streamline implementation and reduce burden. These changes reduce or 

simplify requirements in a manner that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA. The 

changes would also improve the usefulness of data for the public. Such revisions include 

revising requirements to focus EPA and reporter resources on relevant data, removing 

reporting requirements for specific facilities that report little to no emissions, or removing 

reported data elements that are no longer necessary. 
Page 12 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

 Amendments to improve quality of data. These amendments are needed to ensure that 

accurate data are being collected under the rule and would expand monitoring or 

reporting requirements that are necessary to improve verification and improve the 

accuracy of data used to inform the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks (hereafter referred to as the “U.S. GHG Inventory”). 

 Minor amendments to better reflect industry processes and emissions. Such revisions 

include amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods that would 

address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments that provide additional 

flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry processes and emissions). 

 Minor clarifications and corrections to improve understanding of the rule. Such revisions 

include the following: corrections to errors in terms and definitions in certain equations; 

clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better or more fully 

understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references within and 

between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would improve the 

public’s understanding of the rule. 

This action also proposes to establish confidentiality determinations for the reporting of 

certain data elements added or revised in these proposed amendments, and for certain existing 

data elements for which no confidentiality determination has been previously proposed.1 Finally, 

section III.S of this preamble describes the proposed changes in response to a petition to 

reconsider specific aspects of subpart HH, which applies to municipal solid waste landfills.

The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden for Part 98 reporters in cases 

where they would expand current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to 

decrease burden for reporters in cases where they would streamline Part 98 to remove 

notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must be reported. The estimated 

incremental change in burden from the proposed amendments to Part 98 includes burden 

associated with: 1) changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or removing 

 

1 During the development of Part 98, the EPA received a number of comments from stakeholders regarding their 

concern that some of the data reported consisted of confidential business information that, if released to the public, 

would likely harm their competitive position. The EPA has subsequently published a series of notices to establish 

determinations for the confidentiality status of data required to be reported under the GHGRP (i.e., “confidentiality 

determinations”). See section IV.A of this preamble for additional information.
Page 13 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

existing reporting requirements; 2) revisions to the applicability of subparts such that additional

facilities would be required to report; and 3) additional monitoring requirements for underground 

coal mines. Many of the amendments that the EPA is proposing in this action are not anticipated 

to have a significant impact on burden. As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are 

proposing to implement these changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to 

stagger the implementation of these changes over time. The burden has subsequently been 

determined based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in each year (e.g., the 

burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I (Electronics Manufacturing) and HH

(Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A (General Provisions)). The 

EPA determined that one-time implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to 

applicability and monitoring requirements that would first apply in reporting year (RY) 2017 and 

RY2018; therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the subsequent annual

costs incurred by industry. As more fully explained in section V of this preamble, the EPA has 

determined that the total estimated incremental burden associated with all revisions in this 

proposed rulemaking would be $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by the proposed rule, with 

an estimated annual burden of $1,081,830 per year once all changes have been implemented. The 

incremental implementation costs for each reporting year are summarized in Table 2 of this 

preamble.

Table 2. Incremental Burden for Reporting Years 2016-2019 ($/year)

Reporting Year 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Annual Cost

(all subparts)

$9K $34K $2.0M $1.1M
Page 14 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

C. Background on this Proposed Rule

The GHG Reporting Rule was published in the Federal Register on October 30, 2009 (74 

FR 56260). The final rule became effective on December 29, 2009 and requires reporting of 

GHGs from various facilities and suppliers, consistent with the 2008 Consolidated 

Appropriations Act.2

The EPA subsequently proposed and finalized amendments to various subparts, including 

subparts in this action. The amendments generally did not change the basic requirements of Part 

98, but were intended to improve clarity and ensure consistency across the calculation, 

monitoring, and data reporting requirements. The EPA issued additional rules in 2010 finalizing 

the requirements for subparts T, FF, II, and TT (75 FR 39736, July 12, 2010); subparts I, L, DD, 

QQ, and SS (75 FR 74774, December 1, 2010); and subparts RR and UU (75 FR 75060, 

December 1, 2010). Following the promulgation of these subparts, the EPA finalized several 

technical and clarifying amendments to these and other subparts under the GHGRP. A number of 

subparts have been revised since promulgation (75 FR 79092, December 17, 2010; 76 FR 73866, 

November 29, 2011; 77 FR 10373, February 22, 2012; 77 FR 29935, May 21, 2012; 77 FR 

51477, August 24, 2012; 78 FR 68162, November 13, 2013; 78 FR 71904, November 29, 2013; 

79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; and 79 FR 73750, December 11, 2014). The amendments in this 

action are a continuation of the effort to improve the GHGRP and address issues identified 

during implementation. 

D. Legal Authority

The EPA is proposing these rule amendments under its existing CAA authority provided 

in CAA section 114. As stated in the preamble to the 2009 final GHG reporting rule (74 FR 

 

2 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128.
Page 15 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56260), CAA section 114(a)(1) provides the EPA broad authority to require the information 

proposed to be gathered by this rule because such data would inform and are relevant to the 

EPA’s carrying out a wide variety of CAA provisions. See the preambles to the proposed and 

final GHG reporting rule for further information.

In addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for proposed new, 

revised, and existing data elements in Part 98 under its authorities provided in sections 114, 301, 

and 307 of the CAA. Section 114(c) of the CAA requires that the EPA make publicly available 

information obtained under CAA section 114, except for information (excluding emission data)

that qualifies for confidential treatment. The Administrator has determined that this proposed 

rule is subject to the provisions of section 307(d) of the CAA. Generally section 307(d) contains 

a set of procedures relating to the issuance and review of certain enumerated CAA rules.

E. When would the proposed amendments apply?

In this action, the EPA is proposing: 1) numerous amendments to Part 98 including 

subpart-specific revisions that would streamline implementation of Part 98, improve the quality 

of the data collected under the rule, update certain provisions to more accurately reflect industry 

processes and emissions, and other corrections, as described in sections II and III of this 

preamble; and 2) new or revised confidentiality determinations for data elements that are added 

or revised in the proposed amendments or for certain existing data elements, as described in 

section IV of this preamble. The EPA is planning to phase in implementation of the proposed 

requirements depending on the nature of the revision. Some of the amendments would apply in 

RY2016, some in RY2017, and some in RY2018. This section describes when each of the 

proposed amendments would apply.
Page 16 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

We are proposing that amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subparts I (Electronics 

Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), with related revisions to subpart A 

(General Provisions), would apply to the RY2016 reports, which must be submitted by March 

31, 2017. The remaining amendments proposed in this action would apply to annual reports 

submitted for RY2017, except for amendments to V (Nitric Acid Production), Y (Petroleum 

Refineries), FF (Underground Coal Mines) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) 

which would apply to reports for RY2018. 

We are proposing to implement these revisions over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 

2018 in order to stagger the implementation of these changes over time, in consideration of the 

types of changes being made and the associated revisions needed to implement them, including 

impacts to reporters and revisions to EPA's e-GGRT. Specifically, some of the proposed changes 

include revisions to software that would need to be updated in e-GGRT. The time phasing also 

allows sufficient lead time for reporters to implement the proposed changes following the 

promulgation of the final rule revisions. For example, where the proposed changes would require 

reporters to collect new data that are not readily available or that could not be determined from 

existing monitoring and recordkeeping, the EPA would not apply these changes to RY2016 

reports. The proposed schedule also provides sufficient time for new reporters who would 

become subject to Part 98 as a result of the proposed amendments to acquire monitoring 

equipment and begin collecting data. The amendments that would apply to RY2016, RY2017, 

and RY2018 reports are discussed in sections I.E.1, I.E.2, and I.E.3 of this preamble.

1. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2016?

Table 3 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would 

apply to RY2016. 
Page 17 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table 3. Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2016

Subpart Affecteda Changes Applicable in RY2016

A - General Provisions 40 CFR 98.6 (definition of “Gas collection system or landfill 

gas collection system” only)

I - Electronics Manufacturing All proposed changes in subpart

HH - Municipal Solid Waste 

Landfills

All proposed changes in subpart

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

We are proposing that all changes to subparts I and HH, and minor revisions to subpart 

A, would apply to reports for RY2016, which must be submitted by March 31, 2017. For subpart 

I, we are proposing several revisions that would improve the quality of the data collected. For 

example, we are proposing to revise the requirements of the technology triennial report in 40 

CFR 98.96(y), which applies to semiconductor manufacturing facilities with emissions from 

subpart I processes greater than 40,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e) per 

year. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 98.96(y)(1), facilities are required to submit the first 

triennial report on March 31, 2017. The changes we are proposing to 40 CFR 98.96(y) would 

clarify the types of data and measurements to be submitted with the triennial report, but would 

not fundamentally alter the data reported or require additional data collection from reporters. 

Specifically, we are clarifying that where reporters provide any utilization and by-product 

formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data in the triennial report, they must 

also include information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, 

where available (see section III.F of this preamble for additional information). We are proposing 

to implement the changes to subpart I in RY2016 in order to ensure that the data submitted in the 

triennial reports submitted on March 31, 2017 reflects these methods and conditions, which will 

help the EPA to more efficiently review the reported data. In addition to the proposed changes to 

40 CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing revisions to improve the methodology used to calculate
Page 18 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

the fraction of fluorinated-GHG and fluorinated-GHG byproduct destroyed or removed in a fab 

using the stack testing methodology. 

Under subpart HH, we are proposing several revisions to improve the quality of the data 

collected, better align the rule requirements with industry operating practices, and streamline the 

reporting requirements. We are also proposing one related change to subpart A of Part 98 to 

update the definition of “gas collection system or landfill gas collection system” in 40 CFR 98.6. 

These revisions, which are described in section III.S of this preamble, are proposed to apply to 

RY2016 reports because they provide additional clarifications and flexibility regarding the 

existing regulatory requirements that address questions raised by reporters during 

implementation. 

We have determined that it would be feasible for existing reporters to implement the 

proposed changes to subparts A, I, and HH for RY2016 because these changes are consistent 

with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. The proposed 

revisions would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially affect the 

type of information that must be collected. The owners or operators are not required to actually 

submit RY2016 reports until March 31, 2017, which is three months or more after we expect the

final rule amendments based on this proposal to be published, thus providing ample opportunity 

for reporters to adjust to the amendments.

2. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2017?

Table 4 of this preamble lists the affected subparts and proposed changes that would 

apply to RY2017. For these revisions, reporters would submit an annual report on March 31, 

2018.
Page 19 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table 4. Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable to RY2017

Subpart Affected Changes Applicable in RY2017

A - General Provisions §98.2; §98.3; §98.4; §98.6; §98.7(e)(33); and Tables A-3 and 

A-4

C - General Stationary Fuel 

Combustion Sources

All proposed changes in subpart

E - Adipic Acid Production All proposed changes in subpart

F - Aluminum Production All proposed changes in subpart

G - Ammonia Manufacturing All proposed changes in subpart

N - Glass Production All proposed changes in subpart

O - HCFC-22 Production and 

HFC-23 Destruction

All proposed changes in subpart

P - Hydrogen Production All proposed changes in subpart

Q - Iron and Steel Production All proposed changes in subpart

S - Lime Manufacturing All proposed changes in subpart

U - Miscellaneous Uses of 

Carbonate

All proposed changes in subpart

X - Petrochemical Production All proposed changes in subpart

Z - Phosphoric Acid Production All proposed changes in subpart

AA - Pulp and Paper 

Manufacturing

All proposed changes in subpart

CC - Soda Ash Manufacturing All proposed changes in subpart

DD – Use of Electric 

Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment

All proposed changes in subpart

II – Industrial Wastewater 

Treatment

All proposed changes in subpart

LL – Suppliers of Coal-based 

Liquid Fuels

All proposed changes in subpart

MM – Suppliers of Petroleum 

Products

All proposed changes in subpart

NN – Suppliers of Natural Gas 

and Natural Gas Liquids

All proposed changes in subpart

PP – Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide All proposed changes in subpart
Page 20 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

RR – Geologic Sequestration of 

Carbon Dioxide

All proposed changes in subpart

TT – Industrial Waste landfills All proposed changes in subpart

UU – Injection of Carbon 

Dioxide

All proposed changes in subpart

The changes to subparts listed in Table 4 of this preamble would apply to the annual 

reports submitted for RY2017 on March 31, 2018; these changes are proposed to apply to the 

2017 reporting year in order to allow for adequate time for the agency to integrate the revisions 

through e-GGRT and the Inputs Verification Tool (IVT), as well as prepare to incorporate the 

revisions into other GHGRP datasets and publications. The changes to subparts included in Table 

4 of this preamble would be feasible for reporters to implement for RY2017 because these 

changes are consistent with the data collection and calculation methodologies in the current rule. 

In most cases, the proposed revisions include minor revisions such as editorial corrections, 

corrections to cross-references, and technical clarifications regarding the existing regulatory 

requirements. Where calculation equations are proposed to be modified, the changes generally 

clarify terms in the emission calculation equations and do not materially affect monitoring 

requirements or how emissions are calculated. In some cases, we are adding flexibility by 

providing alternative monitoring methods or missing data procedures that would reduce burden 

on reporters. For example, in subpart AA (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing), for missing 

measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor flow rates, we are 

proposing to allow reporters to use the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired that are currently 

reported under 40 CFR 63, subpart MM (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 

Semichemical Pulp Mills) as an alternative to maximum mass and flow rate values currently 

required in 40 CFR 98.275(b) (see section III.O of this preamble for additional information). 
Page 21 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Other proposed changes would reduce the type of information that must be collected; e.g., we are 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing reporters 

to cease reporting under Part 98 (see section III.A.1 of this preamble), and we are proposing to 

remove reporting requirements in subpart O (HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction) 

(see section III.H of this preamble) and subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) (see 

section III.U of this preamble) that are no longer needed to support verification or other 

activities. Although some of the proposed revisions included in Table 4 of this preamble would 

include reporting additional data, the EPA has determined that the data we are proposing to 

collect would be readily available to reporters. For example, we are proposing to add 

requirements to 40 CFR part 98, subpart DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution 

Equipment Use) and subpart NN (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids) for 

reporters to include the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the facility's annual report.

Because these revisions would not require the collection of additional data or changes to existing 

monitoring requirements, it is feasible for these revisions to be implemented for RY2016. 

However, we are not implementing these changes until RY2017 to allow the agency sufficient 

time to incorporate the revisions into e-GGRT and IVT. Finally, we note that the reporters 

affected under the subparts in Table 4 of this preamble are not required to actually submit 

RY2017 reports until March 31, 2018. Because a final rule based on this proposal would be 

finalized in late 2016, reporters will have over a year to prepare for the amendments before they 

must submit RY2017 reports.
Page 22 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3. Which proposed amendments would apply beginning with RY2018?

We are proposing that the revisions to the subparts listed in Table 5 of this preamble 

would apply to annual reports submitted for RY2018, which must be submitted by March 31, 

2019.

Table 5. Proposed Changes to Part 98 Applicable for RY2018

Subpart Affected Changes Applicable in RY2018

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

V – Nitric Acid Production All proposed changes in subpart

Y – Petroleum Refineries All proposed changes in subpart

FF – Underground Coal Mines All proposed changes in subpart

OO – Suppliers of Industrial 

Greenhouse Gases

All proposed changes in subpart

We are proposing that revisions to subparts V, Y, FF, and OO, and related changes to 40 

CFR 98.7(l)(1) and Table A-5 of subpart A, would apply to RY2018, with reporters following 

the revised rule requirements beginning January 1, 2018. In several cases, the proposed changes 

would revise the applicability of a source category to certain facilities or significantly revise 

existing calculation or monitoring methodologies. For example, we are proposing to revise the 

definition of the industrial gas supplier source category in 40 CFR part 98, subpart OO to include 

facilities that destroy, but do not produce, fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs. These 

proposed changes could expand the applicability of Part 98 to additional facilities that were not 

previously required to report under the rule; these facilities would require more time to acquire 

and install monitoring equipment and begin collecting data under Part 98. Similarly, we are 

proposing to revise the calculation methodology for delayed coking units in 40 CFR part 98, 

subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) to better reflect industry emissions (see section III.M of this 

preamble).
Page 23 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

As discussed in section III.R of this preamble, we are proposing some methodological 

changes to subpart FF to clarify the type of facilities included in the source category and revise 

the monitoring and data collection requirements to improve the quality of the data collected. We 

are proposing a related revision to 40 CFR 98.7(l)(1) in subpart A to incorporate updated 

methods for sampling methane concentration and conducting measurements of flow rate, 

temperature, pressure, and moisture content. Given that the final rule revisions would not be 

finalized until the second half of 2016, it is assumed that it would not be feasible for these

facilities to acquire, install, and calibrate new monitoring equipment, or to perform more 

frequent monitoring, in time for the reports submitted for RY2017. However, the EPA is also 

seeking comment on whether underground coal mine facilities would indeed be able to meet 

these revised requirements for RY2017.

In past rulemakings, the EPA has typically required monitoring to begin a few months 

after finalization of revised rules, and has offered Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM)

to be used temporarily to provide sufficient time for facilities to come into full compliance with 

the newly finalized monitoring methods. In this action, to avoid the need to offer the use of

BAMM and to stagger the burden associated with making revisions to e-GGRT, we are 

proposing that the revisions to these subparts would apply to RY2018 reports. If finalized, 

subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters, including new reporters, would begin following the revised 

rule requirements on January 1, 2018 and submit the first annual reports using the revised 

monitoring and data collection methods on March 31, 2019. This schedule would allow at least 

one year for subpart V, Y, FF, and OO reporters to acquire, install, and calibrate any new

monitoring equipment, as well as implement any changes to existing monitoring methods, for the 

2018 reporting year. The proposed timeline also allows sufficient time for the agency to integrate 
Page 24 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

any associated changes to reporting requirements in the affected subparts into e-GGRT and other 

GHGRP activities, such as verification.

The EPA is proposing one related change to subpart A that could apply to certain subpart 

FF reporters prior to January 1, 2018. In keeping with the proposed changes discussed in section 

III.A.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) of subpart A to streamline 

the reporting requirements for closed coal mines. These proposed revisions would apply 

beginning January 1, 2017, consistent with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 98.2 listed in Table 

4 of this preamble, and could affect owners and operators of abandoned underground mines (see 

section III.A and III.R of this preamble for additional information). All other proposed revisions 

related to subpart FF would apply beginning January 1, 2018 for the reasons described above.

F. Where can I get a copy of information related to the proposed rule?

This preamble references several documents developed to support the proposed 

rulemaking. These documents provide additional information regarding the proposed changes to 

Part 98, and supplementary information which the EPA considered in the development of the 

proposed revisions. These documents are referenced in sections II through V of this preamble

and are available in the docket to this rulemaking or other rulemaking dockets, as follows:

 “Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule.” EPA memorandum 

summarizing the less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing 

revisions in the proposed rule, as discussed in section II of this preamble. Available in the 

docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities in the U.S.” From Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis 

McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated January 29, 2015. Memorandum supporting 

proposed revisions to subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) as discussed in section III.K of 

this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for the 

Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting 

Under Subpart X.” Letter received from Occidental Chemical Company, July 10, 2015, 
Page 25 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

as discussed in section III.L of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements under the Greenhouse

Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).” From Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and Kevin Bradley, 

RTI International (RTI) to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015. Memorandum 

supporting proposed revisions to subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section 

III.M of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id.

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Revised Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units.” From Jeff Coburn, RTI to 

Brian Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015. Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to 

subpart Y (Petroleum Refineries) as discussed in section III.M of this preamble. 

Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR2015-0526.

 “Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions Estimation Errors Based on Different Sampling 

Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly).” Ruby Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 

2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as 

discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Use of Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting 

Quarterly Methane Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts.” From Clark Talkington, 

Advanced Resources International, Inc. (ARI) to Cate Hight, EPA, dated November 13, 

2015. Memorandum supporting revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines) as 

discussed in section III.R of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the Peer-Reviewed 

Literature.” From Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI to Rachel 

Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015, Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to 

subpart HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills) as discussed in section III.S of this 

preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Review of Site-Specific Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data” from Jeff 

Coburn and Katherine Bronstein, RTI to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015. 

Memorandum supporting proposed revisions to subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills) 

as discussed in section III.Y of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Proposed Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Data 

Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions.” Memorandum listing all proposed new, 

substantially revised, and existing data elements with proposed category assignments and 

confidentiality determinations, as described in Section IV of this preamble. Available in 

the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to Equations’ Data 

Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015.” Memorandum, September 2014. Available in 

Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929.
Page 26 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

 “Summary of Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) Part 98 

‘Inputs to Emission Equations’ Data Elements Deferred Until 2013.” Memorandum,

December 17, 2012. Available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking, Docket Id. No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

 “Final Data Category Assignments and Confidentiality Determinations for Part 98 

Reporting Elements.” Memorandum, April 29, 2011. Available in Docket Id. No. EPAHQ-OAR-2009-0924.

 “Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule.” Memorandum describing the costs of the proposed revisions to Part 98, as 

discussed in section V of this preamble. Available in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking, Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

G. Methods Incorporated by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text for 40 

CFR 98.7 that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following:

 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and 

Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM D6866-12), which would apply to 

subpart C reporters (see section III.B.2 of this preamble). These standards are available 

on the ASTM Web site (http://www.astm.org/) to everyone at a cost determined by the 

ASTM ($50). The ASTM also offers memberships or subscriptions that allow unlimited 

access to their methods. The cost of obtaining these methods is not a significant financial 

burden, making the methods reasonably available for reporters. The EPA will also make 

a copy of these documents available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more 

information) for review purposes only.

 Inspection and sampling standards from the Coal Mine Safety and Health General 

Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-V-1 (February 2013) as published by 

the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), which would apply to subpart FF 

reporters (see section III.R.2 of this preamble). These standards are available free of 

charge through the MSHA website (http://www.msha.gov). The EPA has also made, and 

will continue to make, these documents available electronically through 

www.regulations.gov.

Because these standards do not present a significant financial burden to reporters, the 

EPA has determined that these methods are reasonably available. The EPA has also made, and 

will continue to make, these documents generally available in hard copy at the appropriate EPA 
Page 27 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

office (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for 

more information).

II. Overview and Rationale for Proposed Amendments to Part 98

In this action, the EPA is proposing to revise specific provisions in Part 98 to simplify 

and streamline implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data 

collected under the rule, and to clarify or provide minor updates to certain provisions that have 

been the subject of questions and feedback from reporting entities. The EPA has identified four 

categories of changes that we are proposing in this rulemaking, which include the following:

 Revisions to streamline implementation of the rule by reducing or simplifying 

requirements that would ease burden on reporters and the EPA, such as revising 

requirements to focus GHGRP and reporter resources on relevant data, removing 

reporting requirements for specific facilities which report little to no emissions, or 

removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary; 

 Amendments that would expand monitoring, applicability, or reporting requirements that 

are necessary to enhance the quality of the data collected, improve verification of 

collected data under the GHGRP, and improve the accuracy of data included in the U.S. 

GHG Inventory;

 Other amendments, such as amendments to calculation, monitoring, or measurement

methods that would address prior petitioner or commenter concerns (e.g., amendments 

that provide additional flexibility for facilities or that more accurately reflect industry 

processes and emissions). 

 Minor clarifications and corrections, including: corrections to terms and definitions in 

certain equations; clarifications that provide additional information for reporters to better 

or more fully understand compliance obligations; changes to correct cross references 

within and between subparts; and other editorial or harmonizing changes that would 

improve the public’s understanding of the rule. 

Sections II.A through II.D of this preamble describe each of the above categories in more 

detail and provide rationale for the changes included in each category. 

The proposed changes in this action would advance the EPA’s goal of maximizing rule 

effectiveness. For example, these proposed changes would clarify existing rule provisions, thus 

enabling government, regulated entities, and the public to easily identify and understand rule 
Page 28 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

requirements. In addition, specific changes such as increasing the flexibility given to reporting 

entities related to requesting extensions for revising annual reports would make compliance 

easier than non-compliance. The proposed changes also serve to clarify whether and when 

reporting requirements apply to a facility, and more specifically when a facility may discontinue 

reporting, thereby allowed a regulated entity to regularly assess their compliance and prevent 

noncompliance. 

The proposed changes would also improve the EPA’s ability to assess compliance by 

adding reporting elements that allow the EPA to more thoroughly verify GHG data and 

understand trends in emissions. For example, the proposed requirement to report the date of 

installation of any abatement equipment at Adipic Acid and Nitric Acid Production facilities will 

increase the EPA and public’s understanding of the use of and trends in emissions reduction 

technologies. Lastly, the proposed changes further advance the ability of the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Program to provide access to quality data on greenhouse gas emissions by adding key 

data elements to improve the usefulness of the data. One example is the proposed addition of the 

reporting of emissions by state for Suppliers of Natural Gas (subpart NN reporters). This data 

will allow users of the GHGRP data to more easily identify the state within which the reporter 

operates, which will be useful for determining state level GHG totals associated with natural gas 

supply and increase transparency and usefulness of the data reported.

Additional details for the specific amendments proposed for each subpart are included in 

section III of this preamble. To reduce the length of this preamble, we have summarized the 

remaining less substantive minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing revisions in the 

memorandum, ‘‘Table of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule’’ (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Table of Revisions’’) available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-
Page 29 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

OAR-2015-0526). These changes include straightforward clarifications of requirements to better 

reflect the EPA's intent; harmonizing changes within subparts (such as harmonizing 

terminology); corrections to calculation terms and cross-references; editorial and minor error 

corrections; and removal of redundant text. The Table of Revisions describes each proposed 

change within a subpart, including those itemized in this preamble, and provides the current rule 

text and the proposed correction. Where the proposed change is listed only in the Table of 

Revisions, the rationale for the proposed change is also listed there.

We are seeking public comment only on the issues specifically identified in this notice 

(including the changes listed in the Table of Revisions) for the identified subparts. We are not 

reopening other aspects of Part 98.

A. Revisions to Streamline Implementation of Part 98

Following implementation of Part 98, the EPA has identified several areas of the rule 

which could be revised or simplified to improve the efficiency of the requirements or to reduce 

the burden on reporters and the EPA. We are consequently proposing several revisions that 

would streamline the requirements as well as improve implementation of the rule. 

Several of the proposed revisions would clarify and revise the requirements of Part 98 in 

order to focus the GHGRP and reporter resources on the most relevant data. In some cases, we 

are proposing to revise requirements to reduce when facilities must report emissions, such as by 

clarifying requirements for facilities that may report very little or no emissions. The EPA does 

not anticipate a significant change in the overall reported emissions or a reduction in the quality 

of reported carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions and supply. Removing these instances of 

reporting would also reduce burden on some reporters.
Page 30 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

As an example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR part 98, subpart FF to allow an 

underground coal mine to cease reporting after it has closed and its status is determined to be 

“abandoned” by MSHA. The CO2e emissions from abandoned and sealed mines are far below 

the reporting threshold. The EPA is proposing these types of changes to reduce burden, as well 

as to focus the collection of data under the GHGRP on those sources that are expected to emit, 

import, or export larger amounts of greenhouse gases.

In addition, the EPA is proposing in this rulemaking that pilot gas, which is considered 

the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, may be excluded from the quantity of flare 

gas used to perform GHG emissions calculations for subparts Q (Iron and Steel Production), X 

(Petrochemical Production), and Y (Petroleum Refineries). The quantity of GHG emissions 

associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG emissions from a flare at 

petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and steel production facilities. 

Eliminating the monitoring of this small quantity of emissions will not adversely impact the 

quality of the greenhouse gas data collected and may decrease the burden associated with 

monitoring the flare gas. We are proposing similar revisions to other subparts that simplify data 

collection for reporters and focus the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA 

requires to review, assess, and verify reported emissions.

Other proposed revisions to the rule include changes that would streamline the rule, such 

as removing reported data elements that are no longer necessary. For example, for 40 CFR part 

98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels), we are proposing to remove requirements

of 40 CFR 98.386 that are no longer needed to support verification or other activities. In a prior 

notice, "2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality 

Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements" (78 FR 71904, November 29, 
Page 31 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2013, hereafter referred to as "2013 Revisions Rule"), we finalized amendments to subpart LL 

that removed requirements in 40 CFR 98.386 for suppliers to report the annual quantity of each 

product or natural gas liquid on the basis of the measurement method used. Subpart LL reporters 

are currently only required to report the total annual quantities of each product or natural gas 

liquid in metric tons or barrels supplied. In this action, we are proposing to remove the 

provisions of 40 CFR 98.386 that require suppliers to report the methods used to measure the 

quantities of each product reported. This change would harmonize with the previously finalized 

revisions which removed the requirement to report products by method and would reduce the 

burden on reporters. 

We are also proposing certain revisions that would streamline the reporting and 

verification process. These proposed changes would ease the burden on reporters (e.g., by 

reducing the actions required of reporters) and improve agency implementation of the rule. For 

example, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing 

reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i) provide 

options for reporters to discontinue reporting when annual emissions are less than certain 

thresholds, or if process operations are permanently shut down. We are proposing to clarify when 

these requirements apply for suppliers, processes or operations that cease operation in the 

reporting year, and facilities where the operations are changed such that a process or operation 

no longer meets the “Definition of Source Category” for a subpart. These provisions are 

anticipated to streamline reporting by specifying when reporters are no longer required to report 

for a particular process or operation. 

We are proposing similar changes to Part 98 which would improve the efficiency of the 

reporting process. The specific changes that we are proposing that are intended to streamline Part 
Page 32 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

98, as described in this section, are described for each subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A 

through III.Y of this preamble.

B. Revisions to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 and Improve the U.S. GHG 

Inventory

The EPA is also proposing amendments in this action that would improve the existing 

applicability, monitoring, or reporting requirements of Part 98 in order to enhance the quality and 

accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, improve verification of collected data, and 

provide additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

Several of the amendments in this action are being proposed to improve the quality of the 

data collected under the GHGRP. The data collected under Part 98 are used to inform the EPA's 

understanding of the relative emissions and distribution of emissions from specific industries, the 

factors that influence GHG emission rates, and to inform policy options and potential 

regulations. Following several years of implementation of the rule, the EPA has identified certain 

areas of the rule where clarifying amendments to source category definitions, revisions to 

calculation methodologies or monitoring methods, and revisions or additions to reporting 

requirements are needed to ensure that accurate data are being collected under the rule. For 

example, we are proposing revisions to subpart FF to revise the monitoring requirements for 

methane liberated from ventilation systems to remove the option to use quarterly testing by the 

MSHA. This change is being proposed because we have determined that the quarterly flowrate 

data gathered by MSHA cannot be used to reliably estimate coal mine emissions for GHG 

reporting purposes. Instead, coal mines will be required to use one of the other existing methods 

to measure emissions from ventilation, either collection of grab samples or use of continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). In proposing this change, the EPA is seeking comment 
Page 33 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples taken at the fan mouth, would 

achieve the same objectives for improved data quality from mine ventilation systems. The EPA 

is also seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken at 

underground coal mines. Currently coal mines must take grab samples on a quarterly basis and 

report methane liberation on a quarterly basis. In this action, the EPA is seeking comment on 

increasing the frequency of grab samples to monthly sampling in order to provide more 

transparent and reliable measurement of methane emissions from ventilation systems while more 

closely aligning the monitoring requirements for mine ventilation with those for degasification 

systems. The EPA also seeks comments on other monitoring frequencies higher than monthly 

(such as biweekly) or monitoring frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such 

as bimonthly). For comments on increasing the monitoring frequency and the availability of 

other alternative monitoring methods, the EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, 

and background information on multi-year ventilation system monitoring on a basis that is more 

frequent than quarterly. This information will help determine the appropriate frequency of 

monitoring for ventilation emissions that is needed to ensure reliable and accurate measurements.

In another case, we are proposing to revise existing reporting requirements to collect 

more detailed facility data. For example, we are proposing to amend the reporting requirements 

of 40 CFR part 98, subpart O (HFC–22 Production and HFC–23 Destruction) to require 

reporting of the information under 40 CFR 98.156(a) at a process level. Currently, reporters are 

required to submit the annual mass of HCFC-22 produced, the annual mass of reactants fed into 

the process, the annual mass of HFC-23 emitted, and additional information under 40 CFR 

98.156(a) at the facility level. Collecting this information on a process-level basis would further 
Page 34 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

our understanding of emissions from HCFC-22 production processes and provide a more 

accurate emissions profile for this sector. 

Some of the proposed amendments include revisions to existing reporting requirements to 

clarify the data that are currently reported or improve verification of reported data. For example, 

we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart HH to add a requirement for landfills 

with gas collection systems to report the number of hours active gas flow was sent to each 

destruction device instead of the annual operating hours for each destruction device. This 

revision is needed in order for the EPA’s reporting tool to accurately calculate a key variable in 

certain equations used to calculate emissions. Although the proposed change would require 

different data to be reported, it would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the 

number of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer verification errors and 

follow-up messages to reporters.

We are also proposing several amendments to ensure data collected by the GHGRP 

adequately support the U.S. GHG Inventory. As described in the preamble of the proposed GHG 

Reporting Rule (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009), the GHGRP is intended to supplement and

complement the U.S. GHG Inventory by advancing the understanding of emission processes and 

monitoring methodologies for particular source categories or sectors. Specifically, the GHGRP 

complements the U.S. GHG Inventory by providing data from individual facilities and suppliers 

above certain thresholds to improve the assumptions and emissions values used in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. The collected facility, unit, and process-level GHG data from the GHGRP provide

and confirm the national statistics and emission estimates presented in the U.S. GHG Inventory, 

which are calculated using aggregated national data. These proposed amendments include 

clarifications to source category definitions, revisions to calculation methodologies, and 
Page 35 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

revisions or additions to reporting requirements that will improve the accuracy of the data 

included in the U.S. GHG Inventory and improve our ability to inform the development of GHG 

policies and programs. For example, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 98, subpart E 

(Adipic Acid Production) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) that would 

require reporting of the date of installation of any abatement systems (if applicable). The 

addition of these data elements would help improve the accuracy of trend estimates for these 

sectors in the U.S. GHG Inventory. Specifically, the proposed data elements would allow the 

agency to apply emission factors with and without abatement systems over the correct time 

periods using the reported dates. 

The specific changes that we are proposing for each subpart, as appropriate, are described 

in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble. 

C. Other Amendments 

In addition to the amendments described in sections II.A and II.B of this preamble, the 

EPA is proposing other amendments to certain subparts of Part 98. Through outreach and 

communication with stakeholders, the EPA has identified certain aspects of the rule that may 

require substantive revision, such as amending calculation, monitoring, or measurement methods 

to provide flexibility for certain facilities, or to more accurately reflect industry processes and 

emissions. These changes would respond to comments raised by stakeholders in prior 

rulemakings and issues raised by petitioners for certain subparts, and would more closely align 

rule requirements with the processes conducted at specific facilities. For example, for 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart TT (Industrial Waste Landfills), we are proposing to add several waste types for 

pulp and paper, including associated degradable organic content (DOC) and k-values, to Table 

TT-1 of subpart TT to include common industrial waste subtypes. The EPA is proposing these 
Page 36 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

revisions following comments on 2013 Revisions Rule, in which stakeholders requested the EPA 

add these common waste types to Table TT-1 of subpart TT. These proposed revisions would 

improve the accuracy of calculated emissions reported by these facilities. 

Additional details for the amendments described in this section are discussed for each 

subpart, as appropriate, in sections III.A through III.Y of this preamble.

D. Minor Corrections, Clarifications, and Harmonizing Revisions

The EPA is proposing additional minor corrections, clarifications, and harmonizing 

revisions that would improve understanding of the rule. These revisions primarily include simple 

revisions of requirements to better reflect the EPA’s intent, such as clarifying changes to 

definitions, calculation methodologies, monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing 

data procedures, and reporting requirements. Some of these proposed changes result from 

questions raised by reporters through the GHGRP Help Desk or e-GGRT and are intended to 

resolve uncertainties in the regulatory text. The proposed changes would reduce confusion for 

reporters and correct inconsistencies in the rule. 

In some cases, we are proposing minor amendments that would clarify general 

monitoring requirements, measurement methods, or reported data elements. These revisions 

include less substantive changes, such as simple corrections to calculation terms, revisions of

cross-references, harmonizing changes (such as changes to terminology within a subpart for 

consistency), simple editorial corrections, and removal of redundant text. As discussed earlier in 

section II of this preamble, these less substantive revisions are summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

III. Proposed Amendments to Each Subpart 
Page 37 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

This section summarizes the specific substantive amendments proposed for each Part 98

subpart, as generally described in section II of this preamble. Sections III.A through III.Z of this 

preamble also identify where additional minor corrections to a subpart are included in the Table 

of Revisions.

A. Subpart A – General Provisions 

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart A of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart A; additional 

minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart A to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several 

amendments that are intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart A and 

increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. First, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

98.2(i) to clarify the EPA’s policies allowing reporters to cease reporting under Part 98. The 

existing provisions of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) provide options for reporters to discontinue 

reporting if annual emissions are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting years or less than 

15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting years, or if process operations are permanently shut down. 

There has been confusion among reporters as to whether these off-ramp provisions apply to both 

direct emitters and suppliers, given the use of the term “emissions” in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) 

since suppliers report the quantity of product supplied into the economy and the emissions that 

would occur if the products were completely released, combusted, or oxidized when used by 

their customers. The EPA’s original intention was that these off-ramp provisions apply to both 

suppliers (subparts LL through QQ) and direct emitters (subparts A through KK and subparts SS 
Page 38 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

and TT), as well as the Injection of Carbon Dioxide source category (subpart UU). The EPA is 

adding a new paragraph to 40 CFR 98.2(i) to clarify this point. We are proposing to retain the 

current language in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) (i.e., “reported emissions”) to continue to refer to 

direct emitters and to add new paragraph 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to clarify that the provisions of 40 

CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers (i.e., by specifying in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) that 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(1) and (2) apply to suppliers by substituting the term "quantity of GHG supplied" for 

"emissions” in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) and (2)). For example, a supplier of industrial greenhouse 

gases might qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of 

industrial greenhouse gases because GHG exports are less than 25,000 mtCO2e for five reporting 

years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1)). Further, we have clarified that, for suppliers, these 

off-ramp provisions apply individually to each importer, exporter, petroleum refinery, 

fractionator of natural gas liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of carbon 

dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), or fluorinated greenhouse gases. For example, regarding the 

example above where a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases qualifies under proposed 40 CFR 

98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases, this same 

supplier would still be required to report as an importer if they also report GHG imports that do 

not qualify under proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting because GHG imports are 

not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Likewise, a company might 

qualify under 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) to discontinue reporting as a supplier of industrial greenhouse 

gases under subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases) because the reported 

quantity of industrial greenhouse gases supplied is less than 15,000 mtCO2e for three reporting 

years (i.e., as provided in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(2)), but the company might still be required to report as 

a supplier of carbon dioxide under subpart PP because the reported quantity of carbon dioxide 
Page 39 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

supplied is not less than the thresholds specified in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2). Additionally, the 

proposed off-ramp requirements for suppliers would be applied separately from those for direct 

emitters. This would occur whether the supplier and direct emitter report as two separate entities 

in e-GGRT or, for simplicity, as one entity in e-GGRT. For example, if a facility reports under 

subpart Y (a direct emitter subpart) and subpart MM (a supplier subpart), and the facility meets 

the off-ramp requirements in proposed 40 CFR 98.2(i)(4) for the GHG quantities reported under 

subpart MM but does not meet the off-ramp requirements in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(1) or (2) for GHG 

emissions under subpart Y, then the facility may cease reporting under subpart MM while still 

reporting under subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in two different 

annual reports under two different e-GGRT identification numbers, the facility would 

discontinue submitting reports for subpart MM all together while continuing to submit reports 

for subpart Y. If the subpart MM and subpart Y data were submitted in one annual report under 

one e-GGRT identification number, the facility would continue to submit reports under that eGGRT identification number with the subpart Y data and without the subpart MM data. 

The requirements of 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) allow reporters to discontinue reporting if all 

processes or operations cease operation (e.g., plant closure). There has been confusion among 

reporters as to whether there is a similar provision to cease reporting for situations where a single 

process or operation ceases operation. The EPA is proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to 

specify that reporting is not required for any process or operation that ceases operation in the 

reporting years following the reporting year in which the process or operation ceased operation, 

provided the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator and explains the 

reasons for the cessation of operation. For example, if a facility previously reporting under 40 

CFR part 98, subpart C (Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) and 40 CFR part 98, subpart T 
Page 40 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(Magnesium Production) removes all of their combustion sources, but continues their 

magnesium casting operations under subpart T, the proposed revision to 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) 

would clarify that this facility is exempt from the subpart C reporting of the combustion 

processes in the reporting years following the year in which the combustion sources ceased 

operation. Note that 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) does not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of 

operations, and that reporting must resume for any future calendar year during which any of the 

GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation. A similar change is being proposed to 

streamline reporting for operators of underground coal mines subject to 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

FF. Specifically, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to delete an exclusion for 

abandoned underground coal mines that precludes them from the off-ramp. Data submitted by 

closed and abandoned mines during the first four years of the GHGRP have improved the EPA’s 

understanding of emissions from these mines and have shown that they produce GHG emissions 

in quantities well below the reporting threshold. This change is further discussed in section 

III.R.1 of this preamble.

In addition, there has been confusion regarding how Part 98 addresses situations where a 

facility no longer meets the "Definition of Source Category" specified in an applicable subpart. 

For example, subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater Treatment) applies to anaerobic 

processes that treat wastewater from either meat processing operations (NAICS 3116) or fruit 

and vegetable processing (NAICS 3114). If a facility were subject to subpart II because it 

processes meat byproducts into human food, but switched its operations to producing animal 

food or to processing seafood rather than meat byproducts, then the processing plant would no 

longer meet the source category definition of "industrial wastewater treatment” in 40 CFR 

98.350 because it no longer falls under the classification of NAICS 3116. The facility, therefore, 
Page 41 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

would not be subject to reporting under subpart II. The EPA is proposing to add a new provision 

in 40 CFR 98.2(i)(5) to clarify that if the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that 

a process or operation no longer meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an 

applicable subpart, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting under any such subpart 

for the reporting years following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or 

operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for 

the process or operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. For any 

future calendar year during which the process or operation meets the "Definition of Source 

Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, the owner or operator would be required to 

resume reporting for the process or operation. 

Lastly, the EPA is proposing to limit resubmittal of reports to five years prior to the 

current reporting year. For example, in RY2016, resubmittal of reports from RY2011-2015 

would be allowed, but a resubmittal of a RY2010 report would no longer be permitted. The EPA 

currently requires facilities to resubmit past year reports for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

in which a substantive error is identified, and allows resubmittals going back to the first year of 

the program. Based on the resubmittals to the program to date, the EPA has determined that the 

number of reports that are resubmitted falls drastically after the active verification period of 6 

months, and continues to fall over time. Because there is significant burden to the EPA for 

maintaining the reporting forms needed for facilities to resubmit reports for past years, the EPA 

is seeking comment on limiting the resubmittals to 5-years prior to the current reporting year. 

The EPA would set the limit at five years in part because there is a 5-year recordkeeping 
Page 42 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

requirement in Part 98.

3 The EPA has determined that this change will have minimal impact on 

the quality of the data set, as resubmissions for past years to date have not impacted overall 

sector or total emission trends. While this change would not require a revision to the regulatory 

text, the EPA wishes to seek input from stakeholders prior to implementing this policy. As a 

result, in this action, the EPA is asking for comment on limiting resubmittal of reports to five 

years before the current reporting year.

2. Revisions to Subpart A to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

The EPA is proposing several amendments to subpart A that would improve the quality 

of the data collected under the GHGRP. For the reasons described in section II.B of this 

preamble, these proposed revisions are intended to collect data that would improve the EPA's 

understanding of sector GHG emissions, and are anticipated to generally result in only a slight

increase in burden for reporters.

First we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR 98.3(c) to revise the content of the annual 

report to include three new data elements to uniquely identify individually reported fluorinated 

GHGs and fluorinated heat transfer fluids (HTF): chemical name, CAS registry number, and the 

linear chemical formula. Currently, 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4)(iii)(E) and (F) require reporting of each 

fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF from applicable source categories, and 40 CFR 

98.3(c)(5)(ii) requires the reporting of each fluorinated GHG from suppliers. The rule, however, 

does not specify how to identify each compound; instead, only the name of a GHG is required in 

a facility's annual report. Generally, reporters identify the GHGs in their annual report from 

Table A-1 of subpart A, which provides a list of fluorinated GHG along with the GWP of each 

 

3 According to 40 CFR 98.3(g), facilities using the Inputs Verification Tool are required to maintain all records at 

the facility for five years. Facilities that are not required to use the Inputs Verification Tool for any subparts under 

which they are reporting are required to maintain records for three years.
Page 43 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

gas, a registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), and the chemical 

formula. When newly developed compounds are not listed in Table A-1 of subpart A, reporters 

classify the GHG as “other” and provide a chemical name. In these situations, different reporters 

sometimes refer to the "other" gas by different names (e.g., a standard IUPAC name as well as 

one or more common or trade names), especially when compounds have more than one name 

that is scientifically valid. This also results in facilities reporting the same gas under a different 

name from year to year. As an example, in prior reporting years, separate facilities under 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart I (Electronics Manufacturing) have reported emissions of the same fluorinated 

GHGs under multiple common names (e.g., octafluorotetrahydrofuran may be reported 

separately as octafluorotetrahydrofuran, perfluorotetrahydrofuran, and c-C4F8O). Further, with 

the fast pace of technology development, new fluorinated chemicals are routinely being 

developed. Because of the rapid pace at which new chemicals enter the marketplace, it is not 

feasible for the EPA to update Table A-1 or the fluorinated GHG and fluorinated HTF lists in the

GHGRP’s electronic reporting system fast enough to keep pace with all chemicals in use at any 

point in time. If a fluorinated GHG were to be reported under a different name in a future 

reporting year, it could result in delays or errors in data analysis and trends if the GHGRP dataset 

contains information for the GHG associated with two different names. 

To improve the usefulness of the emissions and supplier data reported, we are proposing 

to revise 40 CFR 98.3(c)(4) and (5) to include two additional identifiers of fluorinated GHGs and 

fluorinated HTFs so that each compound can be identified unambiguously. To the extent 

available, we propose to require chemical identifiers provided by national consensus 

organizations. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) provides a 

naming convention that can be used for all organic chemicals. The Chemical Abstracts Service 
Page 44 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(CAS) of the American Chemical Society assigns a chemical registry number that is widely used 

in industry and academia to identify individual chemical compounds. However, even with these 

two standardized services, we have learned that chemicals often are reported under different 

names for a variety of reasons. Therefore, knowing the linear chemical formula would help the 

EPA to classify compounds consistently. (We are proposing to require reporting of the linear 

chemical formula rather than the condensed chemical formula because the former provides 

information on the structure of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is useful for 

identifying the compound and distinguishing it from other fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs

that have the same number of atoms of each element in different arrangements.) Accordingly, we 

are proposing to require reporting all three of the following data elements to ensure that the EPA 

can properly classify and identify each unique compound reported:

 Chemical name. If a chemical is not included in Table A-1 of subpart A (or not listed in 

the Web forms in the EPA's reporting tool), then facilities or suppliers would be required 

to report the name using the chemical naming convention provided by IUPAC.

 CAS Registry Number. If a CAS number is not assigned or if the CAS number is not 

associated with a single fluorinated GHG or fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then reporters 

would report an identification number assigned by the EPA’s Substance Registry 

Services. 

4

 Linear chemical formula.

Next, we are proposing to add a sentence to 40 CFR 98.3(c)(8) to clarify the missing data 

provisions. The proposed revision explains that missing data provisions apply not only to 

reported parameters, but to any parameter used to monitor or calculate emissions. Use of missing 

data procedures can affect the accuracy of an emission estimate regardless of whether that 

 

4 Substance Registry Services (SRS) is the EPA’s central system for information about substances that are tracked or 

regulated by EPA or other sources. It is the authoritative resource for basic information about chemicals, biological 

organisms, and other substances of interest to EPA and its state and tribal partners. See

http://ofmpub.epa.gov/sor_internet/registry/substreg/home/overview/home.do
Page 45 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

parameter is reported. It is the EPA’s intention that the effect be documented, such that the 

accuracy of the reported emissions may be better understood.

We are proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.4(i) to update the content of the certificate of 

representation (COR). For each facility or suppler, all GHG reports and other communications 

are submitted by a “designated representative” of the owners and operators of the facility or 

supplier. The designated representative (DR) acts as a legal representative between the facility or 

supplier and the agency. The DR is appointed by submitting to the EPA a COR at least 60 days 

prior to the deadline for submission of the initial annual GHG report. Currently, 40 CFR 98.4(i) 

specifies that the COR must contain the following information:

 Identification of the facility or supplier;

 Name and contact information for the DR;

 A list of the owners and operators of the facility or supplier;

 Certification statements that the DR was appointed by a binding agreement with the 

owners and operators, that the DR has the necessary authority to carry out the duties and 

responsibilities on behalf of the owners and operators, and that the owners and operators 

are bound by the representations, actions, inactions, or submissions of the DR; and

 Signature of the DR.

We are proposing the addition of one item to the COR, which is a list of all the 40 CFR 

98 subparts under which the facility or supplier intends to report. The information on the 

subparts anticipated to be reported is for the EPA’s internal planning and management purposes, 

and would streamline the EPA’s internal processes related to preparing for upcoming reporting 

seasons. This new COR requirement would impose no new burden on reporters. The revised 

content of the COR would apply only to newly submitted CORs for facilities that have not 

previously reported to the GHGRP. The DR would not be required to re-submit a previously 

submitted COR to add the new information. For example, the new information would not be 

required for a revised COR that is submitted to change the DR, address, or list of owners. The 
Page 46 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

information submitted on anticipated subpart applicability would be based on whatever 

applicability analysis the facility or supplier has conducted on their own to determine that Part 98 

applies, and on best engineering judgment as to the specific subparts that apply at the time that 

the COR is submitted. There would be no legal obligation to include GHG data for a particular 

subpart in the annual GHG report only because that subpart was included in the list of subparts 

submitted in the COR. Rather, the annual report must include all of the subparts that the DR 

determines meet the applicability requirements of 40 CFR 98.2 at any time during a reporting 

year. Also, the facility or supplier is not required to maintain any records to support the listing of 

subparts in the COR. 

Finally, we are proposing to add provision 40 CFR 98.2(i)(6) to include a requirement 

that a facility must inform the EPA whenever the facility (or supplier) stops reporting under one 

e-GGRT identification number because the emissions (or quantity supplied) are being reported 

under another e-GGRT identification number. The EPA anticipates that this would occur when 

one facility purchases another facility (in its entirety) that is physically adjacent. The emissions 

from the purchased process equipment would automatically become part of the facility for the 

purchaser, and the facility previously reported by the seller would no longer exist. In general, the 

rule currently requires a facility reporting under an e-GGRT identification number to have a 

valid reason for discontinuing reporting under that e-GGRT identification number and to notify 

the EPA of that valid reason. The e-GGRT system is set up to collect such notification from the 

discontinuing reporter, and the EPA routinely follows up with all facilities that have discontinued 

reporting without providing a valid reason. On several occasions, a facility that was 

discontinuing reporting under its e-GGRT identification number contacted the GHGRP Help 

Desk in an attempt to notify the EPA that the emissions would be reported under another e-
Page 47 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

GGRT identification number. In those cases, the discontinuing reporter was looking for a formal 

way to transfer the reporting obligation to the other facility and confirm that the reporter was no 

longer responsible for reporting those emissions. The rule currently does not require reporting of 

any information from which the EPA could ascertain that the discontinuation of reporting was 

done for a valid reason or with which the discontinuing reporter could make a formal 

notification. To ensure that the EPA is aware of situations when an annual report for a facility or 

supplier is no longer required because the emissions will now be reported under a different 

facility, we are proposing the following changes: if a facility reported GHG emissions in the 

previous year, and the GHG emissions are being reported as part of another facility in the current 

reporting year, the prior facility must notify the EPA of the e-GGRT facility identification 

number under which the emissions are reported in the current reporting year. A similar 

requirement would apply to suppliers. In other words, whenever a business relationship such as 

an acquisition, merger, or joint venture abrogates a facility or supplier that previously registered 

in e-GGRT and submitted an annual GHG report, the designated representative for the subsumed 

facility or supplier would have to report the e-GGRT identification number of the reconstituted 

facility or supplier. The facility identification number should be readily available to the reporter, 

and this change would allow the EPA to better assess compliance with the Program while 

providing the subsumed facility or supplier a formal method of notifying the EPA of their valid 

reason for discontinuing reporting. This provision would not include Onshore Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Production Facilities reporting under subpart W, consistent with FAQ 7495, which 

currently does not require these facilities to notify the EPA when they discontinue reporting 

 

5 The EPA publishes Frequently Asked Questions to provide general and administrative information about 40 CFR 

Part 98. FAQ 749 is available at: 

http://www.ccdsupport.com/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=198705183.
Page 48 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

because of a change in ownership of all wells and associated equipment in a basin. In proposing 

this change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether requiring the reconstituted entity to report 

the e-GGRT identification number of the subsumed facility or supplier would impose less burden 

on the regulated community while achieving the same objectives.

For more information on subpart A confidentiality determinations resulting from these

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

3. Other Amendments to Subpart A

For reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are also proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.3(h)(4) to simplify the process for requesting an extension for the reporter to respond to 

the EPA's questions on a submitted report or submit a revised report to correct a reporting error 

identified by the EPA during report verification. Currently, reporters are allowed a 45-day period 

to respond to the EPA's questions and may request an extension of 30 days, which is 

automatically granted, if needed. The Administrator may also grant an additional extension 

beyond the automatic 30-day extension, if the owner or operator submits a request for an 

additional extension at least 5 business days prior to the expiration of the automatic 30-day 

extension. We are proposing to remove the requirement that the request for an extension beyond

the automatic 30 days must be submitted at least 5 days prior to the expiration of the automatic 

30-day extension. Reporters would still be required to submit a request for the additional 

extension, but they may do so closer to (but not after) the expiration date of the automatic 30-day 

extension.

We are also proposing two amendments to subpart A of Part 98 to clarify a definition in 

40 CFR 98.6. We are proposing to amend the definition of “gas collection system” to clarify that 

active venting systems that convey landfill gas to the surface of the landfill by mechanical 
Page 49 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally destroyed prior to release to the 

atmosphere, are not considered a landfill gas collection system. The requirements in subpart HH 

for gas collection systems are specific to landfill gas that is recovered or destroyed, but “active 

venting” systems appear to meet the definition of gas collection systems. The proposed revision 

clarifies that “active venting systems” are not subject to the monitoring and calculation 

requirements for landfills with gas collection systems. 

The EPA is proposing to amend the definitions for “ventilation hole or shaft” in 40 CFR 

98.6 to clarify that the term “vent hole or shaft” for mine ventilation systems includes mine 

portals, adits, and other mine entrances and exits used to move air from the ventilation system 

out of the mine. The proposed change is prompted by questions that we have received from 

reporters during the first four years of implementation, seeking guidance on whether these 

ventilation system components are considered part of the source category definition. Portal and 

adit are terms sometimes used to describe mine entries and shafts. The intent of the rule is to 

capture all points in the ventilation system where methane emissions may exhaust to the 

atmosphere. Adding these terms should provide clarity for reporters. We do not expect this rule 

change to result in an additional burden to reporters; it is a clarification to provide further 

guidance in applicability. However, the EPA does expect this proposed change to improve the 

accuracy of reporting.

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart A 

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor corrections and clarifications to subpart A of Part 98, including clarifications to 

definitions, editorial changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions 
Page 50 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id.

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). 

B. Subpart C — General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart C of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart C; additional 

minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart C to Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that 

would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's ability to verify data under 

Part 98, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. First, the EPA 

is proposing to require reporting of the moisture content used to correct the default high heating 

value (HHV) for wood and wood residuals (dry basis) in Table C-1, in accordance with the 

procedures of footnote 5 in Table C-1. The Table C-1 default HHV for wood and wood residuals

assumes that the wood and wood residuals are dry (i.e., zero percent moisture content). However, 

wood and wood residuals are often wet when combusted. Applying the wet weight of the wood 

to the dry basis HHV overestimates emissions, as a portion of the weight that is combusted is 

water. 

Facilities raised this concern through the GHGRP Help Desk and the EPA responded by 

adding footnote 5 to Table C-1 in the 2013 Revisions Rule, which allowed reporters to correct 

the default dry basis HHV to a wet basis. Currently e-GGRT and IVT require the use of the 

default dry basis HHV when reporting wood and wood residuals using Equations C-1 and C-8.
Page 51 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

For reporters that need to correct their HHV, the only option available is to override the e-GGRT 

or IVT calculated value, which is on a dry basis.

The EPA is proposing to add the moisture correction calculation as a reporting element,

as well as a data element that would be entered into IVT for those reporters using IVT. This 

would allow the EPA to verify the accuracy of the moisture content and resultant emissions.

Based on current reporting year data, approximately 132 facilities (167 units) would be affected 

by this new data element. The EPA anticipates that the impact of this new data element will be 

minimal, as moisture content is already determined by the facilities that correct the HHV of their 

wood products.

Because the new data element is an input to an emission equation, the EPA evaluated the 

data element to determine if its public release would cause disclosure concerns as was done for 

all inputs to equations through a previous action (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014)6. In the 

evaluation conducted for the October 24, 2014 action, the EPA described in section 2.2 of Part 2

of the memorandum “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of ‘Inputs to 

Equations’ Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015,” September 2014 (available in Docket 

Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0929) that data related to “process design, process performance, 

and/or cost to do business” could be detrimental to a firm’s competitiveness. After considering 

 

6 The October 24, 2014 action used the process established in the notice “Change to the Reporting Date for 

Certain Data Elements Required Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule ” (76 FR 53057, August 

25, 2011, hereafter referred to as the “Final Deferral Notice”) and the accompanying memorandum entitled “Process 

for Evaluating and Potentially Amending Part 98 Inputs to Emission Equations” (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR2010-0929) to determine if there are any associated disclosure concerns. In the “Revisions to Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements under the GHGRP” (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014, hereafter referred to as the 

“Final Inputs Rule”), the EPA finalized an approach for addressing disclosure concerns associated with inputs to 

emissions equations, in which the inputs for which disclosure concerns were identified are entered and verified in 

the EPA’s inputs verification tool (IVT). IVT is a software tool that verifies emissions without the inputs being 

reported to EPA. Inputs to emissions equations for which disclosure concerns have been identified are entered into 

the tool. IVT uses the entered inputs to calculate emission equation results. IVT does not retain the entered inp uts 

but conducts certain checks of the inputs and calculated emissions values and generates a verification summary. The 

same process was used for the evaluation of this new input to equation data element.
Page 52 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

this newly proposed data element, we have determined that for those subpart C combustion 

sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f),7this data element fits the 

description of being related to “process design, process performance, and/or costs to do 

business.” Specifically, for industrial facilities that produce wood and wood residuals as a 

production process byproduct (e.g., pulp and paper production), the moisture content of the wood 

and wood residuals affects the heating value of the wood fuel used to produce steam for the 

production process. As such, moisture content could reveal information about process efficiency 

and the cost to produce a product. However, given the wide range of industries subject to the 

wood and wood residuals reporting requirements under subpart C, it is possible that there are 

industries that do not have concerns disclosing the proposed new data element. In light of the 

above, we propose to allow reporters to elect under 40 CFR 98.3(d)(3)(v) and 40 CFR 98.36(a) 

(for subpart C sources that do not meet the criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f)) to either enter 

the moisture content into IVT or, if potential disclosure is not a concern to the reporter, report the 

data.8If a reporter were to elect to enter the data into IVT, the reporter would also be required to 

keep a record of the data as specified in proposed new 40 CFR 98.37(b)(37).

After considering whether disclosure concerns exist for those sources that meet the 

criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), the EPA has determined that the moisture content of the wood and 

wood residuals would not reveal any proprietary information about facility or process 

 

7 40 CFR 98.36(f) specifies the following criteria for combustion sources:(1) the stationary fuel combustion source 

contains at least one combustion unit connected to a fuel-fired electric generator owned or operated by an entity that 

is subject to regulation of customer billing rates by the public utility commission (excluding generators that are 

connected to combustion units that are subject to subpart D of this part); and (2) the stationary fuel combustion 

source is located at a facility for which the sum of the nameplate capacities for all electric gen erators specified in 

paragraph (f)(1) of this section is greater than or equal to 1 megawatt electric output.

8

If a reporter elects to report the moisture content of wood and wood residuals for a source that does not meet the 

criteria specified in 40 CFR 98.36(f), e-GGRT will require the reporter to waive the right to make confidentiality 

claims before reporting the moisture content via e-GGRT.
Page 53 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

performance, design, and operation; cost to do business; raw material usage; or production. Sitespecific fuel characteristics do not vary significantly from publicly-known average values. 

Additionally for the electric utilities, this sector has experienced a high level of transparency due 

to the practice of passing fuel costs through to paying customers. The EPA is proposing that, for 

sources that meet the criteria in 40 CFR 98.36(f), there are no disclosure concerns and the 

moisture content of the wood and wood residuals must be reported in e-GGRT.

For emissions reported using the aggregation of units (GP) and common pipe (CP) 

configurations, the EPA does not currently have the ability to compare emissions to the 

cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for the units in the configuration. This 

information is important for verifying these emissions. The EPA is proposing to resolve this gap

in verification by requiring reporting of the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for all 

units (within the configuration) that have a maximum rated heat input capacity greater than or 

equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr).

When originally promulgated, 40 CFR 98.36(c) required the cumulative heat input 

capacity for all units in GP and CP configurations. These requirements were removed in 

December 2010 amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (75 FR 79092, December 

17, 2010). The 2010 final rule noted that for verification purposes, “the only critical data element 

is the maximum rated heat input capacity of the largest unit in the group” (75 FR 79117).

Although the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit in these configurations is 

useful in verifying compliance with the rule requirements, it does not provide enough 

information to assess the quality of emissions reported under these configurations. 

Currently over 50 percent non-biogenic CO2 reported under subpart C is reported using 

GP and CP configurations. Therefore, we have identified the need to obtain additional 
Page 54 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

information on these reporting configurations to further assess data quality for these reported 

emissions. The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be used to verify that 

emissions data are not over or under reported for GP and CP configurations. 

In the December 2010 amendments (75 FR 79117), commenters highlighted the burden 

associated with determining the maximum rated heat input capacity and maintaining an 

equipment count for small domestic combustion sources (e.g., water heaters, furnaces, space 

heaters) located at large industrial facilities. The EPA agrees with the commenters’ position and 

believes that meaningful data verification can be achieved without requiring information on 

small domestic combustions sources, as GHG emissions data are typically dominated by larger 

emission units. 

There were approximately 7,000 GP and CP configurations reported in 2014, out of the 

total 18,000 configurations reported in subpart C. Of these, approximately 2,250 reporting 

configurations reported that the highest maximum rated heat input capacity of any unit in the

configuration was less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The total non-biogenic CO2 reported from these 

2,250 configurations was approximately 2 percent of the total non-biogenic CO2 reported for all 

7,000 GP and CP configurations. The remaining 98 percent of non-biogenic CO2 reported came 

from the 4,750 GP and CP configurations that identified the highest maximum rated heat input 

capacity of any unit as greater than or equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). These data provide evidence that 

using the heat input capacity information from units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr will 

allow for meaningful data validation without mandating over-burdensome requirements for 

reporters.

When reporting the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity, reporters will not be 

required to account for units less than 10 mmBtu/hr. For GP configurations, this means that the 
Page 55 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum of the maximum 

rated heat input capacities for all units in the group that are greater than or equal to 10 

(mmBtu/hr) and less than or equal to 250 (mmBtu/hr). Units with a maximum rated heat input 

capacity greater than 250 mmBtu/hr are not allowed to use the GP configuration. For CP 

configurations, the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity will be determined as the sum 

of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served by the pipe that are greater than or 

equal to 10 (mmBtu/hr). Note that fuel use and corresponding emissions are still required to be 

reported for units with a maximum rated heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). Emissions 

reporting of GHGs for GP and CP configurations will remain unchanged. 

Approximately 2,250 existing GP and CP reporting configurations will not be affected by 

this new requirement. Approximately 4,750 GP and CP reporting configurations will be required 

to determine and report cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity. This equates to 

approximately 3,540 affected facilities (out of the roughly 5,925 reporting in subpart C). 

However, many of these affected facilities will likely benefit from not having to account for units 

with a heat input capacity less than 10 (mmBtu/hr). The EPA believes that the burden associated 

with determining the cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP 

configurations will be minimal. Existing air permits and compliance records for other federal and 

state regulations likely contain heat input capacity data for many of the affected sources (i.e., 

units greater than or equal to 10 mmBtu/hr). The proposed requirement for reporting of the

cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity for GP and CP reporting configurations would 

greatly improve the ability to verify emissions for these configurations. 

For more information on subpart C confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.
Page 56 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2. Other Amendments to Subpart C

For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to 

the requirements of 40 CFR part 98, subpart C (General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources) to

1) clarify the reporting requirements when the results of HHV sampling are received less 

frequently than monthly for certain sources; 2) streamline the conversion factors used to convert 

short tons to metric tons; and 3) revise Tables C-1 and C-2 to more clearly define emission 

factors for certain petroleum products. 

First, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(A) to clarify the definition of 

terms for Equation C-2b in cases where the results of HHV sampling are received less frequently 

than monthly. Reporters subject to 40 CFR 98.33(a)(2)(ii)(B) may use Equation C-2b, however 

the equation currently defines the frequency of HHV sampling as monthly. This proposed 

revision will replace the term “month” in the equation inputs “(HHV)I,” “(Fuel)I,” and “n” with 

the term “samples.”

We are proposing changes to Tables C-1 and C-2 to remove duplication and to further 

classify several fuels to provide clarity. These changes are minor clarifications to existing rule 

requirements and, therefore, do not impact the burden on reporters. The first change that we are 

proposing to Table C-1 is to remove duplication of default HHV and CO2 emission factors for 

petroleum coke. Petroleum coke is currently listed under both the “Petroleum products” category 

and “Other fuels—solid” category. To avoid confusion with the classification of this fuel, we 

propose to remove petroleum coke from both of these categories and to include the fuel under a 

new category entitled “Petroleum products—solid.” 

The second change to Table C-1 proposed is to move the fuel propane gas from the 

“Other fuels—gaseous” category into a new category entitled “Petroleum products—gaseous.” 
Page 57 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Propane is also included under the “Petroleum products” category, and we are not proposing to 

remove propane from this category as a majority of reporters use this fuel type when reporting 

use of propane. To help clarify that all fuels in the “Petroleum products” category are liquid 

fuels, we propose to rename this category to “Petroleum products—liquid.” In conjunction with 

the changes to Table C-1 for propane and petroleum coke, we are also proposing to change Table 

C-2 to further clarify that these fuels are considered petroleum products and their methane (CH4)

and N2O emissions should be calculated and reported accordingly. Therefore we propose to 

change the “Petroleum (All fuel types in Table C-1)” category to “Petroleum Products (All fuel 

types in Table C-1),” which will encompass all liquid, solid, and gaseous petroleum products.

We are also proposing another change to Table C-2 to further streamline the CH4 and 

N2O emission factors for fuels in the “Other fuels—solid” category. With the proposed 

reclassification of petroleum coke from this category to a new solid petroleum products category, 

the remaining fuels are municipal solid waste (MSW), tires and plastics. Both MSW and tires are 

listed in Table C-2 and have identical CH4 and N2O emission factors, however plastics are not 

included in the table. We are proposing to combine the MSW and tire line items into an “Other 

fuels—solid” category, which would encompass all three solid fuels (i.e., MSW, tires and 

plastics). 

Finally, we are proposing to update the Standard Test Methods for Determining the 

Biobased Content of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples using Radiocarbon Analysis (ASTM 

D6866-08) to the current standard (ASTM D6866-12). The proposed change would revise 

references to the method in 40 CFR 98.34(d) and (e), 40 CFR 98.36(e)(2), and include a 

harmonizing change to 40 CFR 98.7(e)(33).
Page 58 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to subpart C

In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this 

preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in 

subpart C. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

C. Subpart E — Adipic Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart E of Part 98 (Adipic Acid 

Production). This section discusses all of the proposed amendments to subpart E.

1. Revisions to Subpart E to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart E and 

increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

98.53(a)(2) to remove the annual approval for an alternative method for determining N2O

emissions request by the reporter and the annual request approval by the EPA if the reporter’s 

methodology has not changed.

Reporters that are subject to subpart E are allowed to use an alternative method to 

calculate N2O emissions from the production of adipic acid. The alternative method must be 

approved by the EPA before being used to comply with subpart E. Currently, reporters who 

choose to use the alternative method are required to request approval on an annual basis and 

provide the following information:

 the calculation method for determining annual N2O emissions; 

 associated data collection procedures (parameters, how the parameters will be 

determined, frequency of data collection); 

 initial and ongoing monitoring and quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC)

procedures; 
Page 59 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

 missing data procedures that will be applied in the event that quality-assured parameters 

are unavailable (e.g., if a CEMS malfunctions during a unit operation); 

 any N2O emissions abatement technology that is being used on this unit or process; 

 any specific test methods or industry consensus standards that would be applied (ASTM, 

EPA, etc.) for data collection or monitoring; and 

 any data reporting elements, in addition to the elements required in the rules, which 

would be provided to the EPA to verify the calculated emissions using the alternative 

method. 

In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to allow additional flexibility in the use of 

alternative methods by removing the annual approval request. Unless there have been changes in 

the reporter’s methodology. If a reporter received approval to use an alternative method in the 

previous reporting year and the methodology has not changed, the EPA is proposing that the 

request for use of the alternative method be automatically approved for subsequent reporting 

years. For most reporters, the alternative method is based on innovative methodologies that are 

already in practice at the facility, so the underlying monitoring, data collection, and QA/QC

procedures used are unlikely to change from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would 

only need to notify the EPA that it is using an already approved alternative method. This 

notification would be included in the annual report submission. If, however, a reporter makes 

any changes to the previously-approved alternative method, then it must request permission to 

use the revised method as stated in 40 CFR 98.53(a)(2). Not only would this proposed change 

add flexibility to the reporters, it would also reduce the burden for reporters to comply with 

subpart E. By requiring requests only for new approvals or for methodologies that have changed 

since prior approval, the EPA burden required to review and approve the methodologies would 

also be reduced.
Page 60 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2. Revisions to Subpart E to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 and Improve

the U.S. GHG Inventory

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment that is intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart E while 

generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are proposing to revise 

40 CFR 98.56(f) to require reporting of the date of installation of any N2O abatement technology 

(if applicable). This information is readily available or already collected by reporters, and would 

not require additional data collection or monitoring. This data element could be carried over 

from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would not be required to make changes unless 

additional abatement technology is installed at a later date. The addition of this data element 

would help improve our understanding of the use and trends in emissions reduction technologies 

and the accuracy of the U.S. GHG Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for 

this sector. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for improved analysis of 

emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable emission factors over 

specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted to an N2O abatement 

technology during that time period. For more information on subpart E confidentiality 

determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

D. Subpart F — Aluminum Production

In this action, we are proposing several technical amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart 

F (Aluminum Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart F; 

additional minor corrections and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
Page 61 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

1. Revisions to Subpart F to Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. 

GHG Inventory

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing several 

amendments to 40 CFR 98, subpart F to improve the quality of the data collected under Part 98 

and improve the U.S. GHG Inventory. We are proposing to require reporting of two data 

elements that influence perfluorocarbon (PFC) emissions from aluminum production: annual 

average anode effect minutes per cell-day and annual smelter-specific slope coefficients. These 

proposed revisions are intended to collect more accurate and informative data. As discussed in 

section II.B of this preamble, these proposed revisions would allow the EPA to collect data that 

would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions from aluminum production while 

generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.

The annual average anode effect minutes per cell day is a measure of the fraction of the 

time during which aluminum electrolysis cells are operating that the cells are experiencing 

process disturbances known as anode effects. PFC emissions from aluminum production are 

closely associated with the frequency and duration of anode effects.9 Smelter-specific slope 

coefficients are a measure of the relationship between average anode effect minutes per cell day, 

aluminum production, and PFC emissions at individual smelters. 

Both data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule. However, 

in the Final Deferral Notice published on August 25, 2011, we deferred reporting of the data 

 

9 Recent research has revealed that PFC emissions may also occur from some aluminum smelters in the absence of 

anode effects as those are traditionally defined. These “non-anode-effect emissions” are particularly prevalent in 

recently built smelters that use very large cells, i.e., cells containing 40 or more anodes. Most U.S. smelters do not 

use such large cells.
Page 62 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

elements because they were classified as inputs to emission equations (76 FR 53057).

10 The two 

data elements were considered inputs into Equation F-2. In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, 

October 24, 2014), we decided not to collect these data elements and to include the inputs into 

Equation F-2 in IVT. However, after further investigation, we have determined that for average 

anode effect minutes per cell day, the actual input in Equation F-2 is a monthly average, while 

the removed reporting element is an annual average.11 Consequently, annual average anode 

effect minutes per cell day is not an input to an emission equation and, if restored as a reporting 

element, would be eligible for confidential treatment. As discussed in section IV of this 

preamble, we are proposing to determine that the annual average of the anode effect minutes per 

cell day is CBI.

IVT currently requires the entry of monthly anode effect minutes and smelter-specific 

slope coefficients (along with monthly metal production), allowing PFC emission estimates from 

smelters to be verified. However, our interest in anode effect minutes and slope coefficients goes 

beyond verification of emission estimates. Specifically, the annual average of anode effect 

minutes is of interest because it provides insight into one of the key drivers of PFC emissions 

from primary aluminum production at the facility and U.S. level. This data element helps us to 

understand why emissions have increased or decreased in a particular year or over longer 

periods. Thus, it is important for informing the development of future GHG policies and 

programs. In addition, it is important for explaining U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. Before the GHGRP became effective, anode effect minutes (as well as smelter-

 

10 See the final rule titled “Revisions to Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, and Confidentiality 

Determinations Under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program,” (79 FR 63753-54, October 24, 2014) for a full 

discussion of the history of EPA’s treatment of inputs to emission equations under the GHGRP.

11 Although a monthly total of metal production is used in Equation F-2, the annual total metal production is used in 

Equations F-5 and F-6; thus, we are not proposing to collect annual metal production.
Page 63 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

specific slope coefficients) had been provided to the EPA by most U.S. smelters under the 

Voluntary Aluminum Industrial Partnership (VAIP), although anode effect minutes was reported 

as a company-wide (rather than smelter-specific) average by some companies in some years.12

Smelter-specific slope coefficients also influence emissions. Because they are relatively 

stable over time (under subpart F, they are required to be re-measured every ten years), they do 

not drive trends in the same way that metal production and anode effect minutes do. However, 

they do contribute to differences in emission rates from different smelters and are therefore of 

interest for purposes of informing GHG policies and programs. 

Smelter-specific slope coefficients are inputs to emission equations (i.e., to Equation F2). In the analysis titled, “Final Evaluation of Competitive Harm from Disclosure of “Inputs to 

Equations” Data Elements Deferred to March 31, 2015” (September, 2014, available in docket 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0929), we concluded that smelter-specific slope coefficients provided 

data related to process efficiency and also provided data that could be used to calculate the mass 

of aluminum produced if both the anode effect minutes and reported GHG emissions were also 

known. (The product of the slope coefficient, monthly metal produced, and monthly average 

anode effect minutes is the CF4 emissions from the smelter or potline.) However, we are now 

revisiting this conclusion in light of our proposed determination that the annual average of the 

anode effect minutes is CBI. Without data on anode effect minutes, data on smelter-specific 

slope coefficients pose few, if any, disclosure concerns. Most variability in process efficiency is 

driven by anode effect minutes, not smelter-specific slope coefficients, and it is not possible to 

back-calculate metal production without anode effect minutes.13 Therefore, in conjunction with 

 

12 Although the VAIP program continues, GHGRP reporting supplanted reporting under the VAIP.

13 A review of the slope coefficients and anode effect minutes provided under the VAIP showed that the relative 

standard deviation of smelter-specific slope coefficients was 32 percent, while the relative standard deviation of 
Page 64 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

our proposed determination that the annual average of the anode effect minutes is CBI, we are 

proposing to revise the findings in the Final Inputs Rule and to now find no disclosure concerns 

associated with this input to equation, and are proposing to collect this data. Note that we would 

continue to use IVT to verify the results of Equation F-2 because we would be collecting only 

one of the three inputs to this equation.14

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to subpart F

In addition to the substantive changes proposed, as described in section II.D of this 

preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions in 

subpart F. These minor corrections are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

E. Subpart G — Ammonia Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing multiple amendments to subpart G of Part 98 (Ammonia 

Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart G.

1. Revisions to Subpart G to Improve Quality of Data Collected in Part 98 and Improve the U.S. 

GHG Inventory

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that 

would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG 

emissions from ammonia manufacturing while generally resulting in only a slight increase in 

burden for reporters. Specifically, we are proposing to add three data reporting elements. We are 

proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.76(a) to require reporting of annual ammonia production for 

facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, 40 CFR 98.76(b)(2) to require 

 

anode effect minutes was 95 percent. The comparison was made for the year 2007 because that is the most recent 

year for which detailed smelter-specific slope coefficients were available.

14 IVT will use the data element reported to e-GGRT to calculate the emissions value.
Page 65 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

reporting of annual feedstock consumption, and 40 CFR 98.76(b)(7) to require reporting of 

annual average carbon content. These data elements are readily available so these proposed 

changes would have no impact on burden for the reporters.

The addition of these data elements would improve the EPA’s ability to verify reported 

GHGRP emissions, and enable the EPA to transparently apply more advanced calculation 

methods15 (based on total fuel requirements) for determining emissions from ammonia 

production within the U.S. GHG Inventory, using aggregated facility level GHGRP data. 

Currently, the annual U.S. GHG Inventory emissions estimates are based on multiplication of a 

technology-feedstock type specific default emission factor and national ammonia production.

Further data on feedstock consumption and associated carbon contents would assist the EPA in 

reconciling CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels in the energy sector and CO2 process 

emissions from ammonia production. Finally, collecting annual ammonia production from 

facilities where a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions ensures data completeness if 

ammonia manufacturers begin employing CEMS in the future, and enhances the EPA’s ability to 

verify reported information. Currently, annual ammonia production is collected on a facility 

basis, but only for facilities without CO2 CEMS. For more information on subpart G

confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this 

preamble.

2. Other Amendments to Subpart G 

For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing multiple 

amendments to Subpart G to clarify the EPA’s intentions related to the reporting of annual 

 

15 See Equation 3.4 (Tier 3), p. 3.13 and 3.15. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, 

Section 3.2: Ammonia Production; Section 4.5 (p. 4-20) of U.S. Inventory. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4-IndustrialProcesses.pdf.
Page 66 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ammonia production and annual methanol production. We are proposing to amend 40 CFR 

98.74(f) to read, “You may use company records or an engineering estimate to determine the 

annual ammonia production and the annual methanol production.” We are also proposing to 

clarify the requirement to report annual methanol production for each process unit in 40 CFR 

98.76(b)(15) by adding that this information must be reported “regardless of whether the 

methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product.” These amendments will clarify 

the original intent of the requirements and reduce uncertainty from reporters by addressing

multiple Help Desk questions, including questions related to the reporting of methanol that were 

raised during the RY2014 reporting period.

F. Subpart I — Electronics Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart I of Part 98 (Electronics Manufacturing). The reporting requirements for the electronics 

manufacturing sector were initially promulgated under subpart I on December 1, 2010 (75 FR 

74774). Since the promulgation of that final rule, the EPA has published several rules to amend 

the calculation, monitoring, and reporting provisions of subpart I to respond to concerns raised 

by reporters and representatives from the semiconductor industry. Notably, the EPA finalized

substantial amendments to provisions in subpart I on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162). These

amendments included significant revisions to the methods for calculating GHG emissions, 

including revised default emission factors and the addition of a new stack test methodology, as 

well as substantial revisions to monitoring methodologies, data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and clarifications to terms and definitions. These amendments became effective on 

January 1, 2014, and reporters used the revised requirements in the submittal of their annual 

reports for RY2014. 
Page 67 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

In this action, we are not proposing revisions that would include significant changes to 

the calculation methodologies, monitoring provisions, or data reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements of subpart I. Rather, we are proposing revisions that we have identified following

implementation of the November 13, 2013 final rule and through discussions with industry 

stakeholders on how to improve the emissions estimates from the electronics manufacturing 

sector. These proposed changes are needed to improve the clarity of the calculation requirements 

and quality of the data collected under subpart I and to improve the EPA's understanding of 

GHG emissions from the electronics manufacturing sector. 

This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart I; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). 

1. Revisions to Subpart I to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments to subpart I that would improve the quality of the data collected under the GHGRP. 

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the 

EPA to collect more accurate and detailed data which would improve the EPA's understanding of 

sector GHG emissions, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.

First, the EPA is proposing to revise Equation I-24, including revising the name to 

Equation I-24A, which calculates the weighted-average fraction of a fluorinated GHG destroyed 

or removed in a fab using the stack testing methodology in 40 CFR 98.93(i), to incorporate two 

changes. First, instead of calculating the weighted-average fraction of gas destroyed or removed 

weighted by the consumption of that gas in different process types, the EPA is proposing to 

revise the equation so that the average fraction destroyed or removed is weighted by the 
Page 68 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

estimated uncontrolled emissions of that gas from different process types. This change is needed 

to address the fact that the same gas can have different emissions when used in different process 

types, and these differences could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the fraction of 

gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools fitted with 

abatement. To calculate the estimated uncontrolled emissions of each gas, the EPA is proposing 

to use the input gas emission factors from Tables I-3 to I-7 of subpart I and the consumption of 

each gas in each process type for each fab.

The second proposed change is to create a second equation (Equation I-24B) in 40 CFR 

98.93(i) to calculate the weighted-average fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas “k”

destroyed or removed in abatement systems in each fab using the stack testing methodology. 

This change is needed to clarify how the term dkf, which is used in several other equations in 

subpart I, should be calculated. This second equation would also address the fact that the same 

by-product gas can be formed at different rates from different input gas and process 

combinations, which could potentially lead to errors in the calculation of the average fraction of 

by-product gas destroyed or removed, especially at facilities with a large percentage of tools 

fitted with abatement. The EPA is also proposing conforming changes throughout Subpart I to 

the rule sections where Equation I-24A and I-24B should be referenced. 

Finally, for the triennial technology report required of certain facilities as specified in 40 

CFR 98.96(y), the EPA is proposing to specify that reporters that are providing any utilization 

and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or removal efficiency data must also include 

information on the methods and conditions under which the data were collected, where such 

information is available. The triennial report would describe, for any utilization, by-product 

formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted: the methods used for the 
Page 69 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

measurements, the wafer size, film type being manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or 

technology node, process type, process subtype for chamber clean processes, the input gases 

used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and the by-product formation rates measured, 

where this information is available. All of these data elements, with the exception of substrate 

type and linewidth, were submitted with the emission factor measurements provided to the EPA 

by semiconductor manufacturers during the development of the 2010 and 2013 final rules. This 

information is necessary to enable the EPA to better understand the data being submitted and to 

better apply it in the development of new or revised emission factors. Without collecting this 

data, the agency would not be able to effectively evaluate how emissions may vary by wafer size, 

film type, substrate type, linewidth or technology node, and process type or process subtype. The 

current subpart I is based on the recognition that emission factors vary significantly by wafer size 

and process type and subtype, and given the high rate of technical evolution in this sector, film 

type, substrate type, and linewidth may also increasingly affect emission factors. Additionally, 

the input gases used, methods used for measurement, and measured utilization rates and 

byproduct formation rates are vital for the development of accurate and useful emission factors.

For more information on subpart I confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart I

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor corrections and clarification to subpart I of Part 98, including editorial changes, 

harmonizing changes, and clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). 
Page 70 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

G. Subpart N – Glass Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart N of Part 98 (Glass Production). 

This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart N; additional minor corrections are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526). 

For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing amendments 

that are intended to clarify the rule requirements in subpart N, while resulting in no impact on 

burden for reporters. Specifically, the changes clarify that a default value of 1.0 can be used for 

the fraction of calcination and the carbonate mass fraction for each carbonate type contained in 

the raw materials charged to the furnace. The current rule is unclear as to whether a reporter must 

perform a chemical analysis if they select to use a default value of 1.0. We are proposing to 

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

CFR 98.146(b)(7) to clarify that no further chemical analysis is required if the default value of 

1.0 is selected. These amendments will clarify the original intent of the requirements and address 

multiple Help Desk questions. Additional minor editorial corrections may be found in the Table 

of Revisions in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

H. Subpart O — HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

In this action we are proposing several amendments to subpart O of Part 98 (HCFC-22 

Production and HFC-23 Destruction). This section discusses all of the changes to subpart O.

1. Revisions to Subpart O to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several 

amendments to subpart O that are intended to simplify and streamline GHGRP requirements and 

increase the efficiency of the report submittal process, generally resulting in a decrease in burden 
Page 71 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

on reporters. We are proposing to revise subpart O to remove three reporting requirements 

related to the revised destruction efficiency that facilities are required to calculate in the event 

that the HFC-23 concentration that they annually measure at the outlet of the destruction device 

exceeds the concentration measured during the performance test that is the basis for the current 

destruction efficiency. The reporting requirements are found at 40 CFR 98.156(d)(2), (3), and (4)

and include, respectively, the concentration (mass fraction) of HFC-23 at the outlet of the 

destruction device, the flow rate at the outlet of the destruction device in kilograms per hour 

(kg/hr), and the emission rate (in kg/hr) calculated from these two parameters. These reporting 

requirements were originally intended to allow us to verify the calculation of a revised 

destruction efficiency. However, the requirements to report the revised destruction efficiency 

(the result of the calculation) and the flow rate of HFC-23 being fed into the destruction device 

(another input into the calculation) were removed by the Final Inputs Rule, and verification of 

HFC-23 emissions, including their destruction, is now conducted by the IVT. Thus, reporting 

these data elements to the EPA is no longer needed.

2. Revisions to Subpart O to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 and Improve

the U.S. GHG Inventory

We are also proposing revisions to subpart O to 1) reinstate in 40 CFR 98.156(d) 

reporting of the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency, and 2) require 

facilities to report HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 emissions for each HCFC-22 production 

process rather than for the facility as a whole. As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we 

are proposing revisions that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's 

understanding of GHG emissions from HCFC-22 production and HFC-23 destruction while 

generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.
Page 72 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

The requirement to report the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency 

(not an input to emission equation) was inadvertently removed by the Final Inputs Rule. We are 

proposing to reinstate this requirement because it is useful for understanding data quality, 

specifically, the rigor of the method used to revise the destruction efficiency.

Subpart O currently requires facilities to report production and emissions information at 

the facility level although these quantities are monitored and calculated at the process level. We

are proposing to revise the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.156(a) to require that facilities 

report production and emissions information for each HCFC-22 production process. At the time 

the EPA finalized the subpart O requirements (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009), we had intended 

to collect data on individual HCFC-22 processes, with the understanding that each facility had 

one HCFC-22 process. We have learned since that time that some facilities may have more than 

one HCFC-22 process and we are proposing to revise the rule to require reporting for each 

individual process. In the event that a facility has more than one HCFC-22 production process, 

this would provide more precise information that would allow us to better verify emissions and 

understand HFC-23 trends.

Reporters in this subpart already monitor, estimate, and record process and emissions 

data on a process basis per 40 CFR 98.153; therefore, these proposed rule revisions to report the 

production and emissions data on a process basis are not expected to significantly increase 

burden. For more information on subpart O confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

I. Subpart Q – Iron and Steel Production

In this action we are proposing amendments to subpart Q of Part 98 (Iron and Steel 

Production). This section discusses one substantive change to subpart Q; additional minor 
Page 73 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

A revision is being made to align with revisions being proposed for subpart Y (Petroleum 

Refineries). Under 40 CFR 98.172(b), facilities that report to subpart Q are referred to provisions 

in 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y for reporting CO2 emissions from flares that burn blast furnace gas 

or coke oven gas. Subpart Q reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of this preamble for 

proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities should exclude pilot gas from 

the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of this preamble, the proposed

revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the burden associated with monitoring 

the flare gas.

J. Subpart S — Lime Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart S of Part 98 (Lime 

Manufacturing). This section discusses all the proposed amendments to subpart S. 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

revisions to subpart S to improve the quality of data collected under Part 98. We are proposing to 

require reporting of three data elements that influence CO2 emissions from lime manufacturing: 

annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual emission factors for each 

calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average results of chemical 

composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold. 

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would allow the 

EPA to collect data to improve the EPA’s understanding of GHG emissions from lime

manufacturing and the U.S. GHG Inventory while generally resulting in only a slight increase in

burden for reporters. 
Page 74 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Similar data elements were included in the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; 

however, these data elements were monthly values, listed in 40 CFR 98.196(b)(2), 40 CFR 

98.196(b)(3), and 40 CFR 98.196(b)(5). However, in a final rule published on August 25, 2011, 

we deferred reporting of the data elements because they were inputs to emission equations (76 

FR 53057). In the Final Inputs Rule (79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014), we identified disclosure 

concerns with these data elements and therefore decided not to collect these monthly data 

elements and to include the inputs from Equations S-1 and S-2 in IVT. 

IVT currently requires the entry of monthly calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content 

for Equation S-1, outputting the monthly emission factor for lime type; monthly calcium oxide 

and magnesium oxide content for Equation S-2, outputting the monthly emission factor for 

calcined lime byproduct/waste type sold; calcium oxide and magnesium oxide content, and 

annual weight or mass of calcined byproducts or wastes for lime type that is not sold for 

Equation S-3, outputting the annual CO2 emissions for calcined lime byproduct or waste type 

that is not sold; and monthly weight or mass of lime type produced, monthly weight or mass of 

calcined byproducts or wastes sold for Equation S-4, outputting the annual CO2 process 

emissions from lime production from all lime kilns. The IVT inputs allow us to verify CO2

emissions from lime kilns. 

Collecting the annual emission factors for each lime product type produced, annual 

emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold, and annual average 

results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime product produced and calcined 

byproduct/waste sold would allow us to understand why emissions have increased or decreased

in a particular year or over longer periods. Thus, they are important for informing the 

development of future GHG policies and programs. In addition, they are important for explaining 
Page 75 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

U.S. emission trends through the U.S. GHG Inventory. These annual values are not inputs to 

equations; as described in section IV of this preamble, we are proposing that these data elements 

be eligible for confidential treatment.

For more information on subpart S confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

K. Subpart V — Nitric Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing three amendments to subpart V of Part 98 (Nitric Acid 

Production). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart V.

1. Revisions to Subpart V to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart V and 

increase the efficiency of the report submittal process. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

98.223(a)(2) to conditionally remove the annual approval request by the reporter and the annual 

request approval by the EPA. As further discussed in section III.C of this preamble for subpart E, 

the EPA is proposing that the request for use of the alternative method be automatically

approved for the next reporting year if the reporter received approval to use an alternative 

method in the previous reporting year and the method has not changed.

2. Revisions to Subpart V to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing two

amendments that are intended to improve the quality of data collected under subpart V that 

would result in a moderate increase in burden for reporters. First, we are proposing to revise 40 

CFR 98.220 to change the definition of the source category to require reporting from all reporters 

that produce nitric acid, regardless of the nitric acid strength. The subpart V definition was based 
Page 76 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

on the Standards of Performance for Nitric Acid Plants in 40 CFR Part 60 (77 FR 48433, August 

14, 2012) which covers the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the production of weak 

nitric acid (specifically between 30 percent and 70 percent in strength). Weak nitric acid is 

produced through a three step process. The majority of N2O emissions from nitric acid 

production occur during ammonia oxidation, which is the first step in the process.

High-strength nitric acid is produced by two different methods. The first method begins 

with producing weak nitric acid and then uses extractive distillation to concentrate the nitric acid. 

Since N2O emissions occur only during weak nitric acid production and the production of weak 

nitric acid is covered by the existing source category definition, N2O emissions from this highstrength nitric acid production method are covered by the existing nitric acid source category 

definition. The second method is an extended version of the weak nitric acid production process, 

meaning that the high-strength nitric acid is produced in a single nitric acid train rather than two 

separate processes. This combined process is not currently covered by the existing source 

category definition, even though the amount of N2O emissions from the process would be similar 

to the weak nitric acid production process. 

When the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule was published in 2009, only one nitric acid 

plant in the United States produced nitric acid greater than 70 percent in strength. In the interim, 

further research has indicated the existence of three other nitric acid trains capable of producing 

high-strength nitric acid, including one existing plant and two potential plants becoming 

operational as early as the end of 2015. See the memorandum, “Re: Strong Nitric Acid Facilities 

in the U.S.” from Natalie Tang, EPA to Alexis McKittrick and Mausami Desai, EPA, dated 

January 29, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
Page 77 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Because of increased usage of the high-strength nitric acid process in the United States, 

we are proposing that the definition of nitric acid be updated to apply to all nitric acid strengths 

to ensure that subpart V reporting captures all N2O emissions related to the production of nitric 

acid. By revising the definition, the rule would avoid confusion and ensure that all nitric acid 

trains and all N2O emissions are subject to subpart V. The applicability change would help 

improve the completeness of reporting under subpart V and further standardize Part 98 to be 

consistent with Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) guidance.

We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.226(h) to require reporting of the date of 

installation of any N2O abatement technology (if applicable). This date is readily available or 

already collected by reporters, and would not require additional data collection or monitoring.

This data element could be carried over from one reporting year to the next. The reporter would 

not be required to make changes unless additional abatement technology is installed at a later 

date. The addition of this data element would help improve the accuracy of the U.S. GHG 

Inventory by improving the accuracy of trend estimates for this sector, while generally resulting 

in only a slight increase in burden. Specifically, the proposed data element would allow for 

improved analysis of emissions by enabling the EPA to more accurately apply the applicable 

emission factors over specific time periods, depending on whether the emissions were exhausted 

to an N2O abatement technology during that time period. For more information on subpart V

confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this 

preamble.

L. Subpart X — Petrochemical Production

In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart X 

(Petrochemical Production). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart X; 
Page 78 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart X to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing amendments 

to subpart X that are intended to simplify, streamline, and align with other proposed GHGRP 

requirements, which would generally result in a decrease in burden for reporters. Under 40 CFR 

98.243(c), facilities that report to subpart X are referred to provisions in subpart Y for reporting 

CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from flares. Subpart X reporters should refer to section III.M.1 of 

this preamble for proposed revisions to subpart Y that would clarify that facilities have the 

option to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG emissions. As discussed in section II.A of 

this preamble, the proposed revisions would simplify data collection and may decrease the 

burden associated with monitoring the flare gas.

The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.246(a)(5) to allow operators of an 

integrated ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) process to report 

either the measured quantity of EDC produced or both the measured quantity of VCM and an 

estimate of the amount of EDC produced as an intermediate in the process. We are also 

proposing to modify 40 CFR 98.240(a) to indicate that a reporter may elect to consider the entire 

integrated process (rather than just the EDC operations) to be the petrochemical process for the 

purposes of complying with the mass balance method.

Subpart X currently requires EDC manufacturers to perform the mass balance around 

operations involved in the production of the EDC, including situations where EDC is produced 

as an intermediate in the production of VCM. In a letter received from Occidental Chemical 
Page 79 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Company titled “Request to Consider IPCC Balanced EDC/VCM Process Studies and Data for 

the Elimination of e-GGRT Validation Messages at VCM Production Facilities Reporting Under 

Subpart X,” dated July 10, 2015, industry representatives indicated that an integrated EDC/VCM 

process is a continuous process with EDC produced as an intermediate that is not stored or 

measured. As an alternative to incurring the burden of modifying the process to enable 

measurement of the intermediate EDC stream, Occidental Chemical Company has requested that 

subpart X reporters be allowed to perform the mass balance over the entire integrated process 

and, for the quantity of petrochemical produced, report the quantity of VCM produced instead of 

the amount of EDC produced. Conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process is 

acceptable to the EPA because the CO2 process emissions (from oxidation of ethylene in the 

oxychlorination process to produce EDC) and emissions from combustion of vent gases from the 

EDC operations are calculated under both methods. The alternative method also would estimate 

additional CO2 emissions for combustion of both vent gases and liquid wastes from the VCM 

operations. 

Under the proposed optional method, carbon emitted in vent streams from VCM 

operations and carbon in liquid wastes that are combusted would be assumed to be converted to 

CO2. For most facilities, using the optional method likely means either a more complete 

reporting of total facility emissions or a shift from reporting under subpart C (if the subpart C 

applicability criteria are met) to reporting under subpart X. Facilities have indicated that vent 

gases from the VCM operations are combusted, typically in the same combustion unit as the vent 

gases from the EDC operations. Thus, the assumption that carbon in such vent streams is 

converted to CO2 is expected to be valid. Liquid waste from the VCM operations that is not 

combusted would be included as a product for the purposes of the mass balance and, thus, any 
Page 80 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

carbon in such stream would be subtracted from the total inlet carbon and not attributed to CO2

emissions. 

In addition to conducting the mass balance over the entire integrated process, the EPA is 

proposing that facilities electing to use this optional method would report both the measured 

amount of VCM produced and an estimate of the amount of EDC produced as an intermediate. 

Reporting the amount of VCM would help the EPA to verify the estimate of EDC reported. 

Reporting the estimate of EDC produced would enable the EPA to determine if there is a 

statistically significant difference in average emissions per metric ton of EDC between results 

reported by facilities that use the option for integrated processes versus results for facilities that 

report only for EDC operations.

The proposed change to 40 CFR 98.240(a) would harmonize the proposed integrated 

EDC/VCM mass balance option with other requirements related to petrochemical processes (or 

process units) in subpart X. For example, the mass balance calculation requirements in 40 CFR 

98.243(c) and reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.246(a) are per petrochemical “process unit.” 

Thus, considering the entire integrated process to be the petrochemical process unit clarifies that 

these calculation and reporting requirements apply to the entire integrated process under the 

option, and not to just the EDC portion of the process.

It is anticipated that the proposed amendments would reduce the compliance burden by 

not requiring monitoring equipment and/or sampling and analysis of an intermediate EDC stream 

just for the purpose of complying with subpart X. Instead, facilities would be allowed to measure 

the final product VCM, which is likely already being measured for other business reasons. A few 

facilities may have a liquid waste stream from the VCM operations that is not combusted. Such 

streams would need to be measured and included as products in the mass balance. The potential 
Page 81 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

increase in burden for measurement of such streams is expected to be more than offset by the 

reduction for not measuring the intermediate EDC stream because not all facilities will have a 

liquid waste stream that is not combusted, and a waste stream is an output that would be more 

readily measured than an intermediate that is not stored.

2. Revisions to Subpart X to Improve the U.S. GHG Inventory

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing to amend 

subpart X to collect additional data to help improve estimates included in the U.S. GHG 

Inventory. The EPA is proposing to add reporting requirements for facilities that use the mass 

balance approach to determine emissions under 40 CFR 98.243(c) to report the annual average of 

the measurements of the carbon content and molecular weight of each feedstock and product 

reported under subpart X. Much of these data are currently required to be determined and 

retained per the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.247, so adding the reporting 

requirement to report annual averages adds very little burden to reporters. These additional data

elements will be aggregated to the national level and used to improve national emission estimates 

in the U.S. GHG Inventory for several reasons. 

First, these data points will be helpful for understanding non-energy uses of fossil fuels 

by the chemical industry, so they can more accurately be allocated between the industrial process 

and energy sectors of the U.S. GHG Inventory. As noted in the U.S. GHG Inventory, currently 

some degree of double-counting may occur between CO2 estimates of non-energy use of fuels in 

the energy sector and CO2 process emissions from petrochemical production in this sector. 

Complete data integration is not feasible at this time as feedstock data from the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) used to estimate non-energy uses of fuels are aggregated by 

fuel type, rather than disaggregated by both fuel type and particular industries (e.g., 
Page 82 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

petrochemical production). The EPA, through the GHGRP, obtained complete data on quantities 

of fuel consumed as feedstocks by petrochemical producers for the first time in 2015. The carbon 

content and molecular weight of feedstocks will facilitate conversion of the GHGRP feedstock 

quantity data (by fuel type) into energy units for integration with EIA data to ensure appropriate 

allocation of emissions across sectors in the national U.S. GHG Inventory, including addressing 

issues with double-counting.

Second, having annually averaged carbon content and molecular weight for products and

feedstocks derived from facility-level GHGRP data would enable the EPA to transparently apply

the IPCC mass balance method16 for determining emissions from petrochemical production in 

the U.S. GHG Inventory. Currently, only the aggregated facility-level products from application 

of the GHGRP mass balance are aggregated and published in the U.S. GHG Inventory. 

For more information on subpart X confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart X

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart X of Part 98. These minor revisions are 

summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

M. Subpart Y — Petroleum Refineries

In this action we are proposing several amendments to 40 CFR part 98, subpart Y 

(Petroleum Refineries). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart Y; additional 

 

16 See Equation 3.17, p. 3.67. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.9: 

Petrochemical and Carbon Black Production.
Page 83 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart Y to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several 

amendments that are intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart Y. To 

reduce reporter burden, the EPA is proposing to clarify in this rulemaking that pilot gas, which is 

considered the gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip, may be excluded from the 

quantity of flare gas used to perform GHG emissions calculations. As described below, the 

quantity of GHG emissions associated with pilot gas is very small relative to the total GHG 

emissions from a flare at petroleum refineries, petrochemical production facilities, and iron and 

steel production facilities, and monitoring the quantity of pilot gas may impose additional burden 

on some facilities. 

Generally flares combust waste gas (excess gas generated by the facility that needs 

disposal which the flare was designed to treat/destroy), purge/sweep gas (gas that must be added 

to the flare header system or to the base of the flare in order to prevent oxygen ingress during 

periods of low waste gas flow), and pilot gas (gas used to maintain a pilot flame at the flare tip). 

The majority of gas combusted by a flare is waste gas. The remaining gas combusted by the flare 

is comprised of purge/sweep and pilot gas. The amount of purge/sweep gas needed is dependent 

on the complexity of the flare gas header system and the flare diameter and tip design. As 

discussed in the memorandum “Proposed Changes to Flare Pilot Gas Reporting Requirements 

under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP)” from Jeff Coburn, Leslie Pearce and 

Kevin Bradley, RTI to Brian Cook, EPA, dated July 10, 2015 (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQOAR-2015-0526), flares generally require at least 0.1 to 0.2 foot per second (ft/s) flow velocity 
Page 84 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

at the tip to prevent oxygen ingress, but can be significantly higher for flares with complex 

header systems. For a 2 foot diameter flare, this translates to a minimum flow of 1,100 to 2,200 

cubic feet per hour or 1 to 2 mmBtu/hr. Recommended heat rate for industrial flare pilots is 

approximately 0.05 mmBtu/hr, so GHG emissions from flare pilot gas are typically 10 percent or 

less of the emissions from the flare purge/sweep gas while the flare is on standby (i.e., no active 

waste gas flow). Therefore, we expect the resultant GHG emissions from pilot gas to be low,

especially in the context of the broader flare emissions. 

Further, it is difficult for facilities to estimate the quantities of pilot gas without the use of 

a meter. Facilities generally measure the flare gas, but do not always have unit-specific meters 

installed for the gas used for the pilot flame (typically natural gas). The EPA does not intend for 

facilities to install a separate meter to measure the pilot gas for the purposes of reporting under 

this rulemaking, either to include or exclude this quantity of pilot gas. Installation of an 

additional meter for this purpose would be burdensome to reporters, especially when considering 

the increase in reported GHG emissions would be very low. Therefore, we are proposing to 

amend the rule to allow, but not require, facilities to exclude pilot gas from the flare gas GHG 

emissions calculations in Part 98 subparts Q, X, and Y. Purge/sweep gas would still be included 

in the flare GHG emissions calculations. 

Finally, the EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 98.256(e) 

to add a requirement that facilities provide a yes/no indication as to whether a flare has a flare 

gas recovery system. Currently, 40 CFR 98.256(e) requires facilities to report general 

information as to the type of flare (e.g., air-assisted, steam-assisted, or non-assisted) and the flare 

service (e.g., general facility flare, unit flare, or emergency flare). Several offices within the EPA 

(as well as external researchers) use the GHGRP data on flares to characterize flare emissions, 
Page 85 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

assess trends, and evaluate GHG emission reductions that could be achieved under various 

policies. In using the GHGRP data for flares for these purposes, we identified a key deficiency in 

the GHGRP data set is the lack of information regarding which flares have flare gas recovery 

systems. Flare gas recovery is a primary means by which owners and operators of flares may 

reduce flare emissions. The inclusion of information on which flares have flare gas recovery 

systems will provide useful information to characterize emission trends in key industries using 

flares and provide critical information needed by the EPA to make policy decisions. Only an 

indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery system is being 

proposed, so this amendment would add only a slight increase in burden to subpart Q, X, and Y 

reporters that have flares. For more information on subpart Y confidentiality determinations 

resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

2. Revisions to Subpart Y to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments that would improve the quality of the data collected from subpart Y reporters while 

resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters.

The EPA originally promulgated rules for the reporting of GHG emissions from various 

source categories, including petroleum refineries, on October 30, 2009. Since the reporting 

requirements were developed, understanding of emissions from delayed coking units (DCU) has 

improved. The rule originally established a methodology to estimate methane emissions from a 

DCU based on a simple gas expansion model (i.e., Equation Y-18) which the EPA is proposing 

to replace with a new methodology that will more accurately determine emissions from DCU. 

Recently, EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) conducted a 

detailed information collection request (ICR) (OMB Control No. 2060-0657) of the petroleum 
Page 86 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

refining industry that gathered information about DCU operations and the decoking process.

Based on the information collected, the EPA determined that the simple gas expansion model did 

not accurately reflect the emissions source and significantly underestimated emissions from the 

DCU. First, there is less gaseous void space in the coke drum than previously thought because 

the coke drum is filled with water and the void (vapor) space in the coke drum is small. Second

and more importantly, there is a significant quantity of steam generated and released from the 

coke drum during the depressurizing process because the boiling point of the water decreases as 

the pressure of the vessel decreases. That is, there is a phase change and gas generation that 

occurs during the venting process. Consequently, the total quantity of gas discharged during a 

venting event is actually much greater than predicted by the simple pressure expansion (no phase 

change) model previously used in Equation Y-18. Upon review of the test data collected in 

response to the ICR, the EPA determined that methane emissions are a function of steam 

generation, not the initial void volume in the delayed coking unit vessel. Based on these 

determinations, the EPA developed and used a steam generation model to estimate emissions 

from the DCU (see Docket Item No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682-0202) and revised and 

incorporated this methodology as part of the emissions factors update for petroleum refineries

(see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/consentdecree/index_consent_decree.html; April 2015). We 

are now proposing to amend the DCU GHG emission calculation methodology to align the 

GHGRP’s methodology with the methodology recently incorporated into the emission factors 

update and to provide a more accurate means of estimating methane emissions from the DCU. 

The proposed methodology uses a heat balance on the DCU coke drum vessel contents to 

estimate the volume of steam produced during the DCU decoking operations (steam venting, 

draining, vessel deheading, and coke cutting). Methane emissions per venting cycle is 
Page 87 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

proportional to the quantity of steam generated. Key inputs to the heat balance include the mass 

of water and coke in the coke drum vessel and the average temperature of the coke drum 

contents when venting first occurs. We are proposing to allow reporters to determine the mass of 

coke in the coke drum based on company records or to estimate the mass of coke in the coke 

drum based on drum dimensions and drum outage (parameters already required to be recorded 

under the current rule) and a new equation provided in the rule (Equation Y-18a). We are 

proposing to require reporters to determine the mass of water in the coke drum based on the 

height of water in the coke drum and the mass of coke in the coke drum. We are proposing to 

allow either one of two methods to estimate the average temperature of the coke bed contents: 1) 

a method based on the measured overhead temperature of the drum, and 2) a method based on 

the overhead pressure using a temperature-pressure correlation equation provided in the rule. 

While the EPA generally considers the temperature method to be the most accurate 

means to determine the average temperature of the coke bed contents, the EPA understands that 

there are concerns that the temperature measurements in the overhead line may be erroneously 

high due to additional steam purges in the overhead line to prevent coke build-up on the 

monitoring equipment, so we have provided the temperature-pressure correlation equation as 

well to provide reporters additional flexibility. Additionally, the EPA has not previously required 

temperature monitoring for the DCU in subpart Y of Part 98, but the previous methodology for 

delayed coking units in subpart Y required the vessel pressure prior to venting to be monitored 

and used as an input to the previous equation. Consequently, the EPA is providing the use of the 

temperature-pressure correlation to allow reporters to use current pressure monitoring and 

recordkeeping practices to obtain the information needed to implement the new methodology. As 

such, the new methodology will not require the installation or use of new monitoring systems. 
Page 88 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Finally, we are proposing to allow facilities that have DCU vent gas measurements to use 

these measurements to develop a unit-specific methane emissions factor for the DCU. This 

allows reporters that have previously used the combined Equation Y-18/Y-19 method (as well as 

other reporters) to use the measurement data available to provide an improved, site-specific 

emissions estimate. If a unit-specific methane emissions factor is not available, we are proposing 

that reporters use the default methane emissions factor for DCU of 7.9 kg methane per metric ton 

of steam generated. Additional background on this change is available in the memo “Revised 

Emission Methodology for Delayed Coking Units” from Jeff Coburn, RTI International to Brian 

Cook, EPA, dated June 4, 2015 (see Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

The EPA is proposing that the new methodology be used to estimate the emissions for 

each DCU and the EPA is proposing to amend the reporting requirements for DCU to only 

require reporting at the unit level. This change is being proposed for several reasons. Currently, 

DCU emissions are reported at the facility level. The decision was originally made to require 

reporting at the facility level to allow facilities that have two identical DCU (with same sized 

drums) to apply Equation Y-18 to the set of drums one time to reduce burden. However, the rule 

contains several required reporting elements be submitted on a DCU unit-specific basis, so the 

burden reduction associated with this simplification is very small, and facility-level data

hindered the EPA’s ability to verify the reported data.

Facilities currently have the option to use a combination of Equation Y-18 and Y-19 

(process vent method) for estimating the emissions from the DCU. This further splits certain 

reporting elements between the DCU process unit and the process vents inputs. This split in the 

DCU reporting elements has caused confusion among reporters and made verification of the 

reported data challenging. For example, facilities that did not have a DCU were required to 
Page 89 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

actively report a zero for their emissions from this source. Also, because emissions were to be 

reported at the facility level, the emissions from process vents added for DCU vents needed to be 

reported as zero for the DCU vent at the process vent level. However, many reporters reported 

emissions at the process vent level and may or may not have fully reported the DCU emissions at 

the facility level. 

Due to the difficulties associated with the split reporting requirements, we are proposing

that the new methodology be implemented to estimate the emissions for each delayed coking unit 

separately. This will simplify the reporting requirements for facilities and allow the EPA to 

simplify and streamline recordkeeping and reporting requirements for most reporters. 

Additionally, in the proposed approach, DCU vent measurements may be used to develop a unitspecific methane emissions factor so the available measurement data can be used within the 

context of the proposed DCU methodology, rather than splitting the emissions estimates between 

two different methodologies (i.e., Equations Y-18 and Y-19). For these reasons, the EPA 

anticipates the burden on reporters would be reduced by streamlining the DCU reporting 

requirements so that DCU-related reporting elements are only required to be reported at the DCU 

unit level.

In related revisions, we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.253(j) to delete “CH4

emissions if you elected to use the method in paragraph (i)(1) of this section,” because the DCU 

methodology no longer includes an option to use a combination of techniques to determine the

CH4 emissions from DCU decoking operations. We are also including “coke produced per cycle” 

in the list of quantities of petroleum process streams that are determined using company records 

in 40 CFR 98.254(j), and adding a requirement that temperature and pressure measurements 

associated with the DCU are to be determined “using process instrumentation operated, 
Page 90 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

maintained, and calibrated according to manufacturer’s instructions.” These revisions are 

included to clarify monitoring requirements associated with the new DCU methodology. 

Additionally, we are proposing to revise the recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 98.257 

associated with the DCU to harmonize the recordkeeping requirements with the new DCU 

methodology equations. 

The EPA is also proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) to clarify the 

appropriate equations to be used for reporters with an asphalt blowing unit with a control device 

other than a vapor scrubber, thermal oxidizer, or flare (classified as “other (specify)” in eGGRT). The current rule language in 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) and (h)(2) only specifies the 

methodology to use for these three control systems and for uncontrolled asphalt blowing. In the 

proposed amendments, we are revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(1) to clarify that reporters with 

“asphalt blowing operations controlled either by vapor scrubbing or by another non-combustion 

control device” must use Equations Y-14 and Y-15 to calculate their GHG emissions. We are 

also revising 40 CFR 98.253(h)(2) to clarify that reporters with “asphalt blowing operations 

controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, a flare, or other vapor combustion control device” must 

use Equations Y-16a/Y-16b and Y-17 to calculate their GHG emissions. These amendments will 

yield more accurate emissions values as reporters will now be required to use the most 

appropriate equations for “other” control systems used for asphalt blowing operations. For more 

information on subpart Y confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, 

see section IV of this preamble.

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart Y

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor corrections, and clarifications to subpart Y of Part 98. These minor revisions are 
Page 91 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

N. Subpart Z — Phosphoric Acid Production

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart Z of Part 98 (Phosphoric Acid

Production). This section discusses all the proposed amendments to subpart Z. For the reasons 

described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing to revise subpart Z of Part 98 

(Phosphoric Acid Production) to allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's 

understanding of GHG emissions from phosphoric acid production while generally resulting in 

only a slight increase in burden for reporters.

We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) to require that the annual report must 

include the annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric 

acid line, rather than the annual permitted phosphoric acid production capacity. In a prior 

technical correction to the rule (78 FR 19823, April 2, 2013) we acknowledged that not all 

phosphoric acid production facilities have a permitted production capacity, and additionally, not 

all facilities produce to the permitted capacity. During that action, we removed the word 

“permitted” from the requirement at 40 CFR 98.266(b) to report the facility-level production 

capacity. We are proposing a similar revision in this action to remove the word “permitted” from 

the requirement to report the process-level production capacity, noting similarly that not all 

facilities have a permitted production capacity at the process-level or produce to the permitted 

capacity. We are also proposing to clarify the units of measurement for this reporting 

requirement. The current text for 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires the reporting of “annual 

phosphoric acid permitted production capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid 

process line (metric tons).” In this action, we are proposing to remove the units of measurement 
Page 92 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

“(metric tons)” from this text to provide further clarity on the requirements that the unit of 

measurement is “tons” and not “metric tons.” The revision to the process-level capacity is 

necessary to ensure that the EPA collects consistent annual production capacity data and will 

provide a better characterization of the relationship between industry production and emissions.

For more information on subpart Z confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed 

revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

O. Subpart AA — Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart AA of Part 98 (Pulp and Paper Manufacturing). This section discusses all of the 

proposed changes to subpart AA.

1. Revisions to Subpart AA to Streamline Implementation of Part 98

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment to subpart AA that would streamline the requirements of the rule and improve 

implementation, while generally reducing burden. We are proposing to clarify that Tier 4 CEMS 

are not used to report emissions under subpart AA. Subpart AA currently requires that fossil-fuel 

based CO2 emissions be calculated using subpart C methodologies. Subpart AA states that Tier 1 

or a higher tier may be used. Subpart AA reporters have not used the Tier 4 CEMS methodology 

during any previous reporting year, and are not expected to do so given the mixture of biogenic 

and fossil-fuel CO2 emissions in the exhaust streams from subpart AA emission units. Therefore, 

we are proposing amendments to clarify that Tier 4 is not included in 40 CFR 98.273(a)(1), 

(b)(1), and (c)(1), which refer to the subpart C calculation methodologies for CO2 emissions 

from combustion of fossil-fuel. This clarification will provide clarity to reporters and also reduce 
Page 93 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

the EPA burden and related program expense required to maintain e-GGRT CEMS web forms 

and associated verification checks and documentation. 

2. Other Amendments to Subpart AA 

As described in section II.C of this preamble, through communication with stakeholders, 

we have identified certain aspects of the rule that may require revision, including those we are 

proposing in response to comments submitted by stakeholders on prior rulemakings. Subpart AA 

requires pulp mill reporters to determine the annual mass of spent liquor solids fired in chemical 

recovery furnaces and chemical recovery combustion units by either measuring the mass of spent 

liquor solids annually (or more frequently) with a Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper 

Industry (TAPPI) method, or using records of measurements made with an online measurement 

system. Missing measurements are currently required to be populated with either the maximum 

spent liquor mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion unit, or the maximum mass or flow rate 

that the fuel meter can measure. Representatives of the forest products industry requested 

revisions to the missing data requirements for spent liquor solids in 40 CFR 98.275(b).17 The 

industry representatives explained that use of the maximum potential spent liquor solids firing 

rate or the maximum the meter can measure can overstate GHG emissions. The industry 

representatives stated that this procedure is unnecessarily burdensome and confusing because 

this requirement differs from the way mills handle spent liquor solids flow monitoring for other 

federal air rules, such as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 

CFR Part 63, subpart MM. The industry representatives noted that having a data acquisition, 

analysis, and reporting program that uses one value for liquor feed rate for GHG reporting 

 

17 See docket item EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0934-0058. Although this request was received in comments on the 2013 

Revisions Rule, this request was determined to be outside the scope of the 2013 proposed amendments and was not 

addressed at that time. This request is being considered as part of these proposed amendments.
Page 94 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

purposes and another feed rate for all other purposes is overly complicated for both mill 

personnel and regulatory agencies. The industry representatives requested that 40 CFR 98.275(b) 

of subpart AA be amended to require use of the mass of spent liquor solids reported under 40 

CFR 63.866 of subpart MM for missing measurements.

The EPA has reviewed the industry representatives’ request and agrees that use of the 

daily value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) of subpart MM results in an acceptable missing 

data estimate for the combustion unit. Thus, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.275(b) to 

allow use of the daily mass of spent liquor solids fired reported under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) as an 

alternative to maximum values. The provisions of 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) require pulp mills to 

retain records of the mass of spent liquor solids fired in megagrams (Mg) or tons per day. This

proposed amendment acknowledges that the daily value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) 

may need to be adjusted to match the duration of missing data under subpart AA. For example, 

the daily measurement may need to be adjusted to represent only a few hours of monitor 

downtime. We are proposing to retain the original requirements of 40 CFR 98.275(b) in addition 

to proposing the alternative to use the value recorded under 40 CFR 63.866(c)(1) to avoid 

requiring reconfiguration of data systems in mills that may have configured their data reporting 

systems to supply maximum values for subpart AA. 

We are proposing one additional revision to subpart AA that is a minor clarification and 

that would improve the understanding of the rule. We are proposing a clarification to column 

labels in Table AA-2. Table AA-2 contains CH4 and N2O emission factors for "kraft lime kilns" 

and "kraft calciners," both of which are "pulp mill lime kilns" as defined in 40 CFR 98.6. The 

N2O emission factors differ for these two technologies. Because calcining (thermal removal of 

carbonates from lime mud) occurs in both types of equipment, there has been some confusion 
Page 95 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

regarding which N2O emission factors apply. To eliminate this confusion, we are proposing 

minor wording changes to clarify that the columns for "kraft lime kilns" in Table AA-2 refers 

specifically to "kraft rotary lime kilns." We are also proposing to add a footnote to Table AA-2 

indicating that fluid bed calciners are an example of kraft calciners. The majority of kraft pulp 

mills operate rotary lime kilns while at least one kraft mill operates a fluidized bed calciner. 

P. Subpart CC — Soda Ash Manufacturing

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart CC of Part 98 (Soda Ash 

Manufacturing). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart CC; additional minor 

amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available 

in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart CC to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

We are proposing two revisions that are intended to improve the quality of data collected 

under subpart CC, while only resulting in a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are 

proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.296(a) and (b) to require reporting of the facility-level annual 

consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock. For the reasons described in section II.B of 

this preamble, we are proposing the addition of this data element to help improve the quality of 

the U.S. GHG Inventory by using aggregated facility level data. These data are already required 

to be reported on the manufacturing-line basis for subpart CC reporters that report using CEMS. 

For non-CEMS subpart CC reporters, the requirements to report consumption data for each 

manufacturing line, previously required per 40 CFR 98.269(b)(5), was removed in the Final

Inputs Rule. This action would propose to streamline the reporting of facility-level consumption 

data from both CEMS and non-CEMS reporters on a more aggregate level. Currently, the U.S. 

Inventory estimates CO2 emissions based on application of default emissions factors to estimated 
Page 96 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

trona production18. Consistent collection of this data element from facilities would enable the 

EPA to aggregate and integrate GHGRP emission estimates, and transparently determine 

national emissions based on trona consumption within the U.S. GHG Inventory and allow for the 

application of more advanced calculation methods. For more information on subpart CC 

confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this 

preamble.

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart CC

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing one minor 

correction to subpart CC of Part 98. This minor revision is summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

Q. Subpart DD — Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart DD of Part 98 (Use of Electric Transmission and Distribution Equipment). This section 

discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart DD. 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

changes to subpart DD that will improve the quality and usefulness of the data received by the 

GHGRP, while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. 

A facility is defined under subpart DD at 40 CFR 98.308 as an electric power system, 

comprised of all electric transmission and distribution equipment insulated with or containing 

SF6 or PFC that is linked through electric power transmission or distribution lines and functions 

as an integrated unit that is owned, serviced, or maintained by a single electric power 

 

18 See p. 3.52-53 (Tier 2 and 3). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Inventories, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Section 3.3: 

Natural Soda Ash Production. See also Section 4.11 (pp. 4-40 through 4-42) of U.S. GHG Inventory 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2015-Chapter-4-IndustrialProcesses.pdf.
Page 97 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

transmission or distribution entity (or multiple entities with a common owner), and that is located 

between: 1) the point(s) at which electric energy is obtained from an electricity generating unit or 

a different electric power transmission or distribution entity that does not have a common owner;

and 2) the point(s) at which any customer or another electric power transmission or distribution 

entity that does not have a common owner receives the electric energy. The facility also includes 

servicing inventory for such equipment that contains SF6 or PFC. 

Given the nature of electric power systems, subpart DD facilities generally span a 

geographic area, and in some cases, may cross state boundaries. Currently, subpart DD reporters 

provide the EPA with the facility address on their certificate of representation. However, this 

address does not provide complete information on where the electric power system actually lies. 

The EPA is proposing to add new reporting requirements at 40 CFR 98.306(m) to make data 

collected under subpart DD more useful to the public. The new data elements would require the 

electric power system to provide the name of the U.S. state, states, or territory in which the 

electric power system lies and the total miles of transmission and distribution lines that lie in 

each state or territory. These data elements would allow users of GHGRP data to more easily 

identify the state, states, or territory within which the electric power system lies. Users of 

GHGRP data would also be able to compare the miles of transmission and distribution lines in 

each state or territory to the total miles of transmission and distribution lines for the facility and 

then approximate the percentage of emissions that occur within each state or territory. (As 

discussed in the U.S. GHG Inventory, SF6 emissions from electric power systems are correlated 

with the length of their transmission lines.) This would be useful for determining state- and 

territory-level GHG emissions associated with particular electric power systems. Although 

requiring facilities to report their emissions by state or territory would provide more precise 
Page 98 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

estimates of emissions by state or territory, such a requirement would probably significantly 

increase the burden of reporting. In comparison, reporting the total miles of transmission and 

distribution lines that lie in each state and territory appears likely to be relatively straightforward 

for electric power systems. We request comment on whether it would be less burdensome for 

facilities to report the total transmission and distribution lines that lie in each state or territory 

within the facility boundary or to report the emissions for each state or territory within the 

facility boundary. We also request comment on whether miles of transmission lines alone are 

likely to be a better predictor of SF6 use and emissions than combined miles of transmission and 

distribution lines. If so, the EPA could simply require reporting of the miles of transmission lines 

in each state or territory.

We are also proposing to add reporting elements to subpart DD that are related to the 

nameplate capacities and numbers of pieces of new and retiring equipment. Currently, electric 

transmission and distribution facilities are required to include the nameplate capacities of new 

and retiring hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, along with the corresponding quantities for 

other electrical equipment, in their emission calculations. They are also required to report the 

total nameplate capacity of new equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, 

and the total nameplate capacity of retiring equipment, including hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment. However, they are not required to distinguish between hermetically sealed-pressure 

and other equipment in these reports. 

In lieu of reporting the total nameplate capacity for all hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment and other equipment, we are proposing to require facilities to separately report the 

nameplate capacities of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they 

install and retire during the year. We are also proposing to require facilities to report the numbers 
Page 99 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of pieces of hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and other equipment that they install and 

retire during the year. These additional requirements would not require any additional data 

gathering but would enable us to better understand the quantities of SF6 contained in 

hermetically sealed-pressure equipment, which is typically used in medium voltage, distribution 

applications. Currently, the GHGRP does not require reporting of the quantity of SF6 inside such 

equipment or the number of pieces of such equipment.19 Information on the nameplate capacities 

and numbers of pieces of such equipment being installed and retired, along with the 

corresponding information for other types of equipment, would provide insight into the relative 

importance of the two types of equipment as potential emission sources (e.g., upon disposal), and 

a rough but useful gauge of the average charge sizes of both types of equipment, which affects 

the choice of strategy for reducing emissions. Historically, hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment has been considered to be a relatively small source of SF6 in the U.S., but its 

importance is known to be growing internationally and may also be growing domestically. These 

data elements represent information that reporters are expected to have readily available and 

would therefore generally result in only a slight increase in reporting burden.

The proposed amendments would add reporting of the nameplate capacities of new 

hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(2)), new SF6- or PFCinsulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 

98.306(a)(3)), retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear (proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(4)), 

and retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear

 

19 We excluded hermetically sealed-pressure equipment from the requirement to annually inventory the total 

nameplate capacity of the facility’s electrical equipment because hermetically sealed-pressure equipment tends to 

have small individual charge sizes, to be serviced only rarely or not at all, and to be spread in large numbers 

throughout transmission and distribution networks, making it relatively difficult to track after it is installed . 

However, it is relatively easy (and currently required) to track this equipment when it is installed or retired (75 FR 

74803, December 1, 2010).
Page 100 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(proposed 40 CFR 98.306(a)(5)). These data elements are inputs to an emission equation 

(Equation DD-1). Therefore, the EPA evaluated these data elements to determine if their public 

release would cause disclosure concerns, using the process established in the Final Deferral 

Notice (76 FR 53057, August 25, 2011). The EPA determined that facilities reporting under this 

subpart consist of public utilities, including electric cooperatives, public supply corporations 

(e.g., Tennessee Valley Authority), federal agencies (e.g., Bonneville Power Administration), 

and municipally-owned electric utilities. These are public or publicly-regulated utilities that are 

not affected by competitive market conditions that may apply to other industries. The reported 

data relates to maintenance activities and installation of new/replacement of existing gasinsulated equipment (e.g., circuit breakers, switchgear, power transformers, etc.) and amounts of 

SF6 and PFC used or recovered in servicing or replacing such equipment. These data elements do 

not disclose any information about a manufacturing process or operating conditions that would 

be proprietary. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that there are no disclosure concerns with these 

proposed data elements, and they must be reported in e-GGRT.

Because we recognize that the range of charge sizes can be large (e.g., greater than an 

order of magnitude) for both types of equipment, we are requesting comment on an alternative 

approach in which facilities would report the numbers of pieces of each type of equipment that 

are newly installed or retired and that fall into particular nameplate capacity ranges. One possible 

set of ranges is shown in Table 6 of this preamble: 
Page 101 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table 6. Nameplate Capacity Ranges for Reporting Numbers of 

Pieces of New and Retiring Equipment (Pounds of SF6)

0 to 0.5

>0.5 to 1

>1 to 15

>15 to 30

>30 to 100

>100 to 500

>500

While this approach would require more effort than providing the total numbers of pieces 

of equipment newly installed and retired for hermetically sealed-pressure equipment and for all 

other equipment, it would provide more precise data. For example, it would enable us to 

distinguish between situations in which most newly installed, hermetically sealed-pressure 

equipment had a charge size of 1 or 2 pounds, and situations in which most such equipment had 

a charge size of one or two ounces, but the average charge size was inflated by a few outliers 

with charge sizes of ten pounds or more.

For more information on subpart DD confidentiality determinations resulting from these

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

R. Subpart FF — Underground Coal Mines

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines). This section discusses the substantive changes 

to subpart FF; additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in 

the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQOAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart FF to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, the EPA is proposing three 

changes to subpart FF that will streamline reporting of GHG emissions under subpart FF. 
Page 102 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

First, for the reasons described in section III.A.1 of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3), which provides that an owner or operator of a facility that has 

reported to the GHGRP can stop reporting to the program if all applicable GHG-emitting 

processes and operations permanently cease to operate. Facilities may take advantage of this 

provision beginning in the year after the cessation of operations. However, paragraph (i)(3) 

expressly precludes owners and operators of underground coal mines from using this off-ramp 

even after a mine is closed and abandoned. Underground coal mines may only cease reporting 

after meeting the other criteria in 40 CFR 98.2(i): 1) if GHG emissions fall below 25,000 

mtCO2e for five consecutive years, or 2) if GHG emissions fall below 15,000 mtCO2e for three

consecutive years. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(i)(3) to give owners and 

operators of abandoned underground mines the opportunity to use the off-ramp provided by 

paragraph (i)(3). Specifically, we are proposing to amend paragraph (i)(3) to state that paragraph 

(i)(3) does not apply to underground coal mines, except those whose status is determined to be

“abandoned” by MSHA. In keeping with the proposed changes to 40 CFR 98.2(i) discussed in 

section III.A.1 of this preamble, these proposed revisions would apply beginning on January 1, 

2017. All other proposed revisions to subpart FF, as discussed in this section, would apply 

beginning January 1, 2018 (see section I.E of this preamble for additional information). 

In proposing this change, the EPA recognizes that non-flooded underground coal mines 

continue to liberate methane even after the mining operations cease. However, methane 

liberation from closed mines occurs on a rapidly declining basis until the mine is sealed and 

declared abandoned by MSHA, and sealed shafts emit virtually no methane to the atmosphere. 
Page 103 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

This is supported by the EPA’s work in developing a methodology for calculating emissions 

from abandoned underground mines.20

The proposed change will streamline reporting under subpart FF by limiting reporting to 

facilities actively emitting measurable volumes of methane. Reports submitted by closed and 

abandoned mines during the first four years of the GHGRP show that abandoned and sealed 

mines produce quantities of GHG emissions far below the reporting threshold, and the data are of

limited value for the GHGRP and U.S. GHG Inventory while resulting in additional reporting 

burden for facilities.

With respect to defining when a mine is considered abandoned, the EPA is proposing to 

rely on the MSHA determination of a mine’s operational status as “abandoned,” because it is a 

transparent, publicly available indicator of mine operational activity. The operational status of 

any mine can be found using MSHA’s on-line Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) 

http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. Moreover, the MSHA abandoned status provides 

confidence that closed mines are sealed, and are, therefore, not emitting methane. MSHA 

regulations require operators to seal any mine that has been permanently closed or abandoned for 

more than 90 days.21 The MSHA operating procedures require an MSHA district manager to 

inspect and certify that the mine is sealed as part of the abandonment process.22

Furthermore, the EPA believes that this proposed change has the added benefit of 

removing a perceived conflict with 40 CFR 98.320(c), “Definition of the source category”, in 

subpart FF. This provision exempts abandoned and closed underground coal mines as source 

 

20 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methane Emissions from Abandoned Coal Mines in the United States: 

Emission Inventory Methodology and 1990-2002 Emissions Estimates. Washington, D.C., April 2004. 

http://epa.gov/cmop/docs/amm_final_report.pdf.

21 See 30 CFR 75.1711.

22 U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Administration. Coal Mine Safety And Health General 

Inspection Procedures Handbook. Handbook Number: PH13-V-1. 
Page 104 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

categories required to report to the GHGRP. Some reporters are uncertain which provision, 40 

CFR 98.2(i) or 40 CFR 98.320(c), takes precedence when formerly operating and reporting 

mines change status to abandoned and sealed mines. The EPA believes the proposed 

modification would remove any ambiguity and uncertainty, clarifying when underground coal 

mines may cease reporting to the GHGRP and streamlining implementation of the GHGRP. 

Second, the EPA is proposing several amendments to clarify when moisture content is to 

be reported. The first several amendments apply to 40 CFR 98.326, which lists the data reporting 

requirements for subpart FF. The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326(o) to require 

reporting of moisture content only in those cases where the volumetric flow rate and CH4

concentration from a specific mine ventilation or degasification monitoring point are not

measured on the same dry or wet basis, and in the case that flow rate is measured with a flow 

meter that does not automatically correct for moisture content. For example, if the volumetric 

flow rate at a specified monitoring point is measured on a dry basis but CH4 concentration at that 

monitoring point is measured on a wet basis, then the reporter must report moisture content for 

the monitoring point unless using a flow meter that automatically corrects for moisture content.

The EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.326 (f) through (i) to require reporters to specify 

whether volumetric flow rate and CH4 concentration measurements for ventilation and 

degasification systems are determined on a wet or dry basis. The proposed changes would also 

amend 40 CFR 98.326(f) and (h) to specify that where a flow meter is used, the reporter must 

indicate whether the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture content. This information 

will provide the necessary information for the reporter and for the EPA to determine if moisture 

content should be reported for an individual facility. 
Page 105 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Third, the EPA is proposing several amendments related to moisture content in 40 CFR 

98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324, which lists the requirements for calculating GHG emissions. The 

EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.323(a)(2) to read, “Values of V, C, T, P, and, if 

applicable, (fH2O), . . .” so that “if applicable” more explicitly applies to the moisture content 

term, (fH2O). The EPA is proposing the same change for 40 CFR 98.323(b)(1) and 40 CFR 

98.324(b)(1). The changes to 40 CFR 98.323 and 40 CFR 98.324 are being proposed to ensure 

consistency with the proposed change to 40 CFR 98.326(o).

2. Revisions to Subpart FF to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing two 

changes to subpart FF that will improve the quality of data received by the GHGRP and seeking 

comment on a third. First, the EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.324(b) to no longer allow 

MSHA quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane 

liberated from ventilation systems. Instead, the facility will be required to use either of the two 

other methods set forth in the rule to monitor methane released from mine ventilation systems: 

CEMS or independently collected grab samples. Second, the EPA is proposing to add annual 

coal production to the list of data reporting requirements outlined in 40 CFR 98.326. Third, the 

EPA is seeking comment on increasing the frequency with which grab samples must be taken, 

from quarterly to monthly.

Under 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) through (3), reporters may choose to monitor methane 

liberated from mine ventilation systems using any one or a combination of three approved 

methods: 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) - quarterly grab samples; 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2) - data from 

MSHA quarterly inspection reports; or 40 CFR 98.324(b)(3) - use of a CEMS. MSHA conducts 

health and safety inspections at all operating mines at least once every quarter. Each inspection 
Page 106 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

includes a methane survey of the ventilation system to ensure that the mines are operating within 

prescribed safety limits. To obtain methane measurements, an MSHA inspector takes grab 

samples using sealed test tubes. The samples are analyzed at an MSHA laboratory. A handheld 

anemometer is used to determine ventilation air flow. Approximately 50 percent of the 125 

mines reporting to the GHGRP use MSHA quarterly reports as the basis for reporting methane 

liberation from ventilation. 

The EPA is proposing to remove the option of using MSHA quarterly inspection reports 

as an accepted methodology for monitoring methane liberation in mine ventilation systems. 

Reporters would be required to collect grab samples or use a CEMS to monitor mine ventilation 

systems. This change will remove 40 CFR 98.324(b)(2). We are proposing this change because 

we have determined, through several reporting cycles and a review of MSHA quarterly 

inspection reports for 30 of the highest emitting mines, that the quarterly flow rate data gathered 

by MSHA cannot reliably be used for GHG reporting purposes. MSHA regulations and 

inspections are intended to ensure mine worker health and safety rather than to quantify specific 

mine operating parameters. MSHA inspections provide important data for assessing mine safety, 

and if complete, MSHA data may provide a reasonable estimate of methane emissions from 

underground coal mines. However, the EPA found that for many facilities the MSHA data can 

result in too many data gaps to meet the objectives of the GHGRP, adding considerable 

uncertainty to the calculation of facility and sector-wide GHG emissions. One common example 

is the occasional inconsistency in the locations within specific mines where MSHA inspectors 

take volumetric flow measurements and methane grab samples. Sampling locations are not fixed 

and, from quarter to quarter, inspectors may use more than one name for a single approach. In 

addition, approaches and even shafts may not appear in every quarterly report. For more 
Page 107 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

information on the EPA’s review of the MSHA data see the memorandum titled “Use of 

Inspection Data from the Mine Safety Health Administration for Reporting Quarterly Methane 

Liberation from Mine Ventilation Shafts” from Clark Talkington, ARI to Cate Hight, EPA, dated 

November 13, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. Although this rule change 

will increase the burden on facilities that currently use MSHA data to meet the requirements of 

40 CFR 98.324(b), the EPA has determined that the proposed amendment is necessary to 

improve the quality of data consistent with the intended purpose of Part 98. In proposing this 

change, the EPA is seeking comment on whether other alternatives, such as surface level samples 

taken at the fan mouth, would achieve the same objectives for improved data quality from mine 

ventilation systems. The EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background 

information that can support additional analysis.

The second proposal to improve data quality under subpart FF adds a new provision 40 

CFR 98.326(u). The EPA is proposing to require reporters to report the total volume of coal 

produced, in short tons, during the reporting period. An important approach for verifying the 

accuracy of subpart FF annual reports is a comparison of year to year changes in methane 

liberation and methane emissions for each facility. To support report verification, the EPA is 

proposing to add coal production to the list of required data to be reported under subpart FF. In 

many instances, an increase or decrease in coal production is a reasonable explanation for a 

corresponding increase or decrease in methane liberation. Obtaining annual coal production data 

with the annual subpart FF report would allow the EPA to review year-to-year changes in 

methane emissions in light of changes in coal production. These data are expected to reduce the 

burden on reporters and the EPA in verifying the annual reports. This change will not result in 

additional reporting burden for the mine because coal companies closely track coal production 
Page 108 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

and report quarterly production totals to MSHA. MSHA makes quarterly and annual coal 

production publicly available through MSHA’s Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) at 

http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm. Total annual coal production for the reporting year is 

publicly available by the March 31st GHGRP submission date in the year following the reporting 

year.

Third, the EPA is seeking comment on increasing the sampling frequency for reporters 

using grab samples from quarterly to monthly in order to provide more accurate and reliable 

data. Currently, mines that monitor methane liberation from grab samples must take at least one 

grab sample per quarter for each ventilation monitoring point (40 CFR 98.324(b)(1)), and report 

methane liberation on a quarterly basis. Mine-specific daily and weekly data sets show that 

significant day-to-day and week-to-week variation in methane emissions can occur depending on 

operating and geologic conditions at a mine. According to the IPCC Guidelines, frequent 

measurements of underground coal mine emissions can account for such variability and also 

reduce the intrinsic errors in the measurement techniques. As emissions vary over the course of a 

year due to variations in coal production rate and associated drainage, good practice is to collect 

measurement data as frequently as practical, preferably biweekly or monthly to smooth out 

variations.23 Preliminary analysis of high frequency ventilation air emissions at underground coal 

mines shows that uncertainty decreases as sampling frequency increases. Therefore, increasing 

the frequency with which grab samples are taken from quarterly to monthly could improve the 

accuracy of ventilation data reported to the GHGRP. In considering this change, the EPA 

analyzed high-frequency datasets of ventilation air methane (VAM) emissions at three mines 

 

23 From 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Chapter 4. See: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf.
Page 109 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(Mines “A”, “B”, and “C”) to examine the uncertainty associated with weekly, monthly, and 

quarterly sampling based on using a random day selection approach. 

Using VAM emissions data recorded daily and weekly from the three underground coal 

mines (one with daily sampling and two with weekly sampling), the EPA analyzed the average 

daily VAM emissions rate by randomly selecting the sampling day or week during a 12 month 

reporting period. Mine A had daily CH4 emissions ranging from 1 to 4 million cubic feet per day 

(mmcfd) with an average of ~2.5 million cubic feet per day mmcfd. Mine B had daily CH4

emissions ranging from 4 to 18 mmcfd (avg. ~10.1 mmcfd). Mine C had daily CH4 emissions 

ranging from 1 to 7 mmcfd (averaging. ~3.6 mmcfd). 

To assess the variability in emissions, each case was run for a weekly, monthly, and 

quarterly sampling frequency over a 12 month reporting period. For Mine A, the results showed 

that weekly sampling produced a small standard deviation of 1.6% compared to daily sampling. 

For all three mines, the results showed the standard deviations increased to 4.3-5.2% when 

sampling frequency decreased from weekly to monthly sampling. Finally, the results showed the 

standard deviations increased to 12.1-13.4% when sampling frequency decreased from monthly 

sampling to quarterly sampling. Due to the day-to-day variability in VAM emissions, ranges of 

maximum possible errors are also greater with decreased sampling frequency. Deviations from 

the actual value for monthly sampling ranged from 8.8-10.7%, while deviations for quarterly 

sampling ranged from 20.6-35.1%. 

This analysis demonstrates that uncertainty decreases as sampling frequency increases, 

most noticeably when the frequency decreases from quarterly to monthly. Although the EPA 

considered requiring weekly sampling, it appears that monthly sampling strikes the most 

appropriate balance between improving data quality while limiting the additional burden on 
Page 110 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

reporters for more frequent sampling. The EPA also notes that a number of mines reporting to 

the GHGRP already take grab samples on a more frequent basis than the quarterly MSHA 

sampling requirements. In addition, based on published papers the EPA understands that many 

mining operations conduct ventilation surveys on a monthly and possibly more frequent basis as 

a critical element of good practice health and safety. Air samples are taken as part of the 

ventilation survey to confirm levels of hazardous gases. Therefore, the EPA believes an 

amendment to increase monitoring frequency is feasible for the industry. The EPA is also 

seeking comment on other monitoring frequencies higher than monthly (such as biweekly) or 

monitoring frequencies higher than quarterly but less than monthly (such as bimonthly). 

For additional information regarding the EPA’s preliminary analysis for increasing 

monitoring frequency, see the memorandum entitled “Evaluating Possible VAM Emissions 

Estimation Errors Based on Different Sampling Intervals (Quarterly, Monthly, Weekly),” Ruby 

Canyon Engineering, dated June 10, 2015, in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. The 

EPA encourages commenters to submit studies, data, and background information demonstrating 

multi-year VAM monitoring on a basis that is more frequent than quarterly. This information 

will help determine the appropriate frequency of monitoring for ventilation emissions that is 

needed to ensure accurate and reliable measurements.

Finally, we are also proposing a change to 40 CFR 98.324(b)(1) to require use of the 

most recent edition of the MSHA Handbook for inspections and sampling procedures entitled, 

Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-V-1, 

February 2013.

In addition to improving the quality of data reported to the GHGRP, and, in turn, the 

quality of emissions data aggregated and reported to the public by the GHGRP, the proposed 
Page 111 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

changes to monitoring methods for mine ventilation systems, as well as the addition of annual 

coal production to the data reporting requirement, would improve the emissions estimates for 

coal mines reported in the U.S. GHG Inventory. For more information on subpart FF 

confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this 

preamble.

3. Other Amendments to Subpart FF

As described in section II.C of this preamble, we are proposing revisions to Part 98 to 

respond to issues raised by reporters and to more closely align rule requirements with the 

processes conducted at specific facilities. The following proposed revisions to subpart FF are in 

response to comments and questions we have received since reporting under subpart FF began in 

2011. 

In 40 CFR 98.323(a) and (b), we are proposing to clarify for Equations FF-1 and FF-3 the 

method for determining the number of days in a month or week (n) where active ventilation and 

degasification are taking place. In both equations, the definition of Number of Days (n) is being

clarified to note that (n) is determined by taking the number of hours in the monitoring period 

and dividing by 24 hours per day. 

In 40 CFR 98.323(a)(3) and 40 CFR 98.323(b)(2), the text is being amended to state that 

the quarterly sum of CH4 liberated from ventilation and degasification systems, respectively, 

“must be” rather than “should be” determined as the sum of the CH4 liberated at each monitoring 

point during that quarter. This change is being proposed because calculating the quarterly sum of 

CH4 liberated is required rather than being optional. 

The EPA is proposing to remove “If applicable” in 40 CFR 98.324(h) to clarify that the 

provision requiring the owner or operator to document the procedures used to ensure the 
Page 112 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

accuracy of gas flow rate, gas composition, temperature, pressure, and moisture content 

measurements is a requirement for all reporters, because grab samples and CEMS would be the 

only acceptable monitoring methods if the amendments to 40 CFR 98.324(b) are finalized as 

proposed.

In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(2), we are proposing to clarify the start date and end date for a well, 

shaft, or vent hole. This requirement has caused confusion for some reporters. The start date of a 

well, shaft, or vent hole is the date of actual initiation of operations and may begin in a year prior 

to the reporting year. For purposes of reporting, we are amending paragraph (r)(2) to state that 

the end date of a well, shaft, or vent hole is the last day of the reporting year if the well, shaft, or 

vent hole is operating on that date. 

In 40 CFR 98.326(r)(3), we are proposing to add language clarifying the method for 

determining and reporting the number of days a well, shaft, or vent hole was in operation during 

the reporting year. The number of days is determined by dividing the total operating hours in the 

reporting year by 24 hours per day. This change is consistent with similar changes to the method 

for determining number of days in Equations FF-1 and FF-3, discussed earlier in this section.

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to subpart FF

In addition to the substantive changes proposed, for the reasons described in section II.D 

of this preamble, we are proposing minor revisions that are intended to clarify specific provisions 

in subpart FF. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the 

docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

S. Subpart HH — Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart HH of Part 98. This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart HH; additional 
Page 113 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions 

available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart HH to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment that is intended to simplify and streamline the requirements of subpart HH and focus 

the provisions of the rule on the essential data that the EPA requires to review, assess, and verify 

reported emissions. We are proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(f) to remove the requirement to 

report the surface area for each type of cover material used at the facility. The surface area for 

each cover material used has not been useful in assessing or verifying reported emissions and 

therefore, the EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to report this data. The proposed 

amendment will still require the reporting of the total surface area of the landfill containing 

waste (in square meters) and an identification of the type(s) of cover material used. This 

information is used during verification to check the consistency of the collection efficiency 

reported by the landfill. However, when multiple cover types are used, reporters will no longer 

be required to report the surface area of the landfill containing waste associated with each cover 

type. The proposed change would reduce the burden to reporters and the agency as described in 

section II.A of this preamble.

2. Revisions to Subpart HH to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments to subpart HH that would allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the 

EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions while generally resulting in only a slight increase 

in burden for reporters.
Page 114 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

First, we are seeking comment on whether revisions should be made to Table HH-3 to 

allow landfill owners or operators to determine the weighted average collection efficiency for 

their landfill using either an area-based weighting approach, as has been required in previous 

reporting years, or a volume-based weighting approach. We are also seeking comment on 

whether reporters should be given the option to use either approach, or if one approach should be 

required if reporters meet certain landfill characteristics and if so, what those landfill 

characteristics should be. We have received comments from reporters stating that the area 

weighted average does not accurately reflect the overall efficiency of the gas collection system 

due to differences in the waste depth or age in different portions of their landfill. We considered 

allowing reporters to define subareas of the landfill and perform all of the subpart HH 

calculations and report the equation inputs for each subarea. This approach would consider the

effects of waste age, composition, and quantity for the different landfill subareas, but it would 

essentially double or triple the number of reporting elements, depending on the number of 

subareas defined. We next considered providing a volume-based weighting approach for 

calculating collection efficiency. This approach only considers some of the variables that 

influence methane generation rate, but these are variables already reported, namely the depths for 

each waste area defined in Table HH-3. If the option to use the area weighted approach or the 

volume-based weighting approach is finalized, no new reporting elements beyond an indication 

of which weighting approach is used would be required. This revision would allow us to use the 

data previously reported to develop a consistent time line, if necessary, without requiring 

reporters to revise previously submitted reports. If a requirement to use one approach over 

another for reporters with certain landfill characteristics is finalized, one or more new reporting 

elements may be required depending on what the certain landfill characteristics are. 
Page 115 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Consequently, we are seeking comment on 1) whether reporters should be given the option to 

calculate the collection efficiency; 2) whether reporters should be allowed to use and report the 

option of either the area weighted average or the volume weighted average approach; 3) whether 

reporters should be required to use one approach over the other depending on specific landfill 

characteristics (e.g., reporters with drastically different wastes depths in portions of their landfill 

should be required to use the volume weighted approach); and 4) what those specific landfill 

characteristics should be. We expect that the many landfills that have similar waste depths in 

different areas of their landfill (or a single area) will maintain their existing data collection and 

calculation procedures by using the area weighted average. In contrast, we expect reporters with 

different waste depths in portions of their landfill to use the volume weighted average approach, 

thereby improving the accuracy of the data reported for those landfills. If finalized, these changes 

would be effective beginning with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive.

We are proposing to broaden the description of area type A5 in Table HH-3 to include 

alternative final covers. Currently, facilities with landfill gas collection and approved alternative 

final covers are not allowed to use the 95 percent collection efficiency in their emissions 

calculations because an alternative final cover does not fit the exact language in the definition for 

area type A5 in Table HH-3. This proposed revision would allow facilities with alternative final 

covers to use a collection efficiency greater than 75 percent. Alternative final covers may 

include, but are not limited to, evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier covers, asphalt covers, 

or concrete covers. The state, local, or other agency responsible for permitting the landfill 

determines whether an alternative final cover meets the applicable regulatory requirements and 

has been shown to adequately protect human health and the environment. This rule does not 

intend to provide details of the design or implementation of alternative final covers and solely 
Page 116 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

relies on the agency responsible for permitting the landfill to approve an alternative final cover at 

the facility. For clarity, we are also proposing a definition for alternative final covers to this 

effect in 40 CFR 98.348.

We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) to require reporting of the annual 

hours that active gas flow was sent to each destruction device instead of reporting the annual 

operating hours for each destruction device associated with a given measurement location. The 

proposed revision refers to the fraction of hours the destruction device was operating (fDest),

which is a term used in Equations HH-6 and HH-8. The term fDest is defined as the “fraction of 

hours the destruction device associated with the nth measurement location was operating during 

active gas flow calculated as the annual operating hours for the destruction device divided by the 

annual hours flow was sent to the destruction device as measured at the nth measurement 

location...” Although no changes are being made to the definition or calculation of fDest, there is 

currently no reporting requirement for the “... hours ... operating during active gas flow ...” in 

the rule. By collecting these data, the proposed revision would allow the EPA’s reporting tool to 

accurately calculate fDest, as well as the results of Equations HH-6 and HH-8. More accurate 

calculation by e-GGRT would improve verification of the existing data by reducing the number 

of reporters that override their equation results, resulting in fewer potential errors identified 

during the verification process. The removal of the current requirement to report the annual 

operating hours for each destruction device associated with a given measurement location would 

not impede verification of reported data, as this parameter is not used in the subpart calculations. 

We are also proposing to move the requirement to report the annual operating hours of the gas 

collection system for each measurement location in 40 CFR 98.346(i)(7) to 40 CFR 98.346(i)(5) 
Page 117 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

to consolidate all reporting requirements that are associated with each measurement location to 

the same paragraph, consistent with reporting organization used in e-GGRT.

Finally, landfills with active gas collection systems must calculate and report their GHG 

emissions in two ways. Equation HH-6 is designed to be driven by the modeled methane 

generation (i.e., Equation HH-1), whereas Equation HH-8 is driven by methane recovery (i.e.

Equation HH-4). For a landfill with an active gas collection system, where the quantity of 

recovered methane is greater than the modeled methane generation (i.e., the result of Equation 

HH-4 is greater than the result of Equation HH-1), we are proposing that the facility must report

the results of Equation HH-8 as the final subpart HH methane emissions instead of the value for 

Equation HH-6. 

We allowed the term GCH4 in Equation HH-6 to be substituted with the greater of the 

Equation HH-4 or Equation HH-1 value to avoid a negative result when the quantity of 

recovered methane is greater than the modeled methane generation. We reviewed several years 

of facility data and found a few cases where the amount of methane recovered by the gas 

collection system was greater than the amount of modeled methane generation. After reviewing 

the reports where this occurs, as well as examining the difference in net emissions between 

Equation HH-6 and HH-8 at these facilities, we concluded that the value of Equation HH-6 is not 

reliable for use as the final subpart HH emissions when the amount of methane recovered is 

greater than the amount of modeled methane generation. The substitution of Equation HH-4 for 

GCH4 was only done to prevent a negative value of methane emissions for Equation HH-6. The 

EPA did not intend for that value to then be used as the total subpart HH emissions since it is not 

possible to recover more methane from the landfill than was generated. To prevent inaccurate 

values from being reported as the final subpart HH methane emissions, we are proposing to 
Page 118 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

expressly add the “methane emissions for the landfill” as a reporting element in 40 CFR 

98.346(i)(13). This proposed new paragraph directs reporters to “Choose the methane emissions 

from either Equation HH-6 of this subpart or Equation HH-8 of this subpart that best represents 

the emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of recovered CH4 from Equation HH-4 of this 

subpart is used as the value of GCH4 in Equation HH-6 of this subpart, use the methane emissions 

calculated using Equation HH-8 of this subpart as the methane emissions for the landfill.”

For more information on subpart HH confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

3. Other Amendments to Subpart HH and Grant of Petition for Reconsideration

We are proposing two amendments for subpart HH for the reasons described in section

II.C of this preamble. These proposed amendments are anticipated to have minimal or no impact 

on burden for reporters. On April 2, 2013, the EPA proposed flux-dependent oxidation fractions 

based on data provided by industry representatives (78 FR 19802). While we proposed the use of 

these oxidation fractions with no minimum soil cover requirement, we received comments on the 

proposed soil oxidation fractions noting that soil oxidation only occurs with soil of adequate

depth, porosity, temperature and microbes. To respond to this comment, we reviewed the soil 

depths present in the peer-reviewed studies upon which the data were based and determined that 

the studies supporting the higher flux-dependent oxidation fractions were performed on soils 

with an average depth across all of the studies reviewed of 24 inches or more of soil cover. We 

finalized the proposed flux dependent soil oxidation fractions, and also included a requirement 

that these flux dependent soil oxidation fractions could only be used if the majority of the landfill 

area that contains waste has a soil cover of at least 24 inches (78 FR 71971, November 29, 

2013). We subsequently received an administrative petition for reconsideration from Waste 
Page 119 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Management, Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Petitioner”) on January 28, 2014 regarding the 

inclusion of this minimum soil cover requirement in order to use the flux-dependent soil 

oxidation fractions, titled “Waste Management’s Petition for Reconsideration of 2013 Revisions 

to Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Final Confidentiality Determinations for New or 

Substantially Revised Data Elements Docket I.D. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934” (hereafter referred 

to as the “Petition for Reconsideration,” available in the docket for this rulemaking). This section 

of this preamble discusses the specific issue raised in the Petition for Reconsideration that is 

addressed in this action, the review and analysis that was undertaken since the Petition for 

Reconsideration was received, and the changes the EPA is proposing in response to the petition. 

The EPA intends to complete its response to the Petition for Reconsideration through this 

rulemaking.

In response to the Petition for Reconsideration, the EPA re-evaluated the available peerreviewed literature (27 studies) at the time of proposal regarding soil oxidation fractions. This 

review found that 85 percent of the data points in the literature where both methane oxidized and 

cover depth were reported had a cover depth of 24 inches or more. This investigation confirmed 

that the vast majority of the soil oxidation studies were performed on landfills with cover depths 

of 24 inches or more, which was the basis for the 24 inch soil depth requirement in the final rule 

(78 FR 71927, November 29, 2013). However, several of these studies investigated the oxidation 

profile within the cover soil and several of these studies indicated that the majority of soil 

oxidation occurs in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil cover. While some of the data support the 

idea that the bulk of the oxidation may occur in the top 12 to 15 inches of the soil, it is unclear 

whether these soils would have had similar oxidation rates if only 12 or 15 inches of soil cover 

were present. For further details on the review of the soil oxidation literature, see the 
Page 120 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

memorandum entitled “Review of Oxidation Studies and Associated Cover Depth in the PeerReviewed Literature” from Kate Bronstein, Meaghan McGrath, and Jeff Coburn, RTI 

International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015, in Docket Id. Number EPA-HQOAR-2015-0526.

We also reviewed the codified state standards from all 50 states for requirements 

regarding intermediate or interim cover depth and found that the depth requirements are not 

consistent from state to state, and for some states depth requirements are not specified (e.g., 

Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire). Most states require a minimum intermediate cover thickness of 

12 inches. Some states include a minimum intermediate cover depth in their regulations that is 

inclusive of the federally-mandated 6 inches of daily cover depth. For example, Massachusetts 

requires a minimum intermediate cover depth of 12 inches, including 6 inches of daily cover.

Other states, such as Florida, require 12 inches of intermediate cover in addition to the 6 inches 

of initial cover, thereby requiring 18 inches of intermediate cover in total.

After reviewing the literature on the soil oxidation studies and the codified state standards 

for intermediate soil cover, we determined that while the literature studies are not conclusive 

regarding the minimum soil cover necessary for oxidation to occur, they do show that oxidation 

generally occurs with at least 12 inches of soil cover. Further, most states require at least 12 

inches of intermediate soil cover. As a result, we are proposing to revise and clarify the soil 

cover requirements as follows. First, we are proposing to revise the phrase “... for a majority of 

the landfill area containing waste...” to read “... for at least 50 percent of the landfill area 

containing waste...” to clarify that we intended the majority of the landfill to mean 50 percent or 

more. Second, we are proposing to revise the requirement for “... a soil cover of at least 24 

inches ...” to read “... intermediate or interim soil cover ...” Third, we propose to define 
Page 121 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

intermediate or interim soil cover in 40 CFR 98.348 to mean “the placement of material over 

waste in a landfill for a period of time prior to disposal of additional waste and/or final closure as 

defined by state regulation, permit, guidance or written plan, or state accepted best management 

practice.” In the case where a landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate or 

interim soil cover requirement as proposed to be defined, we are proposing to add a footnote to 

Table HH-4 stating that the landfill must have a soil cover of 12 inches or greater to use an 

oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35. 

Lastly, in our review of the oxidation studies, we noted that some investigators observed 

that soil methane flux near passive vent locations was low. Most of the landfills where methane

flux and soil oxidation were measured occurred at landfills with active gas collection systems. 

For landfills with passive gas collection, a significant portion of the generated methane can be 

released via these passive vents and bypass diffusion through the cover soil. That is, landfill gas 

that is lost through the passive vents would not undergo any soil oxidation. The GHGRP does 

not currently require, nor are we proposing to require, direct measurement of passive vent flows; 

thus, a facility is unable to determine the fraction of the generated landfill gas that bypasses the 

soil cover and it is therefore not possible to estimate a weighted average soil oxidation fraction 

for landfills with passive vents. It is important to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2006 Guidelines24 recommends the use of oxidation fractions ranging from 0 to 

10 percent largely due to the fact that landfill gas will flow primarily through channels of least 

flow resistance, which one would expect the passive vents to be. If there are fissures in the soil 

cover (or passive vent systems), a significant portion of the landfill gas will be released without 

 

24 See IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). 

Published: IGES, Japan. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html.
Page 122 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

any oxidation occurring. However, we are not proposing to require the use of an oxidation 

fraction of zero for landfills with passive or active venting because a small portion of the 

generated landfill gas will pass through the soil cover and undergo soil oxidation. Because we 

would expect a larger portion of the generated landfill gas to be released via the passive vents, 

for the portion of the landfill gas that does diffuse through the soil cover the methane flux rate is 

expected to be small, resulting in a fraction of methane oxidized that is expected to be greater 

than 10 percent. Considering the gas released through the passive or active vents and the 

methane that remains to be oxidized in the soil cover, while not precise, the overall oxidation 

fraction could be expected to average approximately 10 percent. Therefore, we are proposing 

revisions to Table HH-4 to require landfills that have passive or active vent systems that service 

greater than 50-percent of the landfill area containing waste or landfills that have only passive or 

active vent systems to use the default 10 percent oxidation fraction in their emission calculations. 

The EPA is seeking comment on whether landfills with only passive or active vent systems or 

landfills with such systems on greater than 50 percent of the landfill area containing waste 

should be required to use the 10 percent oxidation fraction. If finalized, these changes to Table 

HH-4 would be effective beginning with the 2016 reporting year and are not retroactive. The 

table as it appeared before these proposed revisions applies to the relative earlier reporting years.

While we are proposing to lower the minimum amount of soil cover required to use 

certain oxidation fractions, we are proposing to require the use of a 10 percent oxidation fraction 

for landfills with passive or active venting, or for landfills with less than 12 inches of soil cover 

(that do not also have a geomembrane cover) because application of higher soil oxidation 

fractions would be inappropriate at landfills with limited cover soils or passive vent systems 
Page 123 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

because a significant portion of the landfill gas may be released through channels or vents with 

little to no soil oxidation occurring.

We are also proposing to add definitions of “passive vent” and “active venting” to further 

clarify the rule requirements as they pertain to landfill gas collection system flow and 

composition monitoring and the use of soil oxidation fractions. Specifically, we are proposing 

“Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that allows landfill gas to flow naturally, without 

the use of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill where an 

opening or pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a passive 

vent flare without diffusion through the top layer of surface soil.” “Active venting means a pipe 

or a system of pipes used with a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) 

used to actively assist the flow of landfill gas to the surface of the landfill where the landfill gas 

is discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to a non-combustion control device (such as a 

carbon absorber) and then to the atmosphere.” As described previously, we are proposing to 

require landfills with passive vents or active venting to use a default oxidation fraction of 0.1. 

Providing these definitions clarifies the meaning of these terms and thereby clarifies the reporters 

that must use the 0.1 oxidation fraction.

4. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart HH 

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor corrections and clarifications to subpart HH of Part 98, including editorial changes and 

clarifications to reporting requirements. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526).
Page 124 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

T. Subpart II — Industrial Wastewater Treatment

We are proposing amendments to subpart II of Part 98 (Industrial Wastewater). This 

section discusses the substantive changes to subpart II; additional minor amendments, 

corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket 

for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart II to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 and Improve

the U.S. GHG Inventory 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing 

amendments to subpart II reporting requirements that would provide additional data to support 

estimates included in the U.S. GHG Inventory, while generally resulting in only a slight increase 

in burden for reporters.

We are proposing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.356 to require facilities that perform 

ethanol production to indicate if their facility uses a wet milling process or a dry milling process. 

To clarify this requirement, we are proposing amendments to 40 CFR 98.358 to add definitions 

of “wet milling” and “dry milling.” The EPA intends to use the data on the numbers of facilities 

with wet versus dry milling processes and their respective wastewater characteristics to update 

assumptions used in the U.S. GHG Inventory and thereby improve the estimates of U.S. 

emissions from wastewater treatment at ethanol production facilities. In addition, the EPA 

intends to update the U.S. GHG Inventory using data on the level of biogas recovery in use at 

wet milling facilities and at dry milling facilities. For more information on subpart II 

confidentiality determinations resulting from these proposed revisions, see section IV of this 

preamble.
Page 125 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2. Other Amendments to Subpart II

For the reasons described in section II.C of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

clarifying amendments to subpart II; these proposed changes would have no impact on burden 

for reporters. In order to resolve uncertainties in the reporting requirements in 40 CFR 

98.356(b)(1) and 40 CFR 98.356(d)(3) through (d)(6) regarding how to calculate weekly 

averages for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

concentration, CH4 concentration, biogas temperature, biogas moisture content, and biogas 

pressure, the EPA is proposing an amendment to 40 CFR 98.358 to add a definition of the term 

“weekly average.”

3. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart II 

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor clarifications to subpart II of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526).

U. Subpart LL — Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart LL of Part 98 (Suppliers 

of Coal-based Liquid Fuels). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart LL; 

additional minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications are summarized in the Table of 

Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart LL to Streamline Implementation

For the reasons described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing several 

revisions to 40 CFR Part 98, subpart LL (Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels) to clarify 
Page 126 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

requirements and amend data reporting requirements, resulting in a decrease in burden for 

reporters. 

As described in section II.A of this preamble, we are proposing to remove the 

requirements of 40 CFR 98.386(a)(4), (a)(8), (a)(15), (b)(4), and (c)(4) for each facility, 

importer, and exporter to report the annual quantity of each coal-based liquid fuel on the basis of 

the measurement method used. Reporters would continue to report the annual quantities of each 

coal-based liquid fuel in metric tons or barrels at 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2), (a)(6), (a)(14), (b)(2), and 

(c)(2). We are also proposing to clarify that the quantity of bulk natural gas liquids (NGLs) 

reported under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(20) should not include NGLs already reported as individual 

products under 40 CFR 98.386(a)(2). These changes not only clarify the reporting requirements, 

but also harmonize subpart LL requirements with those of subpart MM. 

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart LL

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing several 

minor clarifications to subpart LL of Part 98. These minor revisions are summarized in the Table 

of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-

0526).

V. Subpart NN — Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

In this action, we are proposing several amendments, clarifications, and corrections to 

subpart NN of Part 98 (Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids). This section 

discusses the substantive changes to subpart NN; additional minor amendments, corrections, and 

clarifications are summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this 

rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).
Page 127 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

1. Revisions to Subpart NN to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing one 

amendment to subpart NN that would improve the quality of the data collected under Part 98

while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. Each local distribution 

company (LDC) reporting under subpart NN is defined in 40 CFR 98.400(b) as a company that 

owns or operates distribution pipelines that physically deliver natural gas to end users that are 

within a single state. LDCs provide the EPA with a corporate address on their certificate of 

representation which may or may not be within the state where the LDC operates. 

The EPA is proposing to add a new reporting requirement at 40 CFR 98.406(b)(14) to 

support data verification and make the data more useful to the public. The new data element 

would require LDCs to provide the name of the U.S. state or territory covered in the report. This 

data element will improve the EPA’s ability to compare reported data to information contained in 

outside data sets (such as those from the EIA). Adding this requirement will enable the EPA to 

identify a larger portion of LDCs in the EIA data set which will lead to improved data quality in 

both the EPA and the EIA data sets. This data element will also allow users of GHGRP data to 

more easily identify the state within which the LDC operates, which will be useful for 

determining state level GHG totals associated with natural gas supply. 

For more information on subpart NN confidentiality determinations resulting from these

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart NN

For the reasons described in section II. D of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

changes to subpart NN that are corrections, editorial changes, and minor clarifications to 

improve understanding of the rule. These additional minor corrections to subpart NN are 
Page 128 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

discussed in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

W. Subpart OO — Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

In this action, we are proposing several amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 (Suppliers 

of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart 

OO. 

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would 

allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of industrial GHG 

supplies while generally resulting in only a slight increase in burden for reporters. We are 

proposing three amendments to subpart OO of Part 98 (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases) that would improve the quality of the data collection under Part 98 and improve the U.S. 

GHG Inventory.

We are proposing two revisions to the definition of the source category to include 

facilities that 1) destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of industrial greenhouse gases and/or 

fluorinated heat transfer fluids annually; or 2) produce, import, or export fluorinated heat transfer 

fluids (HTFs) that are not also fluorinated greenhouse gases. We are also proposing to expand 

the scope of monitoring and reporting to include production, transformation, destruction, 

imports, and exports of fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs. 

Revisions to Include Facilities that Destroy Fluorinated GHGs and Fluorinated HTFs. 

To develop an accurate estimate of the U.S. supply of fluorinated GHGs, it is necessary to track 

all significant additions to and subtractions from that supply. Additions to the U.S. supply 

include production and import, while subtractions include transformation, destruction, and 

export. Currently, subpart OO requires producers and importers to report the quantities of 
Page 129 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

fluorinated GHGs that they produce, import, transform, destroy, or send to another facility for 

destruction. (Exporters are required to report the quantities of fluorinated GHGs that they 

export.) While this reporting accounts for destruction by producers and importers, it does not 

account for destruction by other entities. This may result in a significant underestimate of the 

quantities destroyed because the fluorinated GHG market includes participants who neither 

produce nor import industrial GHGs but may end up destroying them, such as refrigerant 

reclaimers who clean used HFCs for reuse. On occasion, these reclaimers may destroy 

fluorinated GHGs that are found to be irretrievably contaminated. Alternatively, they may send 

such fluorinated GHGs to a facility other than a fluorinated gas producer or importer for 

destruction. In other cases, fluorinated GHG users may themselves recognize that recovered 

fluorinated GHGs are irretrievably contaminated and send them directly to a destruction facility. 

By requiring facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs to report that destruction, we would 

capture such destruction and thereby eliminate a potential overestimate of the U.S. supply of 

fluorinated GHGs. To avoid covering the destruction of very small quantities of fluorinated 

GHGs that do not have a material impact on the CO2e fluorinated GHG supply, we are also 

proposing to require facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs (and are not otherwise covered by 

subpart OO) to report that destruction only if they destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated 

GHGs annually. This is consistent with the thresholds currently applied to facilities that destroy 

HFC-23 under subpart O and to importers and exporters of industrial GHGs under subpart OO. 

This expansion of the definition of the subpart OO source category would apply to 

facilities that destroy previously produced fluorinated GHGs and that are not already required to 

report any residual emissions of the destroyed fluorinated GHGs under another subpart. For 

example, cement kilns that annually accept and destroy a total of 25,000 mtCO2e or more of 
Page 130 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

irretrievably contaminated HFCs or SF6 recovered from air-conditioning or electrical equipment 

would be covered, but electronics manufacturing facilities that dissociate fluorinated GHGs 

during and/or after etching and chemical vapor deposition chamber cleaning processes would not 

be covered. Electronics facilities are currently required to report both their emissions and their 

effective destruction efficiencies under subpart I, and we therefore already receive data to 

account for the impacts of electronics manufacturing on fluorinated GHG supplies and 

emissions. 

We estimate that five to ten destruction facilities would be newly covered by subpart OO 

under this amendment. This estimate is based on the number of facilities that report destruction 

of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) to the EPA under the Stratospheric Protection Program. 

Because fluorinated GHGs are chemically similar to ODSs, are manufactured and imported by 

many of the same facilities and companies that manufacture and import ODSs, and are used in 

many of the same applications as ODSs, the set of facilities destroying fluorinated GHGs is 

likely to be similar to the set of facilities destroying ODSs. These facilities include hazardous 

waste treatment facilities that use a variety of different destruction technologies such as plasma 

arc and combustion. Facilities destroying very small quantities of ODSs were excluded from the 

total because similar quantities of fluorinated GHGs appeared unlikely to equal or exceed the 

proposed 25,000 mtCO2e threshold (using an average GWP of 2000). 

The same rationale applies to destruction of fluorinated HTFs; reporting by suppliers of 

fluorinated HTFs is discussed below. 

Revisions to Include Facilities that Produce, Import, Transform, Export or Destroy 

Fluorinated Heat Transfer Fluids and to Require Reporting of these Activities. We are also 

proposing to revise subpart OO to include entities that produce, import, transform, export, or 
Page 131 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

destroy fluorinated HTFs that are not also fluorinated GHGs under the subpart A definition, and 

to require monitoring and reporting of these activities from all suppliers that engage in them. 

Currently, the Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gas source category includes suppliers of, and 

requires reporting of, nitrous oxide and fluorinated GHGs. The definition of fluorinated GHG 

excludes compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C, because in 

applications where temperatures are near or below 25 degrees C, such compounds are not likely 

to evaporate and enter the atmosphere (74 FR 56348, October 30, 2009). However, fluorinated 

HTFs are used in electronics manufacturing applications where temperatures can be much 

higher. Consequently, even compounds whose vapor pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees 

C can enter the atmosphere when used in these applications. For this reason, subpart I

(Electronics Manufacturing) defines fluorinated HTFs to include compounds whose vapor 

pressures fall below 1 mm Hg at 25 degrees C (as well as above this level) and that are used in 

temperature control, device testing, cleaning substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering;

and subpart I requires electronics manufacturing facilities to report emissions of these 

compounds. We are proposing to use essentially the same definition for subpart OO.

Collecting information on the U.S. supply of fluorinated HTFs would enable us to 

compare reported supplies to the demand for fluorinated HTFs that we calculate based on the 

emissions 1) reported under subpart I, and 2) estimated for electronics facilities that do not report 

under subpart I (e.g., because they fall below the threshold). Large differences would imply that 

emissions are being over- or underestimated, for example because some users and emitters of 

fluorinated HTFs are not being accounted for.25 Because many fluorinated HTFs are composed 

 

25 Such differences have been seen for other fluorinated GHGs; a recent comparison between the U.S. supply of SF6

reported under OO and the demand for SF6 calculated based on reporting under subparts I, T (Magnesium 

Production), DD (Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use), and SS (Electrical Equipment 

Manufacture or Refurbishment) found that in 2012, supplies exceeded the calculated demand by more than half.
Page 132 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of fully-fluorinated GHGs and have GWPs near 10,000, it is important to ensure that we are 

accurately accounting for fluorinated HTF emissions on a national level. 

Suppliers of fluorinated HTFs would be subject to the same thresholds as suppliers of 

fluorinated GHGs. That is, there would be no threshold for producers of fluorinated HTFs, but 

the threshold for importers, exporters, and destroyers of fluorinated HTFs would be 25,000 

mtCO2e of fluorinated HTFs or GHGs. We anticipate that few, if any, suppliers of fluorinated 

HTFs would be required to begin reporting under this provision because all suppliers of 

fluorinated HTFs are believed to report under subpart OO already. (One possible exception is 

facilities that destroy but do not produce or import fluorinated HTFs, but this group of facilities 

is included in the set of destruction facilities discussed above.) The incremental burden 

associated with reporting production, import, export, and destruction of fluorinated HTFs that are 

not also fluorinated GHGs is expected to be modest, e.g., it may involve reporting supplies of 

one to twelve additional compounds by two to three suppliers of fluorinated HTFs.

For more information on subpart OO confidentiality determinations resulting from these 

proposed revisions, see section IV of this preamble.

X. Subpart RR – Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart RR of Part 98 (Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide). This section discusses all of the proposed changes to subpart 

RR. 

As discussed in section II.B of this preamble, we are proposing revisions that would 

allow the EPA to collect data that would improve the EPA's understanding of GHG emissions 

from geologic sequestration, while generally resulting in a minimal increase in burden for 

reporters. The EPA is proposing to add a data reporting element to 40 CFR 98.446 to indicate 
Page 133 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

whether the facility is injecting a CO2 stream in subsurface geologic formations to enhance the 

recovery of oil or natural gas. This additional data element will also allow the EPA to make 

categorical confidentiality determinations on data elements related to CO2 received and CO2

produced that currently have a confidentiality status that is evaluated on a case-by-case basis (77 

FR 48072, 48081-48083; August 13, 2012). For more information on subpart RR confidentiality 

determinations resulting from this proposed revision, see section IV of this preamble. 

Y. Subpart TT — Industrial Waste Landfills

In this action, we are proposing amendments to subpart TT of Part 98 (Industrial Waste 

Landfills). This section discusses the substantive changes to subpart TT; one additional

correction is summarized in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking 

(Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526).

1. Revisions to Subpart TT to Improve the Quality of Data Collected under Part 98 

For the reasons described in section II.B of this preamble, the EPA is proposing several 

amendments to Table TT-1 to subpart TT of Part 98 that would improve the quality of the data 

collected under the GHGRP and improve the EPA's understanding of sector GHG emissions, and 

are anticipated to either have no impact on the burden for reporters or may reduce burden for 

some facilities currently using site-specific factors. During the development of subpart TT, we 

received several comments regarding the need to provide more default DOC values for specific 

industrial waste streams, particularly from the pulp and paper industry. Additionally, on May 17, 

2013, we received written comments from the American Forest and Paper Association and the 

American Wood Council, with input from the National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, on the proposed 2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and 

Proposed Confidentiality Determination for New or Substantially Revised Data Elements (78 FR 
Page 134 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19802, April 2, 2013). These comments stated that the current DOC values in Table TT-1 

overstate substantially the GHG emissions from landfills at pulp and paper mills. (See Docket Id. 

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934). One suggested resolution was for the EPA to create separate 

categories of wastes that would include largely inorganic waste streams and assign a lower DOC 

value in Table TT-1. At that time, the information provided in the comments was considered 

new, the comments contained only limited data on which to base any changes, and they did not 

address items that were not part of the proposal. The EPA also did not have data to develop more 

waste specific DOC values for any of the industrial waste categories. Instead, we provided 

methods in the rule that allowed reporters to develop site-specific DOC values for wastes that 

may not be well-characterized by the default values provided in Table TT-1. While we still 

maintain that site-specific DOC values are preferable to the Table TT-1 defaults, we reviewed 

the site-specific DOC values reported under subpart TT from 2011 to 2013 to determine if we 

had adequate data to develop more specific industry default DOC values for inclusion in Table 

TT-1. For most industries, we did not have enough data from site-specific DOC estimates to 

establish new or revise default DOC values for inclusion in Table TT-1. However, we had sitespecific DOC data for over 100 waste streams at pulp and paper manufacturing facilities. We 

note that the pulp and paper industry accounts for approximately 55 percent of the subpart TT 

reporters and accounts for 62 percent of the emissions reported during the 2013 reporting year. 

Within the data, we found four general pulp and paper waste types for which reporters 

commonly developed site-specific DOC values. These are: boiler ash, kraft recovery 

(causticizing) wastes, wastewater treatment sludges, and other (which included hydropulper 

rejects, bark wastes, and digester knots). We found that our general pulp and paper waste (other 

than industrial sludge) default DOC value was reasonable for the “other” waste category, but 
Page 135 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

overestimated DOC content for other pulp and paper waste streams. Boiler ash and kraft 

recovery wastes had very low DOC values, but not low enough to be considered “inerts.” We 

also found that wastewater treatment sludges for the pulp and paper industry had, on average, a 

slightly higher DOC content than the default for “industrial sludge.” See memorandum, “Review 

of Site-Specific Industrial Waste Degradable Organic Content Data” from Jeff Coburn and 

Katherine Bronstein, RTI International to Rachel Schmeltz, EPA, dated June 17, 2015 in Docket 

Id. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. 

Based on the available site-specific DOC values for these different pulp and paper 

industry wastes, we consider it appropriate to provide additional default DOC values for the pulp 

and paper industry for the purposes of improving the accuracy of the methane emissions 

estimates reported under subpart TT. Specifically, we are proposing to provide default DOC 

values for the four specific pulp and paper industry waste types previously listed. The proposed 

default DOC value for boiler ash is 0.06; the proposed default DOC value for kraft recovery 

wastes is 0.025. As proposed, these values, rather than the previous “pulp and paper waste (other 

than industrial sludge)” default value of 0.20 or the “Inert Waste [i.e., waste listed in 40 CFR

98.460(c)(2)]” default value of 0, should be used for these specific waste streams. The proposed 

default DOC value for pulp and paper wastewater sludge is 0.12, which would be required, as 

proposed, for pulp and paper wastewater treatment sludges rather than the generic “Industrial 

Sludge” default value of 0.09. The fourth category being proposed is “Other Pulp and Paper 

Wastes (not otherwise listed)” and is to be used for all other pulp and paper wastes not included 

in the three other pulp and paper categories; the proposed default DOC value for this category is 

0.20, which is consistent with the previous default for general pulp and paper wastes. In addition, 

we are adding a footnote to Table TT-1 to explain that kraft recovery wastes include green liquor 
Page 136 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be referred to collectively as causticizing or 

recausticizing wastes. Reporters used any and all of these terms in their submitted reports to refer 

to these waste types.

While we are proposing to provide these specific defaults for different types of waste in 

the pulp and paper industry, we do not intend to prevent the pulp and paper industry from using 

the other default values in Table TT-1 that may apply. For example, if construction and 

demolition wastes are disposed of in a landfill at a pulp and paper manufacturing facility, the 

reporter may still use the construction and demolition waste default DOC value for these waste 

streams. However, to clarify, we intend to require the pulp and paper industry to use the 

industry-specific wastewater sludge default DOC value, and are therefore proposing to revise the 

“Industrial Sludge” category to be “Industrial Sludge (other than pulp and paper industry 

sludge).”

2. Minor Corrections and Clarifications to Subpart TT 

For the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing one minor 

correction to subpart TT of Part 98 that is an editorial change. This minor revision is summarized 

in the Table of Revisions available in the docket for this rulemaking (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQOAR-2015-0526).

Z. Other Minor Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections 

In addition to the substantive amendments proposed in sections III.A through III.Y of this 

preamble, for the reasons described in section II.D of this preamble, we are proposing minor

revisions, clarifications, and corrections to subparts P, U, MM, PP, and UU of Part 98. The 

proposed changes to these subparts are provided in the Table of Revisions for this rulemaking,

available in Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015-0526, and include clarifying requirements to 
Page 137 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

better reflect the EPA’s intent, corrections to calculation terms or cross-references that do not 

revise the output of calculations, harmonizing changes within a subpart (such as changes to 

terminology), simple typographical errors, and other minor corrections (e.g., removal of

redundant text).

IV. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Changed Data Reporting 

Elements 

A. Overview and Background

In this notice we are proposing confidentiality determinations for new or substantially 

revised reporting data elements (i.e., the data required to be reported would change under the 

proposed revision) in the proposed subpart rule amendments. We are also proposing 

confidentiality determinations for certain existing data elements for which a confidentiality 

determination has not previously been proposed or finalized, or where the EPA has determined 

that the current determination is no longer appropriate. 

In this action, we are proposing confidentiality determinations for 117 new or 

substantially revised data reporting requirements in 21 subparts. We are not proposing new 

confidentially determinations for data reporting elements where the change does not require an 

additional or different data element to be reported. The final confidentiality determinations the 

EPA has previously made for these minimally revised data elements are unaffected by this 

proposed amendment and continue to apply.

We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for 27 existing data elements in 

subparts I, Z, MM, NN, PP, and RR that are not revised in the proposed amendments. These 

include 22 data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, and RR for which the EPA had not made 

previous confidentiality determinations under Part 98, as well as two data elements in subpart 
Page 138 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

NN for which a previous confidentiality determination is proposed to be revised because of new 

information indicating the data element is not entitled to confidential treatment under the 

provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. We are also proposing confidentiality determinations for three data 

elements in subpart PP that were included in the finalized “Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generating Units” (EGU NSPS) (Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495). 

These proposed confidentiality determinations would be finalized before the end of 2016 

based on public comment. The confidentiality determinations for new and substantially revised 

data elements would apply at the same time as the proposed rule amendments described in 

sections II and III of this preamble, as described in section I.E of this preamble. The 

confidentiality determinations for the existing Part 98 data elements would apply to reports 

submitted in RY2016 as well as all prior reporting years in which the data elements applied. This 

proposal is one of a series of rulemakings dealing with confidentiality determinations for data 

reported under Part 98. For more information on previous confidentiality determinations for Part 

98 data elements, see the following notices:

 75 FR 39094, July 7, 2010; hereafter referred to as the “July 7, 2010 CBI proposal.” 

Describes the data categories and category-based determinations the EPA developed for 

the Part 98 data elements.

 76 FR 30782, May 26, 2011; hereafter referred to as the “2011 Final CBI Rule.” 

Assigned data elements to data categories and published the final CBI determinations for 

the data elements in 34 Part 98 subparts, except for those data elements that were 

assigned to the “Inputs to Emission Equations” data category. 

 77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012, hereafter referred to as “2012 Final CBI Determinations 

Rule.” Finalized confidentiality determinations for data elements reported under nine 

subparts I, W, DD, QQ, RR, SS, UU; except for those data elements that are inputs to 

emission equations. Also finalized confidentiality determinations for new data elements 

added to subparts II and TT in the November 29, 2011 Technical Corrections Notice (76 

FR 73886).
Page 139 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

 78 FR 68162; November 13, 2013; hereafter referred to as the “2013 Amendments and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Electronics Manufacturing.” Finalized confidentiality 

determinations for new data elements added to subpart I.

 78 FR 69337, November 29, 2013; hereafter referred to as the “2013 Revisions Rule.” 

Finalized determinations for new and revised data elements in 15 subparts, except for 

those data elements assigned to the “Inputs to Emission Equations” data category. 

 79 FR 63750, October 24, 2014; Final Inputs Rule. Revised recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for 23 subparts and finalized confidentiality determinations for new data 

elements in 11 subparts.

B. Approach to Proposed Confidentiality Determinations 

To make the determinations proposed in this notice, we applied the same approach as 

previously used for making confidentiality determinations for data elements reported under the 

GHGRP, which consisted of assigning data elements to an appropriate data category and then 

either assigning the previously determined category-based confidentiality determination or 

making an individual determination if the data element is assigned to a category for which no 

category-based determination was previously made. The data categories used were those 

finalized in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. 

In the 2011 Final CBI Rule, the EPA made categorical confidentiality determinations for 

data elements assigned to eight direct emitter data categories and eight supplier data categories. 

For two direct emitter data categories (“Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs 

to Emission Equations” and “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations,”) and three supplier data categories (“GHGs Reported,” “Production/ 

Throughput Quantities and Composition,” and “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics”), the 

EPA did not make categorical CBI determinations; instead the EPA determined that none of the 

data elements were emissions data (as defined in 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)) and made CBI 

determinations for each individual data elements based on the criteria in 40 CFR 2.208. In 
Page 140 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

subsequent amendments to Part 98,26 the EPA assigned each new or substantially revised data 

element to an appropriate data category created in the 2011 Final CBI Rule and applied the 

categorical confidentiality determination if one was established in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. If a 

data element was assigned to one of the two direct emitter or three supplier data categories 

identified above that do not have categorical determinations, the EPA made individual CBI 

determinations. 

In this action, we are proposing to assign new and substantially revised data elements in 

the proposed amendments, as well as certain existing data elements in subparts I, Z, II, MM, NN, 

PP, and RR, to the appropriate direct emitter or supplier data category.27 For new, substantially 

revised, or existing data elements being assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality 

determinations, we propose to apply the categorical determinations made in the 2011 Final CBI 

Rule to the assigned data elements. For new, substantially revised, or existing reporting elements 

assigned to the “Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” 

and the “Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” 

direct emitter data categories or the “Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition” and 

“Unit/Process Operating Characteristics” supplier data categories, consistent with our approach 

toward data elements previously assigned to these data categories, we propose that these data 

 

26 See, e.g., 77 FR 48072 (August 13, 2012) and 77 FR 51477 (August 24, 2012).

27 With the exception of subpart RR, the EPA inadvertently did not proposed CBI determinations for these data 

elements. For subpart RR, the EPA initially proposed that all data elements were not CBI (see Proposed 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements Under the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, 77 FR 

1434; January 10, 2012). We then received comment that in certain cases, for enhanced recovery of oil or natural 

gas (ER), the data would be CBI. In the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule, the EPA did not have a subpart RR 

data element to distinguish between the ER and non-ER facilities. Therefore, the EPA did not finalize the CBI 

determinations for those certain cases, but rather noted that the EPA would evaluate the confidentiality status on a 

case-by-case basis. The remaining subpart RR data elements (including monitoring, reporting, and verification 

(MRV) plans, annual mass of CO2 emitted by surface leakage, and annual mass of CO2 sequestered) were 

determined not to be CBI in the 2012 Final CBI Determinations Rule. In this action, we are proposing to add a new 

data element to indicate whether a facility is conducting ER, which now enables proposed confidentiality 

determinations to be made.
Page 141 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

elements are not emission data, and are making individual CBI determinations for the data 

elements in these categories. 

Although the EPA grouped similar data into categories and made categorical 

confidentiality determinations for a number of data categories, the EPA also recognized in 

previous rulemakings that similar data elements may not always have the same confidentiality 

status28. In these cases, the EPA made individual instead of categorical determinations for the 

data elements. In this action, for the reasons explained below in section IV.C of this preamble, 

we are proposing to make an individual CBI determination for one data element for which we are

not assigning a data category.

Please see the memorandum titled “Proposed Data Category Assignments and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions” in Docket Id.

No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526 for a list of the proposed new, substantially revised, and existing 

data elements, their proposed category assignments, and their proposed confidentiality 

determinations (whether categorical or individual).29 Section IV.C of this preamble discusses the 

proposed CBI determinations and supporting rationale for new or substantially revised data 

elements. Section IV.D of this preamble describes the proposed CBI determinations and 

supporting rationale for existing data elements for which we have not previously proposed a 

confidentiality determination. Finally, section IV.E of this preamble discusses the proposed 

changes to the determinations and rationale for two existing data elements in subpart NN for 

which a confidentiality determination was previously established.

 

28 See, e.g., “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: 2014 Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum 

and Natural Gas Systems” (79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014).

29 Excludes data elements assigned to the “Inputs to Emissions Equations” data category. “Inputs to Emissions 

Equations” are considered emissions data. This memorandum includes the data element that is not being assigned to 

a data category.
Page 142 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

C. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data Reporting 

Elements

In this action, the EPA is proposing to assign each of the 117 new or substantially revised 

data reporting requirements to the appropriate direct emitter or supplier data category. New and 

substantially revised data elements assigned to categories with categorical confidentiality 

determinations are summarized in the memorandum “Proposed Data Category Assignments and 

Confidentiality Determinations for Data Elements in the Proposed 2015 Revisions,” available in 

Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526. For new and substantially revised reporting elements 

assigned to direct emitter or supplier data categories without a categorical determination, we are 

proposing that these data elements are not emission data and are making individual CBI 

determinations for each data element. We are proposing individual CBI determinations for 48

data elements assigned to the “Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations” and “Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations” direct emitter data categories and the “Production/Throughput Quantities 

and Composition” and “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics” supplier data categories. These 

data elements consist of 17 new data elements in the direct emitter subparts C, E, F, I, S, V, X, 

Y, DD, II, and subpart RR, and 27 new data elements in the supplier subpart OO. We are also 

proposing individual CBI determinations for four substantially revised data elements in subparts 

Y, DD, HH, and II. Table 7 of this preamble provides the category assignment and proposed 

rationale for the proposed determinations.

Table 7. New and Revised Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to Data Categories 

without Categorical Determinations and Proposed CBI Determinations (Subparts C, E, F, 

I, S, V, X, Y, DD, HH, II, OO, and RR)

Subpart

Citation in 40 

CFR part 98 Data element

Confidentiality 

Determination

Rationale for the proposed CBI 

determination
Page 143 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(new or 

revised)

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

Emission Equations” Direct Emitter Data Category

C 98.36(c)(1)(iii)

(new)

Cumulative maximum 

rated heat input 

capacity of the group, 

excluding units less 

than 10 (mmBtu/hr).

Not CBI These data elements consist of 

descriptions of the cumulative heat 

input capacity for an aggregated group 

of stationary combustion units. These 

data elements do not reveal any 

proprietary information or any other 

information that could provide insight 

for competitors to gain an advantage 

because they do not provide specific 

design details. Further, these data 

elements provide information that that 

is generally already available to the 

public through other sources (e.g., 

operating permits). Therefore, we are 

proposing that these data elements are 

not CBI.

C 98.36(c)(3)(ii)

(new)

Cumulative maximum 

rated heat input 

capacity of the units 

served by the common 

pipe, excluding units 

less than 10 

(mmBtu/hr).

Not CBI

E 98.56(f) 

(new)

Date of installation of 

abatement technology.

Not CBI These data elements do not provide 

insight into current production rates, 

raw material consumption, or other 

information that competitors could use 

to discern market share and other 

sensitive information. Information 

regarding the date of installation of 

abatement devices constitute general 

information that is already available to 

the public through other sources (e.g., 

construction permits). Therefore, we 

are proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

I 98.96(y)(2)(iv)

(new)

The report must 

include the information 

described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this 

section. 

(iv)...For any 

utilization, by-product 

formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal 

efficiency data 

submitted, the report 

must describe, where 

available: wafer size.

Not CBI The data element for the triennial 

technology review report is being 

revised to request additional 

information to be submitted as part of 

the report, if facilities are submitting 

data from utilization and byproduct 

formation rate measurements 

conducted in the prior three years. The 

EPA previously made a determination 

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

emission data and, therefore, not CBI. 

Several of the data elements that we 

are proposing to clarify should be 

included are already reported under 40 

CFR 98.96 (e.g., wafer diameter) and 

the EPA is proposing the same 

category assignment and 

confidentiality determination for these 

data elements, including:

I 98.96(y)(2)(iv)

(new)

The report must 

include the information 

described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this 

Not CBI
Page 144 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

section. (iv)...For any 

utilization, by-product 

formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal 

efficiency data 

submitted, the report 

must describe, where 

available: substrate 

type.

• the wafer size• substrate type.

Wafer size and substrate type are data 

elements that are published in datasets 

available from the World Fab 

Forecast. Furthermore, for the 

purposes of the triennial report, these 

data elements may be reported by one 

or multiple semiconductor 

manufacturing facilities, and may 

include measurements made by tool 

manufacturers or other fabs in lieu of 

fab-specific information. Therefore, 

we have concluded that the release of 

these data elements would not cause 

substantial competitive harm. For 

these reasons, we are proposing to 

assign a determination of not CBI. 

I 98.96(y)(2)(iv)

(new)

The report must 

include the information 

described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this 

section. (iv)...For any 

utilization, by-product 

formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal 

efficiency data 

submitted, the report 

must describe, where 

available: film type 

being manufactured.

CBI The data element for the triennial 

technology review report is being 

revised to request additional 

information to be submitted as part of 

the report, if facilities are submitting 

data from utilization and byproduct 

formation rate measurements 

conducted in the prior three years. We 

are proposing that the "film type" is 

CBI because this data element could 

potentially provide insight into facility 

operating practices or proprietary 

device designs that are considered 

sensitive by the reporter. Information 

provided by semiconductor 

manufacturers in prior rulemakings 

indicates that this data element is 

closely guarded and protected as 

sensitive business information.

I 98.96(y)(2)(iv)

(new)

The report must 

include the information 

described in 

paragraphs (y)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this 

section. 

(iv)...For any 

utilization, by-product 

formation rate, and/or 

destruction or removal 

efficiency data 

submitted, the report 

must describe, where 

available: linewidth or 

technology node.

Not CBI This data element for the triennial 

technology review report is being 

revised to request additional 

information to be submitted as part of 

the report, if facilities are submitting 

data from utilization and byproduct 

formation rate measurements 

conducted in the prior three years. We 

are proposing that the "linewidth or 

technology node" be categorized as 

“Unit/Process 'Static' Characteristics 

That are Not Inputs to Emission 

Equations" because this data elements 

describes basic characteristics of the 

products and processes in the facility 

that do not vary with time. We are 
Page 145 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

proposing that the "the linewidth or 

technology node" are Not CBI 

because this data is publicly available. 

Specifically, these data elements are 

published in datasets available from 

the World Fab Forecast. We have 

therefore concluded that the release of 

this data will not cause substantial 

competitive harm.

V 98.226(h)

(new)

Date of installation of 

abatement technology.

Not CBI This data element does not provide 

insight into current production rates, 

raw material consumption, or other 

information that competitors could use 

to discern market share and other 

sensitive information. Information 

regarding the date of installation of 

abatement devices constitute general 

information that is already available to 

the public through other sources (e.g., 

construction permits). Therefore, we 

are proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

Y 98.256(e)(3)

(new)

An indication of 

whether or not the flare 

is serviced by a flare 

gas recovery system

Not CBI The proposed data element, which 

describes whether the flare is serviced 

by a flare gas recovery system, is 

similar to: 40 CFR 98.256(e)(3)

(description of flare gas service) and 

40 CFR 98.326(q) (annual operating 

hours of gas collection system), for 

which we have previously assigned a 

"Not CBI" designation. Descriptions 

of flare gas service are not CBI 

because describing the type of flare or 

whether a flare is serviced by a flare 

gas recovery systemdoes not reveal 

any confidential information because 

flares are commonly used in the 

industry and no detailed specifications 

are required to be reported (see 75 FR 

39113, July 7, 2010).

DD 98.306(m)

(new)

Total miles of 

transmission and 

distribution lines 

located within each 

state or territory.

Not CBI This data element is the same type of 

data that must be reported by these 

companies in 40 CFR 98.306(b) and 

(c), which requires reporting of the 

aggregate length all transmission lines 

carrying voltages above 35 kilovolt

and the aggregate length all 

distribution lines carrying voltages 

above 35 kilovolt, for which we 

previously assigned a determination of 

not CBI. We had determined that the 

length of distribution lines and length 
Page 146 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of transmission lines are basic 

characteristics of equipment, and that 

facility-specific lines that do not vary 

with time or with the operations of the 

process. Moreover, facilities reporting 

under this subpart consist of public 

utilities, including electric 

cooperatives, public supply 

corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley 

Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., 

Bonneville Power Administration), 

and municipally owned electric 

utilities. These are public or publiclyregulated utilities that are not affected 

by competitive market conditions that 

may apply to other industries. Further, 

data on transmission and distribution 

miles is publicly available in the Platts 

UDI Directory of Electric Power 

Producers and Distributers, which can 

be purchased by any interested party. 

Disclosure of this proposed new data 

element by the EPA would not 

provide any additional insight into 

facility-specific operating conditions 

or process design or to any other 

proprietary or sensitive information 

that would give insight for 

competitors to gain an advantage over 

the reporter.

DD 98.306(n)

(new)

The following numbers 

of pieces of equipment: 

(1) New hermetically 

sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the 

year. 

(2) New SF6- or PFCinsulated equipment 

other than hermetically 

sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the 

year.

(3) Retired 

hermetically sealedpressure switchgear 

during the year. 

(4) Retired SF6- or 

PFC-insulated 

equipment other than 

hermetically sealedpressure switchgear 

during the year.

Not CBI Facilities reporting under this subpart 

consist of public utilities, including 

electric cooperatives, public supply 

corporations (e.g., Tennessee Valley 

Authority), Federal agencies (e.g., 

Bonneville Power Administration), 

and municipally owned electric 

utilities. These are public or publiclyregulated utilities that are not affected 

by competitive market conditions that 

may apply to other industries. The 

reported data relate to maintenance 

activities and installation of 

new/replacement of existing gasinsulated equipment (e.g., circuit 

breakers, switchgear, power 

transformers, etc.) and amounts of 

SF6 and PFC used or recovered in 

servicing or replacing such equipment. 

These data elements do not disclose 

any information about a 

manufacturing process or operating 
Page 147 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

conditions that would be proprietary. 

Therefore, we are proposing that these 

data elements are not CBI.

II 98.356(a)

(revised)

The average depth in 

meters of each 

anaerobic lagoon

Not CBI For the industries with industrial 

wastewater treatment, the types of 

information that are considered 

proprietary or have previously been 

determined to be CBI in the May 26, 

2011 final CBI determination notice 

include information on quantities and 

composition of raw materials used in 

the manufacturing processes and 

information on quantities and 

compositions of manufactured 

products. We are proposing that this 

data element is not CBI because this 

data element would not provide 

detailed insight into the design and 

operation of the facility’s 

manufacturing processes, raw 

materials, or products. 

II 98.356(a)

(revised)

Indicate whether 

biogas generated by 

each anaerobic process 

is recovered

Not CBI For these industries, the types of 

information that are considered 

proprietary or have previously been 

determined to be CBI in the May 26, 

2011 final CBI determination notice 

include information on quantities and 

composition of raw materials used in 

the manufacturing processes and 

information on quantities and 

compositions of manufactured 

products. We are proposing that this 

data element is not CBI because 

indicating whether biogas is recovered 

from an anaerobic process would not 

provide detailed insight into the 

design and operation of the facility’s 

manufacturing processes, raw 

materials, or products, and provides 

only general information about the 

wastewater treatment system that is 

not considered sensitive by 

manufacturers. 

II 98.356(b)(6)

(new)

For each anaerobic 

wastewater treatment 

process (reactor, deep 

lagoon, or shallow 

lagoon) you must 

report: If the facility 

performs an ethanol 

production processing 

operation as defined in 

Not CBI For the industries with industrial 

wastewater treatment, the types of 

information that are considered 

proprietary or have previously been 

determined to be CBI in the May 26, 

2011 final CBI determination notice 

include information on quantities and 

composition of raw materials used in 

the manufacturing processes and 
Page 148 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

§98.358 of this 

subpart, you must 

indicate if the facility 

uses a wet milling 

process or a dry 

milling process. 

information on quantities and 

compositions of manufactured 

products. We are proposing that this 

data element is not CBI because this 

data element would not provide 

detailed insight into the design and 

operation of the facility’s 

manufacturing processes raw 

materials, or products that is 

considered sensitive by reporters. This 

data element indicates only that the 

facility uses wet and/or dry milling, 

which is information that would be 

available from the facility’s 

construction and Title V operating 

permits. This data element combined 

with the volume of wastewater 

entering the treatment plant (reported 

under 40 CFR 98.356(b)(2)) provides 

information on the quantities of 

wastewater generated by wet and dry 

milling activities. However, this 

information does not provide insight 

into any sensitive information, such as 

the amount of grain processed through 

the wet and dry milling processes, the 

amount of ethanol produced, plant 

production efficiency, or production 

costs. 

RR 98.446(g)

(new)

Whether the CO2

stream is being 

injected into

subsurface geologic 

formations to enhance 

the recovery of oil or 

natural gas.

Not CBI This data element would identify 

whether a facility is performing 

enhanced oil recovery. We are 

proposing that this data element is not 

CBI because this data element does 

not reveal any significant details 

regarding the activities at the facility, 

the quantities of CO2 received, or the 

CO2 utilization rates of the facility.

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

Emission Equations” Direct Emitter Data Category

F 98.66(c)(2)

(new)

The following PFCspecific information on 

an annual basis: Anode 

effect minutes per cellday (AE-mins/cellday), anode effect 

frequency (AE/cellday), anode effect 

duration (minutes). (Or 

anode effect 

overvoltage factor ((kg 

CF4/metric ton 

CBI While the proposed new data elements 

share characteristics with data 

elements previously assigned to the 

"Production/Throughput Data that are 

Not Inputs to Equations" data 

categories, we have determined that 

they do not share the same 

characteristics or confidentiality status 

as the data elements already assigned 

to this data category. These data 

elements are not inputs to emissions 

equations. Annual anode effect 
Page 149 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Al)/(mV/cell day)), 

potline overvoltage 

(mV/cell day), current 

efficiency (%).)

minutes per cell day, anode effect 

frequency, anode effect duration (or 

annual anode effect overvoltage 

factor, potline overvoltage, and 

current efficiency) describe operating 

characteristics associated with 

aluminum production. Our review of 

these data elements shows that they 

qualify for confidential treatment. We 

are proposing to classify annual 

average anode effect minutes, anode 

effect frequency, and anode effect 

duration as CBI because these data 

elements are an important measure of 

process efficiency (which provides 

insight into a firm’s operational 

strengths and weaknesses) and are not 

otherwise publicly available. 

S 98.196(b)(21)

(new)

Annual average results 

of chemical 

composition analysis 

of each type of lime 

product produced and 

calcined product or 

waste sold

CBI The proposed data elements describe 

the material composition of the 

products manufactured. These values 

are not used as inputs to emissions 

equations, rather, they are annual 

average values for the purposes of 

QA/QC of the composition data used 

as inputs to the emissions calculations. 

We are proposing these data elements 

as CBI because the reported data 

provides information on the 

composition of lime produced or raw 

material. Disclosing information 

revealing a facility’s product 

compositions could give competitors 

insight into a firm’s local and regional 

market conditions and expansion 

plans, enabling competitors to devise 

strategies to prevent expansion and to 

steal market share in specific 

locations.

X 98.246(a)(14)

(new)

Annual average of the 

measurements of the 

carbon content of each 

feedstock and product:

(i) For feedstocks and 

products that are 

gaseous or solid, report 

this quantity in kg 

carbon per kg of 

feedstock or product.

(ii) For liquid 

feedstocks and 

products, report this 

CBI The proposed data elements describe 

the carbon content and annually 

averaged weight of feedstocks. This 

information could disclose a facility’s 

feedstock composition, which could 

provide insight into its operational 

strengths and weaknesses, expose its 

competitive and marketing strategies, 

or reveal its suppliers and sourcing 

strategies.Therefore, we are 

proposing that these data element 

qualify as CBI.
Page 150 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

quantity either in units 

of kg carbon per kg of 

feedstock or 

production or kg C per 

gallon of feedstock or 

product.

X 98.246(a)(15)

(new)

For each gaseous 

feedstock and product, 

the annual average of 

the measurements of 

molecular weight in 

units of kg per kg mole

CBI

Y 98.256(e)(6)

(revised)

Annual mass of flare 

gas combusted (in 

kg/yr)

Not CBI The proposed data element, which 

describes the annual mass of flare gas 

combusted, is similar to: 40 CFR 

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

service) and 40 CFR 98.326(q) 

(annual operating hours of gas 

collection system), for which we have 

previously assigned a "Not CBI" 

designation. Descriptions of flare gas 

service are not CBI. Describing the 

annual mass of flare gas combusted

during the reporting year does not 

reveal any confidential information 

because flares are commonly used in 

the industry and no detailed 

specifications are required to be 

reported (see 75 FR 39113, July 7, 

2010).

HH 98.346(i)(5)(iii)

(B) 

(revised)

The annual operating 

hours where active gas 

flow was sent to each 

destruction device.

Not CBI This data element describes the 

operating characteristics of a 

destruction device. Although the 

proposed data element is similar to the 

prior data element in 40 CFR 

98.346(i)(5) “Annual operating hours 

for each destruction device associated 

with a given measurement location,” 

this data element reflects a separate 

operating parameter. This data 

element is not an input to an emissions 

equation. We are proposing that this 

data element is Not CBI. This data 

element would not reveal any 

information about landfill fees, 

revenues, costs, or contracts. Such 

information does not reveal any trade 

secrets or other sensitive business 

information regarding the design or 

operation of an aeration system or the 

landfill. Further, this type of data on 

landfills is generally already publicly 
Page 151 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

available from the municipalities 

operating landfills. We have therefore 

concluded that the release of this data 

will not cause substantial competitive 

harm.

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the “Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition” Supplier 

Data Category

OO 98.416(a)(1)

(new)

Mass in metric tons of 

each ...fluorinated 

HTF ...produced at 

that facility by process, 

except for amounts that 

are captured solely to 

be shipped off site for 

destruction.

CBI These data elements describe 

production and throughput quantities 

and product compositions (including 

products produced, imported, or 

exported). These data elements are the 

same type of data that must be 

reported for fluorinated GHGs, for 

which we have previously assigned a 

determination of CBI. The disclosure 

of annual production quantities and 

composition of products (i.e.,

quantities sold and/or delivered), 

could provide insight into a firm’s 

market strength and position. 

Disclosure of facility-level 

production/ throughput quantities and 

product compositions could give 

competitors insight into a firm’s local 

and regional market conditions and 

expansion plans, enabling competitors 

to devise strategies to prevent 

expansion and to steal market share in 

specific locations. Therefore, the EPA 

proposes to determine that these data 

elements are CBI.

OO 98.416(a)(2)

(new)

Mass in metric tons of 

each ...fluorinated 

HTF ...transformed at 

that facility, by 

process.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(3)

(new)

Mass in metric tons of 

...fluorinated HTF that 

is destroyed at that 

facility and that was 

previously produced as 

defined at §98.410(b). 

Quantities to be 

reported under this 

paragraph (a)(3) of this 

section include but are 

not limited to 

quantities that are 

shipped to the facility 

by another facility for 

destruction and 

quantities that are 

returned to the facility 

for reclamation but are 

found to be 

irretrievably 

contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(5)

(new)

Total mass in metric 

tons of 

each...fluorinated 

HTF... sent to another 

facility for 

transformation.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(6)

(new)

Total mass in metric 

tons of each ... 

fluorinated HTF sent to 

another facility for 

CBI
Page 152 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

destruction, 

except...fluorinated 

HTFs that are not 

included in the mass 

produced in §98.413(a) 

because they are 

removed from the 

production process as 

by-products or other 

wastes. Quantities to 

be reported under this 

paragraph (a)(6) could 

include, for example, 

fluorinated GHGs that 

are returned to the 

facility for reclamation 

but are found to be 

irretrievably 

contaminated and are 

therefore sent to 

another facility for 

destruction.

OO 98.416(a)(7)

(new)

Total mass in metric 

tons of each . . . 

fluorinated HTF that is 

sent to another facility 

for destruction and that 

is not included in the 

mass produced in 

§98.413(a) because it 

is removed from the 

production process as a 

byproduct or other 

waste.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(11)

(new)

Mass in metric tons of . 

. . fluorinated HTF that 

is fed into the 

destruction device and 

that was previously 

produced as defined at 

§98.410(b). Quantities 

to be reported under 

this paragraph (a)(11) 

of this section include 

but are not limited to 

quantities that are 

shipped to the facility 

by another facility for 

destruction and 

quantities that are 

returned to the facility 

for reclamation but are 

CBI
Page 153 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

found to be 

irretrievably 

contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed.

OO 98.416(a)(12)

(new)

Mass in metric tons of .

. . fluorinated HTF . . . 

that is measured 

coming out of the 

production process, by 

process.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(14)

(new)

Quantities (metric 

tons) of ... of each ... 

fluorinated HTF that 

were sent to each for 

transformation.

CBI

OO 98.416(a)(15)

(new)

Quantities (metric 

tons) of each ... 

fluorinated HTF that 

were sent to each for 

destruction.

CBI

OO 98.416(c)(1)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

(1) Total mass in 

metric tons of ...each 

....fluorinated HTF 

imported in bulk, 

including each... 

fluorinated HTF 

constituent of the... 

fluorinated HTF 

product that makes up 

between 0.5 percent 

and 100 percent of the 

product by mass.

CBI

OO 98.416(c)(2)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

(2) Total mass in 

metric tons of . . . 

fluorinated HTF 

imported in bulk and 

sold or transferred to 

persons other than the 

importer for use in 

processes resulting in 

the transformation or 

destruction of the 

chemical.

CBI

OO 98.416(c)(6)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

CBI
Page 154 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(6) Commodity code of 

the ... fluorinated HTFs 

...shipped.

OO 98.416(c)(8)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level...

(8) Total mass in 

metric tons of 

each...fluorinated HTF 

destroyed by the 

importer.

CBI

OO 98.416(c)(9)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

(9) Quantities of 

fluorinated HTFs sold 

or transferred to each 

facilities for 

transformation.

CBI

OO 98.416(c)(10)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level...

(10) If applicable, the 

quantities (metric tons) 

of each . . . fluorinated 

HTF that were sold or 

transferred to each 

facility for destruction.

CBI

OO 98.416(d)(1)

(new)

Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide...at the 

corporate level... (1) 

Total mass in metric 

tons of . . . each 

...fluorinated HTF 

exported in bulk.

CBI

OO 98.416(d)(4)

(new)

Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide...at the 

corporate level... (4) 

Commodity code of 

the . . . fluorinated 

HTFs . . . shipped.

CBI

OO 98.416(i)

(new)

...quantities that are 

shipped to the facility 

by another facility for 

destruction and 

quantities that are 

returned to the facility 

for reclamation but are 

CBI
Page 155 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

found to be 

irretrievably 

contaminated and are 

therefore destroyed.

OO 98.416(j)

(new)

... the identities or 

concentrations of the 

fluorinated HTF or 

fluorinated GHG 

constituents of a 

fluorinated HTF 

product have changed, 

then the new or 

changed concentrations 

... 

CBI

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the “Unit/Process Operating Characteristics” Supplier Data Category

OO 98.416(b)(1)

(new)

Any facility that 

destroys ... fluorinated 

HTFs shall submit: (1) 

Destruction efficiency 

(DE).

Not CBI The proposed data elements, which 

apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the 

same type of data that must be 

reported for fluorinated GHGs, for 

which we have previously assigned a 

determination of not CBI. The EPA 

previously determined that the 

destruction efficiency of each 

fluorinated GHG destruction unit, the 

chemical identity of the fluorinated 

GHG(s) used in the performance test 

conducted to determine the destruction 

efficiency, and the name of all 

applicable federal and state 

regulations that may apply to the 

destruction process are not CBI. The 

proposed data elements do not reveal 

sensitive business information about 

the process, nor do they reveal the 

technology used for fluorinated GHG 

destruction, or the operating 

conditions for a particular technology.

OO 98.416(b)(4)

(new)

Any facility that 

destroys ... fluorinated 

HTFs shall submit: (4) 

Chemical identity of 

the fluorinated GHG(s) 

used in the 

performance test 

conducted to determine 

DE.

Not CBI

OO 98.416(b)(5)

(new)

Any facility that 

destroys ... fluorinated 

HTFs shall submit: (5) 

Name of all applicable 

federal or state 

regulations that may 

apply to the destruction 

process.

Not CBI

OO 98.416(c)(3)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

(3) Date on which 

the... fluorinated HTFs 

... were imported.

CBI These data elements describe the dates 

of import and export shipments, and 

the ports of entry or exit. The 

proposed data elements, which apply 

to fluorinated HTFs, are the same type 

of data that must be reported for 

fluorinated GHGs, for which we have 

previously assigned a determination of 

CBI. Release of these data elements to 

the public could allow competitors to 

link customs records on quantities and 

product composition with the import 

and export data reported under Part 

98, thus allowing competitors to 

determine market share and devise 

OO 98.416(c)(4)

(new)

Each bulk importer of 

...fluorinated HTFs ... 

at the corporate level... 

(4) Port of entry 

through which the ... 

fluorinated HTFs ... 

passed.

CBI

OO 98.416(d)(5)

(new)

Each bulk exporter of 

fluorinated GHGs, 

CBI
Page 156 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

fluorinated HTFs... at 

the corporate level... 

(5) Date on which, and 

the port from which, 

the ...fluorinated HTFs 

...were exported from 

the United States or its 

territories.

marketing strategies to undermine or 

weaken a competitor’s position.

Because disclosure of these data 

elements is likely to cause harm, we 

have determined that these data 

elements qualify as CBI.

OO 98.416(j)

(new)

If...identities or 

concentrations of the 

fluorinated HTF or 

fluorinated GHG 

constituents of a 

fluorinated HTF 

product have changed, 

the date of the change 

...

Not CBI The proposed data elements, which 

apply to fluorinated HTFs, are the 

same type of data that must be 

reported for fluorinated GHGs under 

40 CFR 98.416(f), for which we have 

previously assigned a determination of 

not CBI. The date on which changes 

were made to the composition of a 

fluorinated HTF product does not 

disclose the actual composition of the 

product, the raw materials used to 

make the product, the method of 

manufacture, or the efficiency of the 

manufacturing process. Therefore, we 

are proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

We are proposing to assign one revised data element in subpart Z (Phosphoric Acid 

Production) to the “Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that are Not Inputs to Emissions 

Equation Category” but are not making a confidentiality determination for this data element. The 

provision 40 CFR 98.266(f)(3) requires reporting the annual phosphoric acid production capacity 

(tons) for each wet-process phosphoric acid process line (metric tons). The EPA reviewed the 

available capacity information and determined that the situation may vary for individual 

facilities. While the production capacity data elements are generally publicly available through 

construction and Title V permits, there may be facilities where these data are not public. Further, 

the information publicly available for facilities may not necessarily be the same as the data 

elements required under Part 98. For example, capacity data available in the Title V permit may 

be a plant-wide throughput capacity rather than the capacity of the individual process line 

reported under Part 98. For this reason, we have decided not to make a confidentiality 
Page 157 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

determination for this revised data element, but instead determinations for this data element will 

be made on a case-by-case basis. This decision not to propose a determination for this data 

element is consistent with our treatment of other capacity data (e.g., capacity of process lines or 

production units) (see 2011 Final CBI Rule).

We are also proposing to make an individual confidentiality determination for one data 

element in subpart FF without assigning it to a data category. While our general approach for 

making confidentiality determination is to assign each data element to a data category and apply 

the categorical confidentiality determination where one has been made, we are not doing so here 

for the following reason. The data element at issue is in provision 40 CR 98.326(u), which 

requires the annual coal production in short tons for the reporting year. The proposed data 

element shares characteristics with data elements previously assigned to the 

"Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations" data category, which the EPA 

has categorically determined to be CBI. However, unlike data elements assigned to that data 

category, the proposed data element is publicly available and therefore does not qualify as CBI. 

Coal production data are currently published quarterly and annually by MSHA and annually by 

the EIA30. We are therefore not assigning this proposed data element to the 

"Production/Throughput Data that are Not Inputs to Equations" data category. Because these data 

are already publically available, we are proposing a determination of “Not CBI.”

 

30 MSHA Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS) (available at: http://www.msha.gov/drs/drshome.htm) and U.S. 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration Mine Level Data (available at: 

http://www.eia.gov/beta/coal/data/browser/#/topic/38?agg=1,0&rank=g&geo=g0000000000003ms&mntp=g&freq=

A&start=2001&end=2012&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&rtype=b&rse=0&pin=&maptype=0)
Page 158 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

D. Proposed Confidentiality Determinations for Other Part 98 Data Reporting Elements for 

which No Determination has been Previously Established

We are proposing categorical determinations for 22 data elements currently in subparts I, 

Z, MM, and RR for which no determination has been previously proposed or finalized under Part 

98, as well as for three data elements that were proposed to be included in subpart PP in the 

finalized EGU NSPS. For subpart I, the affected data element was revised in final subpart I rule 

amendments on November 13, 2013 (78 FR 68162) following public comment. In this case, the 

EPA had not proposed a confidentiality determination for the revised data element and therefore 

did not finalize a determination in the final rule. For subpart Z, we are proposing to clarify the 

original determination for a data element in which it is unclear how to apply the final 

determination assigned in the 2011 Final CBI Rule. For subpart MM, we are proposing a 

determination for one data element where the EPA inadvertently failed to finalize a 

determination in the 2013 Revisions Rule. We are proposing confidentiality determinations for 

three data elements in subpart PP which were added to Part 98 in the EGU NSPS. Finally, we are 

proposing confidentiality determinations for 16 data elements in subpart RR. In the 2012 Final 

CBI Determinations Rule (77 FR 48072, August 13, 2012), we did not finalize a confidentiality 

determination for these data elements, which relate to facility-level and flow meter-level 

quantities of CO2 received onsite, because the sensitivity of these data elements was dependent 

on whether the reporter conducted enhanced oil and gas recovery (ER) activities or non-ER 

activities. In this action, we are proposing to require that facilities report whether they are 

conducting ER activities. As such, the proposed amendments would allow the submitted reports 

to indicate that the facility is conducting ER activities and therefore would allow for categorical 

confidentiality determinations for these data elements.
Page 159 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Of these data elements, we are proposing to assign one data element in subpart MM to 

the “Amount and Composition of Materials Received” supplier data category, which has a 

categorical confidentiality determination of CBI. We are proposing to assign the remaining data 

elements in subparts I, Z, PP, and RR to the “Unit/Process ‘Operating’ Characteristics that Are 

Not Inputs to Emission Equations” and “Unit/Process ‘Static’ Characteristics that Are Not Inputs 

to Emission Equations” direct emitter data categories and the “Production/Throughput Quantities 

and Composition” supplier data categories, and are proposing individual confidentiality 

determinations for these data elements. For 16 data elements in subpart RR, we are proposing 

separate determinations for each data element for facilities conducting ER operations and 

facilities conducting non-ER operations.

Table 8 of this preamble provides the category assignment and proposed rationale for the 

proposed determinations for the existing data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR.

Table 8. Proposed CBI Determinations for Other Data Elements in Part 98 (Subparts I, Z, 

MM, PP, and RR)

Subpart

Citation in 40 

CFR part 98 Data element

Confidentiality 

Determination

Rationale for the proposed CBI 

determination

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

Emission Equations” Direct Emitter Data Category

I 98.96(a) Annual manufacturing 

capacity of each fab at 

your facility used to 

determine the annual 

manufacturing capacity 

of your facility in 

Equation I-5 of this 

subpart.

CBI The EPA revised this data element in 

the final rule published on November 

13, 2013 (78 FR 68162), to apply at 

the fab level instead of at the facility 

level to be consistent with other 

revised data reporting requirements, 

but did not make a proposed or final 

confidentiality determination for the 

revised data element in the final rule. 

The EPA is now proposing to revise 

the confidentiality determination for 

this data element, and to consider it 

as CBI. This data element describes 

the annual product production 

capacity of individual fabs, and could 

cause competitive harm if released. 

Specifically, this data element could 

provide insight into facility operating 

practices that are considered sensitive 

by the reporter and could provide a 
Page 160 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

competitor with a competitive 

advantage over other facilities. 

Additional information provided by 

industry indicates that this data 

element is closely guarded and 

protected by nearly all industry 

members as sensitive business 

information.

Z 98.266(a) Origin of the phosphate 

rock 

CBI In the “Final Data Category 

Assignments and Confidentiality 

Determinations for Part 98 Reporting 

Elements” memorandum issued April 

29, 2011, we categorized the subpart 

Z data element “Annual phosphoric 

acid production by origin of the 

phosphate rock” at 40 CFR 98.266(a) 

to be production/throughput data that 

are not inputs to emission equations, 

and therefore considered to be 

confidential business information. To 

clarify this determination, we are 

proposing to specify that both the 

annual phosphoric acid production 

and the origin of the phosphate rock 

are both considered to be confidential 

business information. This data 

element describes operating 

parameters related to the operating 

processes at the facility and is 

assigned to the "Unit/Process 

'Operating' Characteristics That are 

Not Inputs to Emission Equations" 

data category. We are proposing that 

this data element is CBI because the 

data element could reveal 

information on the source and 

composition of raw materials used in 

the manufacturing processes, which 

could provide insight into the 

facility’s raw material suppliers, 

production costs and manufacturing 

processes.

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

Emission Equations” Direct Emitter Data Category

I 98.96(q)(2) For all abatement 

systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or 

N2O flow at your 

facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled 

emissions, the 

following:

(2) If you use default 

destruction or removal 

efficiency values in 

Not CBI In the final rule amendments 

published on November 13, 2013 (78 

FR 68162), the EPA revised 40 CFR 

98.96(q) into four paragraphs and 

added paragraphs (q)(2) to (q)(4) to 

address comments received on the 

proposal related to abatement 

systems. However, because the EPA 

proposed no confidentiality 

determination for these three new 

paragraphs, the EPA made no final 
Page 161 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

your emissions 

calculations under 

§98.93(a), (b), or (i), 

certification that the site 

maintenance plan for 

abatement systems for 

which emissions are 

being reported contains 

manufacturer's 

recommendations and 

specifications for 

installation, operation, 

and maintenance for 

each abatement system.

CBI determination. These data 

elements are similar to data element 

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

98.96(q)(1), the EPA made a final 

determination that this data element 

should be in the category for 

“Unit/Process 'Operating' 

Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations" and that that 

this data element was not CBI. 

Similar to 40 CFR 98.96(q)(1), 

paragraphs (q)(2) to (q)(4) are 

certification statements that do not 

provide detailed information on 

sensitive business information of a 

competitive nature. Moreover, the 

EPA certification statements are the 

same language in 40 CFR 

98.96(q)(2) through (4) and do not 

include any facility- or processspecific information that could be 

considered exclusive. Therefore, the 

EPA is proposing that these three 

data elements should also be 

assigned to the category for 

“Unit/Process 'Operating' 

Characteristics That are Not Inputs to 

Emission Equations,” and the EPA is 

proposing that these three data 

elements also be classified as “not 

CBI.”

I 98.96(q)(3) For all abatement 

systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or 

N2O flow at your 

facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled 

emissions, the 

following:

(3) If you use default 

destruction or removal 

efficiency values in 

your emissions 

calculations under 

§98.93(a), (b), and/or 

(i), certification that the 

abatement systems for 

which emissions are 

being reported were 

specifically designed 

for fluorinated GHG or 

N2O abatement, as 

applicable. You must 

support this 

certification by 

providing abatement 

system supplier 

documentation stating 

that the system was 

designed for fluorinated 

GHG or N2O

abatement, as 

applicable.

Not CBI

I 98.96(q)(4) For all abatement 

systems through which 

fluorinated GHGs or 

N2O flow at your 

facility, for which you 

are reporting controlled 

emissions, the 

following:

(4) For all stack 

systems for which you 

Not CBI
Page 162 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

calculate fluorinated 

GHG emissions 

according to the 

procedures specified in 

§98.93(i)(3), 

certification that you 

have included and 

accounted for all 

abatement systems and 

any respective 

downtime in your 

emissions calculations 

under §98.93(i)(3).

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the “Amount and Composition of Materials Received” Supplier Data 

Category

MM 98.396(a)(20) For all crude oil that 

enters the refinery, 

report the annual 

quantity in barrels.

CBI In rule amendments published on 

November 29, 2013 (78 FR 71904),

we revised this data element from 

“the batch volume of crude oil that 

enters the refinery in barrels” to “the 

annual quantity of crude oil that 

enters the refinery in barrels.” 

However, we did not make a 

confidentiality determination for this 

revised data element at that time. We 

are proposing that the revised data 

element be assigned to the “Amount 

and Composition of Materials 

Received” category, which has a 

categorical confidentiality 

determination of CBI. 

Data Elements Proposed to be Assigned to the “Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition” Supplier 

Data Category

PP 98.426(h)(1) If you capture a CO2

stream from an 

electricity generating 

unit that is subject to 

subpart D of this part 

and transfer CO2 to any

facilities that are 

subject to subpart RR of 

this part, you must

report the facility 

identification number 

associated with the 

annual GHG report for 

the subpart D facility.

Not CBI This data element identifies subpart 

D facilities that transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are subject to subpart 

RR of this part. This information 

does not reveal any significant details 

regarding production or production 

and import/export data that may be 

considered CBI. Therefore, we are 

proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

PP 98.426(h)(2) If you capture a CO2

stream from an 

electricity generating 

unit that is subject to 

subpart D of this part 

and transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are 

subject to subpart RR of 

Not CBI This data element identifies subpart 

RR facilities to which CO2 streams 

are transferred from subpart PP. This 

information does not reveal any 

significant details regarding 

production or production and 

import/export data that may be 

considered CBI. Therefore, we are 
Page 163 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

this part, you must

report each facility 

identification number 

associated with the 

annual GHG reports for 

each subpart RR facility 

to which CO2 is 

transferred.

proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

PP 98.426(h)(3) If you capture a CO2

stream from an 

electricity generating 

unit that is subject to 

subpart D of this part 

and transfer CO2 to any 

facilities that are 

subject to subpart RR of 

this part, you must

report the annual 

quantity of CO2 in 

metric tons that is 

transferred to each 

subpart RR facility.

Not CBI This data element describes the 

quantity of CO2 that is captured at an 

electric generating unit that is subject 

to subpart D and transferred to 

subpart RR facilities. This 

information does not reveal any 

significant details regarding 

production or production and 

import/export data that may be 

considered CBI. Therefore, we are 

proposing that this data element is 

not CBI.

RR 98.446(a)(1) For enhanced oil and 

gas recovery (ER) 

Activities: If you 

receive CO2 by 

pipeline, report the 

following for each 

receiving flow meter: 

Total net mass of CO2

received (metric tons) 

annually.

CBI We are proposing that these data 

elements are CBI when reported by 

facilities conducting enhanced oil or 

natural gas recovery, on the basis that 

they are not publicly available and 

cannot be derived from publicly 

available data. Further, the EPA has 

previously determined for subpart 

UU that the quantities of CO2

reported as received by specific ER 

facilities could enable CO2 suppliers

and pipeline transportation 

companies to use the information to 

their advantage in price negotiations 

on future contracts with the CO2

purchasers, which would lead to an 

economic disadvantage for these 

facilities.

RR 98.446(a)(2)(i) For ER Activities: If a 

volumetric flow meter 

is used to receive CO2

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): 

Volumetric flow 

through a receiving 

flow meter at standard 

conditions (in standard 

cubic meters) in each 

quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(a)(2)(ii) For ER Activities: If a 

volumetric flow meter 

is used to receive CO2

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): The 

volumetric flow 

through a receiving 

flow meter that is 

redelivered to another 

facility without being 

CBI
Page 164 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

injected into your well 

(in standard cubic 

meters) in each quarter.

RR 98.446(a)(2)(iii) For ER Activities: If a 

volumetric flow meter 

is used to receive CO2

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): CO2

concentration in the 

flow (volume percent 

CO2 expressed as a 

decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(i) For ER Activities: If a 

mass flow meter is used 

to receive CO2 report 

the following unless 

you reported yes to 

§98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a 

receiving flow meter (in 

metric tons) in each 

quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(ii) For ER Activities: If a 

mass flow meter is used 

to receive CO2 report 

the following unless 

you reported yes to §

98.446(a)(4): The mass 

flow through a

receiving flow meter 

that is redelivered to 

another facility without 

being injected into your 

well (in metric tons) in 

each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(iii) For ER Activities: If a 

mass flow meter is used 

to receive CO2 report 

the following unless 

you reported yes to 

§98.446(a)(4): The CO2

concentration in the 

flow (weight percent 

CO2 expressed as a 

decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(b)(1) For ER Activities: If 

you receive CO2 in 

containers, report: The 

mass (in metric tons) or 

volume at standard 

conditions (in standard 

cubic meters) of 

CBI
Page 165 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

contents in containers 

in each quarter.

RR 98.446(b)(2) For ER Activities: If 

you receive CO2 in 

containers: 

Concentration of CO2

of contents in 

containers (volume or 

wt. % CO2 expressed as 

a decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(b)(3) For ER Activities: If 

you receive CO2 in 

containers, report: The 

mass (in metric tons) or 

volume (in standard 

cubic meters) of 

contents in containers 

that is redelivered to 

anotherfacility without 

being injected into your 

well in each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(b)(4) For ER Activities: If 

you receive CO2 in 

containers: Net mass of 

CO2 received (metric 

tons) annually.

CBI

RR 98.446(c) For ER Activities: If 

you use more than one 

receiving flow meter: 

Total net mass of CO2

received (metric tons) 

through all flow meters 

annually.

CBI

RR 98.446(f)(4)(i) For ER Activities: If the 

date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): For each 

separator flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), 

report CO2 mass 

produced (metric tons) 

annually.

CBI We are proposing that these data 

elements, which are related to the 

quantity of produced CO2 measured 

at a separator meter, are CBI when 

reported by facilities performing 

enhanced oil and gas recovery. 

Previously, commenters have noted31

that although some data from ER 

wells is publicly available, the total 

mass of produced CO2 by well or 

within a field is not already in the 

public domain. Publication of 

produced CO2 data, when coupled 

with publicly available information 

on oil and gas production by well, 

could enable competitors to calculate 

CO2 utilization rates for both 

individual wells and fields and 

possibly track changes in CO2

RR 98.446(f)(4)(ii) For ER Activities: If the 

date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

CBI

 

31 77 FR 48083, August 13, 2012.
Page 166 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): For each 

separator flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), 

report CO2

concentration in flow 

(volume or wt. % CO2

expressed as a decimal 

fraction) in each 

quarter.

utilization over time. This data could 

be used to gain insight into 

production costs and reservoir 

performance, which could result in 

competitive harm.

RR 98.446(f)(4)(iii) For ER Activities: If the 

date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): If a 

volumetric flow meter 

is used, volumetric flow 

rate at standard 

conditions (standard 

cubic meters) in each 

quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(f)(4)(iv) For ER Activities: If the 

date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): If a mass 

flow meter is used, 

mass flow rate (metric 

tons) in each quarter.

CBI

RR 98.446(a)(1) For Non-ER Activities: 

If you receive CO2 by 

pipeline, report the 

following for each 

receiving flow meter: 

Total net mass of CO2

received (metric tons) 

annually.

Not CBI For non-ER facilities, we are 

proposing that these data elements 

are not eligible for CBI treatment 

because these data elements are 

publicly available or can be derived 

from publicly available data. These

data can be derived from 

Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

permits, which are issued for each 

injection well by the EPA or by 

states that have assumed primary 

enforcement authority for permitting

Class II injection wells. Unlike ER 

facilities, the CO2 received at non-ER 

facilities is not recycled and reinjected. The amount of CO2

received at non-ER facilities is 

equivalent to the amount of CO2

injected (which is reported per UIC 

RR 98.446(a)(2)(i) For Non-ER Activities: 

If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive 

CO2 report the 

following unless you 

reported yes to 

§98.446(a)(4): 

Volumetric flow 

through a receiving 

flow meter at standard 

conditions (in standard 

Not CBI
Page 167 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

cubic meters) in each

quarter.

permit conditions). Information 

related to the permits is reported to 

EPA or States at least annually and 

made available to the public upon 

request. Because this information is 

publicly available, the EPA finds that 

disclosure of these data elements is 

not likely to cause substantial 

competitive harm to reporters who 

conduct non-ER activities. The EPA 

proposes to determine that these data 

elements are not CBI.

RR 98.446(a)(2)(ii) For Non-ER Activities:

If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive 

CO2 report the 

following unless you 

reported yes to 

§98.446(a)(4): The 

volumetric flow 

through a receiving 

flow meter that is 

redelivered to another 

facility without being 

injected into your well 

(in standard cubic 

meters) in each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(a)(2)(iii) For Non-ER Activities: 

If a volumetric flow 

meter is used to receive 

CO2 report the 

following unless you 

reported yes to § 

98.446(a)(4): CO2

concentration in the 

flow (volume percent 

CO2 expressed as a 

decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(i) For Non-ER Activities: 

If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a 

receiving flow meter (in 

metric tons) in each 

quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(ii) For Non-ER Activities: 

If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): The 

mass flow through a 

receiving flow meter 

that is redelivered to 

another facility without 

being injected into your 

well (in metric tons) in 

each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(a)(3)(iii) For Non-ER Activities:

If a mass flow meter is 

used to receive CO2

Not CBI
Page 168 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

report the following 

unless you reported yes 

to §98.446(a)(4): The 

CO2 concentration in 

the flow (weight 

percent CO2 expressed 

as a decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

RR 98.446(b)(1) For Non-ER Activities: 

If you receive CO2 in 

containers, report: The 

mass (in metric tons) or 

volume at standard 

conditions (in standard 

cubic meters) of 

contents in containers 

in each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(b)(2) For Non-ER Activities: 

If you receive CO2 in 

containers: 

Concentration of CO2

of contents in 

containers (volume or 

wt. % CO2 expressed as 

a decimal fraction) in 

each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(b)(3) For Non-ER Activities:

If you receive CO2 in

containers, report: The 

mass (in metric tons) or 

volume (in standard 

cubic meters) of 

contents in containers 

that is redelivered to 

another facility without 

being injected into your 

well in each quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(b)(4) For Non-ER Activities:

If you receive CO2 in 

containers: Net mass of 

CO2 received (metric 

tons) annually.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(c) For Non-ER Activities: 

If you use more than 

one receiving flow 

meter: Total net mass of 

CO2 received (metric 

tons) through all flow 

meters annually.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(f)(4)(i) For Non-ER Activities: 

If the date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

Not CBI For non-ER facilities, we are 

proposing that these data elements 

are not eligible for CBI treatment 

because these data elements are 

publicly available or can be derived 

from publicly available data. These
Page 169 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): For each 

separator flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), 

report CO2 mass 

produced (metric tons) 

annually.

data can be derived from UIC

permits, which are issued for each 

injection well by the EPA or by 

states that have assumed primary 

enforcement authority for permitting

Class II injection wells. Unlike ER 

facilities, the CO2 received at non-ER 

facilities is not recycled and reinjected. The amount of CO2

received at non-ER facilities is 

equivalent to the amount of CO2

injected (which is reported per UIC 

permit conditions). Information 

related to the permits is reported to 

EPA or States at least annually and 

made available to the public upon 

request. Because this information is 

publicly available, the EPA finds that 

disclosure of these data elements is 

not likely to cause substantial 

competitive harm to reporters who 

conduct non-ER activities. The EPA 

proposes to determine that these data 

elements are not CBI.

RR 98.446(f)(4)(ii) For Non-ER Activities:

If the date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): For each 

separator flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), 

report CO2

concentration in flow 

(volume or wt. % CO2

expressed as a decimal 

fraction) in each 

quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(f)(4)(iii) For Non-ER Activities:

If the date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): If a 

volumetric flow meter 

is used, volumetric flow 

rate at standard 

conditions (standard 

cubic meters) in each 

quarter.

Not CBI

RR 98.446(f)(4)(iv) For Non-ER Activities:

If the date specified in 

§98.446(e) is during the 

reporting year for this 

annual report, report the 

following starting on 

the date specified in 

§98.446(e): If a mass 

flow meter is used, 

mass flow rate (metric

tons) in each quarter.

Not CBI
Page 170 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

E. Proposed Revised Confidentiality Determination for Subpart NN Data Elements 

We are proposing revised confidentiality determinations for two existing data elements in 

subpart NN. Under subpart NN, local distribution companies report the volume of natural gas 

withdrawn from on-system storage and the annual volume of liquefied natural gas (LNG)

withdrawn from storage and vaporized for delivery on the distribution system (40 CFR 

98.406(b)(3)). The EPA previously assigned these data elements to the "Amount and 

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

The EPA is proposing to change these data elements’ status from CBI to non-CBI. These data 

elements are reported to the EPA by LDCs subject to subpart W of Part 98 (Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Systems) in addition to subpart NN. In support of a recent subpart W rulemaking 

(79 FR 70352, November 25, 2014), review of publicly available data found that gas 

withdrawals from underground storage are reported to the EIA on form EIA–176 (Annual Report 

of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition). As we noted in the proposed version 

of that rule, the EIA considers all information submitted on EIA–176 to be non-proprietary 

information and publishes the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage on their website. 

Data that are already in the public domain are not entitled to confidential treatment under the 

provisions in 40 CFR 2.208. Since the quantity of natural gas withdrawn from storage is publicly 

available, the EPA proposes to assign the confidentiality determination for 40 CFR 98.406(b)(3) 

to “not CBI.”

F. Request for Comments on Proposed Category Assignments and Confidentiality 

Determinations

For the CBI component of this rulemaking, we are soliciting comment on the following 

specific issues. We specifically seek comment on the proposed data category assignment for each 
Page 171 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of the new and substantially revised data elements in the proposed amendments, for the existing 

data elements in subparts I, Z, MM, PP, and RR for which no determination was previously 

made, and the two data elements in subpart NN for which we are revising the prior 

confidentiality determination. 

If you believe that the EPA has improperly assigned certain new, substantially revised, or 

existing data elements in these subparts to any of the data categories established in the 2011 

Final CBI Rule, please provide specific comments identifying which of the data elements may be

wrongly assigned along with a detailed explanation of why you believe them to be incorrectly 

assigned and in which data category you believe they belong. In addition, if you believe that a 

data element should be assigned to one of the five categories that do not have a categorical 

confidentiality determination, please also provide specific comment along with detailed rationale 

and supporting information on whether such data element does or does not qualify as CBI. We 

also seek comment on the proposed confidentiality status of the new, substantially revised, or 

existing data elements in the direct emitter data categories “Unit/Process ‘Operating’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” and “Unit/Process ‘Static’ 

Characteristics that Are Not Inputs to Emission Equations” and the supplier data categories 

“Production/Throughput Quantities and Composition” and “Unit/Process Operating 

Characteristics.” 

By proposing confidentiality determinations prior to data reporting through this proposal 

and rulemaking process, we provide potential reporters an opportunity to submit comments,

particularly comments identifying data they consider sensitive and their rationales and 

supporting documentation. This opportunity to submit comments is the same opportunity that is 

afforded to submitters of information in case-by-case confidentiality determinations. In addition, 
Page 172 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

it provides an opportunity to rebut the agency’s proposed determinations prior to finalization. We 

will evaluate the comments on our proposed determinations, including claims of confidentiality 

and information substantiating such claims, before finalizing the confidentiality determinations. 

Please note that this will be reporters’ only opportunity to substantiate a confidentiality claim. 

Upon finalizing the confidentiality determinations of the data elements identified in this rule, the 

EPA will release or withhold these data in accordance with 40 CFR 2.301, which contains 

special provisions governing the treatment of Part 98 data for which confidentiality 

determinations have been made through rulemaking.

When submitting comments regarding the confidentiality determinations we are 

proposing in this action, please identify each individual proposed new, revised, or existing data 

element you do or do not consider to be CBI or emission data in your comments. Please explain 

specifically how the public release of that particular data element would or would not cause a 

competitive disadvantage to a facility. Discuss how this data element may be different from or 

similar to data that are already publicly available. Please submit information identifying any 

publicly available sources of information containing the specific data elements in question. Data 

that are already available through other sources would likely be found not to qualify for CBI 

protection. In your comments, please identify the manner and location in which each specific 

data element you identify is publicly available, including a citation. If the data are physically 

published, such as in a book, industry trade publication, or federal agency publication, provide 

the title, volume number (if applicable), author(s), publisher, publication date, and International 

Standard Book Number (ISBN) or other identifier. For data published on a website, provide the 

address of the website, the date you last visited the website and identify the website publisher 

and content author.
Page 173 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

If your concern is that competitors could use a particular data element to discern sensitive 

information, specifically describe the pathway by which this could occur and explain how the 

discerned information would negatively affect your competitive position. Describe any unique 

process or aspect of your facility that would be revealed if the particular proposed new or revised 

data element you consider sensitive were made publicly available. If the data element you 

identify would cause harm only when used in combination with other publicly available data, 

then describe the other data, identify the public source(s) of these data, and explain how the 

combination of data could be used to cause competitive harm. Describe the measures currently 

taken to keep the data confidential. Avoid conclusory and unsubstantiated statements, or general 

assertions regarding potential harm. Please be as specific as possible and include all information 

necessary for the EPA to evaluate your comments.

V. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments

The EPA is proposing amendments to Part 98 that would streamline and improve 

implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency of the data collected under the 

rule, and clarify certain provisions. The proposed revisions are anticipated to increase burden in 

cases where the proposed amendments would expand current applicability, monitoring, or 

reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden in cases where the proposed amendments would 

streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting requirements or simplify the data that must 

be reported. For most subparts, we are proposing both revisions that would result in an increase 

in burden and revisions that would result in a decrease in burden. In several cases, we are 

proposing changes where we anticipate a decrease in burden, but are unable to quantify this 

decrease. This conservative approach means that the impacts for this proposed rule generally 

reflect an increase in burden for most subparts. For example, as discussed in section II.C and II.K 
Page 174 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

of this preamble, we are proposing amendments to add new reporting requirements to subpart E 

and subpart V to improve the quality of the data collected under the rule, as well as amendments 

that would streamline the rule by conditionally removing the annual approval request for an 

alternative method for determining N2O emissions currently required by reporters and the annual 

request approval by the EPA. The proposed changes for the annual approval request are 

anticipated to add flexibility for reporters and reduce the burden for subpart E and subpart V 

reporters using the alternative method. Additionally, we anticipate that the EPA burden required 

to review and approve the alternative methods would also be reduced. However, because the 

proposed changes would apply to an optional calculation method and are not required for 

compliance with Part 98, we have not included this reduction in burden in our analysis, and have 

only quantified the increase in burden associated with the proposed new reporting requirements.

As discussed in section I.E of this preamble, we are proposing to implement these 

changes over reporting years 2016, 2017, and 2018 in order to stagger the implementation of 

these changes over time and provide time for needed software revisions. The burden has 

subsequently been determined based on when the proposed revisions would be implemented in 

each year (e.g., the burden for RY2016 only reflects changes to subparts I (Electronics 

Manufacturing) and HH (Municipal Solid Waste Landfills), and related changes to subpart A 

(General Provisions)). One-time implementation costs would apply for certain revisions to 

applicability and monitoring provisions that would be finalized in RY2017 and RY2018; 

therefore, we have estimated costs through RY2019 to reflect the subsequent year costs incurred 

by industry. The incremental implementation costs for all subparts for each reporting year are 

summarized in Table 9 of this preamble. The estimated incremental burden is $2,049,478 for all 

proposed revisions implemented between RY2016 through RY2018, including $9,359 from 
Page 175 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

revisions implemented in RY2016, $33,782 from revisions implemented in RY2017, and 

$2,006,337 from revisions implemented in RY2018. The estimated annual burden is $1,081,830

per year following implementation of all changes. The incremental burden by subpart is shown 

in Table 10 of this preamble. One-time implementation costs are incorporated into first year 

costs, while subsequent year costs represent the annual burden that will be incurred in total by all 

impacted reporters.

Table 9. Incremental Burden for Reporting Years 2016-2019 ($/year)

Cost Summary 2016 2017 2018 2019

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

--

Subsequent Year Annual Costs for Changes Implemented in:

2016 -- $8,132 $8,132 $9,359a

2017 -- -- $25,650 $25,650

2018 -- -- -- $1,046,821

Total Costs by Year

(all subparts) $9,359 $33,782 $2,006,337 $1,081,830a

a

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

submitted once every three years.

b

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

c

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

Table 10. Incremental Burden by Subpart ($2011)

Subpart

Costs for Additional 

Reporters

Costs for Revisions to 

Reporting

Costs For Revisions to 

Monitoring Provisions Total Cost

FirstYearSubsequent

-Year

FirstYearSubsequent

-Year First-Year

Subsequent

-Year First-Year

Subsequent

-Year

Changes Implemented in RY2016

I $0 $0 $1,226 $0

a $0 $0 $1,226 $0a

HH $0 $0 $8,132 $8,132 $0 $0 $8,132 $8,132

Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2016 $9,359 $8,132

Changes Implemented in RY2017

A $0 $0 $4,906 $4,906 $0 $0 $4,906 $4,906

C $0 $0 $12,139 $12,139 $0 $0 $12,139 $12,139

E $0 $0 $10 $10 $0 $0 $10 $10

F $0 $0 $73 $73 $0 $0 $73 $73

G $0 $0 $228 $228 $0 $0 $228 $228

Nb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

O $0 $0 $106 $106 $0 $0 $106 $106

P

b $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Qb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Page 176 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table 10. Incremental Burden by Subpart ($2011)

Subpart

Costs for Additional 

Reporters

Costs for Revisions to 

Reporting

Costs For Revisions to 

Monitoring Provisions Total Cost

FirstYearSubsequent

-Year

FirstYearSubsequent

-Year First-Year

Subsequent

-Year First-Year

Subsequent

-Year

S $0 $0 $744 $744 $0 $0 $744 $744

Ub $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

X $0 $0 $1,074 $1,074 $0 $0 $1,074 $1,074

Z $0 $0 $40 $40 $0 $0 $40 $40

AAb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

CC $0 $0 $33 $33 $0 $0 $33 $33

DD $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000

II $0 $0 $2,562 $2,562 $0 $0 $2,562 $2,562

LLc $0 $0 -$17 -$17 $0 $0 -$17 -$17

MMb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

NN $0 $0 $1,752 $1,752 $0 $0 $1,752 $1,752

PPb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

RRd $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

TTb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

UUb $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2017 $25,650 $25,650

Changes Implemented in RY2018

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

Y $0 $0 $1,448 $1,448 $0 $0 $1,448 $1,448

FF $0 $0 $2,066 $2,066 $1,848,571 $949,582 $1,850,638 $951,648

OO $36,215 $26,612 $582 $582 $0 $0 $36,797 $27,194

Total Costs for Changes Implemented in RY2018 $1,972,555 $1,046,821

Total (All 

Subparts) $119,759 $93,015 $39,234 $38,007 $1,848,571 $949,582 $2,006,337 $1,081,830

a Costs for subpart I include new data elements related to the triennial technology report required by §98.96(y). The first 

report must be submitted with RY2016 reports on March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes of 

estimating burden, the annual costs associated with the data elements were included in the total incremental estimates for 

RY2016 and RY2019 (see Table 9 of this preamble) and not for RY2017 or RY2018.

b The proposed changes to this subpart include only minor revisions, clarifications, and corrections that have no impact on 

the burden to reporters.

c This entry is a negative value because certain reporting requirements were removed from subpart LL and no new 

reporting requirements were added for the subpart, resulting in a net cost savings for this source category.

d There is no increase in costs under subpart RR (Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide) because there are no facilities 

currently reporting, or projected to report, under this source category in the next three years.

A full discussion of the impacts may be found in the memorandum, “Assessment of 

Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,” available in Docket 

Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.
Page 177 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

A. How was the incremental burden of the proposed rule estimated?

The estimated incremental change in burden from the proposed amendments to Part 98 

include burden associated with: 1) changes to the reporting requirements by adding, revising, or 

removing existing reporting requirements (21 subparts); 2) revisions to the applicability of 

subparts such that additional facilities would be required to report under Part 98 (subparts V and 

OO); and 3) additional monitoring requirements (subpart FF).

1. Burden Associated with the Revision of Reporting Requirements

Section III of this preamble describes proposed amendments to each subpart of Part 98 

that improve the quality and accuracy of the data collected under the GHGRP, improve 

verification of collected data, and provide additional data to help improve estimates included in 

the U.S. GHG Inventory. In general, these proposed amendments would add reporting 

requirements or revise existing reporting requirements to collect more detailed facility data. The 

proposed amendments would collectively add or revise data elements in 21 subparts of Part 98, 

including 97 data elements that were not previously required to be collected. With the exception 

of revisions to subpart FF (Underground Coal Mines), the collection of these new and revised 

data elements would not add new monitoring requirements, and would not substantially affect 

the type of information that must be collected. For all of these additional data elements, the EPA 

has estimated a nominal additional cost to report the data element and fulfill the recordkeeping 

requirements. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data elements in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, 

and LL. For these data elements, the EPA has estimated a nominal reduction in cost, since 

reporters would no longer be required to report the data element. The total incremental costs 

from the addition, revision, and removal of these reporting requirements are anticipated at 

$39,234 annually ($2011). This includes $9,359 from revisions implemented in RY2016, 
Page 178 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

$25,650 from revisions first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions first

implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in the proposed rule pertain to the 

triennial technology report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with 

RY2016 reports on or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes 

of estimating burden, the annual costs associated with these data elements ($1,226) would apply

in RY2016 only. For RY2017 and RY2018, the estimated incremental cost associated with 

reporting the new, revised, and removed data elements for all affected source categories is 

$33,782 and $38,007, respectively.

All costs to the regulated industry resulting from changes to the reporting requirements 

for the GHGRP are labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by facility staff to meet the rule’s 

information collection requirements). For each subpart, the EPA determined the incremental 

change in annual hourly labor estimates by multiplying the number of data elements that were 

added, revised, or removed in each subpart by the number of hours required to review each data 

element and the number of affected reporters for each subpart. Where data elements were 

removed in subparts O, Y, DD, HH, and LL, a reduction in the annual hourly labor estimate was 

assumed. Labor costs were applied to the total annual hour estimates for each labor category to 

obtain the total costs for each subpart.

2. Burden Associated with Revisions that Affect Applicability

The EPA is proposing revisions that would affect the applicability of two subparts of Part 

98: subpart V (Nitric Acid Production) and subpart OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse 

Gases). The proposed changes would apply beginning in RY2018. These proposed changes are 

anticipated to require reporting for four additional reporters under subpart V, and five to ten 

additional reporters under subpart OO. (For the purposes of estimating burden, an average of 
Page 179 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

eight additional reporters were assumed to be required to report under subpart OO of Part 98).

The majority of facilities within these industries already report under Part 98; specifically, all 

four of the affected reporters under subpart V already submit annual reports. The total 

incremental burden from changes to applicability is $119,759 in the first year and $93,015 in 

subsequent years ($2011). The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart V 

includes first-year costs of $83,544 ($20,866 per facility) and subsequent year costs of $66,403 

($16,601 per facility). The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart OO 

includes first-year costs of $36,215 ($4,527 per facility) and subsequent year costs of $26,612 

($3,327 per facility).

To estimate the cost impacts for additional reporters, the recent information collection 

request for the GHG reporting program32 was used to obtain the first year average cost per 

facility that is incurred from reporting under subparts V and OO (updated to $2011) and the 

subsequent year burden. These average costs per facility include labor costs, capital costs, and 

operation and maintenance costs. We determined total reporting costs for each subpart by 

assigning these costs to model facilities that are representative of each industry sector. The total 

cost for each subpart was determined by multiplying the model facilities cost by the number of 

affected facilities.

3. Burden Associated with Revisions to Monitoring Requirements for Underground Coal Mines

As discussed in section III.R.2 of this preamble, we are proposing changes to the 

monitoring requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 to remove the option to allow MSHA quarterly 

inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane liberated from 

 

32 See Supporting Statement Part A: Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

(U.S. EPA, 2013).
Page 180 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ventilation systems. Instead, facilities would be required to independently collect their own grab 

samples or to use CEMS. The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters who would 

no longer have the option to use MSHA data (and would need to collect monthly grab samples)

are $28,440 per facility in the first year and $14,609 per facility in subsequent years ($2011); 

these revisions would affect approximately 65 reporters anticipated to use MSHA data annually.

The proposed revisions would have an industry-wide incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first 

year and $949,582 in subsequent years. The proposed changes would apply beginning in 

RY2018.

The incremental costs to the regulated industry resulting from changes to the monitoring 

requirements for Underground Coal Mines are based on the collection of independent grab 

samples in ventilation air. Currently, about 50 percent of subpart FF reporters collect quarterly 

gas samples. For mines that currently use MSHA data, the annual incremental costs for taking 

grab samples was estimated as the cost of taking the samples, less the avoided cost of obtaining, 

interpreting and reporting MSHA data. We assumed that facilities would not install a CEMS as a 

result of the monitoring changes. 

The costs resulting from removing the use of MSHA quarterly data and requiring 

facilities to collect quarterly grab samples include additional labor costs (i.e., the cost of labor by 

facility staff to meet the rule’s information collection requirements), capital costs (e.g., the costs 

of anemometers or sample kits, for reporters that are not currently conducting sampling), and 

operating and maintenance costs (e.g., the cost associated with gas sample analysis). Hourly 

labor costs were estimated based on the number of labor hours for developing the sampling 

methodology and purchasing the devices, and the number of hours required for sampling. 
Page 181 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

B. Additional Impacts of the Proposed Revisions to Part 98

In addition to amendments that would revise the existing applicability, monitoring, or 

reporting requirements of Part 98, the EPA is proposing additional technical revisions and other 

clarifications to several subparts in Part 98 that are not anticipated to have a significant impact on 

burden. These include revisions discussed in section III of this preamble that are intended to 

streamline the rule requirements, including proposed revisions to clarify and revise the 

requirements of Part 98 in order to focus GHGRP and reporter resources on relevant data, to 

expand and clarify the conditions under which a facility can cease reporting, or to clarify 

requirements for facilities that report very little or no emissions, and revisions that would 

improve the efficiency of the reporting and verification process. These changes are anticipated to 

minimally reduce burden for reporters. 

The EPA is also proposing revisions that are intended to improve the quality of the rule 

but that would not impact burden, such as amending calculation methods to improve the 

accuracy of the emissions estimate (e.g., subparts I and Y); these proposed amendments would 

increase the accuracy of reported emissions, but do not require additional monitoring or data 

collection by reporters, and would have no additional impact on burden. 

We are proposing, for certain subparts, to amend monitoring or measurement methods to 

more closely align rule requirements with different operating scenarios in the industry. Other 

proposed amendments would provide flexibility for reporters and clarify reporting requirements, 

as described in section II.C of this preamble. These proposed amendments are anticipated to have 

no impact or minimally decrease burden for reporters. 

The proposed revisions also include minor amendments, corrections, and clarifications, 

including simple revisions of requirements such as clarifying changes to definitions, calculation 
Page 182 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

methodologies, monitoring and quality assurance requirements, missing data procedures, and 

reporting requirements. These proposed changes clarify Part 98 to better reflect the EPA’s intent, 

and would not present any additional burden on reporters. 

A full discussion of the burden associated with the proposed revisions for each subpart 

may be found in the memorandum, “Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,” available in Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0526.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review because the proposed amendments raise novel legal 

or policy issues. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been 

documented in the docket. The EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. A copy of the analysis is available in Docket Id. No. EPA–

HQ–OAR–2015–0526 and is briefly summarized in section V of this preamble. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for 

approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document that 

the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2300.18. You can find a copy of the ICR 

in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.

This action is proposing to amend specific provisions in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule to streamline and improve implementation of the rule, improve the quality and consistency 

of the data collected under the rule, and to clarify or propose minor updates to certain provisions 
Page 183 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. These proposed amendments

would improve the quality and consistency of the data collected, as well as improve the 

efficiency of the reporting process for both the EPA and reporters. The proposed amendments 

are anticipated to increase burden in cases where the proposed amendments would expand 

current applicability, monitoring, or reporting, and are anticipated to decrease burden in cases 

where the proposed amendments would streamline Part 98 to remove notification or reporting 

requirements or simplify the data that must be reported.

Specifically, this action proposes to amend the reporting requirements to add or revise 

118 data elements in 21 subparts of Part 98. These revisions are necessary to improve the quality 

of the data collected under the GHGRP. The EPA is also proposing to remove 18 data elements 

in five subparts, which would streamline rule requirements. This action also proposes 

amendments that would affect the applicability of two subparts of Part 98: subparts V (Nitric 

Acid Production) and OO (Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases). These amendments could 

increase the number of facilities required to report under Part 98. Finally, this action proposes to 

revise the monitoring requirements of subpart FF of Part 98 (Underground Coal Mines). The 

proposed amendments would remove the option to allow Mine Safety and Health Administration 

(MSHA) quarterly inspection reports to be used as a source of data for monitoring methane 

liberated from ventilation systems, and require facilities to independently collect their own grab 

samples or to use continuous emissions monitoring. Impacts associated with the proposed 

changes to the applicability, monitoring, and reporting requirements are detailed in the 

memorandum “Assessment of Burden Impacts of 2015 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting Rule” (see Docket Id. No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2015–0526). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b).
Page 184 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

The total estimated incremental burden and cost associated with the proposed revisions is

23,456 hours and $2,049,478 over the 3 years covered by the information collection. These costs 

include $9,359 in RY2016, $33,782 in RY2017, and $2,006,337 in RY2018, averaging $683,159

per year over the three years. The total estimated number of reporters affected by the proposed 

amendments is 8,240. The proposed frequency of response for these changes is once annually, 

with the exception of certain data elements for subpart I which would be submitted once every 

three years. 

The estimated incremental costs and hour burden associated with the addition and

revision of 118 data elements and the removal of 18 data elements in 21 subparts is 682 hours 

and $39,234 annually ($2011), including $9,359 from revisions first implemented in RY2016, 

$25,650 from revisions first implemented in RY2017, and $4,225 from revisions first 

implemented in RY2018. For subpart I, the new data elements in the proposed rule pertain to the 

triennial technology report required under 40 CFR 98.96(y), which must first be submitted with 

RY2016 reports on or before March 31, 2017 and every three years thereafter. For the purposes 

of estimating burden for the three years covered by the information collection, the annual burden 

and costs associated with these data elements (21 hours and $1,226) would apply for RY2016

only. Therefore, the estimated incremental burden and cost associated with reporting the new, 

revised, and removed data elements for all affected source categories is 588 hours and $33,782 in 

RY2017, and 661 hours and $38,007 for RY2018. The annual reporting burden associated with 

these changes is estimated to average 0.17 hour per response, and the estimated number of 

reporters affected is 7,127.

The estimated incremental cost burden associated with additional reporters to subparts V 

and OO is $119,759 in the first year (RY2018) and $93,015 in subsequent years. The incremental 
Page 185 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

burden for the additional reporters for subpart V includes first-year costs of $83,544 and 

subsequent year costs of $66,403. The incremental burden for the additional reporters for subpart 

OO includes first-year costs of $36,215 and subsequent year costs of $26,612. The estimated 

number of likely new respondents that would result from these amendments is 12, including four 

additional reporters under subpart V, and an average of eight additional reporters for subpart OO. 

The annual hourly burden for these additional reporters is based on the annual average hourly 

burden for existing reporters under subparts V and OO, which is 191 hours and 55 hours per 

reporter, respectively.

The incremental increase in costs for subpart FF reporters from the revised monitoring 

requirements are $28,440 per facility in the first year (RY2018) and $14,609 in subsequent years 

($2011). The proposed revisions are estimated to affect 65 respondents and would have an 

industry incremental cost of $1,848,571 in the first year (RY2018) and $949,582 in subsequent 

years. The annual hourly burden associated with these monitoring costs are 320 hours per 

reporter in the first year and 165 hours in subsequent years.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

Submit your comments on the agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the 

EPA using the docket identified at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICRrelated comments to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via email to 

oria_submissions@omb.eop.gov, Attention: Desk Officer for the EPA. Since OMB is required to 

make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive 
Page 186 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

comments no later than [insert the date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. 

The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is 

any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 

relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the 

small entities subject to the rule. The impacts to small entities due to the revisions was evaluated 

for each subpart. The EPA conducted a screening assessment comparing compliance costs for 

revisions to reporting requirements, applicability to new reporters, and monitoring revisions 

under subparts V, FF, and OO to specific receipts data for establishments owned by small 

businesses in each industry. This ratio constitutes a “sales” test that computes the annualized 

compliance costs of this rule as a percentage of sales and determines whether the ratio exceeds 1 

percent. The cost-to-sales ratios were constructed at the establishment level (average reporting 

program costs per establishment/average establishment receipts) for several business size ranges.

We determined that the cost-to-sales ratios are less than 1 percent for all establishments in all 

business size ranges for subparts V, OO, and FF, except the ratio for the 1-19 employee size 

range for facilities in subpart FF was greater than 1 percent and less than 2 percent. The sales test 

for this size category was also exceeded in the original EIA33 and the EPA noted that mines 

owned by enterprises with less than 19 employees would be unlikely to be covered by this rule. 

 

33 U.S. EPA. Economic Impact Analysis for the Mandatory reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Subparts T, FF, 

TT, and II. See Docket Id. No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508-2313. June 2010.
Page 187 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Therefore, we do not anticipate any impacts on small entities for subpart FF reporters, and we 

have determined that there will not be a significant economic impact to small entities for these 

three subparts. For all other subparts, which are only affected by revisions for adding, revising, 

or removing reporting requirements, we determined that these facilities will experience annual 

impacts of approximately $11 per facility. Because this cost is minimal, no small entity impacts 

are anticipated for the remaining subparts.

Although there are no small entity impacts associated with these proposed revisions, in 

the development of Part 98, the EPA took several steps to reduce the impact on small entities. 

For example, the EPA determined appropriate thresholds that reduced the number of small 

businesses reporting. In addition, the EPA conducted several meetings with industry associations 

to discuss regulatory options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping 

and reporting. The proposed rule amendments are minor technical corrections, clarifying, and 

other amendments that will not impose any new requirement on small entities that are not 

currently required by the regulation of Part 98. We have therefore concluded that this action will 

have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities. The EPA continues to 

conduct significant outreach on the GHGRP and maintains an “open door” policy for 

stakeholders to help inform the EPA’s understanding of key issues for the industries. We 

continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule amendments on small 

entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described 

in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
Page 188 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

The action implements mandate(s) specifically and explicitly set forth in CAA section 

114(a)(1) without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 

the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. The 

proposed rule amendments would not result in any changes to the requirements that are not 

currently required for 40 CFR part 98. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the 

EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of the rules for Part 98. A summary 

of that consultation is provided in sections VIII.E and VIII.F of the preamble to the October 30, 

2009 final GHG reporting rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions 

that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-

202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 

not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
Page 189 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy. Part 98 relates to 

monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping and does not impact energy supply, distribution, or use. 

This final rule amends monitoring, calculation, and reporting requirements for the GHGRP. In 

addition, the EPA is proposing confidentiality determinations for new and revised data elements 

proposed in this rulemaking and for certain existing data elements for which a confidentiality 

determination has not previously been proposed, or where the EPA has determined that the 

current determination is no longer appropriate. These proposed amendments and confidentiality 

determinations do not make any changes to the existing monitoring, calculation, and reporting

requirements under Part 98 that affect the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations

The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will 

not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority, low-income or indigenous populations because it does not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the environment because it is a rule addressing information 

collection and reporting procedures. 

Page 191 of 284

For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency proposes to 

amend title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 98—MANDATORY GREENHOUSE GAS REPORTING

1. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A—General Provision

2. Section 98.2 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1);

b. Revising paragraph (i)(1) through (3); and

c. Adding paragraphs (i)(4) through (6).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.2 Who must report?

(a) * * *

(1) A facility that contains any source category that is listed in Table A-3 of this subpart. 

For these facilities, the annual GHG report must cover stationary fuel combustion sources 

(subpart C of this part), miscellaneous use of carbonates (subpart U of this part), and all 

applicable source categories listed in Table A-3 and Table A-4 of this subpart.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) If reported emissions are less than 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year for five 

consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided 

that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification 
Page 192 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the fifth consecutive 

year of emissions less than 25,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner or operator must maintain the 

corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the five consecutive years prior to 

notification of discontinuation of reporting and retain such records for three years following the 

year that reporting was discontinued. The owner or operator must resume reporting if annual 

emissions in any future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year or more.

(2) If reported emissions are less than 15,000 metric tons CO2e per year for three 

consecutive years, then the owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part provided 

that the owner or operator submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the 

cessation of reporting and explains the reasons for the reduction in emissions. The notification 

shall be submitted no later than March 31 of the year immediately following the third 

consecutive year of emissions less than 15,000 tons CO2e per year. The owner or operator must 

maintain the corresponding records required under §98.3(g) for each of the three consecutive 

years and retain such records for three years prior to notification of discontinuation of reporting 

following the year that reporting was discontinued. The owner or operator must resume reporting 

if annual emissions in any future calendar year increase to 25,000 metric tons CO2e per year or

more.

(3) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that all applicable processes 

and operations subject to paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section cease to operate, then the 

owner or operator may discontinue complying with this part for the reporting years following 

the year in which cessation of such operations occurs, provided that the owner or operator 

submits a notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting and certifies 

to the closure of all applicable processes and operations no later than March 31 of the year 
Page 193 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

following such changes. If one or more processes or operations subject to paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (4) of this section at a facility or supplier cease to operate, but not all applicable 

processes or operations cease to operate, then the owner or operator is exempt from reporting for 

any such processes or operations in the reporting years following the reporting year in which 

cessation of the process or operation occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a 

notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or 

operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. This paragraph (i)(3) does 

not apply to seasonal or other temporary cessation of operations. This paragraph (i)(3) does not 

apply to facilities with municipal solid waste landfills or industrial waste landfills, or to 

underground coal mines except those with abandoned status as determined by the U.S. Mine 

Safety & Health Administration. The owner or operator must resume reporting for any future 

calendar year during which any of the GHG-emitting processes or operations resume operation.

(4) The provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section apply to suppliers subject to 

subparts LL through QQ of this part by substituting the term "quantity of GHG supplied" for 

"emissions." For suppliers, the provisions of paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this section apply 

individually to each importer and exporter and individually to each petroleum refinery, 

fractionator of natural gas liquids, local natural gas distribution company, and producer of CO2, 

N2O, or fluorinated greenhouse gases (e.g., a supplier of industrial greenhouse gases might 

qualify to discontinue reporting as an exporter of industrial greenhouse gases but still be required 

to report as an importer; or a company might qualify to discontinue reporting as a supplier of 

industrial greenhouse gases under subpart OO but still be required to report as a supplier of 

carbon dioxide under subpart PP).
Page 194 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(5) If the operations of a facility or supplier are changed such that a process or operation 

no longer meets the "Definition of Source Category" as specified in an applicable subpart, then 

the owner or operator may discontinue complying with any such subpart for the reporting years 

following the year in which change occurs, provided that the owner or operator submits a 

notification to the Administrator that announces the cessation of reporting for the process or 

operation no later than March 31 of the year following such changes. The owner or operator 

must resume complying with this part for the process or operation starting in any future calendar 

year during which the process or operation meets the "Definition of Source Category" as 

specified in an applicable subpart.

(6) If an entire facility or supplier is merged into another facility or supplier that is 

already reporting GHG data under this part, then the owner or operator may discontinue 

complying with this part for the facility or supplier, provided that the owner or operator submits 

a notification to the Administrator that announces the discontinuation of reporting and the eGGRT identification number of the reconstituted facility no later than March 31 of the year 

following such changes.

* * * * *

3. Section 98.3 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) introductory text; 

b. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(G); and

c. Revising paragraphs (c)(5)(ii), (c)(8), (d)(1)(i), and (h)(4).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.3 What are the general monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and verification 

requirements of this part?
Page 195 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(4) * * *

(iii) Annual emissions from each applicable source category, expressed in metric tons of 

each applicable GHG listed in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (c)(4)(iii)(F) of this section.

* * * * *

(G) For each reported fluorinated GHG and fluorinated heat transfer fluid, report the 

following identifying information:

(1) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, then use the 

method of naming organic chemical compounds as recommended by the International Union of 

Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). 

(2) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Registry Service. If a 

CAS registry number is not assigned or is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated heat transfer fluid, then report an identification number assigned by EPA’s Substance 

Registry Services.

(3) Linear chemical formula.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) Quantity of each GHG from each applicable supply category in Table A-5 to this 

subpart, expressed in metric tons of each GHG. For each reported fluorinated GHG, report the 

following identifying information:
Page 196 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(A) Chemical name. If the chemical is not listed in Table A-1 of this subpart, then use the 

method of naming organic chemical compounds as recommended by the International Union of 

Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). 

(B) The CAS registry number assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Registry Service. If a 

CAS registry number is not assigned or is not associated with a single fluorinated GHG, then 

report an identification number assigned by EPA’s Substance Registry Services.

(C) Linear chemical formula.

* * * * *

(8) Each parameter for which a missing data procedure was used according to the 

procedures of an applicable subpart and the total number of hours in the year that a missing data 

procedure was used for each parameter. Parameters include not only reported data elements, but 

any data element required for monitoring and calculating emissions.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Monitoring methods currently used by the facility that do not meet the specifications 

of a relevant subpart.

* * * * *

(h) * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section, upon request by the owner 

or operator, the Administrator may provide reasonable extensions of the 45-day period for 

submission of the revised report or information under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this section. If 

the Administrator receives a request for extension of the 45-day period, by email to an address 
Page 197 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

prescribed by the Administrator prior to the expiration of the 45-day period, the extension 

request is deemed to be automatically granted for 30 days. The Administrator may grant an 

additional extension beyond the automatic 30-day extension if the owner or operator submits a 

request for an additional extension and the request is received by the Administrator prior to the 

expiration of the automatic 30-day extension, provided the request demonstrates that it is not 

practicable to submit a revised report or information under paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) within 75 

days. The Administrator will approve the extension request if the request demonstrates to the 

Administrator's satisfaction that it is not practicable to collect and process the data needed to 

resolve potential reporting errors identified pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) or (2) of this section 

within 75 days.

* * * * *

4. Section 98.4 is amended by adding paragraph (i)(6) to read as follows:

§98.4 Authorization and responsibilities of the designated representative.

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(6) A list of the subparts that the owners and operators anticipate will be included in the 

annual GHG report. The list of potentially applicable subparts is required only for an initial 

certificate of representation that is submitted after [date of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register] (i.e., for a facility or supplier that previously was not registered under this 

part). The list of subparts is not required for a revised COR. 

* * * * *
Page 198 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5. Section 98.6 is amended by revising the definitions for “Gas collection system or 

landfill gas collection system” and “Ventilation hole or shaft” and adding a definition for 

“Reporting year” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§98.6 Definitions.

* * * * *

Gas collection system or landfill gas collection system means a system of pipes used to 

collect landfill gas from different locations in the landfill by means of a fan or similar 

mechanical draft equipment (forced convection) to a single location for treatment (thermal 

destruction) or use. Landfill gas collection systems may also include knock-out or separator 

drums and/or a compressor. A single landfill may have multiple gas collection systems. Landfill 

gas collection systems do not include “passive” systems, whereby landfill gas flows naturally

(without forced convection) to the surface of the landfill where an opening or pipe (vent) is 

installed to allow for the flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a remote flare installed to 

combust landfill gas that is passively emitted from the vent. Landfill gas collection systems also 

do not include “active venting” systems, whereby landfill gas is conveyed to the surface of the 

landfill using forced convection, but the landfill gas is never recovered or thermally destroyed 

prior to release to the atmosphere.

* * * * * 

Reporting year means the calendar year during which the GHG data are required to be 

collected for purposes of the annual GHG report. For example, reporting year 2014 is January 1, 

2014 through December 31, 2014, and the annual report for reporting year 2014 is submitted to 

EPA on March 31, 2015.

* * * * * 
Page 199 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Ventilation hole or shaft means a vent hole, shaft, mine portal, adit or other mine entrance 

or exits employed at an underground coal mine to serve as the outlet or conduit to move air from 

the ventilation system out of the mine.

* * * * * 

6. Section 98.7 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(33) and (l)(1) to read as follows:

§98.7 What standardized methods are incorporated by reference into this part?

* * * * * 

(e) * * *

(33) ASTM D6866-12 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of 

Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis, IBR approved for § 98.34(d), 

§ 98.34(e), and § 98.36(e).

* * * * * 

(l) * * *

(1) Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook, Handbook 

Number: PH13-V-1, February 2013, IBR approved for §98.324(b).

* * * * *

7. Table A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries “Source 

Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years” and “Additional Source Categoriesa

Applicable in 2011 and Future Years” to read as follows:

Table A-3 to Subpart A of Part 98—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(1)

Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

Additional Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

* * * * *
Page 200 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8. Table A-4 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries “Source 

Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years” and “Additional Source Categoriesa

Applicable in 2011 and Future Years” to read as follows:

Table A-4 to Subpart A—Source Category List for §98.2(a)(2)

Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

Additional Source Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

9. Table A-5 to Subpart A of Part 98 is amended by:

a. Revising the entry “Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2010 and Future Years”;

b. Revising the entries associated with “Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart 

OO)”; and

c. Revising the entry “Additional Supplier Categoriesa Applicable in 2011 and Future 

Years.”

The revisions read as follows:

Table A-5 to Subpart A—Supplier Category List for §98.2(a)(4)

Supplier Categories a Applicable in Reporting Year 2010 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

Industrial greenhouse gas suppliers (subpart OO):

(A) All producers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids.

(B) Importers of industrial greenhouse gases and fluorinated heat transfer fluids with annual 

bulk imports of N2O, fluorinated GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in 

combination are equivalent to 25,000 metric tons CO2e or more.

(C) Exporters of industrial greenhouse gases with annual bulk exports of N2O, fluorinated 

GHG, fluorinated heat transfer fluids, and CO2 that in combination are equivalent to 25,000 

metric tons CO2e or more.

(D) Facilities that destroy 25,000 mtCO2e or more of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated heat 

transfer fluids annually.

* * * * * * *
Page 201 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Additional Supplier Categories Applicableain Reporting Year 2011 and Future Years

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

Subpart C—General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

10. Section 98.33 is amended by revising parameters “(HHV)I,” “(Fuel)I,” and “n” of 

Equation C-2b in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) and revising paragraphs (a)(5)(i)(C), (a)(5)(ii)(C), and 

(a)(5)(iii)(C) to read as follows: 

§98.33 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) * * *

* * * * *

(HHV)I = Measured high heat value of the fuel, for sample period “i” (which may be 

the arithmetic average of multiple determinations), or, if applicable, an 

appropriate substitute data value (mmBtu per mass or volume).

(Fuel)I = Mass or volume of the fuel combusted during the sample period “i,” (e.g., 

monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or by lot) from company records (express 

mass in short tons for solid fuel, volume in standard cubic feet (e.g., for 

gaseous fuel, and volume in gallons for liquid fuel).

n = Number of sample periods in the year.

* * * * *

(5) * * *

(i) * * *
Page 202 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to 

metric tons.

* * * * *

(ii) * * *

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to 

metric tons.

(iii) * * *

(C) Divide the cumulative annual CO2 mass emissions value by 1.1023 to convert it to 

metric tons.

* * * * *

11. Section 98.34 is amended by revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows: 

§98.34 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(d) Except as otherwise provided in §98.33 (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii), when municipal 

solid waste (MSW) is either the primary fuel combusted in a unit or the only fuel with a biogenic 

component combusted in the unit, determine the biogenic portion of the CO2 emissions using 

ASTM D6866-12 Standard Test Methods for Determining the Biobased Content of Solid, 

Liquid, and Gaseous Samples Using Radiocarbon Analysis (incorporated by reference, see 

§98.7) and ASTM D7459-08 Standard Practice for Collection of Integrated Samples for the 

Speciation of Biomass (Biogenic) and Fossil-Derived Carbon Dioxide Emitted from Stationary 

Emissions Sources (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). Perform the ASTM D7459-08 

sampling and the ASTM D6866-12 analysis at least once in every calendar quarter in which 

MSW is combusted in the unit. Collect each gas sample during normal unit operating conditions 
Page 203 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

for at least 24 total (not necessarily consecutive) hours, or longer if the facility deems it 

necessary to obtain a representative sample. Notwithstanding this requirement, if the types of 

fuels combusted and their relative proportions are consistent throughout the year, the minimum 

required sampling time may be reduced to 8 hours if at least two 8-hour samples and one 24-hour 

sample are collected under normal operating conditions, and arithmetic average of the biogenic 

fraction of the flue gas from the 8-hour samples (expressed as a decimal) is within ±5 percent of 

the biogenic fraction from the 24-hour test. There must be no overlapping of the 8-hour and 24-

hour test periods. Document the results of the demonstration in the unit's monitoring plan. If the 

types of fuels and their relative proportions are not consistent throughout the year, an optional 

sampling approach that facilities may wish to consider to obtain a more representative sample is 

to collect an integrated sample by extracting a small amount of flue gas (e.g., 1 to 5 cc) in each 

unit operating hour during the quarter. Separate the total annual CO2 emissions into the biogenic 

and non-biogenic fractions using the average proportion of biogenic emissions of all samples 

analyzed during the reporting year. Express the results as a decimal fraction (e.g., 0.30, if 30 

percent of the CO2 is biogenic). When MSW is the primary fuel for multiple units at the facility, 

and the units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only one of the units is sufficient.

(e) For other units that combust combinations of biomass fuel(s) (or heterogeneous fuels 

that have a biomass component, e.g., tires) and fossil (or other non-biogenic) fuel(s), in any 

proportions, ASTM D6866-12 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) and ASTM D7459-08 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7) may be used to determine the biogenic portion of the CO2

emissions in every calendar quarter in which biomass and non-biogenic fuels are co-fired in the 

unit. Follow the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section. If the primary fuel for multiple units 
Page 204 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

at the facility consists of tires, and the units are fed from a common fuel source, testing at only 

one of the units is sufficient.

* * * * *

12. Section 98.36 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii), (c)(3)(ii), (e)(2)(i), 

(e)(2)(x) introductory text, and (e)(2)(xi) to read as follows: 

§98.36 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the group (mmBtu/hr). The 

cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the sum of the maximum 

rated heat input capacities for all units in the group, excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) Cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity of the units served by the common 

pipe (mmBtu/hr). The cumulative maximum rated heat input capacity shall be determined as the 

sum of the maximum rated heat input capacities for all units served by the common pipe, 

excluding units less than 10 (mmBtu/hr).

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) For the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology, report:
Page 205 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(A) The total quantity of each type of fuel combusted in the unit or group of aggregated 

units (as applicable) during the reporting year, in short tons for solid fuels, gallons for liquid 

fuels and standard cubic feet for gaseous fuels, or, if applicable, therms or mmBtu for natural 

gas.

(B) If applicable, the moisture content used to calculate the wood and wood residuals wet 

basis HHV for use in Equations C-1 and C-8, in percent. 

* * * * *

(x) When ASTM methods D7459-08 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) and D6866-

12 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) are used to determine the biogenic portion of the 

annual CO2 emissions from MSW combustion, as described in §98.34(d), report:

* * * * *

(xi) When ASTM methods D7459-08 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) and D6866-

12 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) are used in accordance with §98.34(e) to determine the 

biogenic portion of the annual CO2 emissions from a unit that co-fires biogenic fuels (or partlybiogenic fuels, including tires if you are electing to report biogenic CO2 emissions from tire 

combustion) and non-biogenic fuels, you shall report the results of each quarterly sample 

analysis, expressed as a decimal fraction (e.g., if the biogenic fraction of the CO2 emissions is 30 

percent, report 0.30).

* * * * *

13. Section 98.37 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b)(37) to 

read as follows:

§98.37 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
Page 206 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(a) The applicable records specified in §§98.34(f), 98.35(b), and 98.36(e).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(37) Moisture content used to calculate the wood and wood residuals wet basis HHV 

(percent), if applicable (Equations C-1 and C-8).

14. Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by:

a. Revising the entry “Petroleum products”;

b. Removing the entry “Petroleum Coke” under “Petroleum products”;

c. Adding entries for “Petroleum products—solid” and “Petroleum products—gaseous” to 

follow the entry for “Crude Oil.”

d. Removing the entry “Petroleum Coke” under “Other fuels—solid”; and

e. Removing the entry “Propane Gas” under “Other fuels—gaseous.” 

15. The revisions, deletions, and additions read as follows:

Table C-1 to Subpart C of Part 98—Default CO2 Emission Factors and High Heat Values 

for Various Types of Fuel

Default CO2 Emission Factors and High Heat Values for Various Types of Fuel

Fuel type Default high heat value

Default CO2

emission

factor

* * * * * * *

Petroleum products—liquid mmBtu/gallon kg CO2/mmBtu

* * * * * * *

Petroleum products—solid mmBtu/short ton kg CO2/mmBtu

Petroleum Coke 30.00 102.41

Petroleum products—gaseous mmBtu/scf kg CO2/mmBtu

Propane Gas 2.516 × 10−3 61.46

* * * * * * *

* * * * *
Page 207 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16. Table C-2 to Subpart C of Part 98 is amended by revising the entries “Petroleum (All 

fuel types in Table C-1)” and “Municipal Solid Waste” and removing the entry “Tires” to read as 

follows:

Table C-2 to Subpart C of Part 98—Default CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Various 

Types of Fuel

Fuel type

Default CH4 emission factor (kg 

CH4/mmBtu)

Default N2O emission factor (kg 

N2O/mmBtu)

* * * * * * *

Petroleum Products (All fuel 

types in Table C-1)

3.0 × 10−03 6.0 × 10−04

* * * * * * *

Other Fuels—Solid 3.2 × 10−02 4.2 × 10−03

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

Subpart E—Adipic Acid Production

17. Section 98.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§98.53 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *

(2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O 

emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.

(i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O 

emissions in the previous reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative 

method is automatically approved for the next reporting year.

(ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved alternative method in 

your annual report.
Page 208 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(iii) Otherwise, you must submit the request within 45 days following promulgation of 

this subpart or within the first 30 days of each subsequent reporting year.

(iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested alternative method within 150 

days of the end of the reporting year, you must determine the N2O emissions for the current 

reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

* * * * *

18. Section 98.56 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§98.56 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Types of abatement technologies used and date of installation for each (if applicable).

* * * * *

Subpart F—Aluminum Production

19. Section 98.65 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to read as 

follows:

§98.65 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *

(a) Where anode or paste consumption data are missing, CO2 emissions can be estimated 

from aluminum production by using Equation F-9 of this section.

* * * * *

20. Section 98.66 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(2) and (3) to read as follows:

§98.66 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *
Page 209 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(2) Anode effect minutes per cell-day (AE-mins/cell-day), anode effect frequency 

(AE/cell-day), anode effect duration (minutes). (Or anode effect overvoltage factor ((kg 

CF4/metric ton Al)/(mV/cell day)), potline overvoltage (mV/cell day), current efficiency (%).)

(3) Smelter-specific slope coefficients (or overvoltage emission factors) and the last date 

when the smelter-specific slope coefficients (or overvoltage emission factors) were measured.

* * * * *

Subpart G—Ammonia Manufacturing

21. Section 98.74 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:

§98.74 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(f) You may use company records or an engineering estimate to determine the annual 

ammonia production and the annual methanol production.

* * * * *

22. Section 98.76 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; 

b. Adding paragraph (a)(3); and

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (7), and (15).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.76 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) If a CEMS is used to measure CO2 emissions, then you must report the relevant 

information required under §98.36 for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology and the information 

in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
Page 210 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

(3) Annual ammonia production (metric tons, sum of all process units reported within 

subpart G).

(b) * * *

(2) Annual quantity of each type of feedstock consumed for ammonia manufacturing (scf 

of feedstock or gallons of feedstock or kg of feedstock).

* * * * *

(7) Annual average carbon content of each type of feedstock consumed.

* * * * *

(15) Annual methanol production for each process unit (metric tons), regardless of 

whether the methanol is subsequently destroyed, vented, or sold as product.

Subpart I—Electronics Manufacturing

23. Section 98.93 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; 

b. Revising parameters “Nil” and “Fil” of Equation I-12 in paragraph (d); 

c. Revising paragraphs (i)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iv);

d. Revising Equation I-17 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii); 

e. Revising parameter “dif” of Equation I-19 in paragraph (i)(3)(ii);

f. Revising parameter “dkf” of Equation I-20 in paragraph (i)(3)(iv);

g. Revising parameter “dif” of Equation I-21 in paragraph (i)(3)(v);

h. Revising parameter “dkf” of Equation I-22 in paragraph (i)(3)(vi); and

i. Revising paragraph (i)(3)(viii) and paragraph (i)(4) introductory text.

The revisions read as follows:
Page 211 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

§98.93 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *

(1) If you manufacture semiconductors, you must adhere to the procedures in paragraphs 

(a)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must calculate annual emissions of each input gas and 

of each by-product gas using Equations I-6 and I-7, respectively. If your fab uses less than 50 kg 

of a fluorinated GHG in one reporting year, you may calculate emissions as equal to your fab's 

annual consumption for that specific gas as calculated in Equation I-11 of this subpart, plus any 

by-product emissions of that gas calculated under this paragraph (a).

* * * * *

(d) * * *

* * * * *

Nil = Number of containers of size and type l used at the fab and returned to the 

gas distributor containing the standard heel of input gas i.

Fil = Full capacity of containers of size and type l containing input gas i (kg).

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) You must use representative data from the previous reporting year to estimate the 

consumption of input gas i as calculated in Equation I-13 of this subpart and the fraction of input 

gas i and by-product gas k destroyed in abatement systems for each stack system as calculated by 

Equations I-24A and I-24B of this subpart. If you were not required to submit an annual report 

under subpart I for the previous reporting year and data from the previous reporting year are not 

available, you may estimate the consumption of input gas i and the fraction of input gas i 

destroyed in abatement systems based on representative operating data from a period of at least 
Page 212 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30 days in the current reporting year. When calculating the consumption of input gas i using 

Equation I-13 of this subpart, the term “fij” is replaced with the ratio of the number of tools using 

input gas i that are vented to the stack system for which you are calculating the preliminary 

estimate to the total number of tools in the fab using input gas i, expressed as a decimal fraction. 

You may use this approach to determining fij only for this preliminary estimate.

* * * * *

(iv) If you anticipate an increase or decrease in annual consumption or emissions of any 

fluorinated GHG, or the number of tools connected to abatement systems greater than 10 percent 

for the current reporting year compared to the previous reporting year, you must account for the 

anticipated change in your preliminary estimate. You may account for such a change using a 

quantifiable metric (e.g., the ratio of the number of tools that are expected to be vented to the 

stack system in the current year as compared to the previous reporting year, ratio of the expected 

number of wafer starts in the current reporting year as compared to the previous reporting year), 

engineering judgment, or other industry standard practice.

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) * * *

m

N

m

ism

is i s

t

X

SV

E  MW Q   *

10

*

10

1

*

1

* *

3 1

9

(Eq. I-17)

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

* * * * *
Page 213 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in Equation I-24A 

of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). If the stack system does not 

have abatement systems on the tools vented to the stack system, the value of 

this parameter is zero.

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

* * * * *

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated in 

Equation I-24B of this subpart (expressed as decimal fraction). 

* * * * *

(v) * * *

* * * * *

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or removed in abatement 

systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included in the stack 

testing option, as calculated in Equation I-24A of this subpart (expressed as 

decimal fraction).

* * * * *

(vi) * * *

* * * * *

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f that are included in 

the stack testing option, as calculated in Equation I-24B of this subpart 

(expressed as decimal fraction).

* * * * *

(viii) When using the stack testing option described in this paragraph (i), you must 

calculate the weighted-average fraction of each fluorinated input gas i and each fluorinated by-
Page 214 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

product gas k destroyed or removed in abatement systems for each fab f, as applicable, by using 

Equation I-24A (for input gases) and Equation I-24B (for by-product gases) of this subpart.





 

  



j

ijf ij

j

ijf ij ij

if C U

C U DRE

d

[ (1 )]

[ (1 )) ]

(Eq. I-24A)







 



j

ijf ijk

j

ijf ijk jk

kf C B

C B DRE

d

( )

( )

(Eq. I-24B)

dif = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG input gas i destroyed or 

removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a decimal fraction).

dkf = The average weighted fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product gas k

destroyed or removed in abatement systems in fab f (expressed as a decimal 

fraction).

Cijf = The amount of fluorinated GHG input gas i consumed for process type j fed 

into abatement systems in fab f as calculated using Equation I-13 of this 

subpart (kg).

(1 - Uij) = The default emission factor for input gas i used in process type j, from 

applicable Table I-3 to I-7 of this subpart.

Bijk = The default by-product gas formation rate factor for by-product gas k from 

input gas i used in process type j, from applicable Table I-3 to I-7 of this 

subpart.

DREij = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG input gas i in 

abatement systems connected to process tools where process type j is used 

(expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to §98.94(f).

DREjk = Destruction or removal efficiency for fluorinated GHG by-product gas k in 

abatement systems connected to process tools where input gas i is used in 

process type j (expressed as a decimal fraction) determined according to 

§98.94(f).

f = fab.

i = Fluorinated GHG input gas.

j = Process type.

(4) Method to calculate emissions from stack systems that are not tested. You must 

calculate annual fab-level emissions of each fluorinated GHG input gas and by-product gas for 
Page 215 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

those fluorinated GHG listed in paragraphs (i)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section using default 

utilization and by-product formation rates as shown in Tables I-11, I-12, I-13, I-14, or I-15 of 

this subpart, as applicable, and by using Equations I-8, I-9, and I-13 of this subpart. When using 

Equations I-8, I-9, and I-13 of this subpart to fulfill the requirements of this paragraph, you must 

use, in place of the term Cij in each equation, the total consumption of each fluorinated GHG 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section or that is used in tools vented to the stack 

systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. You must use, in place of the 

term aij, the fraction of fluorinated GHG meeting the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section 

used in tools with abatement systems or that is used in tools with abatement systems that are 

vented to the stack systems that meet the criteria in paragraph (i)(4)(ii) of this section. You also 

must use the results of Equations I-24A and I-24B of this subpart in place of the terms dij in 

Equation I-8 of this subpart and djk in Equation I-9 of this subpart, respectively, and use the 

results of Equation I-23 of this subpart in place of the results of Equation I-15 of this subpart for 

the term UTij.

* * * * *

24. Section 98.94 is amended by revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph 

(j)(5)(ii) introductory text to read as follows:

§98.94 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(f) If your fab employs abatement systems and you elect to reflect emission reductions 

due to these systems, or if your fab employs abatement systems designed for fluorinated GHG 

abatement and you elect to calculate fluorinated GHG emissions using the stack test method 

under §98.93(i), you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(3) of 
Page 216 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

this section. If you use an average of properly measured destruction or removal efficiencies for a 

gas and process sub-type or process type combination, as applicable, in your emission 

calculations under §98.93(a), (b), and/or (i), you must also adhere to procedures in paragraph 

(f)(4) of this section.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) Criteria to test less frequently. After the first 3 years of annual testing, you may 

calculate the relative standard deviation of the emission factors for each fluorinated GHG 

included in the test and use that analysis to determine the frequency of any future testing. As an 

alternative, you may conduct all three tests in less than 3 calendar years for purposes of this 

paragraph (j)(5)(ii), but this does not relieve you of the obligation to conduct subsequent annual 

testing if you do not meet the criteria to test less frequently. If the criteria specified in paragraphs 

(j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are met, you may use the arithmetic average of the three 

emission factors for each fluorinated GHG and fluorinated GHG by-product for the current year 

and the next 4 years with no further testing unless your fab operations are changed in a way that 

triggers the re-test criteria in paragraph (j)(8) of this section. In the fifth year following the last 

stack test included in the previous average, you must test each of the stack systems for which 

testing is required and repeat the relative standard deviation analysis using the results of the most 

recent three tests (i.e., the new test and the two previous tests conducted prior to the 4 year 

period). If the criteria specified in paragraphs (j)(5)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section are not met, you 

must use the emission factors developed from the most recent testing and continue annual 

testing. You may conduct more than one test in the same year, but each set of emissions testing 
Page 217 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

for a stack system must be separated by a period of at least 2 months. You may repeat the 

relative standard deviation analysis using the most recent three tests, including those tests 

conducted prior to the 4 year period, to determine if you are exempt from testing for the next 4 

years.

* * * * *

25. Section 98.96 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (d), and (e); 

b. Revising parameters “dif” and “dkf” of Equation I-28 in paragraph (r)(2); and

c. Revising paragraph (y)(2)(iv).

The revisions read as follows:

§98.96 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) When you use the procedures specified in §98.93(a) of this subpart, each fluorinated 

GHG emitted from each process type or process sub-type as calculated in Equations I-8 and I-9 

of this subpart, as applicable.

* * * * *

(d) The method of emissions calculation used in §98.93 for each fab.

(e) Annual production in terms of substrate surface area (e.g., silicon, PV-cell, glass) for 

each fab, including specification of the substrate.

* * * * *

(r) * * * 

(2) * * *
Page 218 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

dif = Fraction of fluorinated GHG i destroyed or removed in abatement systems 

connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated from Equation I-24A, 

which you used to calculate total emissions according to the procedures in 

§98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).

* * * * *

dkf = Fraction of fluorinated GHG by-product k destroyed or removed in 

abatement systems connected to process tools in fab f, as calculated from 

Equation I-24B, which you used to calculate total emissions according to the 

procedures in §98.93(i)(3) (expressed as a decimal fraction).

* * * * *

(y) * * *

(2) * * *

(iv) It must provide any utilization and by-product formation rates and/or destruction or 

removal efficiency data that have been collected in the previous 3 years that support the changes 

in semiconductor manufacturing processes described in the report. For any utilization, byproduct formation rate, and/or destruction or removal efficiency data submitted, the report must 

describe, where available: methods used for the measurements, wafer size, film type being 

manufactured, substrate type, the linewidth or technology node, process type, process subtype for 

chamber clean processes, the input gases used and measured, the utilization rates measured, and 

the by-product formation rates measured.

* * * * *

26. Section 98.97 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(5) introductory text and (d)(7) to 

read as follows:

§98.97 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *
Page 219 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(d) * * *

(5) In addition to the inventory specified in §98.96(p), the information in paragraphs 

(d)(5)(i) through (iii) of this section:

* * * * *

(7) Records of all inputs and results of calculations made to determine the average 

weighted fraction of each gas destroyed or removed in the abatement systems for each stack 

system using Equations I-24A and I-24B of this subpart, if applicable. The inputs should include 

an indication of whether each value for destruction or removal efficiency is a default value or a 

measured site-specific value.

* * * * *

27. Table I-3 of subpart I is amended to read as follows:

Table I–3 to Subpart I of Part 98—Default Emission Factors (1–Uij) for Gas Utilization 

Rates (Uij) and By-Product Formation Rates (Bijk) for Semiconductor Manufacturing for 

150mm and 200 mm Wafer Sizes

Process 

type/Sub-type

Process gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O

ETCHING/WAFER CLEANING

1–Ui 0.81 0.72 0.51 0.13 0.064 0.70 NA 0.14 0.19 0.55 0.17 0.072 NA

BCF4 NA 0.10 0.085 0.079 0.077 NA NA 0.11 0.0040 0.13 0.13 NA NA

BC2F6 0.046 NA 0.030 0.025 0.024 0.0034 NA 0.037 0.025 0.11 0.11 0.014 NA

BC4F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC4F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC5F8 0.0012 NA 0.0012 NA NA NA NA 0.0086 NA NA NA NA NA

BCHF3 0.10 0.047 NA 0.049 NA NA NA 0.040 NA 0.0012 0.066 0.0039 NA

CHAMBER CLEANING

In situ plasma cleaning:

1–Ui 0.92 0.55 NA NA NA NA 0.40 0.10 0.18 NA NA NA 0.14
Page 220 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Process 

type/Sub-type

Process gas i

CF4 C2F6 CHF3 CH2F2C2HF5 CH3F C3F8 C4F8 NF3 SF6 C4F6 C5F8 C4F8O

BCF4 NA 0.19 NA NA NA NA 0.20 0.11 0.050 NA NA NA 0.13

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.045

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Remote plasma cleaning:

1–Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.017 NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.015 NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

In situ thermal cleaning:

1–Ui NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BCF4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC2F6 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

BC3F8 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: NA = Not applicable; i.e., there are no applicable default emission factor measurements for this gas. This does not 

necessarily imply that a particular gas is not used in or emitted from a particular process sub-type or process type.

Subpart N—Glass Production

28. Section 98.144 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows:

§98.144 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must measure carbonate-based mineral 

mass fractions at least annually to verify the mass fraction data provided by the supplier of the 

raw material; such measurements shall be based on sampling and chemical analysis using 

consensus standards that specify X-ray fluorescence. For measurements made in years prior to 

the emissions reporting year 2014, you may also use ASTM D3682-01 (Reapproved 2006) 

Standard Test Method for Major and Minor Elements in Combustion Residues from Coal 

Utilization Processes (incorporated by reference, see §98.7) or ASTM D6349-09 Standard Test 
Page 221 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Method for Determination of Major and Minor Elements in Coal, Coke, and Solid Residues from 

Combustion of Coal and Coke by Inductively Coupled Plasma—Atomic Emission Spectrometry 

(incorporated by reference, see §98.7).

(c) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine the annual average mass 

fraction for the carbonate-based mineral in each carbonate-based raw material by calculating an 

arithmetic average of the monthly data obtained from raw material suppliers or sampling and 

chemical analysis.

(d) Unless you use the default value of 1.0, you must determine on an annual basis the 

calcination fraction for each carbonate consumed based on sampling and chemical analysis using 

an industry consensus standard. If performed, this chemical analysis must be conducted using an 

x-ray fluorescence test or other enhanced testing method published by an industry consensus 

standards organization (e.g., ASTM, ASME, API, etc.).

29. Section 98.146 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5) and (7) to read as follows:

§98.146 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the carbonate-based mineral mass 

fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, as 

specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this section.

* * * * *

(7) Method used to determine decimal fraction of calcination, unless you used the default 

value of 1.0.

* * * * *
Page 222 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30. Section 98.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(3), (b)(4) introductory text, 

(d)(2), and (d)(3) to read as follows:

§98.147 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) Data on carbonate-based mineral mass fractions provided by the raw material supplier 

for all raw materials consumed annually and included in calculating process emissions in 

Equation N-1 of this subpart, if applicable.

(4) Results of all tests, if applicable, used to verify the carbonate-based mineral mass 

fraction for each carbonate-based raw material charged to a continuous glass melting furnace, 

including the data specified in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(v) of this section.

* * * * *

(d) * * *

(2) Annual amount of each carbonate-based raw material charged to each continuous 

glass melting furnace (tons) (Equation N-1).

(3) Decimal fraction of calcination achieved for each carbonate-based raw material for 

each continuous glass melting furnace (specify the default value, if used, or the value determined 

according to §98.144) (percentage, expressed as a decimal) (Equation N-1).

Subpart O—HCFC-22 Production and HFC-23 Destruction

31. Section 98.156 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (d) to 

read as follows:

§98.156 Data reporting requirements.
Page 223 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(a) In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), the HCFC-22 production facility 

shall report the following information for each HCFC-22 production process:

* * * * *

(d) If the HFC-23 concentration measured pursuant to §98.154(l) is greater than that 

measured during the performance test that is the basis for the destruction efficiency (DE), the 

facility shall report the method used to calculate the revised destruction efficiency, specifying 

whether §98.154(l)(1) or (l)(2) has been used for the calculation.

* * * * *

Subpart P—Hydrogen Production

32. Section 98.163 is amended by revising parameter “CO2” of Equation P-3 in paragraph 

(b)(3) to read as follows:

§98.163 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

* * * * *

CO2 = Annual CO2 emissions from fuel and feedstock consumption (metric 

tons/yr).

* * * * *

33. Section 98.164 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

§98.164 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *
Page 224 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(1) Calibrate all oil and gas flow meters that are used to measure liquid and gaseous fuel 

and feedstock volumes (except for gas billing meters) according to the monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements for the Tier 3 methodology in §98.34(b)(1). Perform oil tank drop measurements (if 

used to quantify liquid fuel or feedstock consumption) according to §98.34(b)(2). Calibrate all 

solids weighing equipment according to the procedures in §98.3(i).

* * * * *

34. Section 98.166 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(4), (d), and (e) to read as 

follows:

§98.166 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(4) Annual quantity of ammonia intentionally produced as a desired product, if applicable 

(metric tons).

* * * * *

(d) Annual quantity of carbon other than CO2 collected and transferred off site in either 

gas, liquid, or solid forms (kg carbon), excluding methanol.

(e) Annual quantity of methanol intentionally produced as a desired product, if 

applicable, (metric tons) for each process unit.

Subpart Q—Iron and Steel Production

35. Section 98.173 is amended by revising Equation Q-5 in paragraph (b)(1)(v) to read as 

follows:

§98.173 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *
Page 225 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(v) * * *

CO2 =

44

12∗ [

(Iron) ∗ (Ciron) + (Scrap) ∗ (Cscrap) + (Flux) ∗ (CFlux) + /Electrode ∗ (CElectrode) + (Carbon)

∗ (CCarbon) − (Steel) ∗ (CSteel) + (Fg) ∗ (Cgf) ∗

MW

MVC ∗ 0.001− (Slag) ∗ (CSlag) − (R) ∗ (CR

)

]

(Eq. Q-5)

* * * * *

36. Section 98.176 is amended by revising Equation Q-10 in paragraph (e)(6)(ii), 

Equation Q-11 in paragraph (e)(6)(iii), Equation Q-12 in paragraph (e)(6)(iv), and the parameter 

“n” of Equation Q-12 in paragraph (e)(6)(iv) to read as follows:

§98.176 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(6) * * *

(ii) * * *

NFI = ∑ (

O + Iron + Scrap + Flux + Carbon + Coal + Feed

+ Electrode + Steelin + Ore + Other )

n

i=1

(Eq. Q-10)

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

Products = ∑ (P + R + Steelout + Slag + Coke + Sinter + Iron + NM)

n

i=1

(Eq. Q-11)

* * * * *

(iv) * * *

CFavg =

∑ (Fg,i

n

i=1

∗

MWi

MVC∗Cgf,i

∗0.001 +Fl,i∗Clf,i∗0.001+ Fs ,i∗Csf)

Fuel

(Eq. Q-12)

* * * * *
Page 226 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

n = Number of gaseous, liquid, and solid fuel inputs to each process unit as used 

in Equation Q-9.

* * * * *

Subpart S—Lime Manufacturing

37. Section 98.196 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text and adding 

paragraphs (b)(19) through (21) to read as follows:

§98.196 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(b) If a CEMS is not used to measure CO2 emissions, then you must report the 

information listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (21) of this section.

* * * * *

(19) Annual emission factors for each lime product type produced.

(20) Annual emission factors for each calcined byproduct/waste by lime type that is sold.

(21) Annual average results of chemical composition analysis of each type of lime 

product produced and calcined byproduct/waste sold.

Subpart U—Miscellaneous Uses of Carbonate

38. Section 98.216 is amended by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to read as 

follows:

§98.216 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) If you followed the calculation method of §98.213(a), you must report the information 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section.

* * * * *
Page 227 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Subpart V—Nitric Acid Production

39. Section 98.220 is amended to read as follows:

§98.220 Definition of source category.

A nitric acid production facility uses one or more trains to produce nitric acid. A nitric 

acid train produces nitric acid through the catalytic oxidation of ammonia.

40. Section 98.223 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§98.223 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *

(2) Request Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O 

emissions according to paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(iv) of this section.

(i) If you received Administrator approval for an alternative method of determining N2O 

emissions in the previous reporting year and your methodology is unchanged, your alternative 

method is automatically approved for the next reporting year.

(ii) You must notify the EPA of your use of a previously approved alternative method in 

your annual report.

(iii) Otherwise, you must submit the request within 45 days following promulgation of 

this subpart or within the first 30 days of each subsequent reporting year.

(iv) If the Administrator does not approve your requested alternative method within 150 

days of the end of the reporting year, you must determine the N2O emissions for the current 

reporting period using the procedures specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

* * * * *

41. Section 98.226 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§98.226 Data reporting requirements.
Page 228 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

(h) Abatement technologies used (if applicable) and date of installation of abatement 

technology.

* * * * *

Subpart X—Petrochemical Production

42. Section 98.240 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§98.240 Definition of the source category.

(a) The petrochemical production source category consists of processes as described in 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section. 

(1) The petrochemical production source category consists of all processes that produce 

acrylonitrile, carbon black, ethylene, ethylene dichloride, ethylene oxide, or methanol, except as 

specified in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section. 

(2) The petrochemical production source category includes processes that produce the 

petrochemical as an intermediate in the on-site production of other chemicals as well as 

processes that produce the petrochemical as an end product for sale or shipment off site.

(3) When ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer are produced in an integrated 

process, you may consider the entire integrated process to be the petrochemical process for the 

purpose of complying with the mass balance option in §98.243(c). If you elect to consider the 

integrated process to be the petrochemical process, then the mass balance must be performed 

over the entire integrated process.

* * * * *

43. Section 98.243 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4) introductory text, and 

(c)(4)(i) to read as follows:
Page 229 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

§98.243 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(3) Collect a sample of each feedstock and product at least once per month and determine 

the molecular weight (for gaseous materials when the quantity is measured in scf) and carbon 

content of each sample according to the procedures of §98.244(b)(4). If multiple valid molecular 

weight or carbon content measurements are made during the monthly measurement period, 

average them arithmetically. However, if a particular liquid or solid feedstock is delivered in 

lots, and if multiple deliveries of the same feedstock are received from the same supply source in 

a given calendar month, only one representative sample is required. Alternatively, you may use 

the results of analyses conducted by a feedstock supplier, or product customer, provided the 

sampling and analysis is conducted at least once per month using any of the procedures specified 

in §98.244(b)(4).

(4) If you determine that the monthly average concentration of a specific compound in a 

feedstock or product is greater than 99.5 percent by volume or mass, then as an alternative to the 

sampling and analysis specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, you may determine molecular 

weight and carbon content in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(i) Calculate the molecular weight and carbon content assuming 100 percent of that 

feedstock or product is the specific compound.

* * * * *

44. Section 98.246 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(6)(ii), and (a)(6)(iii);

b. Adding paragraphs (a)(14) and (15); and
Page 230 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), and (8).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.246 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(5) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each process unit 

(metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl 

chloride monomer process, report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric 

tons) or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an 

estimate of the ethylene dichloride production (metric tons).

(6) * * *

(ii) Description of each type of measurement device (e.g., flow meter, weighing device) 

used to determine volume or mass in accordance with §98.244(b)(1) through (3).

(iii) Identification of each method (i.e., method number, title, or other description) used to 

determine volume or mass in accordance with §98.244(b)(1) through (3).

* * * * *

(14) Annual average of the measurements of the carbon content of each feedstock and 

product.

(i) For feedstocks and products that are gaseous or solid, report this quantity in kg carbon 

per kg of feedstock or product.

(ii) For liquid feedstocks and products, report this quantity either in units of kg carbon per 

kg of feedstock or production, or kg C per gallon of feedstock or product.
Page 231 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(15) For each gaseous feedstock and product, the annual average of the measurements of 

molecular weight in units of kg per kg mole.

(b) * * *

(2) For CEMS used on stacks that include emissions from stationary combustion units 

that burn any amount of off-gas from the petrochemical process, report the relevant information 

required under §98.36(c)(2) and (e)(2)(vi) for the Tier 4 calculation methodology. Sections 

98.36(c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(ix) and (c)(2)(x) do not apply for the purposes of this subpart.

(3) For CEMS used on stacks that do not include emissions from stationary combustion 

units, report the information required under §98.36(b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(9)(i), (b)(9)(ii) and 

(e)(2)(vi).

* * * * *

(8) Annual quantity of each type of petrochemical produced from each process unit 

(metric tons). If your petrochemical process is an integrated ethylene dichloride and vinyl 

chloride monomer process, report either the measured ethylene dichloride production (metric 

tons) or both the measured quantity of vinyl chloride monomer production (metric tons) and an 

estimate of the ethylene dichloride product (metric tons).

* * * * *

45. Section 98.247 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 98.247 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *

(a) If you comply with the CEMS measurement methodology in §98.243(b), then you 

must retain under this subpart the records required for the Tier 4 Calculation Methodology in 

§98.37, records of the procedures used to develop estimates of the fraction of total emissions 
Page 232 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

attributable to petrochemical processing and combustion of petrochemical process off-gas as 

required in §98.246(b), and records of any annual average HHV calculations.

* * * * *

46. Section 98.248 is amended by revising the definition for “Product” to read as follows:

§98.248 Definitions.

* * * * *

Product means each of the following carbon-containing outputs from a process: the 

petrochemical, recovered byproducts, and liquid organic wastes that are not combusted onsite. 

Product does not include process vent emissions, fugitive emissions, or wastewater.

Subpart Y—Petroleum Refineries

47. Section 98.253 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1)(iii)(B), (h)(1) introductory text, and 

(h)(2) introductory text;

b. Revising parameters “0.98” of Equations Y-16a and Y-16b and “0.02” of Equation Y17 in paragraph (h)(2); and

c. Revising paragraph (i) and paragraph (j) introductory text.

The revisions read as follows:

§98.253 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *

(b) For flares, calculate GHG emissions according to the requirements in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. All gas discharged through the flare stack must be 

considered for the flare GHG emissions calculations with the exception of gas used for the flare 

pilots, which may be excluded.
Page 233 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(B) For periods of normal operation, use the average higher heating value measured for 

the fuel gas used as flare sweep or purge gas for the higher heating value of the flare gas. If 

higher heating value of the fuel gas is not measured, the higher heating value of the flare gas 

under normal operations may be estimated from historic data or engineering calculations.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(1) For uncontrolled asphalt blowing operations or asphalt blowing operations controlled 

either by vapor scrubbing or by another non-combustion control device, calculate CO2 and CH4

emissions using Equations Y-14 and Y-15 of this section, respectively.

* * * * *

(2) For asphalt blowing operations controlled by either a thermal oxidizer, a flare, or 

other vapor combustion control device, calculate CO2 using either Equation Y-16a or Equation 

Y-16b of this section and calculate CH4 emissions using Equation Y-17 of this section, provided 

these emissions are not already included in the flare emissions calculated in paragraph (b) of this 

section or in the stationary combustion unit emissions required under subpart C of this part 

(General Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources).

* * * * *

0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device.

* * * * *

0.98 = Assumed combustion efficiency of the control device.

* * * * *
Page 234 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

0.02 = Fraction of methane uncombusted in the controlled stream based on 

assumed 98% combustion efficiency.

* * * * *

(i) For each delayed coking unit, calculate the CH4 emissions from delayed decoking 

operations (venting, draining, deheading, and coke-cutting) according to the requirements in 

paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(5).

(1) Determine the typical dry mass of coke produced per cycle from company records of 

the mass of coke produced by the delayed coking unit. Alternatively, you may estimate the 

typical dry mass of coke produced per cycle based on the delayed coking unit vessel (coke drum)

dimensions and typical coke drum outage at the end of the coking cycle using Equation Y-18a of

this section. 

 

2

coke bulk drum outage

π D

M ρ H H 

4

  

       

(Eq. Y-18a)

Where:

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the 

coking cycle (metric tons/cycle).

ρbulk = Bulk coke bed density (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default 

value of 0.0191 mt/ft3.

Hdrum = Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel (feet).

Houtage = Typical distance from the top of the delayed coking unit vessel to the top of 

the coke bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at the end of the coking cycle (feet)

from company records or engineering estimates.

D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet).

(2) Determine the typical mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the 

cooling cycle prior to venting to the atmosphere using Equation Y-18b of this section. 

 

2

coke

water water water

particle

π D M

M ρ H 

4 ρ

  

       

(Eq. Y-18b)
Page 235 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Where:

Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling 

cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons/cycle).

ρwater = Density of water at average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel at 

the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons 

per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default value of 0.0270 mt/ft3.

Hwater = Typical distance from the bottom of the coking unit vessel to the top of the 

water level at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting 

(feet) from company records or engineering estimates.

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the 

coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section.

ρparticle = Particle density of coke (metric tons per cubic feet; mt/ft3). Use the default 

value of 0.0382 mt/ft3.

D = Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet).

(3) Determine the average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum 

is first vented to the atmosphere using either Equation Y-18c or Y-18d of this section, as 

appropriate, based on the measurement system available.

Tinitial =(Toverhead+ Tbottom)/2 (Eq. Y-18c)

Where:

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is 

first vented to the atmosphere (°F).

Toverhead = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line measured as 

near the coking unit vessel as practical just prior to venting to the 

atmosphere. If the temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead 

line is less than 216 °F, use Toverhead = 216 °F.

Tbottom = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel near the bottom of the coke 

bed. If the temperature at the bottom of the coke bed is less than 212 °F, use 

Tbottom = 212 °F.

Tinitial = -0.039 Poverhead

2

+ 3.13 Poverhead+220 (Eq. Y-18d)

Where:

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is 

first vented to the atmosphere (°F).
Page 236 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Poverhead = Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel just prior to opening the 

atmospheric vent (pounds per square inch gauge, psig).

(4) Determine the typical mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle using 

Equation Y-18e of this section. 

 ConvLoss water p,water coke p,coke initial fin     al

steam

vap

1 f M C M C T T

M 

H

      





(Eq. Y-18e)

Where:

Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric 

tons/cycle).

fConvLoss = fraction of total heat loss that is due to convective heat loss from the sides of 

the coke vessel (unitless). Use the default value of 0.10.

Mwater = Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling 

cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (metric tons/cycle).

Cp,water = Heat capacity of water (British thermal units per metric ton per degree 

Fahrenheit; Btu/mt-°F). Use the default value of 2,205 Btu/mt-°F.

Mcoke = Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the 

coking cycle (metric tons/cycle) as determined in paragraph (i)(1) of this 

section.

Cp,coke = Heat capacity of petroleum coke (Btu/mt-°F). Use the default value of 584 

Btu/mt-°F.

Tinitial = Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is 

first vented to the atmosphere (°F) as determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this 

section.

Tfinal = Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when steam generation stops 

(°F). Use the default value of 212 °F.

ΔHvap = Heat of vaporization of water (British thermal units per metric ton; Btu/mt). 

Use the default value of 2,116,000 Btu/mt.

(5) Calculate the CH4 emissions from decoking operations at each delayed coking unit 

using Equation Y-18f of this section.

CH = M ×EmF ×N×0.001 4 steam DCU 

(Eq. Y-18f)

Where:
Page 237 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

CH4 = Annual methane emissions from the delayed coking unit decoking 

operations (metric ton/year).

Msteam = Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric tons/cycle)

as determined in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.

EmFDCU = Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per metric 

ton of steam; kg CH4/mt steam) from unit-specific measurement data. If you 

do not have unit-specific measurement data, use the default value of 7.9 kg 

CH4/metric ton steam.

N = Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles) for all 

delayed coking unit vessels associated with the delayed coking unit during 

the year.

0.001 = Conversion factor (metric ton/kg).

(j) For each process vent not covered in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this section that can 

reasonably be expected to contain greater than 2 percent by volume CO2 or greater than 0.5 

percent by volume of CH4 or greater than 0.01 percent by volume (100 parts per million) of N2O, 

calculate GHG emissions using Equation Y-19 of this section. You must also use Equation Y-19 

of this section to calculate CH4 emissions for catalytic reforming unit depressurization and purge 

vents when methane is used as the purge gas, and CO2 and/or CH4 emissions, as applicable, if 

you elected this method as an alternative to the methods in paragraphs (f), (h), or (k) of this 

section.

* * * * *

48. Section 98.254 is amended by revising paragraph (j), redesignating paragraph (k) as 

paragraph (l), and adding new paragraph (k) to read as follows:

§98.254 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(j) Determine the quantity of petroleum process streams using company records. These 

quantities include the quantity of coke produced per cycle, asphalt blown, quantity of crude oil 
Page 238 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

plus the quantity of intermediate products received from off site, and the quantity of unstabilized 

crude oil received at the facility.

(k) Determine temperature or pressure of delayed coking unit vessel using process 

instrumentation operated, maintained, and calibrated according to the manufacturer's 

instructions.

(l) The owner or operator shall document the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of 

the estimates of fuel usage, gas composition, and heating value including but not limited to 

calibration of weighing equipment, fuel flow meters, and other measurement devices. The 

estimated accuracy of measurements made with these devices shall also be recorded, and the 

technical basis for these estimates shall be provided.

49. Section 98.256 is amended by revising paragraphs (e)(3) and (6), (h)(5)(ii)(A), and 

(k) to read as follows:

§98.256 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(3) A description of the flare service (general facility flare, unit flare, emergency only or 

back-up flare) and an indication of whether or not the flare is serviced by a flare gas recovery 

system.

* * * * *

(6) If you use Equation Y-1a of §98.253, an indication of whether daily or weekly 

measurement periods are used, annual average carbon content of the flare gas (in kg carbon per 

kg flare gas), and, either the annual volume of flare gas combusted (in scf/year) and the annual 

average molecular weight (in kg/kg-mole), or, the annual mass of flare gas combusted (in kg/yr).
Page 239 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(5) * * *

(ii) * * *

(A) The annual volume of recycled tail gas (in scf/year).

* * * * *

(k) For each delayed coking unit, the owner or operator shall report:

(1) The unit ID number (if applicable).

(2) Maximum rated throughput of the unit, in bbl/stream day.

(3) Annual quantity of coke produced in the unit during the reporting year, in metric tons.

(4) The calculated annual CH4 emissions (in metric tons of CH4) for the delayed coking 

unit.

(5) The total number of delayed coking vessels (or coke drums) associated with the 

delayed coking unit.

(6) The basis for the typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end 

of the coking cycle (mass measurements from company records or calculated using Equation Y18a).

(7) An indication of the method used to estimate the average temperature of the coke bed, 

Tinitial (overhead temperature and Equation Y-18c or pressure correlation and Equation Y-18d).

(8) An indication of whether a unit-specific methane emissions factor or the default 

methane emission factor was used for the delayed coking unit. 

* * * * *

50. Section 98.257 is amended by:
Page 240 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

a. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text and (b)(41) through (43);

b. Removing paragraph (b)(44) and revising and redesignating paragraph (a)(45) as 

paragraph (a)(44); 

c. Adding new paragraph (b)(45); 

d. Removing paragraph (b)(46) 

e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(47) through (67) as paragraphs (b)(53) through (73); 

e. Adding new paragraphs (b)(46) through (52); and

f. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (b)(65).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.257 Records that must be retained.

* * * * *

(b) Verification software records. You must keep a record of the file generated by the 

verification software specified in §98.5(b) for the applicable data specified in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (73) of this section. Retention of this file satisfies the recordkeeping requirement for the 

data in paragraphs (b)(1) through (73) of this section.

* * * * *

(41) Typical dry mass of coke in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the coking 

cycle (metric tons/cycle) from company records or calculated using Equation Y-18a (Equations 

Y-18a, Y-18b and Y-18e of §98.253) for each delayed coking unit.

(42) Internal height of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equation Y-18a) for each 

delayed coking unit.
Page 241 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(43) Typical distance from the top of the delayed coking unit vessel to the top of the coke 

bed (i.e., coke drum outage) at the end of the coking cycle (feet) from company records or 

engineering estimates (Equation Y-18a) for each delayed coking unit.

(44) Diameter of delayed coking unit vessel (feet) (Equation Y-18a and Y-18b) for each 

delayed coking unit.

(45) Mass of water in the delayed coking unit vessel at the end of the cooling cycle prior 

to atmospheric venting (metric ton/cycle) (Equations Y-18b and Y-18e) for each delayed coking 

unit.

(46) Typical distance from the bottom of the coking unit vessel to the top of the water 

level at the end of the cooling cycle just prior to atmospheric venting (feet) from company 

records or engineering estimates (Equation Y-18b) for each delayed coking unit.

(47) Mass of steam generated and released per decoking cycle (metric tons/cycle) 

(Equations Y-18e and Y-18f of §98.253) for each delayed coking unit.

(48) Average temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel when the drum is first vented 

to the atmosphere (°F) (Equations Y-18c, Y-18d, and Y-18e of §98.253) for each delayed coking 

unit.

(49) Temperature of the delayed coking unit vessel overhead line measured as near the 

coking unit vessel as practical just prior to venting the atmosphere (Equation Y-18c) for each 

delayed coking unit.

(50) Pressure of the delayed coking unit vessel just prior to opening the atmospheric vent

(psig) (Equation Y-18d) for each delayed coking unit.

(51) Methane emission factor for delayed coking unit (kilograms CH4 per metric ton of 

steam; kg CH4/mt steam) (Equation Y-18f) for each delayed coking unit.
Page 242 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(52) Cumulative number of decoking cycles (or coke-cutting cycles) for all delayed 

coking unit vessels associated with the delayed coking unit during the year (Equation Y-18f) for 

each delayed coking unit.

* * * * *

(65) Specify whether the calculated or default loading factor L specified in §98.253(n) is 

entered, for each liquid loaded to each vessel (methods specified in §98.253(n)).

* * * * *

Subpart Z—Phosphoric Acid Production

51. Section 98.266 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(3) to read as follows:

§98.266 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(f) * * *

(3) Annual phosphoric acid production capacity (tons) for each wet-process phosphoric 

acid process line.

* * * * *

Subpart AA—Pulp and Paper Manufacturing

52. Section 98.273 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), and (c)(1) to read as 

follows:

§98.273 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *

(1) Calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions from direct measurement of fossil fuels 

consumed and default emissions factors according to the Tier 1 methodology for stationary 

combustion sources in §98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from §98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be used to 
Page 243 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

described in §98.34 are met.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Calculate fossil CO2 emissions from fossil fuels from direct measurement of fossil 

fuels consumed and default emissions factors according to the Tier 1 Calculation Methodology 

for stationary combustion sources in §98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from §98.33(a)(2) or (3) may be 

used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements described in §98.34 are met.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Calculate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel from direct measurement of fossil fuels 

consumed and default HHV and default emissions factors, according to the Tier 1 Calculation 

Methodology for stationary combustion sources in §98.33(a)(1). Tiers 2 or 3 from §98.33(a)(2)

or (3) may be used to calculate fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions if the respective monitoring and 

QA/QC requirements described in §98.34 are met.

* * * * *

53. Section 98.275 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§98.275 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *

(b) For missing measurements of the mass of spent liquor solids or spent pulping liquor 

flow rates, use the lesser value of either the maximum mass or fuel flow rate for the combustion 

unit, or the maximum mass or flow rate that the fuel meter can measure. Alternatively, records of 
Page 244 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

the daily spent liquor solids firing rate obtained to comply with §63.866(c)(1) may be used, 

adjusting for the duration of the missing measurements, as appropriate.

* * * * *

54. Table AA-2 to Subpart AA of Part 98 is amended by:

a. Revising the column headings for “Kraft lime kilns” and “Kraft calciners”;

b. Revising the entry for “Petroleum coke”; and 

c. Revising the footnotes. 

The revisions read as follows:

Table AA-2 to Subpart AA of Part 98—Kraft Lime Kiln and Calciner Emissions Factors 

for CH4 and N2O

Fuel

Fossil fuel-based emissions factors (kg/mmBtu HHV)

Kraft rotary lime kilns Kraft calcinersa

CH4 N2O CH4 N2O

* * * * * * *

Petroleum coke 0.0027 0

bNA bNA

* * * * * * *

a

Includes, for example, fluidized bed calciners at kraft mills.

b Emission factors for kraft calciners are not available.

Subpart CC—Soda Ash Manufacturing

55. Section 98.294 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§98.294 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) Measure the mass of trona input to each soda ash manufacturing line on a monthly 

basis using belt scales or methods used for accounting purposes.

* * * * *
Page 245 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

56. Section 98.296 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(5) to read as 

follows:

§98.296 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(1) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level (tons).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Annual consumption of trona or liquid alkaline feedstock at the facility level (tons).

* * * * *

Subpart DD—Electrical Transmission and Distribution Equipment Use

57. Section 98.306 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) and adding 

paragraphs (a)(4), (a)(5), (m), and (n) to read as follows:

§98.306 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) * * *

(2) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year. 

(3) New SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the year.

(4) Retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.

(5) Retired SF6- or PFC-insulated equipment other than hermetically sealed-pressure 

switchgear during the year.

* * * * *
Page 246 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(m) State(s) or territory in which the facility lies and total miles of transmission and 

distribution lines located within each state or territory.

(n) The following numbers of pieces of equipment:

(1) New hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.

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

switchgear during the year.

(3) Retired hermetically sealed-pressure switchgear during the year.

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

switchgear during the year.

Subpart FF—Underground Coal Mines

58. Section 98.323 is amended by:

a. Revising parameter “n” of Equation FF-1 in paragraph (a);

b. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text andparagraph (a)(2);

c. Revising parameter “CH4D” and “n” of Equation FF-3 in paragraph (b); and

d. Revising paragraph (b)(1) and paragraph (b)(2) introductory text.

The revisions and additions read as follows: 

§98.323 Calculating GHG emissions.

* * * * *

n = The number of days in the quarter where active ventilation of mining 

operations is taking place at the monitoring point. To obtain the number of 

days in the quarter, divide the total number of hours in the quarter where 

active ventilation is taking place by 24 hours per day.

* * * * *

(1) The quarterly periods are:

* * * * *
Page 247 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(2) Values of V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O), must be based on measurements taken 

at least once each quarter with no fewer than 6 weeks between measurements. If measurements 

are taken more frequently than once per quarter, then use the average value for all measurements 

taken that quarter. If continuous measurements are taken, then use the average value over the 

time period of continuous monitoring.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

* * * * *

CH4D = Weekly CH4 liberated from the monitoring point (metric tons CH4).

* * * * *

n = The number of days in the week that the system is operational at that 

measurement point. To obtain the number of days in the week, divide the 

total number of hours that the system is operational by 24 hours per day.

* * * * *

(1) Values for V, C, T, P, and, if applicable, (fH2O), must be based on measurements taken 

at least once each calendar week with at least 3 days between measurements. If measurements 

are taken more frequently than once per week, then use the average value for all measurements 

taken that week. If continuous measurements are taken, then use the average values over the time 

period of continuous monitoring when the continuous monitoring equipment is properly 

functioning.

(2) Quarterly total CH4 liberated from degasification systems for the mine must be 

determined as the sum of CH4 liberated determined at each of the monitoring points in the mine, 

summed over the number of weeks in the quarter, as follows:

* * * * *
Page 248 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

59. Section 98.324 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (b)(1);

b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(2); and

c. Revising paragraph (h).

The revisions read as follows: 

§98.324 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Collect quarterly or more frequent grab samples (with no fewer than 6 weeks between 

measurements) for methane concentration and make quarterly measurements of flow rate, 

temperature, pressure, and, if applicable, moisture content. The sampling and measurements 

must be made at the same locations as Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) 

inspection samples are taken, and should be taken when the mine is operating under normal 

conditions. You must follow MSHA sampling procedures as set forth in the MSHA Handbook 

entitled, Coal Mine Safety and Health General Inspection Procedures Handbook Number: PH13-

V-1, February 2013 (incorporated by reference, see §98.7). You must record the date of 

sampling, flow, temperature, pressure, and moisture measurements, the methane concentration 

(percent), the bottle number of samples collected, and the location of the measurement or 

collection.

* * * * *

(h) The owner or operator shall document the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of 

gas flow rate, gas composition, temperature, pressure, and moisture content measurements. 

These procedures include, but are not limited to, calibration of flow meters, and other 
Page 249 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

measurement devices. The estimated accuracy of measurements, and the technical basis for the 

estimated accuracy shall be recorded.

60. Section 98.326 is amended by revising paragraphs (f) through (i), (o), (r)(2) and 

(r)(3), and adding paragraph (u) to read as follows: 

§98.326 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(f) Quarterly volumetric flow rate for each ventilation monitoring point and units of 

measure (scfm or acfm), date and location of each measurement, and method of measurement 

(quarterly sampling or continuous monitoring), used in Equation FF-1 of this subpart. Specify 

whether the volumetric flow rate measurement at each ventilation monitoring point is on dry 

basis or wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, indicate whether or not the flow meter 

automatically corrects for moisture content.

(g) Quarterly CH4 concentration for each ventilation monitoring point, dates and 

locations of each measurement, and method of measurement (sampling or continuous 

monitoring). Specify whether the CH4 concentration measurement at each ventilation monitoring 

point is on dry basis or wet basis.

(h) Weekly volumetric flow rate used to calculate CH4 liberated from degasification 

systems and units of measure (acfm or scfm), and method of measurement (sampling or 

continuous monitoring), used in Equation FF-3 of this subpart. Specify whether the volumetric 

flow rate measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis; or, if 

a flow meter is used, indicate whether or not the flow meter automatically corrects for moisture 

content.
Page 250 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(i) Quarterly CH4 concentration (%) used to calculate CH4 liberated from degasification 

systems, and if the data is based on CEMS or weekly sampling. Specify whether the CH4

concentration measurement at each degasification monitoring point is on dry basis or wet basis.

* * * * *

(o) Temperature (°R), pressure (atm), moisture content (if applicable), and the moisture 

correction factor (if applicable) used in Equations FF-1 and FF-3 of this subpart; and the gaseous 

organic concentration correction factor, if Equation FF-9 was required. Moisture content is 

required to be reported only if CH4 concentration is measured on a wet basis and volumetric flow 

is measured on a dry basis, if CH4 concentration is measured on a dry basis and volumetric flow 

is measured on a wet basis; or, if a flow meter is used, the flow meter does not automatically 

correct for moisture content.

* * * * *

(r) * * *

(2) Start date and close date of each well, shaft, and vent hole. If the well, shaft, or vent 

hole is operating through the end of the reporting year, December 31st of the reporting year shall 

be the close date for purposes of reporting. 

(3) Number of days the well, shaft, or vent hole was in operation during the reporting 

year. To obtain the number of days in the reporting year, divide the total number of hours that the 

system was in operation by 24 hours per day.

* * * * *

(u) Annual coal production in short tons for the reporting year.
Page 251 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Subpart HH—Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

61. Section 98.346 is amended by revising paragraphs (f), (i)(5), and (i)(7), and adding 

paragraph (i)(13) to read as follows: 

§98.346 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(f) The surface area of the landfill containing waste (in square meters), identification of 

the type(s) of cover material used (as either organic cover, clay cover, sand cover, or other soil 

mixtures). 

* * * * *

(i) * * *

(5) An indication of whether destruction occurs at the landfill facility, off-site, or both. If 

destruction occurs at the landfill facility, also report for each measurement location:

(i) The number of destruction devices associated with the measurement location.

(ii) The annual operating hours of the gas collection system associated with the

measurement location,

(iii) For each destruction device associated with the measurement location, report:

(A) The destruction efficiency (decimal).

(B) The annual operating hours where active gas flow was sent to the destruction device.

* * * * *

(7) A description of the gas collection system (manufacturer, capacity, and number of 

wells), the surface area (square meters) and estimated waste depth (meters) for each area 

specified in Table HH-3 to this subpart, the estimated gas collection system efficiency for 

landfills with this gas collection system and an indication of whether the gas collection efficiency 
Page 252 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

was determined on an area-weighted average basis (Option 1) or a volume-weighted average 

basis (Option 2), and an indication of whether passive vents and/or passive flares (vents or flares 

that are not considered part of the gas collection system as defined in §98.6) are present at the 

landfill.

* * * * * 

(13) Methane emissions for the landfill (i.e., the subpart HH total methane emissions). 

Choose the methane emissions from either Equation HH-6 of this subpart or Equation HH-8 of 

this subpart that best represents the emissions from the landfill. If the quantity of recovered CH4

from Equation HH-4 of this subpart is used as the value of GCH4 in Equation HH-6 of this 

subpart, use the methane emissions calculated using Equation HH-8 of this subpart as the 

methane emissions for the landfill.

62. Section 98.348 is amended by adding definitions for “Active venting,” “Alternative 

final cover,” “Intermediate or interim cover,” and “Passive vent” in alphabetical order to read as 

follows:

§98.348 Definitions.

* * * * *

Active venting means a pipe or a system of pipes used with a fan or similar mechanical 

draft equipment (forced convection) used to actively assist the flow of landfill gas to the surface 

of the landfill where the landfill gas is discharged either directly to the atmosphere or to a noncombustion control device (such as a carbon absorber) and then to the atmosphere.

Alternative final cover means materials, other than soil, used at a landfill that meets final 

closure regulations of the competent federal, state, or local authority. Alternative final covers 

may include, but are not limited to, evapotranspiration covers, capillary barrier covers, asphalt 
Page 253 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

covers, or concrete covers. The state, local, or other agency responsible for permitting the landfill 

determines whether an alternative final cover meets the applicable regulatory requirements and 

has been shown to adequately protect human health and the environment.

* * * * * 

Intermediate or interim cover means the placement of material over waste in a landfill for 

a period of time prior to the disposal of additional waste and/or final closure as defined by state 

regulation, permit, guidance or written plan, or state accepted best management practice.

* * * * * 

Passive vent means a pipe or a system of pipes that allows landfill gas to flow naturally, 

without the use of a fan or similar mechanical draft equipment, to the surface of the landfill 

where an opening or pipe (vent) allows for the free flow of landfill gas to the atmosphere or to a 

passive vent flare without diffusion through the top layer of surface soil.

* * * * * 

63. Table HH-3 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by:

a. Revising the entry associated with “A5”;

b. Adding an entry for “Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills” to follow 

the entry associated with “A5”; and 

c. Revising the entry “Area weighted average collection efficiency for landfills”; and

d. Adding entries associated with “Option 2” to follow the new entry “Weighted average 

collection efficiency for landfills.” 

The revision and additions read as follows:

Table HH-3 to Subpart HH of Part 98—Landfill Gas Collection Efficiencies

Description Landfill Gas Collection Efficiency

* * * * * * *
Page 254 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

A5: Area with a final soil cover of 3 feet or thicker of clay or 

alternative final cover (as approved by the relevant agency) 

and/or geomembrane cover system and active gas collection

CE5: 95%.

Weighted average collection efficiency for landfills:

Option 1: Area weighted average collection efficiency for 

landfills

CEave1 = (A2*CE2 + A3*CE3 + 

A4*CE4 + A5*CE5) / (A2 + A3 + A4 + 

A5).

Option 2: Volume weighted average collection efficiency for 

landfills, where D2, D3, D4 and D5 are the waste depths for 

areas A2, A3, A4 and A5, respectively, as described above. 

CEave1 = (A2*D2*CE2 + A3*D3*CE3 + 

A4*D4*CE4 + A5*D5*CE5) / (A2*D2 + 

A3*D3 + A4*D4 + A5*D5).

64. Table HH-4 to Subpart HH of Part 98 is amended by: 

a. Revising the entries associated with “C2” through “C7”;

b. Redesignating footnote “a” as footnote “b”; and 

c. Adding new footnote “a”. 

The revisions and additions read as follows:

Table HH-4 to Subpart HH of Part 98—Landfill Methane Oxidation Fractions

Under these conditions:

Use this landfill methane 

oxidation

fraction:

* * * * * * *

C2: For landfills that have an alternative final cover (approved by 

the relevant agency) and/or a geomembrane (synthetic) cover with 

less than 12 inches of cover soil for greater than 50% of the landfill 

area containing waste

0.0

C3: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and for 

which you elect not to determine methane flux, or for landfills with 

passive vents/passive flares that service greater than 50% of the 

landfill area containing waste, or for landfills with only passive 

vents/passive flares or active venting 

0.10

C4: For landfills that do not meet the conditions in C2 above and 

that do not have intermediate or interim coverafor greater than 50% 

of the landfill area containing waste

0.10

C5: For landfills that have intermediate or interim coverafor greater 

than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the 

methane flux ratebis less than 10 grams per square meter per day 

(g/m2/d)

0.35
Page 255 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

C6: For landfills that have intermediate or interim coverafor greater 

than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the 

methane flux ratebis 10 to 70 g/m2/d

0.25

C7: For landfills that have intermediate or interim coverafor greater 

than 50% of the landfill area containing waste and for which the 

methane flux ratebis greater than 70 g/m2/d

0.10

aWhere a landfill is located in a state that does not have an intermediate or interim cover requirement, the 

landfill must have soil cover of 12 inches or greater in order to use an oxidation fraction of 0.25 or 0.35.

b Methane flux rate (in grams per square meter per day; g/m2

/d) is the mass flow rate of methane per unit 

area at the bottom of the surface soil prior to any oxidation and is calculated as follows:

* * * * * 

Subpart II—Industrial Wastewater Treatment

65. Section 98.356 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and adding 

paragraph (b)(6) to read as follows: 

§98.356 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) Identify the anaerobic processes used in the industrial wastewater treatment system to 

treat industrial wastewater and industrial wastewater treatment sludge, provide a unique 

identifier for each anaerobic process, indicate the average depth in meters of each anaerobic 

lagoon, and indicate whether biogas generated by each anaerobic process is recovered. Provide a 

description or diagram of the industrial wastewater treatment system, identifying the processes 

used, indicating how the processes are related to each other, and providing a unique identifier for 

each anaerobic process. Each anaerobic processes must be identified as one of the following:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(6) If the facility performs an ethanol production processing operation as defined in 

§98.358 of this subpart, you must indicate if the facility uses a wet milling process or a dry 

milling process.
Page 256 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * *

66. Section 98.358 is amended by adding definitions for “Dry milling,” “Wet milling,” 

and “Weekly average” in alphabetical order to read as follows:

§98.358 Definitions.

* * * * *

Dry milling means the process in which shelled corn is milled by dry process, without an 

initial steeping step.

* * * * *

Wet milling means the process in which shelled corn is steeped in a dilute solution of 

sulfurous acid (sulfur dioxide dissolved in water) prior to further processing.

Weekly average means the sum of all values measured in a calendar week divided by the 

number of measurements.

Subpart LL—Suppliers of Coal-based Liquid Fuels

67. Section 98.382 is amended to read as follows:

§98.382 GHGs to report.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must report the CO2 emissions that would result from 

the complete combustion or oxidation of fossil-fuel products (besides coal or crude oil) 

produced, used as feedstock, imported, or exported during the calendar year. Additionally, 

producers must report CO2 emissions that would result from the complete combustion or 

oxidation of any biomass co-processed with fossil fuel-based feedstocks.

68. Section 98.383 is amended to read as follows:

§98.383 Calculating GHG emissions.
Page 257 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the calculation methods of §98.393 as if 

they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier (i.e., calculation methods for 

refiners apply to producers of coal-to-liquid products and calculation methods for importers and 

exporters of petroleum products apply to importers and exporters of coal-to-liquid products).

(a) In calculation methods in §98.393 for petroleum products or petroleum-based 

products, suppliers of coal-to-liquid products shall also include coal-to-liquid products.

(b) In calculation methods in §98.393 for non-crude feedstocks or non-crude petroleum 

feedstocks, producers of coal-to-liquid products shall also include coal-to-liquid products that 

enter the facility to be further processed or otherwise used on site.

(c) In calculation methods in §98.393 for petroleum feedstocks, suppliers of coal-toliquid products shall also include coal and coal-to-liquid products that enter the facility to be 

further processed or otherwise used on site.

69. Section 98.384 is amended to read as follows:

§98.384 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the monitoring and QA/QC requirements 

in §98.394 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier. Any monitoring 

and QA/QC requirement for petroleum products in §98.394 also applies to coal-to-liquid 

products.

70. Section 98.385 is amended to read as follows:

§98.385 Procedures for estimating missing data.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must follow the procedures for estimating missing 

data in §98.395 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier. Any 
Page 258 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

procedure for estimating missing data for petroleum products in §98.395 also applies to coal-toliquid products.

71. Section 98.386 is amended by:

a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(4), (8), and (15);

b. Revising paragraphs (a)(9) introductory text, (a)(10) introductory text, (a)(11) 

introductory text, and (a)(20);

c. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(4); 

d. Revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory text and (b)(6) introductory text;

e. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4); and 

f. Revising paragraphs (c)(5) introductory text and (c)(6) introductory text.

The revisions read as follows:

§98.386 Data reporting requirements.

In addition to the information required by §98.3(c), the following requirements apply:

(a) * * *

(9) For every feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for which Calculation 

Method 2 of subpart MM of this part was used to determine an emissions factor, report:

* * * * * 

(10) For every non-solid feedstock reported in paragraph (a)(2) of this section for which 

Calculation Method 2 of subpart MM of this part was used to determine an emissions factor, 

report:

* * * * * 

(11) For every product reported in paragraph (a)(6) of this section for which Calculation 

Method 2 of this subpart was used to determine an emissions factor, report:
Page 259 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

* * * * * 

(20) Annual quantity of bulk NGLs in metric tons or barrels received for processing 

during the reporting year. Report only quantities of bulk NGLs not reported in (a)(2) of this 

section.

(b) * * *

(5) For each product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for which Calculation 

Method 2 of this subpart used was used to determine an emissions factor, report:

* * * * * 

(6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for which 

Calculation Method 2 of this subpart was used to determine an emissions factor, report:

* * * * * 

(c) * * *

(5) For each product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for which Calculation 

Method 2 of this subpart was used to determine an emissions factor, report:

* * * * * 

(6) For each non-solid product reported in paragraph (c)(2) of this section for which 

Calculation Method 2 of this subpart used was used to determine an emissions factor, report:

* * * * *

72. Section 98.387 is amended to read as follows:

§98.387 Records that must be retained.

Suppliers of coal-based liquid fuels must retain records according to the requirements in 

§98.397 as if they applied to the appropriate coal-to-liquid product supplier (e.g., retaining 

copies of all reports submitted to EPA under §98.386 and records to support information 
Page 260 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

contained in those reports). Any records for petroleum products that are required to be retained in 

§98.397 are also required for coal-to-liquid products.

Subpart MM—Suppliers of Petroleum Products

73. Section 98.395 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

Subpart NN—Suppliers of Natural Gas and Natural Gas Liquids

74. Section 98.401 is amended to read as follows: 

§98.401 Reporting threshold.

Any supplier of natural gas and natural gas liquids that meets the requirements of 

§98.2(a)(4) must report GHG emissions associated with the products they supply.

75. Section 98.403 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;

b. Revising parameter “CO2.” of Equation NN-1 in paragraph (a)(1); 

c. Revising paragraph (a)(2) introductory text;

d. Revising parameter “CO2.” of Equation NN-2 in paragraph (a)(2);

e. Revising parameters “CO2.” and “Fuel” of Equation NN-3 in paragraph (b)(1) 

introductory text; 

f. Revising parameter “CO2.” of Equation NN-4 in paragraph (b)(2)(ii); 

g. Revising parameter “CO2.” and “EF” of Equation NN-5a in paragraph (b)(3)(i); 

h. Revising parameter “CO2.” of Equation NN-5b in paragraph (b)(3)(ii); 

i. Revising the parameters of Equation NN-6 in paragraph (b)(4); 

j. Revising parameters “CO2.” and “Fuelg” of Equation NN-7 in paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and 

k. Revising the parameters of Equation NN-8 in paragraph (c)(2). 

The revisions read as follows:
Page 261 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

§98.403 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) * * *

(1) Calculation Methodology 1. NGL fractionators shall estimate CO2 emissions that 

would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using 

Equation NN-1 of this section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall 

include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in 

Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall 

exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by 

the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2 emissions 

that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the natural gas received at the 

city gate (including natural gas that is transported by, but not owned by, the reporter) using 

Equation NN-1 of this section. For each product, use the default value for higher heating value 

and CO2 emission factor in Table NN-1 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each product, a 

reporter-specific higher heating value and CO2 emission factor may be used, in place of one or 

both defaults provided they are developed using methods outlined in §98.404. For each product, 

you must use the same volume unit throughout the equation.

* * * * *

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each product “h” for redelivery to all recipients (metric tons).

* * * * *

(2) Calculation Methodology 2. NGL fractionators shall estimate CO2 emissions that 

would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the product(s) supplied using 

Equation NN-2 of this section. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied (Fuelh) shall 

include any amount of that NGL supplied in a mixture or blend of two or more products listed in 
Page 262 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart. The annual volume of each NGL product supplied shall 

exclude any amount of that NGL contained in bulk NGLs exiting the facility not fractionated by 

the reporter (e.g., y-grade, o-grade, and other bulk NGLs). LDCs shall estimate CO2 emissions 

that would result from the complete combustion or oxidation of the natural gas received at the 

city gate (including natural gas that is transported by, but not owned by, the reporter) using 

Equation NN-2 of this section. For each product, use the default CO2 emission factor found in 

Table NN-2 of this subpart. Alternatively, for each product, a reporter-specific CO2 emission 

factor may be used in place of the default factor, provided it is developed using methods outlined 

in §98.404. For each product, you must use the same volume unit throughout the equation.

* * * * *

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each product “h” (metric tons)

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

* * * * *

CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas for redelivery to transmission pipelines or other 

LDCs (metric tons).

Fuel = Total annual volume of natural gas supplied to downstream gas transmission 

pipelines and other local distribution companies (Mscf per year).

* * * * *

(2) * * *

(ii) * * *

* * * * *
Page 263 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to each large end-user k, as defined in 

paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section (metric tons).

* * * * *

(3) * * *

(i) * * *

* * * * *

CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of the net change in natural gas stored on system by the LDC 

within the reporting year (metric tons).

* * * * *

EF = CO2 emission factor for natural gas placed into/removed from storage (MT

CO2/Mscf).

(ii) * * *

* * * * *

CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas received that bypassed the city gate and is not 

otherwise accounted for by Equation NN-1 or NN-2 of this section (metric 

tons).

* * * * *

(4) * * *

* * * * *

CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to LDC end-users not covered in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section (metric tons).

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas received at the city gate as calculated in paragraph 

(a)(1) or (2) of this section (metric tons).

CO2j = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to transmission pipelines or other LDCs 

as calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section (metric tons).
Page 264 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

CO2k = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas delivered to each large end-user as calculated in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section (metric tons).

CO2l = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of the net change in natural gas stored by the LDC within the 

reported year as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section (metric 

tons).

CO2n = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of natural gas that was received by the LDC directly from sources 

bypassing the city gate, and is not otherwise accounted for in Equation NN1 or NN-2 of this section, as calculated in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section 

(metric tons).

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

* * * * *

CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of each fractionated NGL product “g” received from other 

fractionators (metric tons).

Fuelg = Total annual volume of each NGL product “g” received from other 

fractionators (bbls).

* * * * *

(2) * * *

* * * * *

CO2 = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered to customers or on behalf of 

customers less the quantity received from other fractionators (metric tons).

CO2i = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs delivered to all customers or on behalf of 

customers as calculated in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section (metric 

tons).

CO2m = Annual CO2 mass emissions that would result from the combustion or 

oxidation of fractionated NGLs received from other fractionators and 

calculated in paragraph (c)(1) of this section (metric tons).
Page 265 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

76. Section 98.404 is amended by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and paragraphs 

(a)(3) and (4) to read as follows:

§98.404 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

(a) Determination of quantity. (1) NGL fractionators and LDCs shall determine the 

quantity of NGLs and natural gas using methods in common use in the industry for billing 

purposes as audited under existing Sarbanes Oxley regulation.

* * * * *

(3) NGL fractionators shall use measurement for NGLs at custody transfer meters or at 

such meters that are used to determine the NGL product slate delivered from the fractionation 

facility.

(4) If a NGL fractionator supplies a product that is a mixture or blend of two or more 

products listed in Tables NN-1 and NN-2 of this subpart, the NGL fractionator shall report the 

quantities of the constituents of the mixtures or blends separately.

* * * * *

77. Section 98.406 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2); 

b. Revising paragraphs (b)(1), (6), (12), and (13) introductory text; and

c. Adding paragraph (b)(14). 

The revisions read as follows:

§98.406 Data reporting requirements.

(a) * * *

(1) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product supplied (including fractionated 

NGL products received from other NGL fractionators) in the following product categories: 
Page 266 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane, and pentanes plus (Fuelh in Equations NN-1 and NN2).

(2) Annual quantity (in barrels) of each NGL product received from other NGL 

fractionators in the following product categories: ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane, and 

pentanes plus (Fuelg in Equation NN-7).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas received by the LDC at its city gate stations for 

redelivery on the LDC's distribution system, including for use by the LDC (Fuelh in Equations 

NN-1 and NN-2).

* * * * *

(6) Annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered to downstream gas transmission 

pipelines and other local distribution companies (Fuel in Equation NN-3).

* * * * *

(12) For each large end-user reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this section, report:

(i) The customer name, address, and meter number(s).

(ii) Whether the quantity of natural gas reported in paragraph (b)(7) of this section is the 

total quantity delivered to a large end-user's facility, or the quantity delivered to a specific meter 

located at the facility.

(iii) If known, report the EIA identification number of each LDC customer.

(13) The annual volume in Mscf of natural gas delivered by the LDC (including natural 

gas that is not owned by the LDC) to each of the following end-use categories. For definitions of 
Page 267 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

these categories, refer to EIA Form 176 (Annual Report of Natural Gas and Supplemental Gas 

Supply & Disposition) and Instructions.

* * * * *

(14) The name of the U.S. state or territory covered in this report submission.

* * * * *

78. Table NN-2 to subpart NN of part 98 is amended by revising the title to the table and 

the heading of the third column to read as follows:

Table NN-2 to Subpart NN of Part 98—Default Factors for Calculation Methodology 2 of 

This Subpart

Fuel Unit

Default CO2 emission factor

(MT CO2/Unit)1

* * * * * * *

1 Conditions for emission value presented in MT CO2/bbl are 60 °F and saturation pressure.

Subpart OO—Suppliers of Industrial Greenhouse Gases

79. Section 98.410 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraphs (d) and 

(e) to read as follows:

§98.410 Definition of the source category.

(a) The industrial gas supplier source category consists of any facility that produces 

fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, 

fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide; any bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide; and any facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs.

* * * * *

(d) To produce a fluorinated HTF means to manufacture, from any raw material or 

feedstock chemical, a fluorinated GHG used for temperature control, device testing, cleaning 
Page 268 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

substrate surfaces and other parts, and soldering in processes including but not limited to certain 

types of electronics manufacturing production processes. Fluorinated heat transfer fluids do not 

include fluorinated GHGs used as lubricants or surfactants. For fluorinated heat transfer fluids

under this subpart OO, the lower vapor pressure limit of 1 mm Hg in absolute at 25 °C in the 

definition of fluorinated greenhouse gas in §98.6 shall not apply. Fluorinated heat transfer fluids 

include, but are not limited to, perfluoropolyethers, perfluoroalkanes, perfluoroethers, tertiary 

perfluoroamines, and perfluorocyclic ethers. Producing a fluorinated HTF does not include the 

reuse or recycling of a fluorinated HTF, the creation of intermediates, or the creation of 

fluorinated HTFs that are released or destroyed at the production facility before the production 

measurement at §98.414(a).

(e) For purposes of this subpart OO, to destroy fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs 

means to cause the expiration of a previously produced (as defined at §98.410(b) and (d)) 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF to the destruction efficiency actually achieved. Such 

destruction does not result in a commercially useful end product. For purposes of this subpart 

OO, such destruction does not include HFC-23 destruction as defined at §98.150 or the 

dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that occurs during electronics manufacturing as defined at 

§98.90. For example, such destruction does not include the dissociation of fluorinated GHGs that 

occurs during etch or chamber cleaning processes or during use of abatement systems that treat 

the fluorinated GHGs vented from such processes at electronics manufacturing facilities.

80. Section 98.412 is amended to read as follows

§98.412 GHGs to report.
Page 269 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

You must report the GHG emissions that would result from the release of the nitrous 

oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that you produce, import, export, transform, 

or destroy during the calendar year. 

81. Section 98.413 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (a) introductory text; 

b. Revising parameters “P” and “Pp” of Equation OO-1 in paragraph (a);

c. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text; 

d. Revising parameters “Pp,” “Op,” and “Up” of Equation OO-2 in paragraph (b);

e. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text; 

f. Revising parameters “T” and “ET” of Equation OO-3 in paragraph (c);

g. Revising paragraph (d) introductory text; and

h. Revising parameters “D” and “FD” of Equation OO-4 in paragraph (d).

The revisions read as follows: 

§98.413 Calculating GHG emissions.

(a) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

produced annually, except for amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off site for 

destruction, by using Equation OO-1 of this section:

* * * * *

P = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced 

annually.

Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over 

the period “p”.

(b) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

produced over the period “p” by using Equation OO-2 of this section:

* * * * *
Page 270 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Pp = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide produced over 

the period “p” (metric tons).

Op = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is 

measured coming out of the production process over the period p (metric 

tons).

Up = Mass of used fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that is 

added to the production process upstream of the output measurement over 

the period “p” (metric tons).

(c) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

transformed by using Equation OO-3 of this section:

* * * * *

T = Mass of fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide transformed 

annually (metric tons).

* * * * *

ET = The fraction of the fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide fed 

into the transformation process that is transformed in the process (metric 

tons).

(d) Calculate the total mass of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed by 

using Equation OO-4 of this section:

* * * * *

D = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed annually (metric 

tons).

FD = Mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into the destruction device 

annually (metric tons).

* * * * *

82. Section 98.414 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) through (i), (l), (n) introductory 

text, (n)(3) through (5), and (o) to read as follows: 

§98.414 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.
Page 271 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(a) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide coming out of the 

production process shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale 

or better. If the measured mass includes more than one fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the 

concentrations of each of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, other than lowconcentration constituents, shall be measured as set forth in paragraph (n) of this section. For 

each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the mean of the concentrations of that fluorinated 

GHG (mass fraction) measured under paragraph (n) of this section shall be multiplied by the 

mass measurement to obtain the mass of that fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF coming out of 

the production process.

(b) The mass of any used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or used nitrous oxide 

added back into the production process upstream of the output measurement in paragraph (a) of 

this section shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric 

and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If 

the mass in paragraph (a) of this section is measured by weighing containers that include 

returned heels as well as newly produced fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs, the returned 

heels shall be considered used fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs for purposes of this 

paragraph (b) of this section and §98.413(b).

(c) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide fed into the 

transformation process shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale 

or better.
Page 272 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(d) The fraction of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide fed into the 

transformation process that is actually transformed shall be estimated considering yield 

calculations or quantities of unreacted fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide 

permanently removed from the process and recovered, destroyed, or emitted.

(e) The mass of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide sent to another 

facility for transformation shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of 

volumetric and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale 

or better.

(f) The mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs sent to another facility for 

destruction shall be measured using flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric 

and density measurements with an accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If 

the measured mass includes more than trace concentrations of materials other than the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF, the concentration of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF shall be estimated considering current or previous representative concentration 

measurements and other relevant process information. This concentration (mass fraction) shall be 

multiplied by the mass measurement to obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF sent to another facility for destruction.

(g) You must estimate the share of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs in 

paragraph (f) of this section that is comprised of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are 

not included in the mass produced in §98.413(a) because they are removed from the production 

process as by-products or other wastes.

(h) You must measure the mass of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is fed 

into the destruction device and that was previously produced as defined at §98.410(b). Such 
Page 273 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs include but are not limited to quantities that are shipped 

to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the facility for 

reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore destroyed. You must 

use flowmeters, weigh scales, or a combination of volumetric and density measurements with an 

accuracy and precision of one percent of full scale or better. If the measured mass includes more 

than trace concentrations of materials other than the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF being 

destroyed, you must estimate the concentrations of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

being destroyed considering current or previous representative concentration measurements and 

other relevant process information. You must multiply this concentration (mass fraction) by the 

mass measurement to obtain the mass of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF fed into the 

destruction device.

(i) Very small quantities of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are difficult to 

measure because they are entrained in other media such as destroyed filters and destroyed sample 

containers are exempt from paragraphs (f) and (h) of this section.

* * * * *

(l) In their estimates of the mass of fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs destroyed, 

facilities that destroy fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs shall account for any temporary 

reductions in the destruction efficiency that result from any startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions 

of the destruction device, including departures from the operating conditions defined in state or 

local permitting requirements and/or oxidizer manufacturer specifications.

* * * * *
Page 274 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(n) If the mass coming out of the production process includes more than one fluorinated 

GHG or fluorinated HTF, you shall measure the concentrations of all of the fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs, other than low-concentration constituents, as follows:

* * * * *

(3) Frequency of measurement. Perform the measurements at least once by February 15, 

2011 if the fluorinated GHG product is being produced on December 17, 2010. Perform the 

measurements within 60 days of commencing production of any fluorinated GHG product that 

was not being produced on December 17, 2010. For fluorinated HTF products, perform the 

measurements at least once by February 15, 2017, if the fluorinated HTF product is being 

produced on January 1, 2017. Repeat the measurements if an operational or process change 

occurs that could change the identities or significantly change the concentrations of the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituents of the fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF 

product. Complete the repeat measurements within 60 days of the operational or process change.

(4) Measure all product grades. Where a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF is 

produced at more than one purity level (e.g., pharmaceutical grade and refrigerant grade), 

perform the measurements for each purity level.

(5) Number of samples. Analyze a minimum of three samples of the fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTF product that have been drawn under conditions that are representative of the 

process producing the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF product. If the relative standard 

deviation of the measured concentrations of any of the fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTF 

constituents (other than low-concentration constituents) is greater than or equal to 15 percent, 

draw and analyze enough additional samples to achieve a total of at least six samples of the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product.
Page 275 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(o) All analytical equipment used to determine the concentration of fluorinated GHGs or 

fluorinated HTFs, including but not limited to gas chromatographs and associated detectors, IR, 

FTIR and NMR devices, shall be calibrated at a frequency needed to support the type of analysis 

specified in the site GHG Monitoring Plan as required under §§98.414(n) and 98.3(g)(5) of this 

part. Quality assurance samples at the concentrations of concern shall be used for the calibration. 

Such quality assurance samples shall consist of or be prepared from certified standards of the 

analytes of concern where available; if not available, calibration shall be performed by a method 

specified in the GHG Monitoring Plan.

* * * * *

83. Section 98.416 is amended by:

a. Revising paragraph (a);

b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(3), and (b)(6);

c. Revising paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) through (6), and (c)(8) through (10); 

d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1), and (d)(4) through (6); and 

e. Adding paragraphs (i) and (j). 

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§98.416 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(a) Each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide production facility shall 

report the following information:

(1) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

produced at that facility by process, except for amounts that are captured solely to be shipped off 

site for destruction.
Page 276 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(2) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

transformed at that facility, by process.

(3) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at 

that facility and that was previously produced as defined at §98.410(b). Quantities to be reported 

under this paragraph (a)(3) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that are 

shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore 

destroyed.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide 

sent to another facility for transformation.

(6) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF sent to another 

facility for destruction, except fluorinated GHGs and fluorinated HTFs that are not included in 

the mass produced in §98.413(a) because they are removed from the production process as byproducts or other wastes. Quantities to be reported under this paragraph (a)(6) could include, for 

example, fluorinated GHGs that are returned to the facility for reclamation but are found to be 

irretrievably contaminated and are therefore sent to another facility for destruction.

(7) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is sent to 

another facility for destruction and that is not included in the mass produced in §98.413(a) 

because it is removed from the production process as a byproduct or other waste.

(8)-(9) [Reserved]

(10) Mass in metric tons of any fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide fed 

into the transformation process, by process.
Page 277 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(11) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that is fed into the 

destruction device and that was previously produced as defined at §98.410(b). Quantities to be 

reported under this paragraph (a)(11) of this section include but are not limited to quantities that 

are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and quantities that are returned to the 

facility for reclamation but are found to be irretrievably contaminated and are therefore 

destroyed.

(12) Mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG, fluorinated HTF, or nitrous oxide that 

is measured coming out of the production process, by process.

(13) Mass in metric tons of each used fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide added back into the production process (e.g., for reclamation), including returned heels in 

containers that are weighed to measure the mass in §98.414(a), by process.

(14) Names and addresses of facilities to which any nitrous oxide, fluorinated GHGs, or 

fluorinated HTFs were sent for transformation, and the quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide 

and of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for transformation.

(15) Names and addresses of facilities to which any fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated 

HTFs were sent for destruction, and the quantities (metric tons) of each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that were sent to each for destruction.

(16) Where missing data have been estimated pursuant to §98.415, the reason the data 

were missing, the length of time the data were missing, the method used to estimate the missing 

data, and the estimates of those data.

(b) By March 31, 2017 or within 60 days of commencing fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF destruction, whichever is later, any facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated 

HTFs shall submit a one-time report containing the information in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
Page 278 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(b)(6) of this section for each destruction process. Facilities that previously submitted a one-time 

report under this paragraph are exempt from this requirement unless they meet the conditions in 

paragraph (b)(6) of this section.

* * * * *

(3) Methods used to record the mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed.

* * * * *

(6) If any process changes affect unit destruction efficiency or the methods used to record 

mass of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed, then a revised report must be submitted 

to reflect the changes. The revised report must be submitted to EPA within 60 days of the 

change.

(c) Each bulk importer of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shall 

submit an annual report that summarizes its imports at the corporate level, except for shipments 

including less than twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide, transshipments, and heels that meet the conditions set forth at §98.417(e). The report shall 

contain the following information for each import:

(1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF imported in bulk, including each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of the 

fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF product that makes up between 0.5 percent and 100 percent 

of the product by mass.

(2) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF imported in bulk and sold or transferred to persons other than the importer for use in 

processes resulting in the transformation or destruction of the chemical.
Page 279 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(3) Date on which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were 

imported.

(4) Port of entry through which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide 

passed.

(5) Country from which the imported fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 

oxide were imported.

(6) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide 

shipped.

* * * * *

(8) Total mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF destroyed by 

the importer.

(9) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and facilities to which the 

nitrous oxide, fluorinated GHGs, or fluorinated HTFs were sold or transferred for 

transformation, and the quantities (metric tons) of nitrous oxide and of each fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each facility for transformation.

(10) If applicable, the names and addresses of the persons and facilities to which the 

fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs were sold or transferred for destruction, and the quantities 

(metric tons) of each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF that were sold or transferred to each 

facility for destruction.

(d) Each bulk exporter of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide shall 

submit an annual report that summarizes its exports at the corporate level, except for shipments 

including less than twenty-five kilograms of fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous 
Page 280 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

oxide, transshipments, and heels. The report shall contain the following information for each 

export:

(1) Total mass in metric tons of nitrous oxide and each fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF exported in bulk.

* * * * *

(4) Commodity code of the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide 

shipped.

(5) Date on which, and the port from which, the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or 

nitrous oxide were exported from the United States or its territories.

(6) Country to which the fluorinated GHGs, fluorinated HTFs, or nitrous oxide were 

exported.

* * * * *

(i) Each facility that destroys fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs but does not 

otherwise report under this section shall report the mass in metric tons of each fluorinated GHG 

or fluorinated HTF that is destroyed at that facility and that was previously produced as defined 

at §98.410(b) or (d), as applicable. Quantities to be reported under this paragraph (i) include but 

are not limited to quantities that are shipped to the facility by another facility for destruction and 

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

contaminated and are therefore destroyed.

(j) By March 31, 2017, all fluorinated HTF production facilities shall submit a one-time 

report that includes the concentration of each fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituent in 

each fluorinated HTF product as measured under §98.414(n). If the facility commences

production of a fluorinated HTF product that was not included in the initial report or performs a 
Page 281 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

repeat measurement under §98.414(n) that shows that the identities or concentrations of the 

fluorinated HTF or fluorinated GHG constituents of a fluorinated HTF product have changed, 

then the new or changed concentrations, as well as the date of the change, must be provided in a 

revised report. The revised report must be submitted to EPA by the March 31st that immediately 

follows the new or repeat measurement under §98.414(n).

84. Section 98.418 is amended by revising the definition of “Low-concentration 

constituent” to read as follows:

§98.418 Definitions.

* * * * *

Low-concentration constituent means, for purposes of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated 

HTF production and export, a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of a fluorinated 

GHG or fluorinated HTF product that occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.1 percent 

by mass. For purposes of fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF import, low-concentration 

constituent means a fluorinated GHG or fluorinated HTF constituent of a fluorinated GHG or 

fluorinated HTF product that occurs in the product in concentrations below 0.5 percent by mass. 

Low-concentration constituents do not include fluorinated GHGs or fluorinated HTFs that are 

deliberately combined with the product (e.g., to affect the performance characteristics of the 

product).

Subpart PP—Suppliers of Carbon Dioxide

85. Section 98.425 is amended by revising paragraph (b) introductory text to read as 

follows: 

§98.425 Procedures for estimating missing data.

* * * * *
Page 282 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(b) Whenever the quality assurance procedures in §98.424(b) of this subpart cannot be 

followed to determine concentration of the CO2 stream, the most appropriate of the following 

missing data procedures shall be followed:

* * * * *

Subpart RR—Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

86. Section 98.446 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§98.446 Data reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(g) Whether the CO2 stream is being injected into subsurface geologic formations to 

enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas.

Subpart TT—Industrial Waste Landfills

87. Table TT-1 to Subpart TT of Part 98 is amended by:

a. Removing the entry “Pulp and Paper (other than industrial sludge)”;

b. Adding a heading entry for “Pulp and Paper Industry:”, and subordinate entries for 

“Boiler Ash”, “Wastewater Sludge”, “Kraft Recovery Wastesb”, and “Other Pulp and Paper 

Wastes (not otherwise listed)” to follow the entry for “Food Processing (other than industrial 

sludge)”;

c. Revising the entry “Industrial Sludge” and footnote “a”; and

d. Adding footnote “b”.

The revisions read as follows: 
Page 283 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Table TT-1 to Subpart TT of Part 98—Default DOC and Decay Rate Values for Industrial 

Waste Landfills

Industry/Waste Type

DOC

(weight fraction, 

wet basis)

k

[dry climate a]

(yr−1)

k

[moderate 

climate a]

(yr−1)

k

[wet climate a]

(yr−1)

* * * * * * *

Pulp and Paper Industry:

Boiler Ash 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.04

Wastewater Sludge 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.06

Kraft Recovery 

Wastesb

0. 025 0.02 0.03 0.04

Other Pulp and Paper 

Wastes (not otherwise 

listed)

0.20 0.02 0.03 0.04

* * * * * * *

Industrial Sludge (other than 

pulp and paper industry sludge)

0.09 0.02 0.04 0.06

* * * * * * *

aThe applicable climate classification is determined based on the annual rainfall plus the recirculated 

leachate application rate. Recirculated leachate application rate (in inches/year) is the total volume of 

leachate recirculated from company records or engineering estimates and applied to the landfill divided 

by the area of the portion of the landfill containing waste [with appropriate unit conversions].

(1) Dry climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate less than 20 inches/year

(2) Moderate climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate from 20 to 40 inches/year (inclusive)

(3) Wet climate = precipitation plus recirculated leachate greater than 40 inches/year

Alternatively, landfills that use leachate recirculation can elect to use the k value for wet climate rather 

than calculating the recirculated leachate rate.

b Kraft Recovery Wastes include green liquor dregs, slaker grits, and lime mud, which may also be 

referred to collectively as causticizing or recausticizing wastes.

Subpart UU—Injection of Carbon Dioxide

88. Section 98.474 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows: 

§98.474 Monitoring and QA/QC requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *
Page 284 of 284

This document is a prepublication version, signed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on December 21, 

2015. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

(2) You must convert all measured volumes of CO2 to the following standard industry 

temperature and pressure conditions for use in Equation UU-2 of this subpart: standard cubic 

meters at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and at an absolute pressure of 1 atmosphere.

* * * * *